It is exactly what the Russians did in Syria. The comment about arms manufacturers probably needs to be picked up. There is a lot of propoganda coming from both sides and I am finding myself increasingly disinterested in these partisan reports which are doing nothing to bring about a ceasefire. I feel that Russia had really shown it's true colours in this conflict and demonstrated that it is not fit to be a global citizen. By the same token, I still wonder what Zelenskiy realistically sees as the outcome. They have maintained their soverignty yet this has come at the cost of thousands of lost lives and the infrastructure of his country totally destroyed, He has led his country to ruin in the name of freedom. It seems that it is a matter of liberty at all costs and I am not convinced that this has been in the best interests of his people. The only winners in this conflict so far has been the West. It has been a boon for NATO. With regard to "blaming the West," I think it is probably prudent to take a wider view. Strategically, I do not see how much more effectively the resources of the Russian military could have been tested. The poor training, equipment, logistics and command of the Russian military must have come as a great shock to NATO, none of whose members could have seriously expected the Russians to perform so badly 12 months ago. It is a proxy war for NATO whilst also being a massive stimulation for military innovation and industry let alone the contractors out there fighting alongside Ukranian troops. (Worthwhile flagging up the fact that this matter has never been put to the UK parliament albeit British troops and contractors are out there.) It is worthwhile remembering that many Eastern European countries still use Soviet Era equipment and weapons like their helicopters have been found to have been obsolete. Not only are we supplying Ukraine but there will also be a huge market for weapons produced by tyhe UK, US, France and Germany as armies around the globe will realise that the Russian gear is substandard. It is my belief that NATO and the EU provoked Russia in to invading Ukraine through political, economic and military agrandissement. You can understood why a despot like Putin would think that he needed to respond. By the same token, the "special military operation" has destroyed Russia's credibility as a military power as well as seriously diminishing it's capabilities in real terms. For the West, it is a win / win situation. A potential foe and political pyriah is going to be humiliated and there is no credible exit policy for him in a campaign that he cannot win. Futhermore, shares in the arms industry must be going through the roof as money is currently expended to help Ukriaine and will ultimately to added to as other countries sense the need to upgrade. I must admit that it never foresaw NATO holding it's nerves in this matter and, by the same token, I can understand why, as long as the Russians do not resort to nuclear weapons,, certain people in the West would be happy to prolong Russia's embarrassment. The "interesting" element will be how things will resolve themselves after the conflict. I cannot see the current Russian regime lasting the course. Furthermore, I reckon that loads of other countries like Iran, North Korea and China will be equally interested both because Russia's global importance will be severely reduced and with regard to how their own hardware / fighting forces might fare in a similar situation. I am also sure that many Western countries will be looking to get a piece of the pie when it comes to re-building Ukraine. To pick up on the more "worthy" position taken by newspaper like The Guardian, I do think that Russia had been provoked but would also argue that their actions have been unexcusable. I cannot see how anyone can come to a conclusion that Putin has any morality. However, I do think that it is naive not to identify the fact that the West is doing very well out of this conflict.
Doing well? Tell that to the growing ranks of people who have to use food banks trying somehow to make ends meet in the increasing poor/rich divide. It's the modern day spivs that are creaming it.
Frankly, all your arguments amount to smoke and mirrors. Come back to basics. Russia invaded, thinking it would be a walk over. It's not. Yes, there is deadlock, no the West far from doing very well are paying a price for not having provided timely assistance.
