| Ukraine 23:51 - Sep 9 with 76080 views | MrSheen |
Posted with some trepidation as I know Clive doesn’t like multis. Understandably overlooked by the national media, but it seems like the Russians are completely caving in, rope-a-doped as effectively as von Paulus in 1942. Who knows what this might lead to? |  | | |  |
| Ukraine on 16:17 - Sep 12 with 3215 views | johann28 |
| Ukraine on 12:21 - Sep 12 by kensalriser |
It's hard to see how there will be any meaningful peace negotiations while Putin is still in charge. |
Indeed - and you get the sneaking, terrifying suspicion that if the Russians are pushed back Putin will start threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons, which will require delicate handling to say the least.
But I'm also getting the feeling that the US don't want to negotiate either (maybe there's stuff happening that we don't know about, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that the US are encouraging a ceasefire pending discussions for example). I can't help thinking that it suits the US for Russia to be involved in a long war of attrition so that it is weakened economically. |  | | |
| Ukraine on 16:26 - Sep 12 with 3165 views | CiderwithRsie |
| Ukraine on 12:21 - Sep 12 by kensalriser |
It's hard to see how there will be any meaningful peace negotiations while Putin is still in charge. |
Yes, and the other point is, just what gets negotiated?
It's not like Northern Ireland, where both sides gave a bit and got a bit. Putin's invaded another country and committed mass murder and torture. Where's the give-and-take? "OK, you can take 10% of our country and rape 1% of our women." "No, dammit, I want 20% and 5% of the women," "How about 15% but no rapes?"
What exactly is Russia bringing to the table on the negotiations? Pinky promise not to do it again? Or are we negotiating the size of the reparations they have to pay? Because I don't see them signing up to that. |  | | |
| Ukraine on 16:39 - Sep 12 with 3152 views | johann28 |
| Ukraine on 16:26 - Sep 12 by CiderwithRsie |
Yes, and the other point is, just what gets negotiated?
It's not like Northern Ireland, where both sides gave a bit and got a bit. Putin's invaded another country and committed mass murder and torture. Where's the give-and-take? "OK, you can take 10% of our country and rape 1% of our women." "No, dammit, I want 20% and 5% of the women," "How about 15% but no rapes?"
What exactly is Russia bringing to the table on the negotiations? Pinky promise not to do it again? Or are we negotiating the size of the reparations they have to pay? Because I don't see them signing up to that. |
I suspect negotiations will involve the issue of neutrality rather than territory, and specifically some assurances that it won't join NATO (Zelensky has made noises about this, as it happens, but so far there's little evidence of the US wanting discussions to this effect). This was the official Ukrainian position until 2014 when the constitution was changed to say that Ukraine would like to join - that was obviously a result of Russia annexing Crimea, and starting a war in the Donbas, when they felt much more threatened by Russia. So, today, when Zelensky talks about neutrality he might mean that Ukraine will reluctantly agree that it doesn’t have an aspiration to join NATO, but in return for that, what Zelensky will want–and this is where it gets problematic to say the least–are security guarantees. | | | |
| Ukraine on 17:02 - Sep 12 with 3078 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Ukraine on 16:26 - Sep 12 by CiderwithRsie |
Yes, and the other point is, just what gets negotiated?
It's not like Northern Ireland, where both sides gave a bit and got a bit. Putin's invaded another country and committed mass murder and torture. Where's the give-and-take? "OK, you can take 10% of our country and rape 1% of our women." "No, dammit, I want 20% and 5% of the women," "How about 15% but no rapes?"
What exactly is Russia bringing to the table on the negotiations? Pinky promise not to do it again? Or are we negotiating the size of the reparations they have to pay? Because I don't see them signing up to that. |
The give and take will always be over the Donbas and the Crimea, and a assurance on a EU and NATO free buffer state in what’s left of Ukraine I expect.
Edit: Sorry Johan, started writing before you posted but finished after so didn’t see your post. [Post edited 12 Sep 2022 17:04]
|  | | |
| Ukraine on 19:22 - Sep 12 with 2911 views | VancouverHoop |
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/ukraine-russia-putin-kharkiv-k
The link might be behind a paywall, so I've pasted the concluding paragraphs below. It's by Phillips Payson O’Brien professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews.
