If not a military conflict, then maybe the consequences of the failure of the west and NATO to respond to the Putin; the lack of US and European leadership, could see Russia and China becoming closer and threatening the west could be the foundation for a military, economic and cultural warfare that could be more disastrous than any international conflict since 1945. How we have allowed the 11th biggest economy, that relies on selling 46% of its exports to Europe to dictate the narrative, is surely an indictment on the international structures of Europe and NATO to deal with a gangster like Putin. From manipulating his own nations constitution to breaking international treaties; cyber crime, Syria, Crimea, political assignations using chemical weapons, even doping of international sport we seem unwilling to act. Too many uncomfortable parallels with the 1930s to be completely comfortable IMHO.
I like the way Johnson warned Russian families that war would be horrible. They don't want war, oh no. Unlike us Brits of course, you know what we're like, we're gagging for it. I can quite understand the Russians objections to NATO spreading ever eastwards and massing troops right on its borders. Yes, they've also put troops up, but they're on their own land at least. Remember how the US wouldn't accept Russian missiles on their doorstep in Cuba? By the way, half those Ukrainian heroes are avowed hardliners fascists. They don't mention that. If I were in charge of negotiating, I would say to the Russians that we wanted to de-escalate and before we start talking, let's each send home 1000 of our troops as a show of goodwill. However, that sort of thing seems way beyond the geniuses who are actually there.
Putin - love him or hate him - is lightyears ahead of the current world leaders. Whatever ends up happening, you can guarantee that Russia will come out of it either unscathed or in a better position than they started. I don't think there will be an escalation to a world war. In fact I doubt the West will do anything of any substance. They took Crimea and shot down a passenger jet with little more than a wrist-slap. I have more Russian friends than any other nationality and the overwhelming reaction to Crimea was "what's the problem, we're just taking it back".
I suspect that was the reaction amongst German nationals with the military action in Saar Land, Sudetenland, etc. I am not sure that the nationalists in Belarusia, Russia and Ukraine are cut from different cloth. In fact the political leaderships in Poland and Hungry are not that pleasant and share much of the same DNA. The history and politics of central and Eastern Europe is complex. Personally I don’t see many parallels with the Cuban missile crisis, partly because Russia, France and the UK have had nuclear weapons on each other’s borders for over 60 years. To me the better parallel is how the things spun out after 1933. Just replace Germany and Japan with Russia and China.
It's not as if all this Russian angst about the growth of NATO started with Putin; Yeltsin was also complaining about it. The Russian viewpoint seems to be that after the break up of USSR they felt they were given assurances by 'the West' that there was no intention to spread eastwards...and now they see former Soviet Republics (ie parts of the old Russian Soviet Empire) fully fledged members of EU and NATO. Membership of the EU (primarily an economic exercise) is one thing, but they are really concerned about the implications of being increasingly hemmed in by NATO...a military alliance initially set up as a mutual protection organisation for countries with a direct interest in the North Atlantic. Whilst it could be claimed that the Baltic is an arm of the North Atlantic, it's difficult to see how Ukraine could be. So, from a Russian perspective, the dual spread eastwards of EU & NATO is a clear threat, for all the West's talk of peaceful intentions. This has to be placed in the context of Russian folk-memory of a history of Western military involvement in & invasion of Russia. This is not to support Putin & how he acts, but to expect a country & culture such as Russia, with all the deep-rooted psychological differences in the ingrained outlook of its people from ours, to act as a 'Western democracy' after its long history of authoritarian rule, is naive & unrealistic. (After the recent performances of particular such western democracies, why hold them up as examplars, anyway?) Reverse the situation: how would the USA react if Canada & Mexico were pushing to join a putative 'Siberian Defence League' having already joined a 'Slavonic Economic Community'?
Do you think it’s only Russia that overflies us or sends battlefleets across international waters? We need to find compromise that respects all borders. It’s not ok for Russia to threaten invasion, but it won’t hurt to understand its POV if we want to avoid it.