Well Ian, you certainly seem to have swallowed a great deal of Russian propaganda completely unchewed. By chance I very recently (within the last month) read a biography of Hitler and in his speeches he constantly repeated the refrain that the west had provoked him into starting the war. Sounds horribly familiar, doesn't it? You don't believe that yet you believe Putin when he says it. As for "They have maintained their soverignty yet this has come at the cost of thousands of lost lives and the infrastructure of his country totally destroyed" I'm interested in two things: One, can you see a similarity with what Britain and its allies did in the Second World War? Sometimes the price of defending freedom and defeating despotism is blood. Not something to rejoice in by any means. War is vile. But sometimes necessary. Two, What course of action would you have recommended when Russian tanks were sprinting towards Kyiv? Genuine, concrete action, not vague words. What should they have done when Russian tanks were on the outskirts of Kyiv? What would you have done? Then repeat the answer for what would you do if foreign tanks were rushing through Kent towards London? What would your concrete action be under those circumstances? The same? Or is Ukraine lesser? Finally, calling it a proxy war for NATO is pitiful. Like all closet imperialism supporters, you completely deny Ukraine any agency in this matter. I suppose it could be personified as a "quarrel in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing.” The parallels are shocking. Vin
Here it is: At a speech in the town square in Wilhelmshaven on 1st April 1939 after the launching of the MS Tirpitz, Hitler said Britain was engaging in a "policy of Encirclement" against the German Reich. Goebbels in his diary stated that in the following weeks he made that the centre of his anti-British propaganda. He went on to say that he aimed to direct the blame for an eventual war in advance onto the British Government. Eerily familiar. Two sides of the same fascist face. Always blame the enemy. You'd suggest I was mad if I said Hitler was right. You might want to consider why you think Putin is right. Vin
It's horrifying. It's also incredibly stupid. Every time Russia gets it into its head that committing yet another war crime will surely make the Ukrainians surrender, the West concludes that they need to offer more and more advanced weapons systems to Ukraine. And the big remaining ones are the ATACMS and GLSDB missile systems, which would allow Ukraine to hit many of the bases capable of firing these long-range terror barrages. On Russia's motivations, I would again suggest that people listen to what the Russians themselves are saying and have said. Julia Davis translates Russian state television, Putin's propagandists, and they have been very clear from the start: the goal is Russian regional hegemony, with its neighbours either as client states or absorbed into Russia. The extent to which Russia was 'provoked' is solely in that its neighbours don't want that. Some recent examples...again, this is Russian state media here. On dominating its neighbours: Admitting to forceably relocating 5 million plus Ukrainians: Referring to Ukraine as "Russia's southern lands": So, sure, some of this bloodshed could have been avoided if countries simply allowed Russia to sweep in, shoot thousands of civilians, kidnap millions more, systemically loot and then repeat the process in a number of neighbouring states. Understandably though, the Ukrainians would have resisted that whether or not the West assisted them. It just would have been a guerrilla war (which historically are even more costly for civilians), rather than a conventional war where Russia is losing. Edit: and a new one from today, where a member of Putin's party in the Duma (and Molotov's grandon) refers to Ukrainians as "mostly non-humans".
Great analysis Vin. Add to this the atrocities uncovered by Ukrainian troops recapturing cities occupied by Russia during the early days of the invasion. Civilians tortured, raped, and murdered. It doesn’t take much imagination to see this behaviour extending right across the country should Putin have been successful. So the Ukrainians aren’t even just fighting for “abstract” concepts like sovereignty and freedom, they are fighting for their lives.
