War with Russia

[Deleted member 49]

Sorry Adam, I can’t tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me here.

Sorry should of made myself clearer....I wouldn't trust a fecking word that comes out of his mouth.
Touted as a future PM I believe.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

I found his comments about Russia-Ukraine plausible.
I disagree with him on the importance of the misery in Palestine.
I have no difficulty holding both opinions at the same time, but I’m always happy to learn more about either subject.

Given Tom Tugendhat did compare Russia with the Nazi, even Ukraine disagrees with you/him:

Ukraine criticises UK defence secretary for comparing Russia diplomacy to Nazi appeasement​

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

Are the countries bordering Russia wrong to be concerned about the possible actions of Russia which does after all have a history of invasions of other countries, even in the 21st century? None of those countries, some of which in recent times have been under the control of Russia/USSR, or have been invaded stand a chance of defending themselves on their own and see NATO membership as a deterrent.

Russia feeling cheated is as much to do with what people like Putin feel about the loss of their former empire, and the need to show strength to their people.

There is no threat to Russia's territory but it is a battle for influence between the West and Russia, in which Russia seems to see invasion/war or the barely disguised threat of it, as a justifiable tactic.

Do you believe an invasion of Ukraine would be acceptable if it would stop the further spread of NATO?

Personally I doubt that NATO would want Ukraine to join given the extra tension in the area that it would bring and I hope that these recent exercises are just part of the power game that Putin is playing.

You mentioned the Cuban crisis and, of course, that did not end in war. I hope this does not.

I think "There is no threat to Russia's territory but it is a battle for influence between the West and Russia" is kind of oxymoron, especially if you stand in their shoes, given Russia was nearly wiped out in WW2, experienced the results of the Cold War, plus the never-ending sanctions and overt threats from US currently. Not only that, are they mad to wonder what exactly has China done to US and their poodles, to deserve public denigration on a daily basis, under a clear policy of "containment", with gunboats sailing up and down their shores?

In geopolitics, right or wrong is only of secondary importance, if that, unfortunately.

Of course it is not wrong for the Eastern Europeans, or indeed the Baltic states, to want national security. But they live next to a bear 20 times their size militarily, and the eagle across the pond is not going to wage WW3 for them.

Given the situation, Ukraine's leaders, imho, should cut their cloth to suit their coat, with their citizens' best interests uppermost in mind, wouldn't you say? The eagle across the pond is certainly not going to value the lives of Ukrainians, if it meant harming US' perceived national interests, or hegemony.

 

[newfhouse]

Given Tom Tugendhat did compare Russia with the Nazi, even Ukraine disagrees with you/him:

Ukraine criticises UK defence secretary for comparing Russia diplomacy to Nazi appeasement​

I’m still not sure which part of Tugendhat’s Twitter thread that I linked you find disagreeable. You know he’s not Ben Wallace, don’t you?

Specifically, why shouldn’t Europe reduce reliance on Russian oil and gas? Why shouldn’t the UK bear down on the dodgy money swilling through London?

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

I’m still not sure which part of Tugendhat’s Twitter thread that I linked you find disagreeable. You know he’s not Ben Wallace, don’t you?

I am surprised you think I have confused him with Wallace - does his comparision of the Russian to the Nazis, which is analogous to saying to the Jews they are today's Nazis, looks like diplomacy to you?

Tugendhat wrote:

"In 1945 the Soviet Union and her allies brought to justice those who had caused so much suffering to millions of their compatriots in a horrific war.

Those who had waged it faced four possible charges. 1/
1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace

2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace

3. Participating in war crimes

4. Crimes against humanity. 2/
It all started with a conspiracy. A false flag operation designed to mislead and trigger a war. But the truth was clear - a mafia-like organisation had taken control of a once-great nation and provoked war in the narrow interest of its new elite. 3/

Today’s parallels are clear. No, not fascism but the gang in the Kremlin are a mafia-like organisation in charge of a state. They have robbed and murdered their way to power. "

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

Specifically, why shouldn’t Europe reduce reliance on Russian oil and gas? Why shouldn’t the UK bear down on the dodgy money swilling through London?

To say Europe could meaningfully reduce reliance on Russian oil and gas, is as stupid as saying the "West" could stop buying Chinese products. For the former, I refer you to the chart here.

 

[newfhouse]

No, not fascism but the gang in the Kremlin are a mafia-like organisation in charge of a state.

Still not seeing much to disagree with here.

 

[newfhouse]

To say Europe could meaningfully reduce reliance on Russian oil and gas, is as stupid as saying the "West" could stop buying Chinese products. For the former, I refer you to the chart here.

Energy supply, hard to do, not quick. Finance? Should be a quicker win but won’t actually happen because money talks. Doesn’t mean neither is desirable.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I think "There is no threat to Russia's territory but it is a battle for influence between the West and Russia" is kind of oxymoron, especially if you stand in their shoes, given Russia was nearly wiped out in WW2, experienced the results of the Cold War, plus the never-ending sanctions and overt threats from US currently. Not only that, are they mad to wonder what exactly has China done to US and their poodles, to deserve public denigration on a daily basis, under a clear policy of "containment", with gunboats sailing up and down their shores?

