Ukraine

[Detroit Blues]

9 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

I don't quite think the idea of Russians escalating if the West did a joint massive conventional response is right.

 

Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY knows that nuclear is a no no. I can imagine if one was used, there'd be a clear statement of "you did this" and then it would be HEAVY but on the right side of fair. I picture Western Europe and the US just absolutely gutting Russian troops that are currently within Ukrainian borders. 

 

As noted, China would stay right out of it. 

A unified NATO response (or threat thereof) would probably shift the dynamic where the Russian military high leadership and Russian oligarchs would see Putin's continued leadership being more dangerous to them personally than their fear of his reprisal. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, fox_up_north said:

I don't quite think the idea of Russians escalating if the West did a joint massive conventional response is right.

 

Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY knows that nuclear is a no no. I can imagine if one was used, there'd be a clear statement of "you did this" and then it would be HEAVY but on the right side of fair. I picture Western Europe and the US just absolutely gutting Russian troops that are currently within Ukrainian borders. 

 

As noted, China would stay right out of it. 

For me, it would depend on the strength and size of the response. If it was a withering response that remained within the Ukrainian borders, then it might - might - not escalate. If it then or at the same time looked to target Russia or the current government running it directly... then I think all bets would be off.

 

1 hour ago, Detroit Blues said:

A unified NATO response (or threat thereof) would probably shift the dynamic where the Russian military high leadership and Russian oligarchs would see Putin's continued leadership being more dangerous to them personally than their fear of his reprisal. 

That's a possibility, but it's also a gamble on it being the case - if it turns out that it isn't,  then it might instead have the opposite, unifying effect, giving him even more power.

 

Honestly, any situation where NATO and Russian troops directly meet in battle is fraught with danger and everyone knows it - which is why the current Russian leadership, including Putin, won't let it happen, therefore no nuclear weapons being used in the first place.

[so1]

You are all insane. 

[MPH]

21 minutes ago, so1 said:

You are all insane. 

 

I can’t begin to think why you were once banned from this topic 

[Spiritwalker]

15 hours ago, so1 said:

You are all insane. 

And you are a Russian sympathiser.

[Lionator]

Putin just sacked the lunatic Patrushev and replaced him the incompetent Shoigu and then made the new defence minister some dull technocrat dude I’ve never heard of. 
 

I wonder if he’s purging anyone who is of any threat to him? This would be good for world peace in a situation where Putin stays alive and in power for the foreseeable. 

[MarshallForEngland]

On 07/05/2024 at 20:23, Spiritwalker said:

And you are a Russian sympathiser.

What does this actually mean? 

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

What does this actually mean? 

To be fair if somebody is a full on pro-Russian tankie then I’d be asking why because it is a bit odd. I don’t sympathise with Russia but even the smallest understanding of history can explain how we got here today. Watch traumazone by Adam Curtis on bbc iplayer (huge pro Russian propaganda arm) for example. Soviets watched their empire get crushed by corruption, misadventure and western foreign policy. It was a corrupt hell hole in the 90’s, now it’s still corrupt but the standard of living has vastly improved hence why Putin is adored in Russia, a bit like Modi in India. They’re bitter and think that Russia should be seen as the great country that they think they are. They don’t want to take over or destroy the world, they just want to be respected as a fearsome peer (like US and China). It won’t happen but if you take that perspective, a lot more of it makes sense than ‘Putin is a genocidal maniac who wants to destroy the west’. 

[Spiritwalker]

2 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

What does this actually mean? 

You obviously struggle to understand plain English but I’ll give it a go.

This poster I believe lives in Georgia and is pro Russian therefore what

he posts has a pro Russian bias just as what I post has a pro Ukrainian bias.

[MarshallForEngland]

1 hour ago, Spiritwalker said:

You obviously struggle to understand plain English but I’ll give it a go.

This poster I believe lives in Georgia and is pro Russian therefore what

he posts has a pro Russian bias just as what I post has a pro Ukrainian bias.

I obviously didn’t find it quite so plain and wanted some clarification. I would call myself a “Russian sympathiser” in that I have grown fond of the Russian people and culture after having lived here for almost ten years and marrying a Russian. It is true to say I “sympathise” with them in that sense. But I get the impression that you are using the term in a different way, something like “a person who has been irretrievably brainwashed to the point that, regardless of facts, they are unable to criticise Russia or think critically about geopolitical events it’s involved in”. And in that way you can simply dismiss any contrary opinions as the product of bias and avoid having to argue against them.

