Current Affairs Ukraine

[BlueToff]

We want an end to this.

Current Affairs - Ukraine

We all do... but how do we get there?

Because supplying weaponary helps defend Ukraine but doesn't stop the war, and Putin isn't going to stop of his own accord.

 

[BlueToff]

Well it can't really be because NATO acted and because they didn't act at the same time, I'm not sure I follow you there.

I just don't see the grey area, it's completely black and white to me. The only grey is a smokescreen of paper-thin mitigation for what are essentially the acts of a terrorist Premier of a terrorist state.

And that's essentially what Russia is now, launching massive bombardments on innocent civilians and their infrastructure, hoping to kill millions with starvation and in the freeze in a pathetic revenge tableu because Ukraine dared to fight back.

It's not hard to follow at all.

There's been talk for years of Ukraine joining NATO, and NATO possibly allowing it. Putin's used it as propaganda - that 'threat' - as one of his excuses to attack. I'm not justifying it, but it's certainly a factor that he's used to help push the 'defence first' thing. I for one believe any country should be able to do what they please when it comes to an alliance - it's nothing to do with anyone else. But unfortunately the reality of the situation is different.

There is a lot of grey area, there is with anything, especially war. And again, no mitigation either, just an acknowledgment that there are always several factors at play and that you don't understand them all, and I'm not saying I come close to either.

That last paragraph sums up what's happened and where we are, so we need it to stop. Putin isn't going to stop... Ukraine aren't going to stop defending themsleves... so maybe that alliance of nations could come together to try and get this thing ended.

You expect the Russian people to rise up against a dictator who has ruled through fear and misinformation (to an extent, of course, there'll be those who are perfectly happy with how things are as they know no different), yet by the same token do not think it's reasonable to expect the most powerful countries on Earth to broker something? I don't buy it.

In an ideal world, someone would top Putin in his sleep and the war would end that way. But it doesn't look likely, so I just think they're going to have to come to the table or this war drags on for years and millions more die pointlessly.

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It's not hard to follow at all.

There's been talk for years of Ukraine joining NATO, and NATO possibly allowing it. Putin's used it as propaganda - that 'threat' - as one of his excuses to attack. I'm not justifying it, but it's certainly a factor that he's used to help push the 'defence first' thing. I for one believe any country should be able to do what they please when it comes to an alliance - it's nothing to do with anyone else. But unfortunately the reality of the situation is different.

There is a lot of grey area, there is with anything, especially war. And again, no mitigation either, just an acknowledgment that there are always several factors at play and that you don't understand them all, and I'm not saying I come close to either.

That last paragraph sums up what's happened and where we are, so we need it to stop. Putin isn't going to stop... Ukraine aren't going to stop defending themsleves... so maybe that alliance of nations could come together to try and get this thing ended.

You expect the Russian people to rise up against a dictator who has ruled through fear and misinformation (to an extent, of course, there'll be those who are perfectly happy with how things are as they know no different), yet by the same token do not think it's reasonable to expect the most powerful countries on Earth to broker something? I don't buy it.

In an ideal world, someone would top Putin in his sleep and the war would end that way. But it doesn't look likely, so I just think they're going to have to come to the table or this war drags on for years and millions more die pointlessly.

So what was NATO supposed to do in that situation?
If they let them join, they're to blame.
They didn't let them join and supposedly that's given ammunition to Putin as well.

About time just to let go out of any notion that NATO have any responsibility for either starting or ending this invasion.

NATO are providing support and aid to a sovereign country who are under unprovoked and sustained attack from a neighbouring country and I think most people with a moral compass are jolly glad they are too.

Putin has consistently altered both the objectives and the reasons for this invasion. Without NATO aid Kyiv would now be toppled and a puppet government installed, Ukrainian history and culture would be ethnically cleansed before our eyes.

The war may be in Ukraine now but if Russia aren't stopped then that country won't be the last. The Ukrainians may be fighting for their country but actually the stakes could be even higher for the state of the world for the next hundred years.

