Russia invades Ukraine

[ainsworth74]

Russia-Ukraine war live: Moscow says British military facilities could be targeted after Cameron’s remarks | World news | The Guardian

British ambassador is summoned and told that installations and equipment in Ukraine and elsewhere could be targeted

amp.theguardian.com

Anything to worry about?


This comes after comments from both David Cameron and Emmanuel Macron:


The Macron comments are from Al Jazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/5/2/frances-macron-doesnt-rule-out-troops-for-ukraine

Not much more than usual, which is to say not really.

The line about "Russia targetting UK military facilities" is a nothing burger in the extreme. Of course they target our military facilities, they have done since at least 1949! Nothing has changed in that regard. It's not news, therefore, that Russia is targetting the military facilities of one of the main military powers of Europe which also happens to be a major base for US power projection in the European theatre of operations. If Russia were to launch conventional attacks on UK military facilities in response to Ukraine using UK weapons on Russian soil well, the war would certainly be over quickly because the Russian conventional forces would have ceased to exist in short order once the NATO bombing campaign began, we might not have the ground power for a major war any more here in NATO (US and Poland excepted) but we certainly have the air power. And the Russians will know this. That's why their only play is to try and fracture the Western alliance, if we stand firmly united there is nothing they can do even in our weakened state.

The nuclear signalling is more interesting, they've stopped doing that for a while now because it wasn't having any real effect. People will recall the brouhaha that Russia raised about deploying tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus earlier this year? Well, that didn't really change the calculation any at all did it? Turned out there's only so many times you wave your nuclear willy about before people stop taking you seriously.

So the fact that they're having another go at it suggests, to me anyway, that the recent comments from France and Britain, along with the military aid package from the US, has got them slightly rattled. It also might be a reflection of the current successes on the battlefield that the Russian's are enjoying following the six months of cowardly and disastrous delay that occurred in US Congress. They want to try and warn us off from getting more involved if Ukraine can't stabilise the frontline again soon. So they're hoping that if they rattle the nuclear sabre yet again it might damp down our support for Ukraine. Hasn't worked so far, see no reason it would suddenly start.

Personally speaking wake me up when Russian ballistic missile submarines start exhibiting unusual patters of activity (which they're not currently) and we start hearing credible reports of Russian long range aviation and short range ballistic missile units being issued with live tactical nuclear weapons (which we haven't). Otherwise it is more willy waving to try and scare us into allowing Russia to continue dismembering Ukraine uninterrupted before they turn their attentions onto their next victim.

 

[DustyBin]

Not much more than usual, which is to say not really.

The line about "Russia targetting UK military facilities" is a nothing burger in the extreme. Of course they target our military facilities, they have done since at least 1949! Nothing has changed in that regard. It's not news, therefore, that Russia is targetting the military facilities of one of the main military powers of Europe which also happens to be a major base for US power projection in the European theatre of operations. If Russia were to launch conventional attacks on UK military facilities in response to Ukraine using UK weapons on Russian soil well, the war would certainly be over quickly because the Russian conventional forces would have ceased to exist in short order once the NATO bombing campaign began, we might not have the ground power for a major war any more here in NATO (US and Poland excepted) but we certainly have the air power. And the Russians will know this. That's why their only play is to try and fracture the Western alliance, if we stand firmly united there is nothing they can do even in our weakened state.

The nuclear signalling is more interesting, they've stopped doing that for a while now because it wasn't having any real effect. People will recall the brouhaha that Russia raised about deploying tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus earlier this year? Well, that didn't really change the calculation any at all did it? Turned out there's only so many times you wave your nuclear willy about before people stop taking you seriously.

So the fact that they're having another go at it suggests, to me anyway, that the recent comments from France and Britain, along with the military aid package from the US, has got them slightly rattled. It also might be a reflection of the current successes on the battlefield that the Russian's are enjoying following the six months of cowardly and disastrous delay that occurred in US Congress. They want to try and warn us off from getting more involved if Ukraine can't stabilise the frontline again soon. So they're hoping that if they rattle the nuclear sabre yet again it might damp down our support for Ukraine. Hasn't worked so far, see no reason it would suddenly start.