In geopolitics, right or wrong is only of secondary importance, if that, unfortunately.

Of course it is not wrong for the Eastern Europeans, or indeed the Baltic states, to want national security. But they live next to a bear 20 times their size militarily, and the eagle across the pond is not going to wage WW3 for them.

Given the situation, Ukraine's leaders, imho, should cut their cloth to suit their coat, with their citizens' best interests uppermost in mind, wouldn't you say? The eagle across the pond is certainly not going to value the lives of Ukrainians, if it meant harming US' perceived national interests, or hegemony.

I understand the suffering that the people of Russia experienced in WW2, just as I understand the suffering that their leaders delivered to millions of their own people around at time. There is no doubt that their suffering, and what they see as humiliation over the break-up of the USSR, has made Russia into what It is today and has shaped Putin's policies.

I think their neighbours are worried because sometimes bears act like bears. The fact that they do not see Russia as benevolent and they might overestimate the support they would get from NATO does not mean they have to try to get any help they can. Or should they just accept the will of the bear?

Ukraine's leaders see their citizens' best interests in being an independent, autonomous country, and that means having the right to make their own decisions on defence and security. As yet that does not mean membership of NATO, just the right to consider it.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I tried to add this bit last night but left it too late:

A "kind of" oxymoron makes as much sense as almost unique. Can you really not see the difference between those two situations? There is a huge and very basic difference between seeking to influence other countries and actually invading another country by force of arms. Just about every country tries to influence its neighbours and/or trading partners in terms of trade, political relations, security, scientific cooperation etc. No country is trying to take control of Russian territory, and certainly not by force.

No one is talking about China in this thread but you, and I am not aware of any country threatening to invade China, or having NATO park up on their borders. As with Russia the border threats are being felt by China's neighbours, with China going to extreme lengths such as building artificial islands and turning them into military bases to claim rights to extended territorial waters.

Unfortunately sending gunboats, submarines, military airplanes, and even troops on exercise near to other countries is a propaganda and intimidatory tool used by too many countries and not just the US and UK, but particularly China and Russia.

 

[Deleted member 121]

I think "There is no threat to Russia's territory but it is a battle for influence between the West and Russia" is kind of oxymoron, especially if you stand in their shoes, given Russia was nearly wiped out in WW2, experienced the results of the Cold War, plus the never-ending sanctions and overt threats from US currently. Not only that, are they mad to wonder what exactly has China done to US and their poodles, to deserve public denigration on a daily basis, under a clear policy of "containment", with gunboats sailing up and down their shores?

In geopolitics, right or wrong is only of secondary importance, if that, unfortunately.

Of course it is not wrong for the Eastern Europeans, or indeed the Baltic states, to want national security. But they live next to a bear 20 times their size militarily, and the eagle across the pond is not going to wage WW3 for them.

Given the situation, Ukraine's leaders, imho, should cut their cloth to suit their coat, with their citizens' best interests uppermost in mind, wouldn't you say? The eagle across the pond is certainly not going to value the lives of Ukrainians, if it meant harming US' perceived national interests, or hegemony.

Ukraine has suffered heavily under Russian/Soviet control and influence over the years. From Holodomor where an estimated 3.5 million died in abject starvation to NAZI occupation and famine to ethnic cleansing and forced deportations. Nobody want's war. Not Ukrainians who know more than most, what is a stake. They cannot possibly win and those with a mild education know that NATO is not going to get into a shooting war over Ukraine with a madman with Nukes, who likes to occasionally wave that fact around to his adversaries... I think context is required when they call on a tone down of Rhetoric and im certain it's not at NATO's doing. Ukraine has had plenty of war on its soil in the past century, each time it rebuilds. Perhaps, they do not want that any longer but they would also like self determination. Very difficult when their neighbours think of it's country as a "buffer zone". In being naive, the Cold War never really went away. It just sort of froze. But with all this global warming, perhaps the permafrost thaw is bring back old habits...

I also reject the notion that Russia is a "bear". I know what you mean by it, this is often touted around by journalists and is something i think the Russians particularly enjoy. It paints them out to be unpredictable rogues who will attack at the mildest provocation. But the reality is they know exactly what they are doing and know exactly what goals they aim to achieve. It's all part of creating fear in foreign populations in the hope of dictating policy... Not too far fetched when you consider the pap the likes of the Daily Mail pump out to create fear is it? Russia is playing the long game. The Ukraine has been on the mind of Putin since he took office. I doubt the Baltic will be next on Ivan's agenda. That would be a real test given that they are fully fledged NATO members and one that could well force Sweden to join NATO and possibly Finland. Not an outcome the Russians would want at all. For all of Russia's hard land power, in the Sea and Air they couldn't possibly match NATO's Navy or Air superiority. A real war would have Russia completely blockaded out of the Baltic and would put the Kaliningrad Oblast in immediate threat with no real way to realistically defend it.