"The Ukrainians wrote a script, and the Russians played their assigned role. Unlike Kherson, where the invaders had massed forces and set up a multilayered defense, Kharkiv Oblast was thinly protected by the Russian forces. The Ukrainians were thus easily able to break Russian lines, which seem to have been held by poorly motivated and trained forces, and streak deep behind them. To give their forces the best chance to succeed, the Ukrainians also seem to have built up a substantial, fast-moving strike force. Without allowing details of their preparations to leak out–Ukrainian sources have disclosed little if any information valuable to Russia–they seem to have constructed a number of specialized combat brigades with lighter, faster wheeled vehicles. This has allowed them a crucial mobility advantage over their enemy.
Though the war is far from over and Russia can find new ways to punish Ukraine, collapsing Russian forces have not only been pushed back; in abandoning their former headquarters in Izium, they also left behind large stores of equipment and ammunition that the Ukrainians can now use against them. Even if the Russians stabilize the line in the coming days, they will be in a far worse position than they were on September 1. Building on months of careful efforts to both prepare Ukrainian forces and waste Russian ones, Ukraine has achieved a strategic masterstroke that military scholars will study for decades to come." | | | |
| Ukraine on 19:49 - Sep 12 with 2852 views | davman |
| Ukraine on 19:22 - Sep 12 by VancouverHoop |
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/ukraine-russia-putin-kharkiv-k
The link might be behind a paywall, so I've pasted the concluding paragraphs below. It's by Phillips Payson O’Brien professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews.
"The Ukrainians wrote a script, and the Russians played their assigned role. Unlike Kherson, where the invaders had massed forces and set up a multilayered defense, Kharkiv Oblast was thinly protected by the Russian forces. The Ukrainians were thus easily able to break Russian lines, which seem to have been held by poorly motivated and trained forces, and streak deep behind them. To give their forces the best chance to succeed, the Ukrainians also seem to have built up a substantial, fast-moving strike force. Without allowing details of their preparations to leak out–Ukrainian sources have disclosed little if any information valuable to Russia–they seem to have constructed a number of specialized combat brigades with lighter, faster wheeled vehicles. This has allowed them a crucial mobility advantage over their enemy.
Though the war is far from over and Russia can find new ways to punish Ukraine, collapsing Russian forces have not only been pushed back; in abandoning their former headquarters in Izium, they also left behind large stores of equipment and ammunition that the Ukrainians can now use against them. Even if the Russians stabilize the line in the coming days, they will be in a far worse position than they were on September 1. Building on months of careful efforts to both prepare Ukrainian forces and waste Russian ones, Ukraine has achieved a strategic masterstroke that military scholars will study for decades to come." |
Still confused, like others alluded to earlier in this thread, why Russia's air force has been quiet. ALL modern warfare is won through Air Superiority, so the lack of it seems just odd... |  |
| |
| Ukraine on 19:57 - Sep 12 with 2819 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Ukraine on 19:49 - Sep 12 by davman |
Still confused, like others alluded to earlier in this thread, why Russia's air force has been quiet. ALL modern warfare is won through Air Superiority, so the lack of it seems just odd... |
Maybe we the ones we sold them are duds
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-28438004 | | | |
| Ukraine on 20:07 - Sep 12 with 2792 views | CiderwithRsie |
| Ukraine on 17:02 - Sep 12 by BazzaInTheLoft |
The give and take will always be over the Donbas and the Crimea, and a assurance on a EU and NATO free buffer state in what’s left of Ukraine I expect.
Edit: Sorry Johan, started writing before you posted but finished after so didn’t see your post. [Post edited 12 Sep 2022 17:04]
|
What exactly is the "give" from Russia in that scenario? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ukraine on 20:10 - Sep 12 with 2783 views | Ranger_Things |
| Ukraine on 19:49 - Sep 12 by davman |
Still confused, like others alluded to earlier in this thread, why Russia's air force has been quiet. ALL modern warfare is won through Air Superiority, so the lack of it seems just odd... |
My guess would be that the surface to air missiles used by both sides have caused so many losses it is no longer practical. |  | | |
| Ukraine on 20:12 - Sep 12 with 2785 views | VancouverHoop |
| Ukraine on 19:49 - Sep 12 by davman |
Still confused, like others alluded to earlier in this thread, why Russia's air force has been quiet. ALL modern warfare is won through Air Superiority, so the lack of it seems just odd... |
From an earlier article by Payson O'Brien in The Atlantic.