Personally speaking wake me up when Russian ballistic missile submarines start exhibiting unusual patters of activity (which they're not currently) and we start hearing credible reports of Russian long range aviation and short range ballistic missile units being issued with live tactical nuclear weapons (which we haven't). Otherwise it is more willy waving to try and scare us into allowing Russia to continue dismembering Ukraine uninterrupted before they turn their attentions onto their next victim.

I agree with all of this (you saved me writing my own lengthy reply!).

 

[roymunson]

Putin, Trump and Netanyahu, the unholy trinity. Obviously Putin is by far the worse of the three, but all three seem to share a common dislike of peace.
If there was an award called the Non-Nobel Prize for the Promotion of War, all three could share it.

I’m wondering why you’re so convinced that Putin is by far the worse?

I’m curious also why you’ve listed Trump but failed to mention any other US president of the last decade or so?

 

[nw1]

I’m wondering why you’re so convinced that Putin is by far the worse?

I’m curious also why you’ve listed Trump but failed to mention any other US president of the last decade or so?

I would say that Putin is the clearly most monstrous in terms of acts committed in the sense that he has invaded a country with no provocation whatsoever, but merely because he wants Ukraine to be part of Russia. Putin's Russia is also the country, of the three, that has the most severe restrictions on free speech and, unlike the other two, severe penalties if you dare criticise the presidency. But don't get me wrong, I am no fan of Netanyahu, his apparent treatment of Gazan citizens as mere collateral in his mission to eliminate Hamas, and his attempts to (in my view) silence and slander political opponents by labelling them as anti-Semitic.

As for Trump, we'll for starters he's against Biden's arms embargo, claiming it's capitulating to terrorists, or something. I suspect also that he would be more likely to capitulate to Putin, and it wouldn't surprise me if he goes "off on one" regarding Iran.

The world would be better if none of them had ever been leaders of their respective countries.

 

[roymunson]

I would say that Putin is the clearly most monstrous in terms of acts committed in the sense that he has invaded a country with no provocation whatsoever, but merely because he wants Ukraine to be part of Russia. Putin's Russia is also the country, of the three, that has the most severe restrictions on free speech and, unlike the other two, severe penalties if you dare criticise the presidency. But don't get me wrong, I am no fan of Netanyahu, his apparent treatment of Gazan citizens as mere collateral in his mission to eliminate Hamas, and his attempts to (in my view) silence and slander political opponents by labelling them as anti-Semitic.

As for Trump, we'll for starters he's against Biden's arms embargo, claiming it's capitulating to terrorists, or something. I suspect also that he would be more likely to capitulate to Putin, and it wouldn't surprise me if he goes "off on one" regarding Iran.

The world would be better if none of them had ever been leaders of their respective countries.

No provocation whatsoever… I’m not sure about that analysis. There is scarcely anyone who doesn’t see this as a proxy war and it’s clear that the West has been meddling in Ukraine for decades. I can certainly think of a few provocations. Not that I am saying the invasion is warranted, but to suggest there was no provocation is simply not true.

Restrictions on free speech… Have you heard of Julian Assange?

His attempts to silence and slander political opponents…. Have you heard of Jeremy Corbyn?

If Trump were to bring an end to this Ukraine conflict, wouldn’t that be better for all involved? What’s the alternative, more Ukrainians (and Russians) dying? Further escalation to a full blown NATO conflict between two nuclear powers? What happens at that stage?

I always wonder why people are so keen to suggest Trump is some sort of war nut job while not labelling any other US president as such… the history is right there and is happening as we speak. Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden.

Wake up

 

[Sorcerer]

No provocation whatsoever… I’m not sure about that analysis. There is scarcely anyone who doesn’t see this as a proxy war and it’s clear that the West has been meddling in Ukraine for decades. I can certainly think of a few provocations. Not that I am saying the invasion is warranted, but to suggest there was no provocation is simply not true.

Even assuming your statement that western powers were meddling in Ukrainian affairs is true, how is that provoking Russia?

His attempts to silence and slander political opponents…. Have you heard of Jeremy Corbyn?

While Corbyn was vilified in the media and arguably subject to a fair degree of libel, he wasn't assassinated in the same way Putin's opponents would have been.

If Trump were to bring an end to this Ukraine conflict, wouldn’t that be better for all involved? What’s the alternative, more Ukrainians (and Russians) dying? Further escalation to a full blown NATO conflict between two nuclear powers? What happens at that stage?