No arguments about any of that from me. Both sides should avoid unnecessary provocations. But it only really works if we accept Russia's POV includes its hegemony over all the former USSR states and requires everyone to view the world through a 50-year old lens.
That is clearly 'true' from our perspective, but maybe not from that of a Russia that sees the last 30+ years as providing evidence of the 'the West's' continued determination to act as an aggressor when it suits its purposes. That is how Russia as an overall entity views the ongoing momentum to push EU and/or NATO membership ever further east. That is their 'truth' which is clearly diametrically opposite to ours & that's a large part of the problem, coupled with growing Russian belief that 'the West' is deaf to the core of its concerns. The actions of various western powers in numerous non-western sovereign states over that period is hardly likely to reduce Russia's paranoia over 'the West's' ultimate aim. They see that as reducing Russia to a secondary power economically which will have a direct impact upon its ability to defend itself militarily. We may scoff at that as preposterous nonsense, as do the Russians when being accused of all sorts of cyber attacks etc. From a Russian perspective, the last 30-50 years is but the batting of an eyelid in the context of centuries of western aggression against them. Personally, I agree with you that the current fears of Putin's Russia are way off mark, but what can we expect from a leader who is a time-served, cold war, ranking KGB officer. At the same time, I see no fundamental problem with agreeing to a moratorium (not permanent ban) on any further eastern expansion of NATO, if that addresses Russia's fundamental demands & concerns. Who knows what the situation will be in 10 years time, after all. Maybe Ukraine et al will have no interest in joining NATO or EU To insist on that particular issue being 'the West's' red line (excuse the pun) looks like arrogant nonsense.
Funny that, as all of the many (ethinic) Russians I know (from Lithuania) despise 'Tsar' Putin, his enablers and all his works (a view they point out shared by their families' back in the Родина). They all view EU and NATO membership as vital for the various FSU countries' futures. For all of them the SU and the cold-war is where it should be - consigned to history. They actually see the end-game (decades away) of EU expansion as Russian membership... The New Guinea Courier's assessment of the role of 'our' Foreign Secretary's diplomacy:
Which is at odds with the views expressed to me by some (not all) of the people I met who worked for our Russian operation, but I take your point that it is a confused situation. I'm also not sure we should be too ready to extrapolate the views of people who no longer live in the country onto those of all those that do...and there are a lot of instances through history where experiences of those members of a grouping who have moved elsewhere can filter back & influence those back in the home territory. By the 'Russian view' I should have made it more clear that I was referring more to the 'Russian establishment view.' I did also draw a distinction between the EU & NATO, as I think the latter is the bigger irritant to Putin's regime.
Naah. So you don't think Johnson said that the Russian people didn't wan't war any more than the British people did? You think he stormed into the Kremlin, spat out his cigar and said we're coming for you? And we don't care how many of our own die. And it's OK for the Russians to put troops on the boarder but not the Ukranians? Supported by their allies. You think Ukraine should not have self determination, because it may upset the big bully Bear? Silly simplistic arguments that can equally be used to argue against the points you are making. Do you or Putin think that NATO wants to go to war with Russia? Any more than Russia wants to go to war with NATO. Either way, your argument becomes moot, because the reality is that both sides should get their heads sorted out and realise this is not the 19 Century. As for the silly "the Ukranians are fascists" argument, membership of NATO and closer ties with the rest of the world will temper that, as will not having an aggressive neighbour with a history of attacking your territories. But most hilariously, calling the Ukranians out as fascists, without doing the same to the Russians. Poor little innocent Russia, couldn't possibly be tainted by fascistic military leaders and a guy in charge who is happy for deadly substances to be used on his political enemies, and collaterally on uninvolved Britons, on the streets of the UK. Russia is not a communist state any more. It hardly ever was. There is, and always has been, more about them that is fascistic than communist. People's efforts, in my opinion, would be far better levelled at ALL parties involved to tell them to shut the F up and sort themselves out. Make love, make trade, f**k war.