Vin The rhetoric from Russia is clearly ridiculous and I would add that there was nothing within my post that supported that position. My argument was purely that the war has had obvious advantages to the West. We now have a far better grasp of just how effective the Russian military is, that capability has been further diminished by weapons provided by the West and military training / coordination and Russia's status as a global power has been destroyed. In addition, it has been effective is demonstrating the superiority of Western weaponry which will obviously encourage other countries to buy this equipment. There was an article I read last week concerning the likely impact on helicopter sales which are expected to boom simply because so many countries had previously bought Russian equipment which has proven to be obsolete. The example was cited of the Czech Republic replacing it's helicopter fleet. I am sure that the same will apply to missle systems, tanks and small arms. The comparison between Putin and Hitler does have historical parallels albeit probably not as you might have envisaged. I see the situation of the management of post-Soviet Russia as being similar to the failure to manage Germany after the Treaty of Verseille. In both instances, the rest of Europe never really engaged with with Germany and Russia and this facilitated despots like Hitler and Putin. The failure of the West to deal with Putin is no different that the failure to deal with the nascent Hitler. In both instances, nothing was done politically until it was too late. In addition, the restrictions placed on Germany after 1919 should be compared with the encroachment of both NATO and the EU into former Communist bloc countries, in some cases facilitating governments which were directly hostile towards Russia such as Poland and the Baltic States. I agree that Hitler's fear of the same had no grounds but it is clearly the case that Russia's influence has been diminished by NATO / EU actions. This does not excuse Putin and merely allows you to understand his flawed logic. Ukraine and Russia's histories are closely tied in addition to cultural and social similarities and the relationship between the two countries is complex and bears no relationship with that of Germany and other European states prior to 1939. Furthermore, I would add that Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis was genuine and not a myth, You can see how this might feed in to Russian paranoia, I would also add that Russia has never really experienced Western style democracy and that it is also unwise to suggest that Ukraine itself is a paragon of liberty, no matter how we feel about Zelenskiy. We have pointed this as something that is black and white. The aggrandisement of NATO has not helped. Bringing the Baltic states on board restricted Russian naval capability with no clear advantage to the West. Similarly, you may wish to consider the tone of statements coming ou from countries like Poland which have ben extremely bullish and antagonistic. I appreciate that this in no way justifies any sort of Russian military adventure but I feel it does feed in to understanding the Russian mindset. It has been interesting that the Czech president made similar comments last night about the role of NATO in what he has described as a "proxy war." I would reiterate, NATO policy has assisted in "legitimising" the Russian invasion in the eyes of Putin and his cronies as well as amongst a sizeable portion of the Russian public. Unfortunately, Russia made the grave error in invading which has put so much of Ukraine to waste. I can see nothing but humiliation for Russia in this respect and believe they will (rightly) never achieve their goal. Without doubt, see Russia diminished in this fashon will play in to the hands of NATO. I have no doubt that a few favours will be called in when it comes to Zelenskiy looking to rebuild his country. It is a folly to believe that the West is innocent in it's role in Ukraine and i would be inclined to take a much more cynical view of our role in this conflict.
I'm starting work in a moment and this deserves a well-thought out response but in the meantime might you be able to answer the specific question I asked. Given your suggestion that Zelensky was mistaken to resist, what action should Ukraine have taken when Russian tanks were rolling towards Kyiv? And would you suggest the same action if tanks were rolling through Kent towards London?
I would just like to point out that Ian hasnt “fallen for Russian propaganda” and in fact a lot of what he said was very obvious. It was even obvious to guardian journalists as early as 2014, back when they were reporting honestly instead of towing the party line of Western governments. (Article is actually still up. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger) As is always the case in such things, there are no black & white answers. Yes, Putin is wrong. But the West 100% is not innocent and could have done a lot more to stop this.
“The basic falsehood is the lie…that we have the monopoly of truth, just as our adversary has the monopoly of error. We then convince ourselves that we cannot preserve our purity of vision and our inner sincerity if we enter into dialogue with the enemy, for he will corrupt us with his error. We believe, finally, that truth cannot be preserved except by the destruction of the enemy - for, since we have identified him with error, to destroy him is to destroy error. The adversary, of course, has exactly the same thoughts about us and exactly the same basic policy by which he defends the truth. He has identified us with dishonesty, insincerity and untruth. He believes that, if we are destroyed, nothing will be left but truth.” - Thomas Merton, writing at the height of the Cold War. To get any sort of understanding of history, it is always necessary to take the long view. So, what’s changed since Merton wrote those words? The Soviet Union collapsed, but the Cold War clearly didn’t end. NATO pressed her advantage. The front line moved inexorably eastwards. Meanwhile, Putin turned Russia into a criminal oligarchy, which the oligarchs and government in London, in particular were exceptionally happy to do business with. And now here we are; the Cold War is not so cold, to the unfortunate people of Ukraine, or to the young men of Russia. The arms dealers, (already enjoying a bonanza through the sale of weapons which Saudi Arabia use to bomb civilians in Yemen) are getting richer. And the great British public are distracted from their own country’s problems, by the intoxicating beat of the drums of war on the other side of Europe. Bit of a ****ing mess I reckon, and when Putin is removed - soon, and by his own countrymen, hopefully - what happens next? Hard not to imagine it will just be more of the same.