How do you think Trump will resolve the Ukraine conflict?

I always wonder why people are so keen to suggest Trump is some sort of war nut job while not labelling any other US president as such… the history is right there and is happening as we speak. Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden.

I actually think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who genuinely believes only Trump is a warmonger and not the other aforementioned Presidents, but the wars they are associated with are a lot more nuanced than people seem to realise.

 

[DerekC]

In including Trump in the "unholy trinity" I was thinking not only of his demolition of the Iran nuclear deal, but his withdrawal of the USA from the Paris climate accords and attempted scrapping of decarbonisation targets.

 

[roymunson]

Even assuming your statement that western powers were meddling in Ukrainian affairs is true, how is that provoking Russia?


While Corbyn was vilified in the media and arguably subject to a fair degree of libel, he wasn't assassinated in the same way Putin's opponents would have been.


How do you think Trump will resolve the Ukraine conflict?


I actually think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who genuinely believes only Trump is a warmonger and not the other aforementioned Presidents, but the wars they are associated with are a lot more nuanced than people seem to realise.

Would you disagree that NATO inching closer and closer to Russia over the years, despite assurances that they wouldn’t, could be considered a provocation? Are you aware that Russia over the years repeatedly called Ukraine a red line? Consider how America would have reacted should Russia begin to meddle in say, Mexico? Do you recall the Cuban missile crisis? What do you think western powers motive is in meddling in Ukrainian affairs, and essentially stoking a civil war in regions of Ukraine with overthrows of government? Are you aware of Victoria Nuland and CIA involvement? I can’t take anyone seriously who believes there was NO provocation here, this proxy war is years in the making, even decades.

In mentioning Corbyn I was trying to make the point that politics is a dirty business and he was also slandered and accused of anti semitism to a remarkable degree, there is nothing arguable about it, it was blatant.

I don’t think he would, particularly, but if he were to, would that be a bad thing? Isn’t some sort of deal the only way out of this crisis? How else is it going to get resolved?

Yet it seems that Trump gets labelled over and over as a war mongering loose canon psycho who’s itching to press big red buttons and go to town on Iran etc by people who do not feel it is relevant to mention that it is in fact America, and not solely Trump, who’s perpetual industry is WAR.

It’s very popular to slaughter Putin and Trump and seems almost fashionable to do so, and I’d be absolutely fine with it so long as there’s a bit of balance. Is Trump really worse than Joe Biden? Does it really matter who is in charge because are they really the ones calling the shots? Is democracy what it’s claimed to be when in America they seem to me to be doing their absolute upmost to jail
Trump?

 

[nw1]

His attempts to silence and slander political opponents…. Have you heard of Jeremy Corbyn?

This was Netanyahu I was referring to, not one of the others. (and thus, this is on-topic!)

FWIW I tend to agree about Corbyn, who, IMV, was not anti-Semitic.

 

[Bantamzen]

It’s very popular to slaughter Putin and Trump and seems almost fashionable to do so, and I’d be absolutely fine with it so long as there’s a bit of balance. Is Trump really worse than Joe Biden? Does it really matter who is in charge because are they really the ones calling the shots? Is democracy what it’s claimed to be when in America they seem to me to be doing their absolute upmost to jail
Trump?

You'd have to had been living in a sealed box, in a cave, on a remote island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean to not be able to categorically say that Trump is indeed worse than Biden. I mean the guy is on trial for all sorts of demeanours, has stated he'd happily throw allies to the enemy in an instant, prefers the company of dictators, has no loyalty even to those who remain loyal to him. I mean look what he's done to the Republican party, they can't even vote for things they've brokered with the Democrats if Trump so much as shakes his head. America made a huge mistake ever letting that man into power, and it is clear he doesn't just want more it wants to become the dictator to his nation.

That some people still cannot see what a danger that man is frankly is mindboggling.

 

[Sorcerer]

Would you disagree that NATO inching closer and closer to Russia over the years, despite assurances that they wouldn’t, could be considered a provocation? Are you aware that Russia over the years repeatedly called Ukraine a red line? Consider how America would have reacted should Russia begin to meddle in say, Mexico? Do you recall the Cuban missile crisis? What do you think western powers motive is in meddling in Ukrainian affairs, and essentially stoking a civil war in regions of Ukraine with overthrows of government? Are you aware of Victoria Nuland and CIA involvement? I can’t take anyone seriously who believes there was NO provocation here, this proxy war is years in the making, even decades.