 

[PhilM]

We all do... but how do we get there?

Because supplying weaponary helps defend Ukraine but doesn't stop the war, and Putin isn't going to stop of his own accord.

Stopping the supply of weapons to Ukraine will end the war, but on Russia's terms, after a likely defeat for the Ukrainian army.

Ukraine won't countenance that, and rightly so, and nor should we. We all want peace and suitable resolution to this, but this quote springs to mind...

"Neville Chamberlain desired peace beyond anything else, but look how that turned out." As I've mentioned previously, eventually a compromise will be needed.

Right now, however, Ukraine is not in a position where it could stop the war and have assurances for the future; Russia isn't in a position to listen, either.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

We all do... but how do we get there?

Because supplying weaponary helps defend Ukraine but doesn't stop the war, and Putin isn't going to stop of his own accord.

The desired outcome has to be the end of Putin and his regime.

If that happens with Iran despots getting booted then the world is in a better place.

China would be in a significantly weaker position.

Considering this, It is no surprise that China are courting the Saudis economically and militarily. What is a worry is China's agreement to work on developing Saudi ICBMs and talk of a nuclear deterent. If China do push a strategy of developing military alliances and new nuclear powers then the world will be in a very dangerous position.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Those won't shoot down ICBM re-entry vehicles with any degree of reliability, no matter where we put them. They might enable us to win a ground war, but then he just nukes the snot out of us, so we're not doing that.

I don't think Putin is worried about his first strike capability. I think he's worried about our ability to generate a credible, disabling one. If that happens, he's at our mercy, and he won't tolerate that. So, when we removed Yanukovych, he took steps.

I don't think the invasion was strictly speaking necessary given that we're very unlikely to admit a country to NATO that is actively at war with Russia, which Ukraine already was. I'm also not privy to the conversations inside the Beltway, so it's possible he has better information about that than I do.

I think he simply thought that he would win relatively quickly (most of us did), put a longstanding set of territorial disputes to bed and gain a little breathing space with respect to the nuclear defense problem. That turned out not to be accurate.

Eh?

NATO’s policy does not include the option of first strike. It’s entire ethos and mandate is based on defence and response.

Those missile systems forward deployed are more than capable of taking out ICBM’s in their terminal re-entry phase. Along with naval Aegis systems they constitute the European nuclear defence system.

The US also deploys its own additional defence system located in the US that forms a layered defence including the addition of a mid-course interceptor system that can intercept ICBMs in their mid-course (in space).

It’s been well documented that the forward deployment of these terminal phase anti ballistic missile systems in Europe and the potential for the US to deploy mid-course interceptors as well is one of the major triggers (not the only one) for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Eh?

NATO’s policy does not include the option of first strike. It’s entire ethos and mandate is based on defence and response.

Those missile systems forward deployed are more than capable of taking out ICBM’s in their terminal re-entry phase. Along with naval Aegis systems they constitute the European nuclear defence system.

The US also deploys its own additional defence system located in the US that forms a layered defence including the addition of a mid-course interceptor system that can intercept ICBMs in their mid-course (in space).

It’s been well documented that the forward deployment of these terminal phase anti ballistic missile systems in Europe and the potential for the US to deploy mid-course interceptors as well is one of the major triggers (not the only one) for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

They can shoot down ICBMs, sure. But you have to get them all. Those systems aren't doing that. The ability to shoot down some missiles doesn't change the strategic balance one whit, any more than strategic arms limitation and reduction treaties did. The result is still unacceptable losses.

It's about capabilities with respect to a first strike, not intentions. NATO saying it will not engage in a first strike is irrelevant. That could change tomorrow.

 

[tsubaki]

They can shoot down ICBMs, sure. But you have to get them all. Those systems aren't doing that. The ability to shoot down some missiles doesn't change the strategic balance one whit, any more than strategic arms limitation and reduction treaties did. The result is still unacceptable losses.

It's about capabilities with respect to a first strike, not intentions. NATO saying it will not engage in a first strike is irrelevant. That could change tomorrow.