I find a lot to agree with in both of these posts. Nothing is ever black and white, and it’s indisputable that the Western military-industrial complex has profited enormously from the continuation of tension with post-Soviet Russia. A cynic might even see almost a completion of the circle, with the vast amount of Russian funds pouring into British and US politics in the last couple of decades. Using the lessons of history is always a worthwhile exercise, though, and one could argue that Hitler was almost encouraged into the invasion of Poland by the complete absence of any opposition to any of his earlier expansionist moves. Western governments, particularly France, who at the time had the largest army in the world, did nothing to stop Hitler remilitarising the Rhineland in 1936. No-one intervened when Hitler and Mussolini supported the violent overthrow of the democratically elected Spanish government in the same year, or opposed the Anschluss in Austria, or the annexation of the Sudetenland. Even appeasement has its limits though, and for whatever reasons, the invasion of Poland was a step too far. Similarly, Putin’s invasion of the Crimea in 2014 wasn’t enough, but the full-scale invasion of the rest of Ukraine last February was. So we are where we are. Yes, Putin could and should have been put in his place decades ago, but just like Hitler, was allowed to build his power base, no doubt aided by liberal sprinkling of funds to Western political parties. The largest war on the European continent since 1945 was allowed to happen, and now the blood of the Ukraine is at least partially on our hands, or at least on those of our political leaders. Is there, now, today, an alternative to our sending aid and arms to help Zelenskiy and his people? No, of course there isn’t. This is the equivalent, an almost exact historical parallel, to September 1939. If Putin isn’t stopped and pushed back, nowhere in Europe is safe. Of course the main beneficiaries of this war are the arms industry, but that has been the case in every war for centuries. The dismantling of the military-industrial complex is a whole other issue, and yet, as history has shown, an integral part of the problem.
How on earth can a police officer with so much suspicion and red flags hanging over him, remain in the force for so many years and pass the re-vetting process? 1996-1997 Carrick is in the Army. 2000 He is a suspect in two offences reported to the Met involving allegations of malicious communications and burglary against an ex. He is not arrested. 2001 Carrick joins the Met. 2002 He is accused of assault against an ex. He is not arrested. 2003 His first known victim is repeatedly raped. 2004 He rapes a woman of 57. 2004 Carrick is involved in a domestic incident and police are called. He is not arrested. 2006-2009 Carrick repeatedly rapes a woman. 2009 Carrick is transferred to the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Command. 2009 Herts Police receive a domestic abuse report involving Carrick but no complaint is made. Police inform Met supervisors. 2009 He meets his next victim, in her 50s, who he sexually assaults. 2009 He sexually assaults a woman in her 40s. 2009 Carrick tries to rape a woman in her 50s. 2015 He rapes woman in her 40s. 2016 He is a suspect as police in Hampshire probe a harassment allegation. He isn’t arrested. 2016 Carrick repeatedly rapes a woman and urinates on her. 2017 He is re-vetted and passes. 2017 Carrick meets a woman he goes on to rape multiple times. 2017 He meets a woman in her 30s who later tells how he raped her after dragging her by her hair. 2018 Carrick meets a woman in her 40s who he sexually assaults. 2019 Herts Police receive a report of an assault after a row between Carrick and a woman. 2021 A woman reports being raped by him. Herts police arrest him but she withdraws the complaint. Carrick is cleared to return to full duties. 2021 A woman reports she was raped by Carrick. He is suspended by the Met and appears in court charged with rape. 2021-2022: More women come forward with allegations.