Airpower is potentially decisive in any war, but difficult to wield effectively. Air forces are dependent on an array of technologies that require highly trained personnel who can quickly set up what amounts to an airborne military ecosystem: airborne radar stations to provide command and control, fighters to protect and police the skies, refueling aircraft to keep everyone full of gas, electronic-warfare planes to keep enemy defenses suppressed, and a range of intelligence-gatherers and attack aircraft to locate and destroy enemy forces. These sorts of combined operations involve hundreds of aircraft and thousands of people in a tightly choreographed dance that takes a lifetime to master. But when managed correctly, these overlapping operations allow a military to dominate the skies, making life much easier for the ground or naval forces below.
Unfortunately for the Russians, the recent modernization of the Russian air force, although intended to enable it to conduct modern combined operations, was mostly for show. The Russians wasted money and effort on corruption and inefficiency. Though much was made of the flashy new equipment, such as the much-hyped SU-34 strike aircraft, the Russian air force continues to suffer from flawed logistics operations and the lack of regular, realistic training. Above all, the autocratic Russian kleptocracy does not trust low-ranking and middle-ranking officers, and so cannot allow the imaginative, flexible decision making that NATO air forces rely upon.
All this meant that when the invasion started, the Russian air force was incapable of running a well-thought-out, complex campaign. Instead of working to control the skies, Russia’s air force has mostly provided air support to ground troops or bombed Ukrainian cities. In this it has followed the traditional tactics of a continental power that privileges land forces. Focusing on ground troops can work if you have almost endless numbers of soldiers and are prepared to lose them. But so wedded is Russia to its history of successes on the ground that it fails to understand the importance of airpower. | | | |
| Ukraine on 20:18 - Sep 12 with 2765 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Ukraine on 20:07 - Sep 12 by CiderwithRsie |
What exactly is the "give" from Russia in that scenario? |
Ending the war I guess. Maybe deals on energy security.
They hold a lot of the cards. [Post edited 12 Sep 2022 20:21]
| | | |
| Ukraine on 20:25 - Sep 12 with 2753 views | MrSheen |
| Ukraine on 20:18 - Sep 12 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Ending the war I guess. Maybe deals on energy security.
They hold a lot of the cards. [Post edited 12 Sep 2022 20:21]
|
Should Ukraine insist on getting their civilians back, or is that asking too much? | | | |
| Ukraine on 20:43 - Sep 12 with 2709 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Ukraine on 20:25 - Sep 12 by MrSheen |
Should Ukraine insist on getting their civilians back, or is that asking too much? |
Of course. Isn’t a prisoner exchange part of every peace deal?
The West (via Ukraine) could well win this war militarily and concede nothing to Russia, force Putin out and throne a Yeltsin type, but that’s going to mean more energy and food market stress in the short to medium term and the same belligerent Russia in the long term.
The truth is governments are more scared of their domestic pressures than their international ones and military aid is already drying up as Ukraine slips off the agenda and fuel bills slip onto it.
This conflict is nearly 9 years old. It’s not ending any time soon. | | | |
| Ukraine on 21:19 - Sep 12 with 2657 views | ted_hendrix |
| Ukraine on 20:12 - Sep 12 by VancouverHoop |
From an earlier article by Payson O'Brien in The Atlantic.
Airpower is potentially decisive in any war, but difficult to wield effectively. Air forces are dependent on an array of technologies that require highly trained personnel who can quickly set up what amounts to an airborne military ecosystem: airborne radar stations to provide command and control, fighters to protect and police the skies, refueling aircraft to keep everyone full of gas, electronic-warfare planes to keep enemy defenses suppressed, and a range of intelligence-gatherers and attack aircraft to locate and destroy enemy forces. These sorts of combined operations involve hundreds of aircraft and thousands of people in a tightly choreographed dance that takes a lifetime to master. But when managed correctly, these overlapping operations allow a military to dominate the skies, making life much easier for the ground or naval forces below.
Unfortunately for the Russians, the recent modernization of the Russian air force, although intended to enable it to conduct modern combined operations, was mostly for show. The Russians wasted money and effort on corruption and inefficiency. Though much was made of the flashy new equipment, such as the much-hyped SU-34 strike aircraft, the Russian air force continues to suffer from flawed logistics operations and the lack of regular, realistic training. Above all, the autocratic Russian kleptocracy does not trust low-ranking and middle-ranking officers, and so cannot allow the imaginative, flexible decision making that NATO air forces rely upon.