I think this will stop short of all out war. It’s in everyone’s interest to look tough on either side, but all out war is a whole other matter. That’s not to say there couldn’t be a few skirmishes along the border. Probably famous last words and WW3 by teatime.
The next few days will be crucial but I can't see it resulting in WW3 whatever happens. I think an invasion is more likely than not now. But the west have indicated that they will not retaliate militarily but only through sanctions. As with the invasion of Crimea, Putin is unlikely to be put off by such threats imho. What he might find though is that Ukraine will be the next Chechnya for Russia. The people seem to be determined to defend their sovereignty and have the weapons to do so. Obviously they can't beat the Russian military in the short term but they are more than capable of making any occupation unsustainable for Putin. Hopefully you are right though and agreement can be found to de-escalate the current situation.
See that's the film - your average Russian has had a very detailed 'education' (from contemporary films not news media) of what the military battles /incursions in Great Patriotic War (WW2 to you and I), Afghanistan and Chechnya actually meant in body bags of 'their boys', 'damaged' squaddies coming back and urban terrorism on the sacred soil of the Родина. 'Liberating' Russian enclaves (areas with >90% ethnic Russian populations) is one thing - invading sovereign territories is something else. Don't forget within his actual population, even with the closure/censure of independent media, the harassment of political parties, and brainwashing of susceptible youth, the 'Tsar' isn't that popular - hence all these shows of Russian 'strength' against the 'West'...
That’s not even true. We haven’t reached this position over most of the former Eastern bloc. It’s drawing a line in the sand about how close NATO can get. How near does it need to get? Both sides need to compromise.
Every single state of the FSU and Eastern Europe has there own version of these cranks (with the exception of Belarus and Russia where they're in government). Also, the non-Slav states have officially recognised organisations that want to officially honour the various SS groups that were raised there as some sort of national heroes in the fight against communism (the Latvian one is very powerful and Lithuania wormed its way out of doing anything about to counter their activities by maintaining that their 'heroes' actions happened between the 1st and 2nd republics so the present government has no jurisdiction over them). Again the numbers of these cranks is small - especially when someone (in the Slavic countries) points out to the thugs wearing Nazi regalia and touting Nazi symbols the tragic history's their country's actually had under Nazi occupation.
Well, it’s at least arguable that the reorientation of the former Eastern bloc towards the EU and Western powers happened when Russia was weaker and less assertive than it has been since 2014. You don’t think what happened in the preceding 14 years inspired Putin’s sanctioning of the seizure of Crimea? I don’t see why NATO should limit its potential to expand further. As it stands Ukraine isn’t a member and isn’t likely to be any time soon anyway. And if NATO has been more of an active player in the region since 2014 Russia has only itself to blame (or, more likely, Russia has only achieved what it wanted all along, which was the (re)emergence of an adversarial force, even if it is in a largely defensive posture).
I read something quite interesting over the weekend written by some retired colonel or military strategist explaining why Russia would need far more than the 100,000 men they appear to have assembled if they are looking for a swift and successful invasion.
Isn’t the bigger issue that Russia is a secondary power economically, in large part because Putin the robber baron and pals have stolen two decades of national resources? And that if the music stops and everyone sits down for a bit they might just have time to pause for thought and contemplate that?
Crimea is completely different. Russia has a massive Naval base there. Giving that up would be like revolution in Scotland next week by UK hating Communists and we say ‘fine keep all the nukes and stuff’. Why should NATO limit itself? I dunno, to prevent war, because Ukraine is not the Atlantic even by US geographical standards? If the price for peace is kicking Ukrainian membership of NATO into the long grass, so be it. Do we really want to share intelligence and resources with its fascist militia anyway? Your post is every which way, Russia wrong, we can do what we like. Well no, that isn’t a real World strategy when we obviously won’t fight. so we need to understand their POV. Of course Russia shouldn’t invade. It’s run by deplorable gangsters who murder on British soil. But we can’t change Russia’s Government. Can’t beat them in a fight unless we want to go all in. Today needs face saving diplomacy all around.