"NATO will not engage in a first strike" was always something shot through with exceptions - back in the Cold War days it was pretty much accepted that first use of tactical weapons would occur by NATO to slow down the steamroller, to give enough time for the US to cross the Atlantic and stop it.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

"NATO will not engage in a first strike" was always something shot through with exceptions - back in the Cold War days it was pretty much accepted that first use of tactical weapons would occur by NATO to slow down the steamroller, to give enough time for the US to cross the Atlantic and stop it.

That policy shifted radically after the demise of the old Soviet Union. Even then the response was limited to the use of small tactical nukes to destroy / break up large soviet formations.

I served under NATO command in the early 90’s so I’m very aware of their policies and ethos.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

They can shoot down ICBMs, sure. But you have to get them all. Those systems aren't doing that. The ability to shoot down some missiles doesn't change the strategic balance one whit, any more than strategic arms limitation and reduction treaties did. The result is still unacceptable losses.

It's about capabilities with respect to a first strike, not intentions. NATO saying it will not engage in a first strike is irrelevant. That could change tomorrow.

Who knows what would happen in a nuclear situation. I think the main point here is that Russia viewed the deployment of these “defensive”systems in Eastern Europe as a direct threat and hence it was one of the triggers for their invasion of Ukraine.

 

[BlueToff]

So what was NATO supposed to do in that situation?
If they let them join, they're to blame.
They didn't let them join and supposedly that's given ammunition to Putin as well.

About time just to let go out of any notion that NATO have any responsibility for either starting or ending this invasion.

NATO are providing support and aid to a sovereign country who are under unprovoked and sustained attack from a neighbouring country and I think most people with a moral compass are jolly glad they are too.

Putin has consistently altered both the objectives and the reasons for this invasion. Without NATO aid Kyiv would now be toppled and a puppet government installed, Ukrainian history and culture would be ethnically cleansed before our eyes.

The war may be in Ukraine now but if Russia aren't stopped then that country won't be the last. The Ukrainians may be fighting for their country but actually the stakes could be even higher for the state of the world for the next hundred years.

It's still a factor, it was probably best for NATO not to say in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would definitely be joining. But again, that doesn't justify Putin's actions in either of those countries.

Again, not saying NATO started it - Russia (Putin) started it by invading, which he shouldn't have done. But NATO has a responsibility to help stop it. They have a responsibility to help defend Ukraine, and have done what they can, but the US supplying another $400m in weapons isn't going to stop the war, is it - it's going to extend it.

You're telling me things I already know and don't disagree with. I just disagree with the notion that this war relies on one side to decide, on their own, to stop doing what they're doing. Ultimately that one side is going to have to be persuaded more than they currently are being. So something has to give, doesn't it. I don't know what that is, but just chucking more money and more weapons Ukraine's way isn't stopping the bloodshed either.

 

[BlueToff]

Stopping the supply of weapons to Ukraine will end the war, but on Russia's terms, after a likely defeat for the Ukrainian army.

Ukraine won't countenance that, and rightly so, and nor should we. We all want peace and suitable resolution to this, but this quote springs to mind...

"Neville Chamberlain desired peace beyond anything else, but look how that turned out." As I've mentioned previously, eventually a compromise will be needed.

Right now, however, Ukraine is not in a position where it could stop the war and have assurances for the future; Russia isn't in a position to listen, either.

I don't want them to simply stop supplying weapons. I just don't think it's the answer to stopping a war on its own.

So IMO NATO/The West/US/UK and drag China into it, have to do more on that front. Perhaps the heavy sanctions rightly placed on Russia have to be used as bargaining chips here to get them to the table?

This isn't me saying we shouldn't defend Ukraine, but I got slammed for calling it a proxy war yesterday when - maybe it's my misunderstanding of the definition - but all I'm seeing is the West fighting Russia via Ukrainian lives. So it's on the West and Russia to get something brokered for the good of everyone.

 

[PhilM]

It's still a factor, it was probably best for NATO not to say in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would definitely be joining. But again, that doesn't justify Putin's actions in either of those countries.