All this meant that when the invasion started, the Russian air force was incapable of running a well-thought-out, complex campaign. Instead of working to control the skies, Russia’s air force has mostly provided air support to ground troops or bombed Ukrainian cities. In this it has followed the traditional tactics of a continental power that privileges land forces. Focusing on ground troops can work if you have almost endless numbers of soldiers and are prepared to lose them. But so wedded is Russia to its history of successes on the ground that it fails to understand the importance of airpower. |
I'm not sure how accurate or reliable the Oryx blog is but It's quite extensive and by all acounts the latest SU-34 was shot down on Sunday (according to the Ukranian military)
The Oryx blog, which counts Russian military equipment losses in Ukraine based on
photographs sent from the front lines, has reported that the Russian Armed Forces has lost at least 11 Su-34 strike aircraft since Russia began an invasion of Ukraine.
11 Su-34 strike aircraft: (1, destroyed) (2, destroyed) (3, destroyed) (4, destroyed) (5, destroyed) (6, destroyed) (7, destroyed) (8, destroyed) (9, destroyed) (10, destroyed) (11, destroyed)
1 Su-34M strike aircraft: (1, destroyed) |  |
| My Father had a profound influence on me, he was a lunatic. |
| |
| Ukraine on 21:36 - Sep 12 with 2611 views | CiderwithRsie |
| Ukraine on 20:18 - Sep 12 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Ending the war I guess. Maybe deals on energy security.
They hold a lot of the cards. [Post edited 12 Sep 2022 20:21]
|
Well, no they don't, but let it go, that will become obvious from events (it should already have done.)
But that's not a concession by Russia anyway. It's automatic in any peace settlement so given before you start negotiations. And the fundamental problem then is that anything they get in return amounts to a reward for starting the war in the first place.
I'm not trying to make some poncy moral point about Evil Empires, it's a matter of how security works. If Russia gets anything out of the war it started just for stopping, that is an incentive to do it again (and if Ukraine is weakened by the concessions, e.g. on NATO or EU, or loss of territory, it makes it easier for them to do so.) This isn't theoretical, the fact that the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea left Russia stronger is clearly a factor in Putin thinking a bigger invasion would yield a bigger reward.
And of course it doesn't just apply to Russia but to anyone else, it makes e.g. a Chinese invasion of Taiwan more likely. You can make a similar point about various US invasions, and the counter example that after losing in Afghanistan they're a sight less likely to do it again, it's just how these things work.
It's like the Falklands - before the invasion we were open to negotiating on sovereignty. After it, no way. Frankly this war will end the same way. | | | |
| Ukraine on 21:57 - Sep 12 with 2536 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Ukraine on 21:36 - Sep 12 by CiderwithRsie |
Well, no they don't, but let it go, that will become obvious from events (it should already have done.)
But that's not a concession by Russia anyway. It's automatic in any peace settlement so given before you start negotiations. And the fundamental problem then is that anything they get in return amounts to a reward for starting the war in the first place.
I'm not trying to make some poncy moral point about Evil Empires, it's a matter of how security works. If Russia gets anything out of the war it started just for stopping, that is an incentive to do it again (and if Ukraine is weakened by the concessions, e.g. on NATO or EU, or loss of territory, it makes it easier for them to do so.) This isn't theoretical, the fact that the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea left Russia stronger is clearly a factor in Putin thinking a bigger invasion would yield a bigger reward.
And of course it doesn't just apply to Russia but to anyone else, it makes e.g. a Chinese invasion of Taiwan more likely. You can make a similar point about various US invasions, and the counter example that after losing in Afghanistan they're a sight less likely to do it again, it's just how these things work.
It's like the Falklands - before the invasion we were open to negotiating on sovereignty. After it, no way. Frankly this war will end the same way. |
In this situation, you can hold the moral high ground or you can have peace. Not both.
It’s frustrating but that’s how it is.
I’m not going to demand a major Western military push when I’m not the one putting on a flak jacket.
We allowed Russia to be the aggressor in Chechnya, Georgia, and Abkhazia without interference because it suited us or we had no strategic interests there. The opportunities to contain Russia have gone.
We created this Russia, we put Putin in power, we armed them, and we (actually Ukraine) are paying the price for it.
This could all have been averted long ago. Lots of re writing of history.
