esteban wrote:
Realistically, if they had agreed on neutrality and ceding Crimea and Donbas/Luhansk (which would probably be the end result of this fiasco/tragedy anyway) at the beginning, they would have been much better off. Well, too late for that.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I used to think that way too. No longer, now that we hear from people like Medvedev that their ambition is all of Europe under their rule. (I found some articles about this by now).
As I said to Peter, read the original, and think a bit about what is being said and at what context. I find it difficult to understand how people can at the same time believe that Russia is totally incompetent and will lose in Ukraine, and and the same time believe that they are still plotting to take the whole Europe. Some 1984 – level doublethink there.
Similarly the often quoted Putin’s words that ‘The worst thing to happen was the dissolution of Soviet Union’ (conveniently interpreted as ‘his goal is to rebuild Soviet Union’) are never in western media followed by the words that followed: ‘as that left tens of millions of ethnic Russians without home’ (in often hostile nationalistic countries) – roughly paraphrasing from memory. Slightly changes the interpretation, doesn’t it? It also might put in a slightly different perspective the Putin’s aggressions (Pridnestrie, Abchazia, South Osetia, Crimea, Donbas) – exclusively areas with strong ethnic russian population. Extrapolations to Finland/Sweden are really way off mark…
A much better argument would have been that before the war Russia was pushing for a wider buffer (at least regarding significant military bases and missile sites) including also the Baltics and mere Ukrainian concessions would have not satisfied them. I can buy that. It is now also utterly irrelevant, we can’t turn the clock back.
What is relevant is finding a way to stop the shooting a.s.a.p. so the suffering and death is minimized. That won’t happen while both sides believe they can militarily get into better negotiating position or that offering the other side a way out is simply unacceptable because they are evil/nazis.
Peter wrote:
My view is that liberty should be defended regardless of cost – if at all feasible.
I would be probably labeled coward, but my view is that maximalistic statements like ‘regardless of cost’ are in reality never such.
After all, you can regain your liberty, but you will never regain your life.
And the liberty is never totally black and white either. You are aware that Ukraine has banned essentially all opposition parties and consolidated all TVs into one central state TV, right? Nothwistanding the erosion of liberties in the west….
Peter wrote:
That depends on how well you defended it
Well, we will see, unfortunately. Taking all your sources only from one side that is desperately trying to shore-up its fighting spirit by permitting only positive stories might paint a picture that does not fully reflect the reality. I hope you are aware of that.
Peter wrote:
I was referring to the bit before: “we are invading all of Ukraine, if you try to stop us we will nuke you, and once we have Ukraine we will continue and invade every other non-NATO country, like Finland, Sweden, etc”. That was pretty obvious, because once you threaten nukes (as he explicitly did) you are giving notice that you will do whatever you want – because nobody wants a nuclear war. Ukraine 1st, all the rest of the former USSR 2nd, and then take your pick…
I was also referring exactly to that. And no, it does not logically follow. You need to add an axiom that Putin is an evil dictator that wants to rebuild the Soviet Union way past its former borders and nothing short of brute force will stop him.
My world does not contain that axiom, your’s obviously does, so let’s agree to disagree on that.
Sure; let’s get back to talking about flying 
Slovakia must have some!
If anyone is under any illusion what Russia is planning in Ukraine I suggest a read of this. In German.
Peter wrote:
China much less likely to grab Taiwan (zero gain to them, but huge cost due to any sanctions)
The gain for China would be the same as the gain for Russia in attacking Ukraine: recovering “lost” territory. The eventual unification of the two Chinas has been a constant in mainland-Chinese policy
On the other hand, Chinese leaders are much more pragmatic than the Kremlin, so I do agree that it is now less likely that they’ll attempt something.
The PRC regards the ROC (Taiwan) as part of the PRC. I think the ROC plays along by not provoking the mainland, and in terms of chinese history whether the status quo changes in one or two hundred years is not a problem. If, however, the ROC elected an un pragmatic, unstable regime, this situation might change.
The PRC has such overwhelming strength in any contest in this theatre, that it is not worth risking a war over ROC (passim Sun Tzu)
172driver wrote:
If anyone is under any illusion what Russia is planning in Ukraine I suggest a read of this.
The manipulation and indoctrination of the Russian people is obvious and not surprising. The bad news in it is that way too many also outside Russia choose to believe it and there are more and more politicians and political groups turning towards Putin rather than away from him. And worse than that, not because they are manipulated by the Russians (that manipulation is almost non existent outside Russia) but because they in principle have similar goals to do away with liberty and create fashist states with total control over the media and de facto one party rule. Some of those are looking at Putin as a mere role model while regarding Russia as the enemy nr 1 still, others fully sign up on the Russian agenda and are actually favoring a Russian controlled Europe over a US/West/NATO controlled one.