. NATO pressed her advantage? Pretty much every country in NATO tried to engage with the Russians. I remember tracts and tracts of newspaper articles about how important it was to help Russia to grow a market economy to make up for the years of stagnation under communism. Germany to some extent staked its future on trading with Russia. Ostpolitik was one of the foundational policies in German politics. Businesses from all over the world flooded to try partnership with Russia. Western Oil giants forged partnerships to help Russia exploit its oil and gas fields. There was a long period when people thought the cold war was dead. Doing business with a country is a very odd way to try to put pressure on an enemy. Then Putin rose to power and kleptocracy took over. To keep the population quiet, they went the way of all fascists, to militarism and expansionism. In the meantime, the countries in Eastern Europe who had historically been invaded and subjugated by Russia and who feared Russia kept telling us that Russia hadn't changed, Russia wasn't to be trusted. They repeatedly told the Germans they were insane to trust the Russians. And, just like Ian and so many on the left, you deny those countries any agency whatsoever when it comes to NATO membership. They didn't choose to join because they feared the multi-generationally expansionist neighbour to the East. No, NATO magically made them want to be members against their best interests. It's like Chechnya and Georgia didn't happen to show what the Russians are like. Did the countries of Eastern Europe join because they needed security guarantees? No, it was an evil NATO plot. Interestingly, those countries are the ones giving more help proportionally to Ukraine. Possibly because they are just pawns of NATO or possibly because they know Russia and they know perfectly well who is next after Ukraine. As for this being a distraction from troubles at home, it isn't working. Look at the posts on here. Look how rarely Ukraine's (and the Russian population's) pain is mentioned. I have to bring it up occasionally because nobody gives a toss any more. It simply doesn't fit the left's preconceived notion that wars are started to distract. And yes, it will be the same if and when Putin goes. Russia will still be imperialist and once again the left in the UK will forget what the Russian are like and go back to seeing an exact equivalence between Russia and the West.
Vin Thanks for response which, although I disagree to some extent with what you are saying, is something that is worth consideration. I am not sure it is actually the Left in the more "liberal" West who had won Putin's ear. In the States, opposition to assisting with Ukraine's struggle has come from the more extreme element of the Republicans. In Europe, it has been capitalists who have been fauning over the oligarchs to do business whereas most of the criticism of post-Soviet Russia has been from centralist / liberal politicians. Putin definately has more traction amongst the nutty element of the Right wing spectrum in Europe , many of these supporters being opposed to the more "liberal" values which Putin has dismiseed as being "non-Russian." Even the Left has been critical as has been the case in many leader articles in the Morning Star last year which correctly outlined that Putin's regime had nothing to do with Socialism. If you visit the Stop the War coalition website, you will see they have condemned both Russia and Nato. The comment which intrigued me today in this thread that you have alluded to and which really interests me is the comaprison with how Hitler invaded Europe in 1939 and what Putin has done in 2022 in respect of being a threat to Europe as a whole. I agree that Hitler needed to be addressed, not only because of the threat to neighbouring countries but also his idealism which was a threat to civil society in the broadest of senses. Nazism was something that needed to be stopped. As I said, Germany was allowed to re-arm itself and was put in a position where the country had been humiliated after Verseilles - most historians today would agree with this, especially when considering the position of the French who mistrust of the Germans dated from 1870. Thie inability to deal with German re-armament led to a situation where Hitler was not only able to bite off and claim chunks of neighbouring countries he deemed to be "German " but very quickly occupy much of the West of Europe itself in 1940. If you have ever read Philip Kerr's excellent novel "The Lady from Zagreb" you will have realised that even countries like Switzerland which were neutral were part of his plans. Luckily he never fulfilled his objectives . Where Putin differs is that his ambitions are limited to recovering control over areas that were part of the former Soviet Union and influencing former Warsaw Pact countries. I do not see him invading former Warsaw Pact countries but, most significantly, the Ukraine "special operation" has demonstrated that his military is so poor that this would be impossible. Any invasion or attack upon Western European countries and those across the Atlantic, this has now been shown to be well beyond their capabilities, at least by a land assault. As I was trying to say this morning, whilst I am