Sorry I don’t have the answer just some points with hindsight. If you don’t like this point, you should also take it up with the security services too.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mi6-regrets-helping-vladimir-putin-to-get-ele [Post edited 12 Sep 2022 22:12]
| | | |
| Ukraine on 22:16 - Sep 12 with 2501 views | davman |
| Ukraine on 20:12 - Sep 12 by VancouverHoop |
From an earlier article by Payson O'Brien in The Atlantic.
Airpower is potentially decisive in any war, but difficult to wield effectively. Air forces are dependent on an array of technologies that require highly trained personnel who can quickly set up what amounts to an airborne military ecosystem: airborne radar stations to provide command and control, fighters to protect and police the skies, refueling aircraft to keep everyone full of gas, electronic-warfare planes to keep enemy defenses suppressed, and a range of intelligence-gatherers and attack aircraft to locate and destroy enemy forces. These sorts of combined operations involve hundreds of aircraft and thousands of people in a tightly choreographed dance that takes a lifetime to master. But when managed correctly, these overlapping operations allow a military to dominate the skies, making life much easier for the ground or naval forces below.
Unfortunately for the Russians, the recent modernization of the Russian air force, although intended to enable it to conduct modern combined operations, was mostly for show. The Russians wasted money and effort on corruption and inefficiency. Though much was made of the flashy new equipment, such as the much-hyped SU-34 strike aircraft, the Russian air force continues to suffer from flawed logistics operations and the lack of regular, realistic training. Above all, the autocratic Russian kleptocracy does not trust low-ranking and middle-ranking officers, and so cannot allow the imaginative, flexible decision making that NATO air forces rely upon.
All this meant that when the invasion started, the Russian air force was incapable of running a well-thought-out, complex campaign. Instead of working to control the skies, Russia’s air force has mostly provided air support to ground troops or bombed Ukrainian cities. In this it has followed the traditional tactics of a continental power that privileges land forces. Focusing on ground troops can work if you have almost endless numbers of soldiers and are prepared to lose them. But so wedded is Russia to its history of successes on the ground that it fails to understand the importance of airpower. |
Wow, if that is true (and why would I know any different?), Russia really is a backwater here in terms of military strategy. If its policy is all about throwing numbers at ground and infantry attacks, then this war will never go anywhere and the debate will be all about what Putin does when backed into a corner **shudder**.
You got to hope that no matter how "deranged" the Western Media make him out to be that either he or his advisors stops short of a trigger to Mutually Assured Destruction (funny how that acronym is MAD, eh?). | |
| |
| Ukraine on 22:30 - Sep 12 with 2453 views | ted_hendrix |
| Ukraine on 22:16 - Sep 12 by davman |
Wow, if that is true (and why would I know any different?), Russia really is a backwater here in terms of military strategy. If its policy is all about throwing numbers at ground and infantry attacks, then this war will never go anywhere and the debate will be all about what Putin does when backed into a corner **shudder**.
You got to hope that no matter how "deranged" the Western Media make him out to be that either he or his advisors stops short of a trigger to Mutually Assured Destruction (funny how that acronym is MAD, eh?). |
Russia will not use a single nuclear strike on Ukraine, absolutely not. | |
| My Father had a profound influence on me, he was a lunatic. |
| |
| Ukraine on 23:01 - Sep 12 with 2384 views | CiderwithRsie |
| Ukraine on 21:57 - Sep 12 by BazzaInTheLoft |
In this situation, you can hold the moral high ground or you can have peace. Not both.
It’s frustrating but that’s how it is.
I’m not going to demand a major Western military push when I’m not the one putting on a flak jacket.
We allowed Russia to be the aggressor in Chechnya, Georgia, and Abkhazia without interference because it suited us or we had no strategic interests there. The opportunities to contain Russia have gone.
We created this Russia, we put Putin in power, we armed them, and we (actually Ukraine) are paying the price for it.
This could all have been averted long ago. Lots of re writing of history.
Sorry I don’t have the answer just some points with hindsight. If you don’t like this point, you should also take it up with the security services too.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mi6-regrets-helping-vladimir-putin-to-get-ele [Post edited 12 Sep 2022 22:12]
|
Me: "I'm not making a poncy moral point:
You: "Blah, moral high ground, blah, all our fault, blah hindsight blah blame MI6"
Sorry Bazza, this is why the left is so rubbish at foreign policy.
