Current Affairs Ukraine

[PhilM]

Regarding the first point we don't know that for sure. Surely it's better to concede small regions of Ukraine who consider themselves Russian anyway if it gets him to agree to withdraw. If he reneged on that then WW3 happens anyway so makes no odds but it's better to try than not try at all.

I think it's wrong to fight a proxy war through Ukraine though even if it blunts Putins blade. Who wins there? Ukraine even with NATO weapons won't win without NATO actually going in so its basically using the Ukrainians as cannon fodder rather than trying to come to a peaceful agreement now rather than later when Ukraines decimated

What peaceful settlement would you currently recommend?

One where Russia's illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea and Ukraine, with thousands of deaths caused by this, is allowed? Would you let them keep it?

The real problem here is that the Ukraine, a sovereign and democratic state, would not desire this, and rightfully so; nor would it be in Europe's wider interest.

Therefore with the Ukraine's request for help from nations and collectives it wishes to join, I don't really see this as a proxy war in the truest sense.

Did we (the West, EU, Nato et al.) instigate this war? Are we now supporting Ukraine purely or primarily for our own ends? I'd say the answer is a resounding no.

We are helping Ukraine defend its own land, which will ultimately also help blunt Putin and destabilise his power base. That itself is a positive by-product too.

If we were forcing Ukraine to fight against its will, it would be different. But we aren't - they want help - they need help. And Putin wouldn't stop here.

I'm not anti-Russian and I feel sorry for many of the Russian people, but right now I know which side I'm on.

 

[devogue]

Another US journalist got shot.

 

[edge]

My first visit to Germany (Berlin) I was fascinated by how front and centre they are with their history, as you say there is a strong feeling that they own it.

As for Russia, I think its a very different prospect, Germany was a relatively young and liberal nation state in the late 19th and early 20th century, ambitious, then consumed by a maelstrom of nationalism. But, while horrific in its consequences, it was a short span in its history. And of course it was occupied and administered to statehood (in West Germany at least.)

Russia is an old, old country with centuries of tyranny and turmoil embedded in its cultural memory topped off with decades of totalitarian control and then its transition to an integrated world nation has seen it run as a mafia state.

Its also a massive, continent spanning country.
I think a possible outcome may be a fragmentation. If the Putin regime does collapse it may take the soviet era security apparatus with it, which persisted through all of the economic change.
Without the iron grip of an autocratic state and centralised control, you might see a break up with regional administrators (warlords) taking control of large parts of the south and east. You could end up with a loose confederation and potentially Moscow and St Petersburg and western Russia pulling towards Europe and much of the rest of the country coming increasingly under China's orbit.

It was split into three during the mongol empire days .
All under different puppets
Much like you suggest.

 

[BrendanGOT]

What peaceful settlement would you currently recommend?

One where Russia's illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea and Ukraine, with thousands of deaths caused by this, is allowed? Would you let them keep it?

The real problem here is that the Ukraine, a sovereign and democratic state, would not desire this, and rightfully so; nor would it be in Europe's wider interest.

Therefore with the Ukraine's request for help from nations and collectives it wishes to join, I don't really see this as a proxy war in the truest sense.

Did we (the West, EU, Nato et al.) instigate this war? Are we now supporting Ukraine purely or primarily for our own ends? I'd say the answer is a resounding no.

We are helping Ukraine defend its own land, which will ultimately also help blunt Putin and destabilise his power base. That itself is a positive by-product too.

If we were forcing Ukraine to fight against its will, it would be different. But we aren't - they want help - they need help. And Putin wouldn't stop here.

I'm not anti-Russian and I feel sorry for many of the Russian people, but right now I know which side I'm on.

I don't know truth be told because its difficult to answer. Putin wants demilitarisation of Ukraine so that its neutral and he wants his separatist regions protected and recognised. He also wants Crimea and NATO to go back to its pre 1994 boarders (think the year is right there).

But flip to the other side of the coin and the answer can't be WW3 or just keep giving the Ukraines weapons until theyre wiped out and forced to go to the negotiation table anyway.

Maybe giving him what he wants on the Donbass Republics and Crimea would be enough. I don't know. The point is with good leaders in charge they would figure this out. All our leaders have done is further escalate it.

And yes I believe the USA /NATO share their own portion of blame in leading up to where we are now but that doesn't absolve Putin either. The only people suffering are the Ukrainians

 

[PhilM]

"Unwritten behind or beside each name, there's a mother, or a father, or a wife, or a daughter whose lives were forever shattered by that damn war."

- Vincent Okamoto, a member of the Los Angeles Superior Court, talking about the Vietnam war in which he served.

The quote seemed apt.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Wonder is this assessment is correct

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[PhilM]

I don't know truth be told because its difficult to answer. Putin wants demilitarisation of Ukraine so that its neutral and he wants his separatist regions protected and recognised. He also wants Crimea and NATO to go back to its pre 1994 boarders (think the year is right there).

