Current Affairs Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
If they wish to join, Finland and Sweden should be admitted immediately. Once Putin‘s military collapses within the next couple of weeks and he’s forced out, we should also immediately offer Ukraine membership and really shove Putins nose in the crap……
I read today that NATO doesn't offer membership to any country with a disputed border, so Ukraine can't get admitted currently.

Since that was one of his pretexts for the war, I wonder why the west hasn't made more of this?
 
I read today that NATO doesn't offer membership to any country with a disputed border, so Ukraine can't get admitted currently.

Since that was one of his pretexts for the war, I wonder why the west hasn't made more of this?
On a purely factual basis, that's a lie. The US and Canada still have several long-running border disputes.

In principle, that's fairly accurate. NATO would not admit a country with the kind of border dispute which had recently prompted or was likely to prompt a shooting war...unless the country in question was West Germany, whose border dispute was more or less the reason for the alliance in the first place. The US and its principal Western allies determined that they had little interest in being drawn into a conflict over the disposition of, say, South Ossetia or Crimea.
 
Ukraine absolutely, and desperately wants NATO involvement, if nothing else to strengthen their hand at the conference table. I am more skeptical about the Polish, Czech and Slovenian governments. Poland has every reason to want the strongest possible NATO commitment to defend NATO territory, and to escalate short of WMD exchange as a consequence. That's the hand that they've been playing up until now, though I don't know how committed they are to that approach. The Czechs and Slovenians have a better dirt situation, and I have a hard time seeing them as provocateurs. Someone like @Bruce Wayne might be able to weigh in on the situation on the ground in Czechia, and prove me wrong at least in terms of the immediate politics.


He didn't end up with a long-term separatist conflict in Georgia, though. He forced Georgia to accede to letting go of his sympathizers and walked. He more easily could have taken much of Georgia if he really wanted. I wouldn't have wanted to pacify an insurgency there either, though. Trying to dig insurgents out of the Caucasus is just asking for trouble. See: eastern Afghanistan and its own mountain range that the British, Soviets and United States all broke their teeth on.

In the case of Ukraine, the dirt is more favorable from an attacker's perspective but they have 10x the people. This necessitates a lot more boots to pacify an insurgency, and other posters have highlighted some of the evidence from over the years that despite internal divisions, the Ukrainians respond strongly to threats to their identity and circle up the wagons when those threats occur. Sure, some of that evidence might be a clip from Seinfeld, but the clip is believable (and funny), which is the point. If the clip weren't believable, it would tell us something about who they are.

What Putin probably wants in Ukrainian politics is influence, more than the dirt. Reality is that Ukraine has made a decent chunk of Russian natural gas exports from pipelines crossing their territory vanish over the years. The dirt would also be as good as it gets from the perspective of NATO launching disabling counterforce missile strikes against his land-based forces. From his perspective, these are the threats.

The narrative seems to be that Putin went into Ukraine whole-hog because of the cultural linkages, and thought that he would be welcomed with open arms, but I think that's wrong. I think he went in as hard as he did because of the stakes. I don't think he expected to be welcomed, but I also think he believed he could project more hard power than it turned out he could. I think he expected to roll up the dirt east of the Dnieper fairly easily, and produce a failed state incapable of joining NATO while driving a hard bargain for peace.

You are, of course, welcome to dispute the non-factual portions of that argument. It's my assessment. It doesn't mean I'm right. I'm no expert on Ukrainian or Russian politics. I know an awful lot about the system more broadly, but I won't presume to claim area specialty. To use a poker analogy, I can put Putin on a range based on the available information. I can't necessarily put him on a hand.
This perhaps sums it up

 
Bruce, she actually said about being in Dublin but to remember that the U.K. was behind/supporting them. Now, do you have anything, and I mean anything positive to say about the U.K. throughout this, because you are becoming more like a Putin mouthpiece or Corbyn copy……
I'm honestly not sure what the UK has done that is positive throughout all of this. You may argue that Britain has been generous in the supply of arms, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with the recent enormous rise in BAe's share price

file-20220309-15-407yi0.png
 

Angered at the Kremlin, China's ambassador to Ukraine said he admired the resistance: "I have seen how great the unity of the Ukrainian people is, and that is their strength. We will respect the path chosen by the Ukrainians, because this is the sovereign right of every nation. "​


Great bunch of lads
 

Angered at the Kremlin, China's ambassador to Ukraine said he admired the resistance: "I have seen how great the unity of the Ukrainian people is, and that is their strength. We will respect the path chosen by the Ukrainians, because this is the sovereign right of every nation. "​


Great bunch of lads
Except Taiwanese sovereignty
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top