Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Archers Road said:
Russia seizing Crimea was always 100% inevitable, and would have been so under any leadership. Sevastopol is Russia’s only western deep water port that doesn’t freeze in winter, that’s why they fought the Turks, the British and the French for control of the Black Sea and access to the med.

Throughout this whole saga, the inability of Western politicians to see history from a Russian perspective has been simply staggering. Every nation has it’s defining stories, it’s moments from history that help to frame how it sees itself in relation to the world; where we have Trafalgar, Waterloo and Dunkirk, Russia has Napoleon’s invasion and retreat from Moscow, the Crimean War, the siege of Leningrad, and the battle of Stalingrad. When historians write the history of this period, the eastern encroachment of NATO to The Vistula, The Dnieper and The Don, will be seen as a hugely significant factor.
Click to expand...

Again, though, you're giving Russia an excuse that Russia itself isn't giving. Their explicit, stated rationale is not NATO encroachment; it's that Ukraine doesn't exist.

The notion that a belligerent Russia, which has already invaded multiple other neighbours and either seized territory directly or set up client states, would have somehow been dissuaded from doing so if only people left them alone, simply has nothing to support it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7 and Le Tissier's Laces
There are some brilliant arguments being put fr both sides in this debate regarding the Russia / Ukraine ware. I think that it is both appalling as well as being fascinating. Both Russia and the West have got this totally wrong, in my opinion. It is a very good point regarding why the EU never invited Russia to join. I have often wondered myself albeit I think that Russia would have wanted to have been a dominant party and would not necessarily been someone who could have be trusted to obey the rules. I say this is a good point as I feel that the conflict has a lot to do with the EU picking off various parts of the USSR and the perceived weakening of the politcal position of Russia, This has been a driving force behind Russia's invasion

The other point I feel that needs to be made is that I think it really suits NATO to have this proxi-conflict. It has really shown the Russian military forces to be imcompetent and demonstrated that the Russians would be incapable of mounting any "traditional" warfare against the West of Europe. The ony problem is that Russia now realizes that the only war it has of winning a conventional war is to use nuclear wreapons. I cannot see that happening for political and technological reasons. You do wonder just how far the malaise perpetuates throughout all forms of the Russian military. I can see this conflict being studied by historians for years to come as defining the point when armoured vehicles were rendered obsolete as well as a lesson in how not to use logistics. Playing devil's advocate, I would argue that , prior to Ukraine, a beligerent Russia would ultimately be appeased once it has captured Modlova and the Baltic states as well as rendering Poland neutral. I don't think that Putin's objectives would ever had stretched beyond the borders of the old USSR. Previously I was dead against getting involved in the conflict and felt that both NATO and the EU had a degree of responsibility in provoking Putin. Six month down the line, I do not think anyone could have anticipated the conflict still going on and Western Europe's economies trashed. In the long run I agree with the fact that aiding Ukraine has assisted as a deterent and that the conflict has demonstrated that this is no longer the way to fight a conflict. Russia's military status has been seriously questionned and I concur to a degree that this may influence the Chinese who similarly have not been tested by a sophisticated , Western coalition. In the long term, this will cause a massive problem for Ukraine and, for different reasons, a major dent in Russia's perceived military might. As far as the West is concerned, there will be a short term crisis in the coming 12-18 months yet I feel that it will ultimately prompt innovation to look away from using fossil fuels. Ultimately the Russians will deal with Putin themselves although the events of the last six months are demonstrative that it is incapable of become a modern democracy. I agree that the defeat of Russia will make China think twice about invading Taiwan and you wonder how the fact that Russia has bought a lot of it's stock such as the inferior Chinese tyres will make this nation reflect on the quality of it's own hardware.​
 
It’s interesting that they are choosing to quit, as opposed to just waiting for Truss to name the new cabinet, that isn’t normal is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back