NATO's assurance of not expanding east was made in the context of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact still existing back in 1990, however it was never actually solidified in any official peace treaty or documents. But furthermore, the term expansion is a bit misleading because NATO is a voluntary military alliance that countries have joined of their own volition, and the reason for this is quite simply because of the fears of Russian aggression. The sweet irony in Putin fighting back against what he sees as NATO aggression is that he has convinced more countries to join and has proven why it exists in the first place.

I don’t think he would, particularly, but if he were to, would that be a bad thing? Isn’t some sort of deal the only way out of this crisis? How else is it going to get resolved?

It's no good trying to broker a peace deal when one party has consistently went back on other agreements in the past and lied about their intentions not to invade another country while setting up front line forces ready for said invasion.

Yet it seems that Trump gets labelled over and over as a war mongering loose canon psycho who’s itching to press big red buttons and go to town on Iran etc by people who do not feel it is relevant to mention that it is in fact America, and not solely Trump, who’s perpetual industry is WAR.

To be fair neither of your statements are particularly incorrect since there are plenty of war hawks in Congress, and Trump is also a loose canon psychopath.

Is Trump really worse than Joe Biden?

Yes. To bring this thread back to topic, Biden has at least shown some willingness to shift away from absolute support of Israel should it's action extend beyond defending itself from Hamas. With the talk of warmongers we can say with much confidence that Netanyahu is indeed quite a warmonger who, like Putin, believes the land he is fighting for is rightfully theirs and goes beyond simply defending themselves from the enemy. To think that Trump would somehow be better for the conflict would be mistaken. Obviously Biden might just as well be trying to reign in the left-wing vote so as not to lose the election in November, but he's still not worse than Trump by any means.

 

[roymunson]

NATO's assurance of not expanding east was made in the context of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact still existing back in 1990, however it was never actually solidified in any official peace treaty or documents. But furthermore, the term expansion is a bit misleading because NATO is a voluntary military alliance that countries have joined of their own volition, and the reason for this is quite simply because of the fears of Russian aggression. The sweet irony in Putin fighting back against what he sees as NATO aggression is that he has convinced more countries to join and has proven why it exists in the first place.

So that makes NATO expansion alright then, and in no way provokes Russia NATO surrounding their border? Are you capable of seeing it from their viewpoint? Are you capable of acknowledging that if roles were reversed, then that would be a provocation to America/ NATO?

To suggest that there’s been zero provocation is absurd.

It's no good trying to broker a peace deal when one party has consistently went back on other agreements in the past and lied about their intentions not to invade another country while setting up front line forces ready for said invasion.

To be fair neither of your statements are particularly incorrect since there are plenty of war hawks in Congress, and Trump is also a loose canon psychopath.

Yes. To bring this thread back to topic, Biden has at least shown some willingness to shift away from absolute support of Israel should its action extend beyond defending itself from Hamas. With the talk of warmongers we can say with much confidence that Netanyahu is indeed quite a warmonger who, like Putin, believes the land he is fighting for is rightfully theirs and goes beyond simply defending themselves from the enemy. To think that Trump would somehow be better for the conflict would be mistaken. Obviously Biden might just as well be trying to reign in the left-wing vote so as not to lose the election in November, but he's still not worse than Trump by any means.

But it is NATO who are predominantly encroaching upon Russias borders, and not vice versa. It is onvious that America has been actively involved in Ukraine for decades, stoking tension with Russia. Wouldn’t you see that as aggression if you were Putin? There is a history to this beyond the invasion, obviously.

It really depends on what metric you’re using to compare Biden and Trump. Biden, among other western leaders, has facilitated plausible (I would argue factual) genocide against Palestinians. I would say genocide is about as bad as it gets.

 

[Sorcerer]

So that makes NATO expansion alright then, and in no way provokes Russia NATO surrounding their border? Are you capable of seeing it from their viewpoint? Are you capable of acknowledging that if roles were reversed, then that would be a provocation to America/ NATO?