Yes, I’m sure that’s right. 100,000 would be very quickly occupied by Ukraine’s army and its reservists. Though that doesn’t mean they don’t want some sort of a fight.
Russia tactically relies on access to Crimea, as it is the only year-round sea access they have. It had been planting its own population in Crimea for years so there was a strong pro Russia contingent offering no resistance when Russia moved in. Taking Ukraine would allow Russia to keep NATO further away from its borders if a war did break out. But it’s nowhere near as essential. The interesting question is why now? Obviously, post Covid, energy prices have risen and this is probably the most leverage it will have over Europe, perhaps ever again. I imagine Putin thought this would also reveal big splits in Nato. Especially given NATOs leaders are incredibly fragile. Boris and Biden’s popularity ratings are rock bottom and both are capable of embarrassing the West. Scholz is inexperienced and politically reliant on Russian gas. Russia has also spent the last decade or so trying to limit the impact of sanctions, so wouldn’t be as affected as it would have been previously. So Russia holds most of the cards and will look for something out of the situation. But as Ukraine is still a big risk, I imagine it would prefer successions to war. However, given this is a great opportunity for Biden and Boris to fly the flag and distract away from their poor domestic performance, they’re unlikely to get them publicly. The only thing that can save Ukraine will be a diplomatic solution which can make both sides feel like they’ve won. I’m not holding my breath.
Who said anything about the Russians having to give up their naval base? My point is, there were no NATO troops deployed anywhere in Eastern Europe until Putin seized Crimea. I’m sure the former Eastern bloc countries had their own boots near the borders but I understand we and other outsiders didn’t. There’s no Ukrainian membership of NATO, nor serious talk of it…you’re parroting a Putin talking point in presenting that as the real issue here. Still, maybe if we give Putin the Sudetenland Donbas region, accept his hold on Crimea and allow him to install a pro-Russian government in Kiev he’ll be completely satisfied and never trouble us again.
That was pretty much the gist of it - Russia will find themselves bogged down in another urban war against a well armed and highly motivated enemy which wouldn't play well at home for Vlad
Stand by our allies who are requesting our help while avoiding unnecessary provocations. If we can maintain a united front and make the cost too high Putin will relent. Sure, he may come back another day but we’ll deal with that then. @miked2006 is right that to a large extent this is an opportunist move by Putin in many ways.
I think you need to put the flesh on that. We are standing by Ukraine, offering diplomacy, economic sanctions and military aid. Is that it, or do you want something else, like boots on the ground? Because that will provoke.
As I understand it we (as in, the UK/US etc) have already been clear we're not committing fighting forces to Ukraine, which isn't a NATO member, and in fact we've just withdrawn the military technical advisors and logistics people we had over there in light of Russia's threatening posture. That seems like a sensible move to me. As a layman I think it's being handled relatively well by the NATO countries, personalities of the politicians involved aside. A lot of effort has gone into exposing Putin's playbook and highlighting things like his need for a false flag incident in Donbas as a pretext for sending in his 'peacekeepers'. That's good. And I'm not remotely against further concessions from our side once the short-term crisis is over. For example, there might be a way we can offer Russia a sense of security over Ukraine's likelihood of ever being admitted to NATO in this generation. But I don't agree that sort of diplomacy should be carried out at gun point and that's how I see things currently. Putin wants to play the strong man. I dare say at some point, as has always happened in history, if the strong man is to back down our side will need to contrive a way to let him do so publicly while saving face, and extract any guarantees we need behind the scenes. That's fine by me too. But in the meantime lets not 'both sides' this too much. The Russian POV is not irrelevant but that doesn't mean we have to let it take precedence over our own interests and those of the Eastern bloc countries.
Ok, I don’t think we are far apart on this, simply coming from a different angle. I’m certainly not proposing that the Russians get everything they want. We just need to understand its sensitivities around its Western flank.