appreciate that some people will rightly have perceived Russia as a threat due to the way this country is entangled in our economic and politican system as well as being blazen enough to carry out a seriously negligent poisoning operation in Salisbury, I feel that what has happened in Ukraine in the last 11 months has shown that Putin's Russia would be incapable of taking large swathes of Western Europe. If you like, Putin has shown his card and his hand has been found to be extremely poor and to the extent that this has emboldened the West. This is why I believe that there will be those in the West who will have been interested to witness Russia's failure at the expense of another country and also facilitate effective resistance by proxy. In addition, I think it will also have fascinated China who will similarly be aware of Russia's inability to deal with the threat they pose in the East. The pretext that Russia is a military super-power has been found to have been seriously wanting. I agree that lessons won't be learned in the West and, given the fact that Russia , like so many Eastern European countries, has never really known democracy (and I could be harsher in my description by commenting that they parts of the country as still pretty medieval in outlook) means that this is likely to happen again in the future. I think the economic sanctions will prevent Putin's ambition to modernise his failed military in the short term but would have to concede that Russia's antigonism towards the West at leasrt dates back to the Great Game in the mid 1800s and I do not see it abating to the extent that this could not happen again albeit not for a very long time. I would be concerned if Russia managed to acquire a modern and effective military but I believe that this has never been the case. I am not too familiar with military history and someone might correct me.. As things stand, I do not feel that Russia poses a serious threat of invasion to much of Western Europe and believe that, in the long term, they are going to need to engage with the West on our terms. I can see Russia being seriously diminished in the short term following the failure in Ukraine.
Ian, I'm not sure if you're deliberately ignoring the question but given that you blamed Zelensky for responsibility for the damage to Ukraine by defending it (earlier in the thread), I've twice asked: "What course of action would you have recommended when Russian tanks were sprinting towards Kyiv? Genuine, concrete action, not vague words. What should they have done when Russian tanks were on the outskirts of Kyiv? What would you have done? Then repeat the answer for what would you do if foreign tanks were rushing through Kent towards London? What would your concrete action be under those circumstances? The same? Or is Ukraine lesser?"
Vin I am on the fnece as to whether an armed response would have been appropriate in Ukraine. Normally I would have agreed with you but the scale of the destruction wrought by the Russians is such that I would question exactly what kind of "liberty" this has acheived.. Whole towns have been destroyed and the Ukranian infrastrcuture is wrecked. Not only has there been significant loss of civilian life but there is also a huge humanitarian and refugee crisis in Ukraine. How is this to the Ukranian people's advantage ? I would not condone the Russian invasion in the least but ask yourself just how much better the Ukranians are now than had they been under Russian occupation which I acknowledge is wrong as opposed to living in a country which has been destroyed. The fact is that the previous invasion of Crimea should have been seen as a warning and I feel that the West was wrong not to impose serious sanctions back in 20214 to prevent this kind of scenario. We could have imposed similar restrictions to those in place now back then but e decided not to. This has proved to be a massive error and then we made the same mistake when the Russians interferred in Syria. The behaviour of the west / NATO / EU has allowed the Russians to believe that they can do what they want. Only know have we woken uo. However, as I stated before, we are now in a position where we know that Russia would be incapable of any kind of land invasion such as acheived by the Nazis. The whole point of my initial post was to try to put across the fact that it is very convenient for the West to have Russia tied up in a military operation onit'sown doorstep that it cannot win. This will not only severely damage Russia's standing as a "problem solver" in places like Africa where they have prviouly deployed the Wagner group but, more importantly, will deny them the resources who impliment it's foreign policies through military action.As things stand, the current situation is catastrophic for Ukraine . In this long term, the consequences for Russia and her standing in the world will be devastating. Their ambitions to be a super-power have been shown to be a total illusion .
Poster girl for the WEF, Greta Thunberg has been caught faking her recent arrest: The climate crisis hoax continues
Hi Ian, I'm sorry you seem unwilling to answer the question I asked. This doesn't really feel like a conversation. On that basis I'm going to disengage with you on the subject, thanks. Vin