 

What is curious is that you accept that you have a pro-Ukraine bias. Shall we all then simply refuse to listen to one another’s ideas on that basis? How will this advance the conversation? 
 

As an aside, the zeitgeist in Georgia at the moment isn’t exactly pro-Russian, so I’m not sure how the chap living there supports your case at all. If anything it would

make a pro-Russian stance harder to maintain. 

[Spiritwalker]

32 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I obviously didn’t find it quite so plain and wanted some clarification. I would call myself a “Russian sympathiser” in that I have grown fond of the Russian people and culture after having lived here for almost ten years and marrying a Russian. It is true to say I “sympathise” with them in that sense. But I get the impression that you are using the term in a different way, something like “a person who has been irretrievably brainwashed to the point that, regardless of facts, they are unable to criticise Russia or think critically about geopolitical events it’s involved in”. And in that way you can simply dismiss any contrary opinions as the product of bias and avoid having to argue against them.

 

What is curious is that you accept that you have a pro-Ukraine bias. Shall we all then simply refuse to listen to one another’s ideas on that basis? How will this advance the conversation? 
 

As an aside, the zeitgeist in Georgia at the moment isn’t exactly pro-Russian, so I’m not sure how the chap living there supports your case at all. If anything it would

make a pro-Russian stance harder to maintain. 

Many fair points although I disagree with your final paragraph because while the general 

mood in Georgia maybe anti Russian there are still many individuals there who are very pro Russian.

[Lionator]

2 hours ago, Spiritwalker said:

Many fair points although I disagree with your final paragraph because while the general 

mood in Georgia maybe anti Russian there are still many individuals there who are very pro Russian.

The west ain’t going to bat hard for Georgia anyway, as there’s no strategic value in it unlike Ukraine. We have Turkey and Azerbaijan already in the region who can provide us with what we need and look how we abandoned democratic Armenia over its imperialist Azeri neighbours because they simply meet our interests. 

[FoxesDeb]

5 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I obviously didn’t find it quite so plain and wanted some clarification. I would call myself a “Russian sympathiser” in that I have grown fond of the Russian people and culture after having lived here for almost ten years and marrying a Russian. It is true to say I “sympathise” with them in that sense. But I get the impression that you are using the term in a different way, something like “a person who has been irretrievably brainwashed to the point that, regardless of facts, they are unable to criticise Russia or think critically about geopolitical events it’s involved in”. And in that way you can simply dismiss any contrary opinions as the product of bias and avoid having to argue against them.

 

What is curious is that you accept that you have a pro-Ukraine bias. Shall we all then simply refuse to listen to one another’s ideas on that basis? How will this advance the conversation? 
 

As an aside, the zeitgeist in Georgia at the moment isn’t exactly pro-Russian, so I’m not sure how the chap living there supports your case at all. If anything it would

make a pro-Russian stance harder to maintain. 

In what way exactly would you say you sympathise with the Russians?

 

Weren't you posting earlier on this thread suggesting we shouldn't believe everything we see about the invasion into Ukraine, because it wasn't as bad as it looked? 

 

Apologies if that wasn't you

 

 

[Lionator]

this is interesting as Czech government are very anti Russia. I think if the situation deteriorates further for Ukraine then I think we could see more of this before it gets really critical. My prediction is if Trump wins in November, a peace deal might be wrapped up fairly quickly. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Lionator said:

this is interesting as Czech government are very anti Russia. I think if the situation deteriorates further for Ukraine then I think we could see more of this before it gets really critical. My prediction is if Trump wins in November, a peace deal might be wrapped up fairly quickly. 

I wonder what kind of deal would be reached, though?

[MPH]

And not only that, what evidence is there that Russia would respect any kind of deal?  Didn’t they sign a deal in 2014 recognizing Ukranian sovereignty and right to exist?

 

if a deal is reached, I feel like we will be visiting the same situation in 10-15 years time and by this time, Russia will attack from a stronger, closer position. 
 

 

Russia have done nothing to suggest they would respect any kind of deal.

[MPH]

It has to be said also, I don’t either side will want to cede Crimea.

[Lionator]

5 minutes ago, MPH said:

And not only that, what evidence is there that Russia would respect any kind of deal?  Didn’t they sign a deal in 2014 recognizing Ukranian sovereignty and right to exist?