And the "Western military push" flak-jacket thing is hogwash, absolutely bloody no-one suggests Western troops shooting at Russians as it would start WW3 and quite clearly the Ukrainians don't need us to, they want our cash and weapons. The price in blood is ghastly and any time they want to stop or compromise I won't say a word against it, but let's not sit here telling them they have to compromise for their own good. | | | |
| Ukraine on 23:15 - Sep 12 with 2343 views | CiderwithRsie |
In hindsight Bazza that was a bit aggressive of me.I'm not going to delete it because I think I need to make the point that I think you're going off on irrelevances.
The substantive point is that we'd all like to see peace in Ukraine.
But people who say "Ukraine should compromise" mean Ukraine should appease. There's absolutely no difference between Donbas now and Sudetenland 1938.1938 wasn't just immoral (though it was) it also failed practically. Same here, except that in this case Russia's losing the war already. | | | |
| Ukraine on 23:45 - Sep 12 with 2294 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Ukraine on 23:15 - Sep 12 by CiderwithRsie |
In hindsight Bazza that was a bit aggressive of me.I'm not going to delete it because I think I need to make the point that I think you're going off on irrelevances.
The substantive point is that we'd all like to see peace in Ukraine.
But people who say "Ukraine should compromise" mean Ukraine should appease. There's absolutely no difference between Donbas now and Sudetenland 1938.1938 wasn't just immoral (though it was) it also failed practically. Same here, except that in this case Russia's losing the war already. |
No it’s fine mate, you wasn’t aggressive. I’m a big boy and very used to airing minority views anyway.
I can tell the different between genuinely held opinions and head banging and I appreciate your point of view which is why I bother to reply.
The Left’s view should always be self determination. I just don’t think that’s entirely what this is.
I’m not pro Russian, communist, anti West, self hating or any of the other things I’ve been accused of. I just see things differently mostly through the prism my work which was probably makes me overly sceptical in the opposite direction sometimes.
Putin is a war criminal but the West’s role in his creation, enablement, and continued power is the main reason we are where we are. I don’t see that being said very much which is why I repeat it, but it’s demonstrably true. That doesn’t detract from the ultimate crime of launching a war of aggression though.
Ukraine is a state that has been pushed and pulled by various Western and Russian coups for the last thirty two years. It was very far from a sovereign state long before this war started in 2014 and the view of Ukrainians is not unified. A working class pro Russian from Donetsk will not hold the same view as a middle class liberal from Lviv.
Your comparison of Donbas and the Sudetenland is accurate, especially in that it’s original ceding was careless as well as the aggressive and illegal nature of it’s invasion.
Nevertheless I wish the people peace.
That’s the summary of my thoughts really. I don’t have the answer, but I feel neither does the West or Russia.
Neither Washington or Moscow. [Post edited 13 Sep 2022 0:17]
| | | |
| Ukraine on 11:38 - Sep 13 with 1933 views | CiderwithRsie |
| Ukraine on 23:45 - Sep 12 by BazzaInTheLoft |
No it’s fine mate, you wasn’t aggressive. I’m a big boy and very used to airing minority views anyway.
I can tell the different between genuinely held opinions and head banging and I appreciate your point of view which is why I bother to reply.
The Left’s view should always be self determination. I just don’t think that’s entirely what this is.
I’m not pro Russian, communist, anti West, self hating or any of the other things I’ve been accused of. I just see things differently mostly through the prism my work which was probably makes me overly sceptical in the opposite direction sometimes.
Putin is a war criminal but the West’s role in his creation, enablement, and continued power is the main reason we are where we are. I don’t see that being said very much which is why I repeat it, but it’s demonstrably true. That doesn’t detract from the ultimate crime of launching a war of aggression though.
Ukraine is a state that has been pushed and pulled by various Western and Russian coups for the last thirty two years. It was very far from a sovereign state long before this war started in 2014 and the view of Ukrainians is not unified. A working class pro Russian from Donetsk will not hold the same view as a middle class liberal from Lviv.
Your comparison of Donbas and the Sudetenland is accurate, especially in that it’s original ceding was careless as well as the aggressive and illegal nature of it’s invasion.
Nevertheless I wish the people peace.
That’s the summary of my thoughts really. I don’t have the answer, but I feel neither does the West or Russia.
Neither Washington or Moscow. [Post edited 13 Sep 2022 0:17]
|
Fair play Bazza.