To suggest that there’s been zero provocation is absurd.

But it is NATO who are predominantly encroaching upon Russias borders, and not vice versa. It is onvious that America has been actively involved in Ukraine for decades, stoking tension with Russia. Wouldn’t you see that as aggression if you were Putin? There is a history to this beyond the invasion, obviously.

Again, other countries making the decision to join NATO is of their own volition and does not require the blessing of the Kremlin to do so. The only reason to believe countries on your border joining a voluntary military alliance is an act of aggression towards you is if you believe those countries aren't independent sovereign states but in actuality your proxy-states or lost lands you shall reclaim one day. Did you ever stop to think that maybe these former Warsaw Pact countries joining NATO maybe had good reason to do so that has now been confirmed by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, if not already previously confirmed by them annexing Crimea?

It really depends on what metric you’re using to compare Biden and Trump. Biden, among other western leaders, has facilitated plausible (I would argue factual) genocide against Palestinians. I would say genocide is about as bad as it gets.

Yes, western leaders including Biden with their staunch support of Israel have facilitated their atrocities against innocent Palestinians which lead to the rise of Hamas and has often been cited as a motive behind terrorists attacks and is also cited as one of the motivations behind 9/11. But Donald Trump would be no better and therefore we cannot argue on that metric that he's worse than Biden. Indeed his willing to capitulate to Putin means he is also very likely to capitulate to the likes of Netanyahu who, again like Putin, believes the land he is fighting for rightfully belongs to him and his people. At worst Biden will continue the usual cycle of supporting Israel, at best he will be a bit firmer on the conditions of support. He certainly won't be any worse than Trump.

 

[roymunson]

Again, other countries making the decision to join NATO is of their own volition and does not require the blessing of the Kremlin to do so. The only reason to believe countries on your border joining a voluntary military alliance is an act of aggression towards you is if you believe those countries aren't independent sovereign states but in actuality your proxy-states or lost lands you shall reclaim one day. Did you ever stop to think that maybe these former Warsaw Pact countries joining NATO maybe had good reason to do so that has now been confirmed by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, if not already previously confirmed by them annexing Crimea?

Are you still trying to suggest there’s been no provocation towards Russia? Are you serious in suggesting that? If so then I don’t think anything anyone could say would change your viewpoint.

Yes, western leaders including Biden with their staunch support of Israel have facilitated their atrocities against innocent Palestinians which lead to the rise of Hamas and has often been cited as a motive behind terrorists attacks and is also cited as one of the motivations behind 9/11. But Donald Trump would be no better and therefore we cannot argue on that metric that he's worse than Biden. Indeed his willing to capitulate to Putin means he is also very likely to capitulate to the likes of Netanyahu who, again like Putin, believes the land he is fighting for rightfully belongs to him and his people. At worst Biden will continue the usual cycle of supporting Israel, at best he will be a bit firmer on the conditions of support. He certainly won't be any worse than Trump.

I wouldn’t say Trump is better or worse, I’d argue the result is the same

 

[hst43102]

Are you still trying to suggest there’s been no provocation towards Russia? Are you serious in suggesting that? If so then I don’t think anything anyone could say would change your viewpoint.

You still haven't listed a proper provocation towards Russia. Various eastern European countries joined NATO (a purely defensive alliance) because they were scared of being invaded by Russia. And for good reason too, Ukraine didn't join NATO and look how it's turned out for them...

 

[Sorcerer]

Are you still trying to suggest there’s been no provocation towards Russia? Are you serious in suggesting that? If so then I don’t think anything anyone could say would change your viewpoint.

Yes, and I see no reason to believe other independent sovereign nations voluntarily joining a military alliance is provocation to Russia because I do not believe they have to bend to the will of the Kremlin. Russia has every right to be sad about it in the same way we Brits can be upset with American laws even if it doesn't directly affect us. They do not have the right to invade Ukraine for it though.

I wouldn’t say Trump is better or worse, I’d argue the result is the same

If you believe Trump would be better for the Israel-Palestine conflict, would you care to elaborate? This is a very controversial and nuanced subject after all and one where many minds can be changed.

 

[nw1]

If you believe Trump would be better for the Israel-Palestine conflict, would you care to elaborate? This is a very controversial and nuanced subject after all and one where many minds can be changed.