The conclusion of the article leaves few room for speculation and the only way a total anihilation of Ukraine and the further expansion of Russias agressions elsewhere can be stopped or at least delayed is through a thorough defeat in Ukraine followed by a massive expansion of force in Europe to stifle any attempts to use military power to invade other places.
Where I don’t agree with the article is the presumptinon that most of the Russian population are mindless butchers as it suggests. The “support” for the war has a lot to do with propaganda but even more so by the deep rooted anxiety common within people with authoritarian regimes that saying one wrong word will kill you and your family or at the very least stifle any ambitions you have for a half ways good life. People in general are not activists and freedom fighters, all they want is to have decent work and rise their families without too much hassle. For many this means never mind the politics as long as we are left in peace. So we either swing red or blue flags, whatever is asked of us, pray to God or pray to Lenin, who cares. We have seen these things all over the place, be it in Germany in the 1930ties, US in the anti communist purges of the 1950ties, in China under Mao and his little red book and we see it to an extent even in the West with oppressive movements and cancel culture which stifle any form of conflicting argument with vicious attacks.
And while this article is one of many, I think it still shows where we are headed. Russia will probably loose the war with Ukraine as much as they lost Afghanistan but they will retain parts of Ukraine. If they really want to anihilate Ukraine no matter how, they only have the nuclear or chemical option to decapitate Ukraine with the total irreversible destruction of Kiev. Should they do that, it is anyone’s guess what will happen next. Will the West retaliate and risk the full nuclear confrontation? All we can do is wait and see.
Peter wrote:
My view is that liberty should be defended regardless of cost – if at all feasible.
It’s the if at all feasible which I suppose is the main topic of discussion within NATO high command and the western leadership.
Everything is feasible short of nuclear confrontation. That is basically the story here. Imagine Russia without nukes: I am absolutely positive that without the nuclear threat NATO would be fully involved in Ukraine now.
Peter wrote:
What will happen in Russia depends. Probably Putin will be deposed, but, like Krushchev, not right away; the humiliation takes time to sink in (1962, 2022 respectively).
You know the same hopeful thinking happened in the 1930ties when the later Allies thought that someone would surely get rid of Hitler for them. In the end, they had to conquer the whole of Germany before Hitler got deposed. With the support Putin has within Russia, I don’t see anyone deposing him unless their own leadership starts fearing for their skins, and even if they do, what follows may be better but probably won’t be.
I suppose that the way things are going we are going to face a new semi-cold war (as it is hot already in some places) with a stalemate as before and isolation even stronger than during the cold war before, i.e. Russia vs West becoming isolated much as North Korea is, however with a large piece of the world still wanting to trade and support them through the back door. Peace time is over, quite possibly for many decades.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Where I don’t agree with the article is the presumptinon that most of the Russian population are mindless butchers as it suggests.
They are VERY scared of NATO, even beyond very scared.
There are IMO several things to bear in mind here. Regardless of what is in Putin’s mind for the future, in the minds of the Western world, in general the invasion of another sovereign nation by force is wrong.
Ukraine is by any measure the underdog. The Western mentality is to support the underdog.
Why should Ukraine be forced to give up any sovereign territory to a bully?
Esteban quotes says that at least the Ukraniens would still be alive if they had simply ceded the Donbass and Crimea to Russia.
Can that be guaranteed? And do people who have had a taste for freedom really want to live under the control of a despot?
I see my thoughts about staining troops in the Chernobyl area have proved founded.Many of the Russian troops who were stationed in the red forest are now ill.
The problem is that Putin may well be a good poker player or he may just be as mad as Caligula. Therefore the world has to consider the nuclear threat as real, even though a tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine, risks causing more long term damage to Eastern Ukraine, Russia and Belorussia, plus making large area of Ukraine, uninhabitable for many many years, in the same way as Chernobyl is uninhabitable.
Mother nature and her prevailing winds will have the last say in this.
This would still be the case whether or not the West decides to retaliate the minute the first nuclear warhead is launched.
Only Putin or the people who surround him can stop this conflict or escalation now. And as I have said that depends on whether he is thinking logically and in the best interests of the people of Russia or if he is as mad as a hatter.
The Russian people of Crimea are reported to be wishing they never asked Russia in. Their tourist trade has been ruined this year. But that could be fake news.
