War on Our Doorstep: How do we respond?

[Biospace]

Reading some of what’s written above, I understand better how other wars have escalated and how Eden believed he should “knock Nasser off his perch”.

In questioning the wisdom of sending of $billions of weapons to Ukraine and pointing out our lack of collective ability to take into account what Russia has been warning for many years, some jump to the conclusion I'm in some way supportive of Putin - or it's convenient to their argument to suggest I might be.

For the record, I’ve long criticised the Putin regime’s many abuses of power and described his escalation of the war as a massive mistake. My involvement with concerts to support Ukraine has been considerable, I've spent many hours of my private time devoted to helping the people of Ukraine, but in not parroting what our papers are printing there are those quick to condemn and try to suggest only one way of thinking should be acceptable. Prolonged war rarely brings about what people originally wish for.

Unlike how most arguments here appear, I don't agree with the attitude Boris Johnson helped form during his visit to Kyiv in April 2022, the more belligerent appeoach taken up by 'The West' after his visit. It is a hugely complex situation and one which grows worse every day war is waged, but sending $billions in the hope that a nation of around 30 million can defeat one of over 140 million with vast resources and whose stability may now depend on appearing to succeed in Ukraine, is bordering on little more than wishful thinking.

Russia, whose culture, geography and history is in large part European is being pushed further into China’s open arms with this war, further from fair governance and democratic freedoms.

China is expanding its influence around the world from Cambridge University to the Caribbean and behaves in a way which should make us all shudder. Moscow appears almost benign in direct comparison with Beijing's actions, but that isn't the message given to the public.

[Psamathe]

...
Europe the USA and all other nations could use the £$€billions seized from Russia and it's oligarchs to buy weapons to give to the Ukrainian armed forces.

Maybe a first step towards that?

Britain ‘prepared to loan Ukraine all frozen Russian central bank assets’ – as it happened
Britain is prepared to loan Ukraine all frozen Russian central bank assets in the UK on the basis that Russia will be forced to pay reparations to Ukraine at the end of the war, the UK foreign secretary David Cameron has said.

He said the assets would be used as surety for the payment of the reparations.

The plan is more radical than proposals discussed in the European Union for Ukraine to be given only the windfall profits from the Russian central bank assets being held by the West. The annual windfall profits are estimated at $4bn.

Note that loaning Ukraine seized Russian assets is unrelated to the EU considering giving Ukraine the US$4bn windfall profits from the Russian central bank assets being held by the West.

Ian

[roubaixtuesday]

Putin isn't nuking anyone. His objective is to stay rich.

He'll do whatever he feels will protect the integrity of Russia. I think it's very unlikely he would use nuclear weapons, but it's a dangerous position to assume he wouldn't.

Putin doesn't give a stuff about anything other than his personal power and wealth.

[djnotts]

Putin isn't nuking anyone. His objective is to stay rich.

He'll do whatever he feels will protect the integrity of Russia. I think it's very unlikely he would use nuclear weapons, but it's a dangerous position to assume he wouldn't.

Putin doesn't give a stuff about anything other than his personal power and wealth.

I'm not so sure about that. There's also an element of "Mother Russia" which most of us in the "west" can find difficult to understand - altho Brexit and "reclaim our sovereignty" to an extent echo that idiocy.

[roubaixtuesday]

He'll do whatever he feels will protect the integrity of Russia. I think it's very unlikely he would use nuclear weapons, but it's a dangerous position to assume he wouldn't.

Putin doesn't give a stuff about anything other than his personal power and wealth.

I'm not so sure about that. There's also an element of "Mother Russia" which most of us in the "west" can find difficult to understand - altho Brexit and "reclaim our sovereignty" to an extent echo that idiocy.

Putin's armies have been repeatedly humiliated, the territory he claims as Russian is occupied or attacked daily by Ukraine, his flagship has been sunk, his Navy confined to port by a country without a Navy and targets deep inside Russia, including in Moscow, hit with air attacks.

His threats of nuclear retaliation have failed to materialise in the face of this, though his and his henchmen's bombast remains.

Why? Because he knows he would lose his power and wealth if he followed up on them, and the weakness of his military means he uses the threats as a lever to influence Western governments support.

Sure, if an army marched on Moscow it's possible, but that's not going to happen.

[Jdsk]

The timeline so far:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland–N ... pplication

Finland joined on 4 April.

Timeline for Sweden:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden–NA ... Membership

Hungary has approved Sweden's accession, which IIUC is the last hurdle.

"Sweden officially joins NATO":
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_223446.htm

Jonathan

[toontra]

I've posted before about Russian tactics in Syria, effectively using it as a live fire training ground.

