Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Pettytyrant101]

I will insist that the simple fact of them joining NATO is not a case of short sighted belligerent policy. Nobody pressured those countries to join, they joined because they were worried that Russia would do to them exactly what it is doing to Ukraine. - Halfy

{{ There was never a need to join NATO- in the early years for at least decade or so after the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia was in no position financially or militarily to take anything back. Eastern block countries could just have joined the EU (as many did eventually) and got protection as a member state.

NATO is an expressly military organisation whose sole objective is to oppose Russia. Thats its one job. Was always going to be a bit hard for Russia to see folk joining NATO as anything other than a long term threat to them.

Ask yourself this how long would it take the US to react if the Soviet Union still existed and had added Canada and Mexico to the Warsaw Pact? Think America would sit back and accept that situation right on their borders? I don't. And I don't know why anyone expected Russia too either. }}

[halfwise]

The difference is that Canada and Mexico wouldn't have asked to join the Warsaw pact. Note that you said "Russia added..."; I would say NATO didn't add these countries; these countries asked and were accepted. That doesn't make Russia feel any less threatened, but it does mean you shouldn't blame NATO for accepting something offered that was clearly of benefit to the organization.

I don't think the United States blamed Russia for allying with Cuba once it became communist; the problem was the placement of weapons. And I am in agreement that the placement of weapons systems in these border states is a belligerent act that should not have been done. But accepting these countries into NATO does not violate any code of conduct unless the NATO countries somehow twisted their arms into joining, which I don't believe happened.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ NATO did not have to accept them in as new members. That is NATO's choice. They choose to make them members knowing full well how it would look to Russia to have its former states joining up with the West, and in especial with a western military pact specifically targeting Russia. It could have been easily foreseen how Russia would view such a move. The West just wanted to completely neuter Russia as a future threat- much like war reparations on Germany for WW1 it was stupid and only built up far worse future problems. }}

[halfwise]

I would argue that a future Russia reabsorbing these countries is worse than what we have right now.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ They didnt have to be NATO members or have western missile bases in them to have defensive protection in case of invasion. They could just have been EU members and signed traditional treaties. They are also protected from military invasion under international law- giving the global community all the options to act they need- if they could do it over Iraq and Afghanistan they could do it for an EU member state under attack. Joining a military organisation set up to oppose Russia was never going to do anything other than eventually provoke Russia. It was inevitable, all the more so given how the West treated Russia post the collapse of the Soviet Union. }}

[halfwise]

Just watched Cristianne Amanpour interview a couple experts on Russian foriegn policy.  One made the point "beware of bullies airing grievances."

On the playground, if there's some bully with a ring of kids under his thumb, when some of them take the chance while he's sick to join with the larger group of kids, do you send them away saying you don't want to provoke the bully?

Again, I don't blame Russia for being upset, but there's a reason these countries would take the step of joining NATO, and it's not because NATO is breaking faith.  If NATO had actively taken steps to recruit these countries then that may be a bit underhanded, but that's not the way it happened.  Little countries were concerned about a resurgent Russia trying to get them back under its thumb, and took the most logical step to prevent that.  I don't think posting weapons systems and NATO troops in those countries was necessary, though occasional exercises to clarify logistics makes sense.

So I understand Russia would be upset, but I don't sympathize with it.  I sympathize with similar cultures that should have a stronger bond, but the Russian government has nothing to blame but itself if former eastern bloc countries run to NATO.

[halfwise]

https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion-russia-mislead/31263602.html

[halfwise]

These are all opinions from American Russian experts. I'd like to find commentary from former eastern block countries:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/we-spoke-to-7-ex-cia-and-pentagon-experts-heres-what-they-say-putin-wants-in-ukraine-100025311.html

[Lancebloke]

The Ukranian president had come out to say their goal is to join NATO eventually. I bet that didn't help anything.

There seems to be a lot of bluster coming from some western institutions that I also think is stoking the fire rather than helping.

[halfwise]

Though I'd agree with their sovereign right to join NATO, this was not the time to bring it up, unless he's trying to convince Europe to be more solid in their support of Ukraine. He may have swayed too far over the tightrope, and shouldn't have said anything unless he had a mitigating proposal to appease Russia.