But flip to the other side of the coin and the answer can't be WW3 or just keep giving the Ukraines weapons until theyre wiped out and forced to go to the negotiation table anyway.

Maybe giving him what he wants on the Donbass Republics and Crimea would be enough. I don't know. The point is with good leaders in charge they would figure this out. All our leaders have done is further escalate it.

And yes I believe the USA /NATO share their own portion of blame in leading up to where we are now but that doesn't absolve Putin either. The only people suffering are the Ukrainians

Genuinely, and I'm not being facetious or argumentative here, what do you mean by this? Could you elaborate what you mean by their blame?

I'm sincerely curious. Personally, I feel we could have do more earlier on to limit Russia politically and militarily, but the onus must be on the aggressor.

I see similarities between this and blame culture of those who've been raped: you provoked them; their parents should have kept watch on them; they were drunk.

Whereas the responsibility must be on the rapist, like here with the aggressor. Now, honestly, I'm not suggesting that you're implying this at all - just an observation.

However, the wider shifting of blame worries me. If Ukraine want to carry on, if they want to defend their land, we should support them to that end.

In the background, the negotiations must continue to take place and hopefully a peaceful settlement can be made, but it can't be to the detriment of Ukraine.

Russia under Putin and his cronies is a threat to peace in Europe and beyond, like other dictators before him were. To that end, we must do what we can.

 

[LinekersLegs]

very brave

Inspiring woman

 

[PhilM]

Inspiring woman

As Dr Martin Luther King Jr said while preaching at White Rock Baptist Church, "Fill up the jails!"

 

[Davideeyore]

I don't know truth be told because its difficult to answer. Putin wants demilitarisation of Ukraine so that its neutral and he wants his separatist regions protected and recognised. He also wants Crimea and NATO to go back to its pre 1994 boarders (think the year is right there).

But flip to the other side of the coin and the answer can't be WW3 or just keep giving the Ukraines weapons until theyre wiped out and forced to go to the negotiation table anyway.

Maybe giving him what he wants on the Donbass Republics and Crimea would be enough. I don't know. The point is with good leaders in charge they would figure this out. All our leaders have done is further escalate it.

And yes I believe the USA /NATO share their own portion of blame in leading up to where we are now but that doesn't absolve Putin either. The only people suffering are the Ukrainians

As the old Pink Echo letters page with Tommy Smith used to follow with "bounce ball".

You must be on another planet. Civillians dead. Millions have fled due to their country being destroyed. And you say maybe give him this or give him (Putrid) that.

Putin has committed war crimes, do you not understand that? So there is no chance that this monster can come out of this with any settlements. Ukraine are trying to negotiate a cease fire, but it's over their dead bodies they will give in to this evil man and then he will be tried afterwards.

 

[verreauxi]

This is a bit tedious. What are you trying to achieve here? Notice how I'm engaging in normal conversation with everyone else except you? Because you keep having a pop. Like I say I've no interest in arguing etc I'll share my view if don't agree say why you don't like an adult if you wish rather than some point scoring rubbish and made up assumptions. Alternatively just pop me on ignore if you're incapable of that and if my opinion annoys you so much. Last I checked saying someone is being naive isnt an insult.

In regards to your 2nd paragraph that's your problem right there isn't it? You assumed. Then proceeded to make something up to make it seem like I'm attacking everyone on here which is not the case at all.

The last paragraph is exactly why they're trying to drum up support. Doesn't mean every media outlet is at it. Good on the Guardian hopefully more go this route and keep the support for war low as this can be resolved without WW3 happening.

Here's a concrete thing I'm trying to achieve: I'm interested in gaining an understanding of you saying you blame NATO/US for "poking the bear"...I asked you this because this is what you wrote, but you don't want to answer and instead suggest I'm not acting like an adult. So just for old-time sake: Do you blame US/NATO for the Russian invasion? Is that what you are saying? It's not a trick question and a few policy-types have suggested this.

As to the "Russophobia" issue, I was free to assume because you didn't write clearly and had previously been admonishing a GOT member here for being naive, hence I thought you were talking about GOT members given that you just claimed one was being naive.

And again, do you think Biden and Boris and other NATO leaders are actively trying to drum up support for WW3 via propoganda?

 

[PeregrineT]

Maybe giving him what he wants on the Donbass Republics and Crimea would be enough. I don't know. The point is with good leaders in charge they would figure this out. All our leaders have done is further escalate it.

So, in one breath you say "You dont know" and that the leaders have done it wrong. If you have no clue, which is evident from your complete lack of understanding of the situation and history and who Putin is and literally what he has said THIS month(which at least you admit you dont know), then how the hell can you know the way leaders are handling it is wrong, considering they know way more than you.

Not to say they are actually handling it right, just to point out how massively full of it you are, with statements like that, and that "maybe give the evil guy exactly what he wants and he will go away". Putin absolutely relies on people like you to get anywhere.

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[Yarrgh]

very brave

Malodec Marina!