I take your point that the West is not blameless but I think you are denying a lot of agency to both Russians and Ukrainians in this. Putin is not a weird aberration imposed by the West, he's bang in the Russian authoritarian tradition (as he constantly reminds us with his Red Army nostalgia every May Day and simultaneous guardsmen dressed up in Tsarist uniforms.) I think history has made Russia a society which has never matured to accept the possibility of democratic politics, it's either anarchy or "Strong Man."
While the answer to Ukraine doesn't lie in Moscow or Washington but in Kyiv. Of course you're right that not everyone in Ukraine holds the same views but the idea that the Donbas is full of pro-Russian miners is actually one of the reasons the Russia is in trouble, they thought they'd be welcomed but found partisans. I think the experience of war and occupation has forced a lot of people who felt dual loyalty to choose one side and they're mainly choosing Ukraine.
(Interesting mini-series on R4 a few months back from eastern Estonia, where there are similar issues. Broadly the old were pro-Russia and Soviet-nostalgic, the middle-aged were torn but quite sympathetic to Putin, the young were unequivocally anti-Putin, pro-Estonia and Ukraine, and saw their future as a normal EU country. This was the Russian-speakers, the Estonian speakers were all virulently anti-Soviet.) | | | |
| Ukraine on 11:57 - Sep 13 with 1877 views | Juzzie |
"Broadly the old were pro-Russia and Soviet-nostalgic, the middle-aged were torn but quite sympathetic to Putin, the young were unequivocally anti-Putin......"
This is how it's been in my household (first two demographics) for 6+ months, been very difficult sometimes. |  | | |
| Ukraine on 12:31 - Sep 13 with 1803 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Ukraine on 11:38 - Sep 13 by CiderwithRsie |
Fair play Bazza.
I take your point that the West is not blameless but I think you are denying a lot of agency to both Russians and Ukrainians in this. Putin is not a weird aberration imposed by the West, he's bang in the Russian authoritarian tradition (as he constantly reminds us with his Red Army nostalgia every May Day and simultaneous guardsmen dressed up in Tsarist uniforms.) I think history has made Russia a society which has never matured to accept the possibility of democratic politics, it's either anarchy or "Strong Man."
While the answer to Ukraine doesn't lie in Moscow or Washington but in Kyiv. Of course you're right that not everyone in Ukraine holds the same views but the idea that the Donbas is full of pro-Russian miners is actually one of the reasons the Russia is in trouble, they thought they'd be welcomed but found partisans. I think the experience of war and occupation has forced a lot of people who felt dual loyalty to choose one side and they're mainly choosing Ukraine.
(Interesting mini-series on R4 a few months back from eastern Estonia, where there are similar issues. Broadly the old were pro-Russia and Soviet-nostalgic, the middle-aged were torn but quite sympathetic to Putin, the young were unequivocally anti-Putin, pro-Estonia and Ukraine, and saw their future as a normal EU country. This was the Russian-speakers, the Estonian speakers were all virulently anti-Soviet.) |
Yes, I was in Serbia last week and the demographics were roughly the same in relation to attitudes about Tito and the regime. | | | |
| Ukraine on 12:48 - Sep 13 with 1766 views | joe90 |
| Ukraine on 21:36 - Sep 12 by CiderwithRsie |
Well, no they don't, but let it go, that will become obvious from events (it should already have done.)
But that's not a concession by Russia anyway. It's automatic in any peace settlement so given before you start negotiations. And the fundamental problem then is that anything they get in return amounts to a reward for starting the war in the first place.
I'm not trying to make some poncy moral point about Evil Empires, it's a matter of how security works. If Russia gets anything out of the war it started just for stopping, that is an incentive to do it again (and if Ukraine is weakened by the concessions, e.g. on NATO or EU, or loss of territory, it makes it easier for them to do so.) This isn't theoretical, the fact that the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea left Russia stronger is clearly a factor in Putin thinking a bigger invasion would yield a bigger reward.
And of course it doesn't just apply to Russia but to anyone else, it makes e.g. a Chinese invasion of Taiwan more likely. You can make a similar point about various US invasions, and the counter example that after losing in Afghanistan they're a sight less likely to do it again, it's just how these things work.
It's like the Falklands - before the invasion we were open to negotiating on sovereignty. After it, no way. Frankly this war will end the same way. |
A very interesting point.
I've been very surprised by Russia's decision to invade as they're not going to win the war in a conventional sense, which begs the question - what is a positive outcome from their perspective?
Is it simply about destabilising the region? Or, as you say bringing about negotiations where by they're effectively 'rewarded' for starting a war? |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