Trump would probably be stridently against pro-Palestine / pro-Gaza demonstrators, if recent events are anything to go by: he is strongly against the university protests* and seems to think Biden is capitulating to terrorists by suspending arms to Netanyahu. He would doubtless label them as sympathisers of terrorism, or part of the axis of evil, or something, and probably would want them all locked up.

Just look at this display of extremist, far-right authoritarianism from Trump: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...campus-protests-donald-trump?ref=upstract.com

“These are radical-left lunatics, and they’ve got to be stopped now,” Trump said earlier this month outside the Manhattan courtroom where he is being tried on business fraud charges.

and

The day prior, police had rounded up demonstrators at Columbia University, home to one of the most contentious protest sites. Trump called the sweep “a beautiful thing to watch”.

and

He then deployed blood-curdling and violent rhetoric to describe the protesters. “Remove the encampments immediately. Vanquish the radicals, and take back our campuses for all of the normal students who want a safe place for which to learn,” he said at a rally in swing state Wisconsin. “The radical extremists and far-left agitators are terrorizing college campuses, as you possibly noticed, and Biden’s nowhere to be found.”

His partisan attitude to the conflict and apparent hatred of pro-Gaza protesters would increase anger towards the USA from Arab countries, and would thus do nothing for Arab-western relations, which really need to be improved.

 

[Bantamzen]

Trump would probably be stridently against pro-Palestine / pro-Gaza demonstrators, if recent events are anything to go by: he is strongly against the university protests* and seems to think Biden is capitulating to terrorists by suspending arms to Netanyahu. He would doubtless label them as sympathisers of terrorism, or part of the axis of evil, or something, and probably would want them all locked up.

Just look at this display of extremist, far-right authoritarianism from Trump: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...campus-protests-donald-trump?ref=upstract.com



and



and




His partisan attitude to the conflict and apparent hatred of pro-Gaza protesters would increase anger towards the USA from Arab countries, and would thus do nothing for Arab-western relations, which really need to be improved.

Let's cut to the chase here, Trump would support whichever side massaged his ego and promised him the most money. If Iran <cough>, I mean Hamas gave him $450M to help with his legal case he'd be flying Palestinian flags at the White House if he were president. But obviously Israel is far more influential in the US, so of course he'll be backing them all the way.

The idea of Trump somehow being a world peace broker is, well just off the mark. Oh who I am kidding, its bat **** crazy!!

 

[roymunson]

You still haven't listed a proper provocation towards Russia. Various eastern European countries joined NATO (a purely defensive alliance) because they were scared of being invaded by Russia. And for good reason too, Ukraine didn't join NATO and look how it's turned out for them...

Purely defensive

Yes, and I see no reason to believe other independent sovereign nations voluntarily joining a military alliance is provocation to Russia because I do not believe they have to bend to the will of the Kremlin. Russia has every right to be sad about it in the same way we Brits can be upset with American laws even if it doesn't directly affect us. They do not have the right to invade Ukraine for it though.


If you believe Trump would be better for the Israel-Palestine conflict, would you care to elaborate? This is a very controversial and nuanced subject after all and one where many minds can be changed.

If you read what I’d just written I said I believe the result would be the same

 

[Falcon1200]

Are you capable of acknowledging that if roles were reversed, then that would be a provocation to America/ NATO?

Were the roles not very much reversed for several decades after 1945, when the USSR extended its malign tentacles well into central Europe; Effectively creating NATO in the first place! But it was not used as justification for NATO invading, for example, East Germany.

 

[roymunson]

Were the roles not very much reversed for several decades after 1945, when the USSR extended its malign tentacles well into central Europe; Effectively creating NATO in the first place! But it was not used as justification for NATO invading, for example, East Germany.

I don’t see the relevance of this? What point are you trying to make?

Here’s a wee article that might be of interest:

Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored | Nato | The Guardian

It has long been clear that Nato expansion would lead to tragedy. We are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance

amp.theguardian.com

 

[Falcon1200]

I don’t see the relevance of this? What point are you trying to make?

I was replying to your words regarding supposed western provocation, ie eastward expansion of NATO, leading directly to Russia invading another country, by pointing out the westward expansion of the USSR into supposedly, but not in reality, sovereign European states; I did think my response was clear enough, it what way was it not?