As i type, no Russian Invasion has begun and i really hope it doesn't. Millions will once again suffer at the hands few others...

 

[qigong chimp]

Huh!
I take a brief spa break and come back to find the forum's been over-run by grown ups discussing stuff reasonably. Is this really what we struggled out of Egypt for?
I say let's have a straightener with the Russians: open an eastern front and send snowflake Gen Z to rootle around in the gore and the mud and the ice in search of their missing backbones.
As long, that is, as we forbid them to write any poetry.

 

[mudsticks]

Huh!
I take a brief spa break and come back to find the forum's been over-run by grown ups discussing stuff reasonably. Is this really what we struggled out of Egypt for?
I say let's have a straightener with the Russians: open an eastern front and send snowflake Gen Z to rootle around in the gore and the mud and the ice in search of their missing backbones.
As long, that is, as we forbid them to write any poetry.

Well it's done wonders for your complexion..

Hopefully now you're back you can rootle out some reactionaries for us.. Beard them in their lair , so to speak..

Tbh they've been a little lacking in backbone themselves of late
Poor loves, buried under an avalanche of reasoned argument.

The best they can come up with is 'whatevs' or 😴

And gawd no, the last thing we need is war in Europe, the great gouts of soppy poetry ensuing made the last ones quite unbearable, imagine now we've got t'internet .

Can easily imagine the current crop of youth getting all hurt and offended, about being horribly maimed, and killed to death ..

Bunch of lightweights 😠
.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

I tried to add this bit last night but left it too late:

A "kind of" oxymoron makes as much sense as almost unique.

I said your statement "There is no threat to Russia's territory but it is a battle for influence between the West and Russia" is "kind of" oxymoron not because it is not oxymoron - I just didn't want to sound too rude.

Your statement (it is not A but it is B) is logically equivalent to "the battle for influence between the West and Russia" is "no threat to Russia's territory" (B is not A). Seriously? Standing in Russia's shoes, have they not seen their territory shrunk from the USSR to that of today, precisely because of the battle for influence between the West and Russia that was the Cold War, and is the root of the confrontation today?

Not only that, can you tell the Russian with a straight face that the "battle for influence" around the world, led by an increasingly frazzled and hostile US, has not resulted in waging numerous wars in foreign lands, causing mass deaths, sufferings and displacements, producing failed states galore? Do you seriously believe the US today would not gladly bless Russia with same in a heartbeat given the chance? And you say this "battle for influence" is "no threat to Russia's territory"?

I also mentioned China, because unless you have been living under a rock, you would know that the US "battle for influence", including gunboat diplomacy targetting Taiwan, which happens to be just one province of China according to BOTH mainland China AND the successive Taiwan governments, is by definition an overt interference in the territorial integrity of China.

Isn't your statement oxymoron, and is it not a fairytale only the most gullible in the West could possibly believe?

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

Ukraine has suffered heavily under Russian/Soviet control and influence over the years. From Holodomor where an estimated 3.5 million died in abject starvation to NAZI occupation and famine to ethnic cleansing and forced deportations. Nobody want's war. Not Ukrainians who know more than most, what is a stake. They cannot possibly win and those with a mild education know that NATO is not going to get into a shooting war over Ukraine with a madman with Nukes, who likes to occasionally wave that fact around to his adversaries... I think context is required when they call on a tone down of Rhetoric and im certain it's not at NATO's doing. Ukraine has had plenty of war on its soil in the past century, each time it rebuilds. Perhaps, they do not want that any longer but they would also like self determination. Very difficult when their neighbours think of it's country as a "buffer zone". In being naive, the Cold War never really went away. It just sort of froze. But with all this global warming, perhaps the permafrost thaw is bring back old habits...

I also reject the notion that Russia is a "bear". I know what you mean by it, this is often touted around by journalists and is something i think the Russians particularly enjoy. It paints them out to be unpredictable rogues who will attack at the mildest provocation. But the reality is they know exactly what they are doing and know exactly what goals they aim to achieve. It's all part of creating fear in foreign populations in the hope of dictating policy... Not too far fetched when you consider the pap the likes of the Daily Mail pump out to create fear is it? Russia is playing the long game. The Ukraine has been on the mind of Putin since he took office. I doubt the Baltic will be next on Ivan's agenda. That would be a real test given that they are fully fledged NATO members and one that could well force Sweden to join NATO and possibly Finland. Not an outcome the Russians would want at all. For all of Russia's hard land power, in the Sea and Air they couldn't possibly match NATO's Navy or Air superiority. A real war would have Russia completely blockaded out of the Baltic and would put the Kaliningrad Oblast in immediate threat with no real way to realistically defend it.

As i type, no Russian Invasion has begun and i really hope it doesn't. Millions will once again suffer at the hands few others...

Strange. Your first paragraph (per highlighted statement) is in complete contradition to your second (also per highligted statement). The former is consistent with the Daily Fail pap you so clearly despise.

I did not associate Russia with a bear to indicate they are unpredictable rogues - that's your assumption. I doubt you can find any suggestion in my comments in this parish showing that's what I think of them.