Again, not saying NATO started it - Russia (Putin) started it by invading, which he shouldn't have done. But NATO has a responsibility to help stop it. They have a responsibility to help defend Ukraine, and have done what they can, but the US supplying another $400m in weapons isn't going to stop the war, is it - it's going to extend it.

You're telling me things I already know and don't disagree with. I just disagree with the notion that this war relies on one side to decide, on their own, to stop doing what they're doing. Ultimately that one side is going to have to be persuaded more than they currently are being. So something has to give, doesn't it. I don't know what that is, but just chucking more money and more weapons Ukraine's way isn't stopping the bloodshed either.

Not to sound obtuse, but what is the alternative? Russia are very unlikely to come to some form of compromise where Ukraine's sovereignty is secured.

Should Russia be allowed to retain large swathes of Ukrainian territory? If the war stopped now, with the current territory, Russia will be at an advantage.

They would be emboldened, and it would add suggest to those within Russia that it's been worth it. Genuinely, can we allow such a situation to occur?

However, let's get to the real point: whether it's become a proxy war or not, do Ukraine want to continue? If they do, let's support them.

I posted last week that Ukraine will, at some point, need to compromise - as will Russia. The issue is that neither are currently in a position to do so.

 

[BlueToff]

The desired outcome has to be the end of Putin and his regime.

If that happens with Iran despots getting booted then the world is in a better place.

China would be in a significantly weaker position.

Considering this, It is no surprise that China are courting the Saudis economically and militarily. What is a worry is China's agreement to work on developing Saudi ICBMs and talk of a nuclear deterent. If China do push a strategy of developing military alliances and new nuclear powers then the world will be in a very dangerous position.

I just think your view of the world is very, very western and very 'we're the good guys, they're all the bad guys'.

The UK have sold weaponary to Saudi Arabia for years, the US funded the Taliban to fight the Russians in the 90s and the IS for the Arab Spring in the early 2010s. The West is now fighting Russia via Ukrainians, because yes, Putin invaded and fighting back is the right thing to do, but of course only when it falls short of all out war where we'd have to get our own hands dirty. Same goes for Syria, where of course Russia backed Al-Asaad at Al-Asaad's request, after IS (funded by the US) rebelled. I'm not suggesting Al-Asaad is anything but a despicable person, btw, but so much of that upheaval in the area was caused by the West, and of course that then turns into a scrap between Russia and the West.

Of course, the regime in Iran needs to be overthrown, and I hope the Iranian people rise up. The regimes of UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, all sicken me. But the West have helped give those people power and wealth.

I think how the Chinese government act is awful, but the West give them that leeway because of how reliant we are on China. Same goes in large part for Russia and the energy, at least until this year (and as far as I'm aware, Russia still get plenty of money from western nations even now for those resources).

So the whole thing has to change across the board, everywhere, or things will get worse and worse.

 

[BlueToff]

Not to sound obtuse, but what is the alternative? Russia are very unlikely to come to some form of compromise where Ukraine's sovereignty is secured.

Should Russia be allowed to retain large swathes of Ukrainian territory? If the war stopped now, with the current territory, Russia will be at an advantage.

They would be emboldened, and it would add suggest to those within Russia that it's been worth it. Genuinely, can we allow such a situation to occur?

However, let's get to the real point: whether it's become a proxy war or not, do Ukraine want to continue? If they do, let's support them.

I posted last week that Ukraine will, at some point, need to compromise - as will Russia. The issue is that neither are currently in a position to do so.

It's not about an alternative, it's about NATO/The West actually trying to take strides towards negotiating (or leading negotiations) rather than just sending more weaponary to fuel a war.

I'm not seeing any suggestion that has been on the cards.

Another $400m in weapons supplied by the US this week will help a few more 1000 soldiers (kids/dads/brothers/sons) die, but it's not a step towards piece.

So no, don't give up Ukrainian territory, don't stop supplying them, but at least use the combined power of NATO to get to the table with Putin...