 

[roymunson]

I was replying to your words regarding supposed western provocation, ie eastward expansion of NATO, leading directly to Russia invading another country, by pointing out the westward expansion of the USSR into supposedly, but not in reality, sovereign European states; I did think my response was clear enough, it what way was it not?

But what’s the comparison here? You’re talking about 1945, is that supposed to be a direct comparison to events today?

 

[Falcon1200]

But what’s the comparison here? You’re talking about 1945, is that supposed to be a direct comparison to events today?

And for several decades after 1945! And yes, it surely is directly relevant to today, because the reason NATO exists in the first place was the dominance of the USSR over eastern Europe, and the threat that represented; However that threat did not lead to NATO, or any member country, invading and annexing any Communist block territory.

 

[roymunson]

But the USSR doesn’t exist and hasn’t for quite some time now? I think it’s pretty obvious what the provocations are but if you can’t see it then there’s no point continuing. I’d say read up a bit on the events of 2014 but I imagine you’re well aware.

 

[Sorcerer]

But the USSR doesn’t exist and hasn’t for quite some time now? I think it’s pretty obvious what the provocations are but if you can’t see it then there’s no point continuing. I’d say read up a bit on the events of 2014 but I imagine you’re well aware.

The funny thing is though is that we have no problem acknowledging the USSR no longer exists, so I think you'd be better off telling that to Putin if you're confident that you won't be disappearing shortly afterwards. But regardless, you have still not cited what the actual provocation is towards Russia, so I will ask you this simple question: do independent sovereign states have the right to join a voluntary military alliance like NATO without the need to receive blessings from the Kremlin?

 

[roymunson]

The funny thing is though is that we have no problem acknowledging the USSR no longer exists, so I think you'd be better off telling that to Putin if you're confident that you won't be disappearing shortly afterwards. But regardless, you have still not cited what the actual provocation is towards Russia, so I will ask you this simple question: do independent sovereign states have the right to join a voluntary military alliance like NATO without the need to receive blessings from the Kremlin?

I’ve mentioned a few but you seem to be choosing not to pay attention to them.

Ukraine is a country steeped in history with Russia and large parts of the country, such as crimea, have large numbers of ethnic Russians living there. There’s been a war since 2014, in which hard evidence points to instigation by CIA involvement to overthrow a democratically elected leader who had good relations with Russia and replace him with a leader who was much more pro west.

Ukraine is a country of significant strategic importance to Russia. You can’t dismiss that experts have been saying for decades that enticing them into NATO would lead to horrendous consequences, some of which we might not have even seen yet if it continues to escalate.

What matters also is how you view NATO and how you view their motives. Not everyone in the world sees it the way you likely see it. I.e purely defensive and in no way provoking Russia.

 

[Sorcerer]

Ukraine is a country steeped in history with Russia and large parts of the country, such as crimea, have large numbers of ethnic Russians living there.

If a country having history with another and sharing common ethnic groups is a just reason for Russia's invasion, then by that logic why should the UK not take back the former colonies because they were once part of our historical empire and share common ethnic roots? Why not go further and suggest bringing back the Roman Empire because we were once part of it and share European roots? The answer to both questions is that it is a complete bonkers idea that sound like nothing more than the ramblings of a madman.

There’s been a war since 2014, in which hard evidence points to instigation by CIA involvement to overthrow a democratically elected leader who had good relations with Russia and replace him with a leader who was much more pro west.

The war that started when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea?

Ukraine is a country of significant strategic importance to Russia.

Many countries are of strategic importance to others, that doesn't give them the right to invade.

You can’t dismiss that experts have been saying for decades that enticing them into NATO would lead to horrendous consequences, some of which we might not have even seen yet if it continues to escalate.

But Ukraine is not part of NATO, and even if it was that would be because it elected to do so. Do you genuinely believe that Russia is a benevolent state that does not seek to dominate it's neighbours?

What matters also is how you view NATO and how you view their motives. Not everyone in the world sees it the way you likely see it. I.e purely defensive and in no way provoking Russia.

Again, the only reason to see another country joining NATO as provocation of Russia is if you believe that said countries are not legitimate countries and just lost Russian land that needs to be reclaimed.