But what that mitigating proposal would be, I have no idea. He's cut off their major demand.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ NATO similarly didnt help yesterday by refusing to rule out Ukraine joining NATO. That hasnt helped either. }}

[halfwise]

If directly asked NATO shouldn't rule it out. But they shouldn't bring it up unless prompted - which of course is now happening all the time.

Tell you what, Ukraine should tell Russia that if they pull back Ukraine will stop bitching about Crimea. If they don't pull back, they will go straight into the hands of the west without a backward look. Russia basically took Crimea without a fight, so let that go in exchange for Russia giving up claims to any more of the Ukraine.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ So effectively the invasion of Ukraine by Russia has begun. Ive been keeping an eye on Russia Today to try to gauge how Russia is selling this, there is a lengthy piece in it on 'The Putin Doctrine' which I found had some rather chilling lines in it.
First the name they give to this current Russian foreign policy sounds straight out of Orwell's doublespeak - 'constructive destruction'. It tries to use a sort of historical context to threaten the independence of all former soviet nations -

'since the collapse of the USSR 30 years ago, few post-Soviet nations have managed to become truly independent. And some may never even get there...I can only point out the obvious: Most local elites don’t have the historical or cultural experience of state-building. They’ve never been able to become the core of the nation – they didn’t have enough time for this. When the shared intellectual and cultural space disappeared, it hurt small countries the most. The new opportunities to build ties with the West turned out to be no replacement. Those who have found themselves at the helm of such nations have been selling their country for their own benefit, because there’s been no national idea to fight for.

The majority of those countries will either follow the example of the Baltic states, accepting external control, or continue to spiral out of control, which in some cases may be extremely dangerous.
The question is: How to ‘unite’ the nations in the most efficient and beneficial way for Russia...Let’s leave the discussion about the ‘unification’ that history is forcing on us for another day.'

The piece is littered with phrases that should raise red flags, like speaking of the 'returning sense of moral righteousness' to Russia. If theres one phrase thats worth watching for its insidiousness, its moral righteousness.
Nothing that appears in RT, especially at a time like this, does so without approval from the Kremlin, and this article seems like groundwork for justifying the unjustifiable far beyond just Ukraine.

https://www.rt.com/russia/550271-putin-doctrine-foreign-policy/

Whats worrying is we have our side not showing much greater brains, our foreign sec got called out for her ignorance when she was asked about two towns she though were in Ukraine, saying Britain would never let them become Russian, when they are in fact two places n Russia, and worse our Defence Sec with evil Patel next to him said this to Army Chiefs of Staff-



We really dont need to be harkening back to eh Crimean War, thats not going to help, not only that was same campaign gave us the Charge of the Light Brigade from which the phrase 'cannon fodder' entered the language so maybe not our finest moment to be bragging about.

Whats always worrying at this point is that we have hawks in charge on either side- in the UK we have the most right wing government of my life time, and a PM who idolises Winston Churchill. And in the US we have vast commercial interests in having a war with so much arms lobbying and so many US politicians bought and sold by them. In Russia we have a man who has never accepted the independence of the old Soviet States and will do anything to reclaim them, and behind the scenes China providing financial support and tacit encouragement, as any further destabilising of the West is to their benefit. The worry is that the very people who make decisions about going to war are the last people who should be allowed to.

And the only thing that seems certain right now is that this is only going to escalate in the coming days and weeks.}}

[Lancebloke]

I think the worry here should be, what next?

Putin and the cronies he has surrounded himself with clearly want a version of the USSR. But what does that really look like?

Are we exclusively talking about eastern Europe or Central Asia too? And what does China know here. Are they comfortable with this rhetoric knowing that a big chunk of the USSR was in central Asia?

Are China counting on these moves because of their expansionist plans. Could we see some kind of movement with Taiwan for example while the West is distracted with problems on its doorstep?

I feel bad for Ukranians (a few of whom I know) and the situation they find themselves in but the fact that this is something that could quite easily and quickly escalate beyond those borders through both design or through mistake is slightly worrying.

[Mrs Figg]

I think a lot of this depends on ordinary Russians and their reaction to war. We have all been ravaged by the pandemic for two years, would they have the appetite for war. I don't think so, and if it becomes like the anti-war demonstrations we saw over the Iraq war for example, Putin might scale back if he has mass demonstrations on his hands. If his popularity takes a nose dive, which it most probably will, because who in their right mind wants war just now.