 

if a deal is reached, I feel like we will be visiting the same situation in 10-15 years time and by this time, Russia will attack from a stronger, closer position. 
 

 

Russia have done nothing to suggest they would respect any kind of deal.

What’s the alternative though? Ukraine are struggling with resources, Russia are too but the manpower advantage is coming through, that’s not going to disappear. You make a peace deal ceding the four regions, a DMZ on the other Russia/Ukraine borders, and probably security guarantees for a sovereign Ukraine but outside of NATO membership. If this war goes on and on then Ukraine could eventually lose all sovereignty. We aren’t putting troops on the ground either, because that would be stupid and dangerous. 

[MPH]

Just now, Lionator said:

What’s the alternative though? Ukraine are struggling with resources, Russia are too but the manpower advantage is coming through, that’s not going to disappear. You make a peace deal ceding the four regions, a DMZ on the other Russia/Ukraine borders, and probably security guarantees for a sovereign Ukraine but outside of NATO membership. If this war goes on and on then Ukraine could eventually lose all sovereignty. We aren’t putting troops on the ground either, because that would be stupid and dangerous. 

 

the alternative is that instead of messing about we keep funding Ukraine. I believe it’s in our best interests to do so. The only reason why Russia has made any kind of gains recently is because we backed off in our funding. 
 

again, Russia have shown that they have no intention of respecting any kind of a deal by the fact they haven’t respected any kind of deals previously.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Lionator said:

What’s the alternative though? Ukraine are struggling with resources, Russia are too but the manpower advantage is coming through, that’s not going to disappear. You make a peace deal ceding the four regions, a DMZ on the other Russia/Ukraine borders, and probably security guarantees for a sovereign Ukraine but outside of NATO membership. If this war goes on and on then Ukraine could eventually lose all sovereignty. We aren’t putting troops on the ground either, because that would be stupid and dangerous. 

I think if the four regions go then Ukraine will absolutely demand - and should get - NATO membership, because that's the only realistic way Russia don't revisit in a decade or so.

[Lionator]

10 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

the alternative is that instead of messing about we keep funding Ukraine. I believe it’s in our best interests to do so. The only reason why Russia has made any kind of gains recently is because we backed off in our funding. 
 

again, Russia have shown that they have no intention of respecting any kind of a deal by the fact they haven’t respected any kind of deals previously.

But is that realistic? We’re likely to get a Republican government who only care about borders and sticking one on China. 
 

And in terms of deal’s, it’s where you have to get creative I think. Negotiate with a China or India to become a guarantor of Ukranian security. 

[Lionator]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think if the four regions go then Ukraine will absolutely demand - and should get - NATO membership, because that's the only realistic way Russia don't revisit in a decade or so.

Very true 

[MPH]

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

But is that realistic? We’re likely to get a Republican government who only care about borders and sticking one on China. 
 

And in terms of deal’s, it’s where you have to get creative I think. Negotiate with a China or India to become a guarantor of Ukranian security. 

 and yet you are suggestion a peace deal... i would suggest it's even less realistic to expect/ trust  Russia to keep any kind of a deal.

Edited Wednesday at 18:36 by MPH

[Zear0]

Why would Russia agree to anything?  They're starting to see the fruits of their militirised economy and have seen US and EU support dither (even without Trump).  From day one they wanted to erase Ukrainian identity which won't be achieved by agreeing peace in exchange for the four regions.  They will also never accept Ukrainian ascention to NATO which I also don't think they'd ever get whilst people like Orban and Fico (poor timing on that one) are in charge.

 

The problem in 2022 was Ukraine was on the front foot and were confident in liberating territory and wouldn't negotiate.  Now Russia are starting to really rattle through some territory and are the front foot they certainly won't negotiate.

Edited Wednesday at 18:38 by Zear0

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Why would Russia agree to anything?  They're starting to see the fruits of their militirised economy and have seen US and EU support dither (even without Trump).  From day one they wanted to erase Ukrainian identity which won't be achieved by agreeing peace in exchange for the four regions.  They will also never accept Ukrainian ascention to NATO which I also don't think they'd ever get whilst people like Orban and Fico (poor timing on that one) are in charge.

 

The problem in 2022 was Ukraine was on the front foot and were confident in liberating territory and wouldn't negotiate.  Now Russia are starting to really rattle through some territory and are the front foot they certainly won't negotiate.

This makes it sound like Russian victory is pretty much an inevitability.

 

Let's sincerely hope that isn't the case.