 

[roymunson]

If a country having history with another and sharing common ethnic groups is a just reason for Russia's invasion, then by that logic why should the UK not take back the former colonies because they were once part of our historical empire and share common ethnic roots? Why not go further and suggest bringing back the Roman Empire because we were once part of it and share European roots? The answer to both questions is that it is a complete bonkers idea that sound like nothing more than the ramblings of a madman.

sorry, but again I don’t see the relevance here? Ramblings of a mad man to me is the unnecessary comparison of events today to the Roman Empire?

The war that started when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea?

Is that how it started? That’s it? Just like that?

Many countries are of strategic importance to others, that doesn't give them the right to invade.

Of course not, and at no point have I said it’s justified, what I’ve said is that it was not unprovoked.

But Ukraine is not part of NATO, and even if it was that would be because it elected to do so. Do you genuinely believe that Russia is a benevolent state that does not seek to dominate it's neighbours?

Do you genuinely believe that the west is a benevolent state that does not seek to provoke and undermine Russia?

Again, the only reason to see another country joining NATO as provocation of Russia is if you believe that said countries are not legitimate countries and just lost Russian land that needs to be reclaimed.

No, there’s plenty reasons to see provocation if you are open minded to the concept that Russia might not be loving the idea of pro western leaders being installed in countries such as Ukraine with a military organisation which is hostile towards it circling its borders.

Don’t take my word for it, take it from the numerous expert foreign correspondents who have warned for years that it will lead to war.

 

[edwin_m]

No, there’s plenty reasons to see provocation if you are open minded to the concept that Russia might not be loving the idea of pro western leaders being installed in countries such as Ukraine with a military organisation which is hostile towards it circling its borders.

All the countries of central Europe were under Soviet domination for 45 years, and when this ceased in 1990 there was overwhelming popular support for breaking away and turning towards the west. With the exception of Belarus these have since become democracies and still overwhelmingly prefer to be in NATO and the EU. Some are less in favour than others, such as Hungary, and Poland is an interesting case because even though the previous government was less in tune with Western values they were still one of the strongest supporters of Ukraine. Are you suggesting that all these democracies have somehow been forced and duped into pro-Western viewpoints, and the recent re-elections of Putin and Lukashenko are the only ones where popular will has genuinely been expressed?

If you accept the premise that the peoples of these countries broadly reject Russian domination, then it follows that (subject to meeting the entry conditions) they should be allowed to join the institutions of the EU and NATO that represent western democratic ideals (and whose members have never been to war with each other since joining). Each country on its own would be unable to resist any Russian aggression, but if they stand together they have overwhelming superiority and the ability to deter a war from even starting. Had Ukraine actually succeeded in joining NATO, would Putin still have invaded?

So yes, Russia may not be liking its loss of domination, but if they'd behaved as a peaceful neighbour they might have had more economic and diplomatic influence and less hostility. The democratic Russia that briefly emerged in the 1990s endeavoured to reach accommodation with its neighbours, with Ukraine handing over its nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees from Russia and others. There was even talk of Russia joining NATO. But unfortunately Russia has reverted to autocracy and aggression.

No country can sustain a war without some level of public support. Even in democracies it's possible for a leader to mislead their people into believing that an aggression is justified - this has happened multiple times in America, most recently with Iraq. The NATO treaty does not bind other countries to support aggression, so for a credible threat to arise to Russia it would have to have support in enough NATO countries to have a chance of succeeding. But there's no evidence of either any other country's leadership wanting to invade Russia, or of a groundswell of public opinion anywhere in support of doing so.

As to Trump and Biden, recall that Trump used the defence of Ukraine as a bargaining chip to try to obtain political gain over Biden. Gaza is off-topic here but Trump was absolutely pro-Israel when in office and has shown no sign of changing tack since then. Also worth noting that Trump tore up the agreement that was just about keeping Iran in line, and if that hadn't happened it's quite likely that Iran would not now be arming Russia or indeed encouraging agression in the Middle East. While Trump hasn't invaded any country and quite probably wouldn't do so if in office, making him less bad than Putin, if re-elected it's entirely possible he will render NATO impotent and therefore leave it open for Russia to pick off its members one by one.

Perhaps instead of just saying everyone has done the wrong thing, you could suggest what might have been done differently to resolve the current situation.