[halfwise]

Other than NATO pre-emptively occupying Ukraine as soon as the Russian build up began I can't think of a way to have stopped this.  But nobody wanted to cross that line.

It's possible that one of Trump's few foreign policy moves he got right was stopping the Nord Stream, which meant that friendly relations needed to be kept with Ukraine as a major pathway to ship oil.  But more likely Putin didn't do this earlier because he wanted to keep good relations with one of his rare buddies in the White House.

I don't think sanctions will do much more at this point than strengthen ties between Russia and China; but you can't just throw up your hands and drop them either.

EDIT: actually the nord stream argument (which I've seen elsewhere) doesn't hold water because Putin knew he would lose it upon invading Ukraine.

[halfwise]

I watched Biden's announcement of sanctions today.  There seems to be quite a heavy load, but doesn't include SWIFT, which was likely excluded to reduce economic damage in Europe which would shake financial markets around the world.  Oddly he pointedly ignored questions about whether Putin would be sanctioned directly.

[Mrs Figg]

can't deal with this, just cant. not after two years of this shit. I am not sure whether I can follow this story without going completely mad.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Much as I hate to be saying it, I think we have made a mistake not going to war over this. As soon as Putin crossed the border NATO should have mobilised everything in Ukraines defence. Europes been here before, a neighbour claiming independent countries as once theirs, going in on the excuse of 'peacekeping', we've seen tis story before and the West appeasing it before and it did not end well. And anyone who thinks Putin is going to stop at Ukraine is dreaming, if we are not careful other Baltic states and even countries like Poland will be next. And by then Russia will be entrenched and difficult to shift.
We needed to send the clearest message possible, we wont stand by and watch this happen again. But we are.
What we are doing will send the message to China that if they invade Taiwan all they have to worry about is some stern words and some sanctions that will barely hurt them. It tells Putin we are too afraid of war to use it even in our own defence and will embolden him.
We needed to crush this from the word go and make it clear if Putin really wants to go down this road it will cost more than economics. }}

[Amarië]

I think he'd like that, tactics wise. If NATO attacks, he's free to attack any NATO nation and claim self defence. It would fit his story perfectly. The West proves to be a danger, while Russia is just kindly saving Ukraine from evil. These are terrible times.

[halfwise]

The only way to have done this right is to have rolled NATO troops into Ukraine several days ago. But now we are in a bind between Petty's and Amarie's possibilities. I was hawkish about this from the start, but it needs to be done pre-emptively, not in reaction. Deploying forces after the fact allows Putin to control the narrative as well as upping the body count. But doing it right would have taken political will that doesn't exist, and we would never have known if Putin actually was intending to go into Ukraine.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Problem now is Putin knows there is not the will to stop him. And so do China. We needed to make it clear from before he crossed the border the price would be total war. But for so long as all he got was talk and sanctions there was nothing to stop him and it didnt. And it wont stop him going further. Next excuse once he takes Ukraine will be that Poland are aiding Ukrainian 'terrorists' and 'nazis' against Russian troops and people and he'll roll right on in there too to'safeguard'.
At some point the world and Europe in particular is going to have react to this aggression with aggression, and I fear by time that we do it will be very much worse for us and we might wish we had gone sooner rather than later. But at this point I think its inevitable he will need to be confronted somewhere down the line. This isnt going to stop at Ukraine. }}

[Mrs Figg]

No, I disagree. if NATO gets involved its WW3. Putin is mad enough to use nukes.

[Lancebloke]

I think any clashes between NATO and Russian forces only ends in a lot of blood. I couldn't honestly see either side backing down.

Would Putin have decided against invading the Ukraine? If not then how do you possibly stop this spilling in to all of the rest of Eastern Europe and beyond?

I think our red line is the right one. If there are further moves then they can really only be in to NATO and we have no choice but to fight then.

I get the point over Taiwan, but the same applies there really. If that turns in to a country that we have defense alliances with then we honour them. You have to pick the places that you draw a line in the sand when it comes to a fight with Russia or China as any direct conflict has little chance of de-escalation.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ It already is Figg. We have an aggressor attacking and occupying an independent democratic country in Europe. Sound familiar?
If we are too afraid of war in our own defence then we have already lost and can kiss half of Europe goodbye again. }}