Excellent post!

Unfortunately I'm personally aware of the widespread support for Putin in Serbia, having a Serbian SIL. She is pro Putin, pro Trump and considers Muslims to be sub-human ("lower than animals" is her exact description). I think she gets all her news from Russian State TV.

As you say this support is probably partly due to years of Russian agents infiltrating Serbian society. Many pro-Putin residents in east Ukraine have been agitating for years and have now decamped to Russia (the Homeland) post-invasion.

[Psamathe]

Putin isn't nuking anyone. His objective is to stay rich.

He'll do whatever he feels will protect the integrity of Russia. I think it's very unlikely he would use nuclear weapons, but it's a dangerous position to assume he wouldn't.

Putin doesn't give a stuff about anything other than his personal power and wealth.

I'm no commentator but I'm unsure as invading Ukraine does not add to his power nor to his wealth. In fact it may expose his power and wealth to some risk in that some would disagree with his invasion which fosters some discontent and ultimately risk of others challenging him (or even assassination). So he's now likely having to surround himself with ultra loyal sycophants limiting his freedom, etc. eg when the Warner Group turned against him, he survived OK but that could have turned out very differently.

That said, I can't offer alternative explanations beyond him wanting a "legacy" and a place in history (which he's probably achieved but not the place in history he wanted!). But even then he's risking a lot. Or maybe it's all just gone bad in that he started it all assuming he'd march into Ukraine, have taken over the entire country after 48 hrs and he'd turn-up to adoring cheering crowds. And when it didn't follow his assumptions it was a bit late to change his mind and if he could re-make the decision ...

But them maybe he isn't as smart as people have assumed, maybe he isn't a good strategist and can't balance risk vs benefit. Maybe people who say not to under-estimate him are basing that because in the past he's just been in the right place at the right time with the right people and got away with it? Or maybe not.

Ian

[roubaixtuesday]

He'll do whatever he feels will protect the integrity of Russia. I think it's very unlikely he would use nuclear weapons, but it's a dangerous position to assume he wouldn't.

Putin doesn't give a stuff about anything other than his personal power and wealth.

I'm no commentator but I'm unsure as invading Ukraine does not add to his power nor to his wealth. In fact it may expose his power and wealth to some risk in that some would disagree with his invasion which fosters some discontent and ultimately risk of others challenging him (or even assassination). So he's now likely having to surround himself with ultra loyal sycophants limiting his freedom, etc. eg when the Warner Group turned against him, he survived OK but that could have turned out very differently.

That said, I can't offer alternative explanations beyond him wanting a "legacy" and a place in history (which he's probably achieved but not the place in history he wanted!). But even then he's risking a lot. Or maybe it's all just gone bad in that he started it all assuming he'd march into Ukraine, have taken over the entire country after 48 hrs and he'd turn-up to adoring cheering crowds. And when it didn't follow his assumptions it was a bit late to change his mind and if he could re-make the decision ...

But them maybe he isn't as smart as people have assumed, maybe he isn't a good strategist and can't balance risk vs benefit. Maybe people who say not to under-estimate him are basing that because in the past he's just been in the right place at the right time with the right people and got away with it? Or maybe not.

Ian

Putin's fascist kleptocracy depends on being able to suppress the opposition, demand loyalty, dispense favours on personal whim, control the media and maintain fear amongst potential rivals.

Which of these were were aided by invading ukraine?

(He also clearly underestimated ukraine radically, as did the West)

[wheelyhappy99]

Putin doesn't give a stuff about anything other than his personal power and wealth.

Putin is on record as deploring what happened when he was simply a KGB agent in the DDR at the time the Soviet Union collapsed: instructions sought and no reply from Moscow. He's written quite a lot about Russia and what he sees as it's place in the world, and seems to see himself as a new Peter the Great or Stalin restoring that.

he's now likely having to surround himself with ultra loyal sycophants limiting his freedom, etc. eg when the Warner Group turned against him, he survived OK but that could have turned out very differently.

Reportedly Prighozin's march on Moscow, during which Wagner group troops shot down Russian helicopters among other things, was stopped because Prighozin had a call to let him know the FSB were suddenly providing childcare for his grandchildren.

[wheelyhappy99]

Russia, whose culture, geography and history is in large part European is being pushed further into China’s open arms with this war, further from fair governance and democratic freedoms.

I'd suggest a careful look at an atlas. Although what might be regarded as the Russian heartland is in Europe much of the country is firmly east of the Urals in Asia, populated by Asian peoples who were conquered in the 17th and 18th centuries.

It's history, and especially it's governance, has significant differences from European states to the west. Long before Russia existed as a state or principality that part of Europe was conquered in the 13th century by the Mongols, descendants of Genghis Khan, part of the Golden Horde. They extracted tribute from the area that is now Russia, and imposed centralised autocratic rule, eventually with Muscovite princes as their principal puppets. When the Mongols weakened and payment of tribute ended the form of government continued. There has never been any democratic government or tradition in Russia.

In the context of Ukraine it's worth noting that the only reason there are blond, blue eyed ethnic Russians living in Crimea is that the place was emptied in May 1944 and . The original population were Tatars, Turkic descendants of the Golden Horde, and about 200,000 were shipped out to Siberia in just three days. Examples of fair governance are a bit scarce in Russia.

[Biospace]

Russia, whose culture, geography and history is in large part European is being pushed further into China’s open arms with this war, further from fair governance and democratic freedoms.

I'd suggest a careful look at an atlas. Although what might be regarded as the Russian heartland is in Europe much of the country is firmly east of the Urals in Asia, populated by Asian peoples who were conquered in the 17th and 18th centuries.

It's history, and especially it's governance, has significant differences from European states to the west. Long before Russia existed as a state or principality that part of Europe was conquered in the 13th century by the Mongols
...
In the context of Ukraine it's worth noting that the only reason there are blond, blue eyed ethnic Russians living in Crimea is that the place was emptied in May 1944 and . The original population were Tatars, Turkic descendants of the Golden Horde, and about 200,000 were shipped out to Siberia in just three days. Examples of fair governance are a bit scarce in Russia.

A good atlas shows most of the population of modern Russia live to the West of the Urals, with the highest concentration West of Moscow. The proportion is estimated at between 80% and 90%.

If we're going to look at history from centuries ago, a large corner of Europe was under Muslim rule for almost 800 years. Societal structures evolve, as Russia's has done, including surviving the Bolshevik tyrants who created the communist Soviet Empire and then while on their knees after the disintegration of the USSR, to feel abandoned - and later threatened - by those who had promised help and support should the Soviet system be dismantled.

Trying to suggest that modern Russia and the Leninist and Stalinist Soviet Empire are somehow the same thing is to try to whip up fear and hostility in those who aren't aware of reality.

[wheelyhappy99]

Russia, whose culture, geography and history is in large part European is being pushed further into China’s open arms with this war, further from fair governance and democratic freedoms.

I'll try again. The succession of regimes ruling what is, today, the Russian Federation includes the Muscovite Princedom, Imperial Russia and the USSR. What they have in common is largely autocratic governance dating back to vassalage under the Golden Horde. Quite different from, say, the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth to the west, in which the monarch was elected. I am not clear how the geographic distribution of population today is relevant to governance.

Trying to suggest that modern Russia and the Leninist and Stalinist Soviet Empire are somehow the same thing is to try to whip up fear and hostility in those who aren't aware of reality.

They aren't. And I didn't say they were. I am though interested in suggestions as to how the kleptocrat ruling Russia now might be persuaded to introduce fair governance and democracy.

[Biospace]

Russia, whose culture, geography and history is in large part European is being pushed further into China’s open arms with this war, further from fair governance and democratic freedoms.

I'll try again.
...

You said "much of the country is firmly east of the Urals in Asia, populated by Asian peoples who were conquered in the 17th and 18th centuries", which is why I pointed out that most of the population - 80%-90% - live West of the Urals.

You cite atrocities carried out under Stalin, whereas the modern Russian constitution offers a very different form of governance and accountabilities. That the Russian people have managed to land themselves with Putin is more than unfortunate, but they are not the only example of a European nation which has 'elected' a tyrant as leader.

Labelling an entire nation as you do because of its current leader and having emerged from decades of suffering under a totalitarian regime has parallels with those who label individuals as unworthy or useless and is hardly conducive to global stability and prosperity. Compare the different outcomes after WW1 and WW2, as we learned what can happen if a previously strong, proud nation is punished and humiliated.

The only safe way to see Putin gone is for his own people to overthrow him, not by US-led forces to impose their will. I have the impression the military in Washington DC have a very limited understanding of Russia, or how it differs from the USSR. Their track record since the early 1990s is one we should all be aware of.

[Jdsk]

...
The only safe way to see Putin gone is for his own people to overthrow him, not by US-led forces to impose their will.
...

Same question as before. Are you saying that the current invasion of Ukraine is being opposed by "US-led forces" or that you think that this is something that will happen in the future?

Thanks

Jonathan