-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Russia Invades Ukraine
- Thread starter Tigers of Old
- Start date
Nope, the "realpolitik" excuse was BS from the start, and it's mostly only the sad Putinists who are still clinging to this interpretation. "cornering" him? Laughable. Now he'll likely have Sweden and Finland as NATO members which was a totally predictable outcome.
Putin's motivations were totally clear from the start - he has a grand vision for a greater Russia, he resents Ukraine's freedoms and quality of life relative to Russia, and he has bizarre notions of his place in Russian history.
Depends on the situation really.
With Russia it goes back to 1989 really, but I would have tried to co-opt Russia and give them a whole set of reasons to align with Europe, rather than seeing Europe as a threat. You don't have to agree with Russia seeing NATO as a threat to understand that, if they do see NATO as a threat, then they are likely to respond. NATO only exists to oppose Russia, it has no other rationale, so expanding NATO to Russia's borders is clearly going to be seen as provocative. More carrots, less sticks.
DS
If you are DavidSS you appease them and argue that their behaviour is totally rational and attributable to realpolitik, then blame NATO
If you are Antman you cannot see the competing geopolitical machinations and everything is back and white, there is a clear baddy and a clear goody and Western Democracy is always the goody. Western democracies never go against the "rules based order", would never invade other countries and would never go against the International Court (oh, except the USA who refuse to join the International Court).
So, how would you have avoided the situation we are currently seeing?
DS
Sure dude, I'm known for my super pro-western, un-nuanced view of the world.
Here's some realpolitik - Putin hoodwinked the west when he went and addressed the German parliament and spoke fluent German and praised Kant and Goethe and German innovation, art and culture. Putin was only ever interested in making himself obscenely rich and powerful, and being the new Tzar of a brutal Russian empire. He invested nothing in manufacturing and innovation in Russia(except weapons), and just focused on oil and gas to make himself and a select group of oligarchs even more wealthy. He has no interest in improving the quality of life of Russians - only to perpuate his own hegemony.
He also thought it would be cool to run proxy wars in Syria and yes, the West was too WEAK to oppose him in that, or in his intererence in Georgian/Belarussian politics, or Ukranian politics.
Offering dictators carrots does nothing except expand their greed and ambition - real world history tells us this.
But please, give me one example of a "carrot" that Europe/the West could have given Putin. Here's one - Ukraine could have given up its nuclear weapons to have made Russia feel less "threatened".
Oh wait, they already did that.
I don't even know what that sentence means, so I'm glad you get it, because I certainly don't
Can you point to examples of where appeasement has worked to satisfy a dictator??
There are many examples where appeasement has made said dictator feel that his "enemies" were weak and those situations it hasn't ended well.
Can you provide real world examples where it has worked as you stick to this as your argument constantly.
Who said appeasement? What you do is called statecraft, you read the situation and you don't provoke a country to invade a neighbour you are completely unwilling to defend.
The whole point of diplomacy and statecraft is that we never know what wars were prevented.
We all knew what Putin's lines in the sand were and Ukraine and NATO was a line in the sane. So what did the USA do? They signed an agreement with Ukraine in November 2021 which included the following: "The United States supports Ukraine’s efforts to maximize its status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner to promote interoperability."
You can't continue to maintain that Putin is some sort of madman hell bent on taking over Europe and at the same time justify provoking him. It is even more irresponsible when the West is unwilling to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression. Nice ally the west, provoke Ukraine's enemy and then refuse to actually defend Ukraine.
As for Putin and the Oligarchs, was it not the wonderful economic advice freely provided to Russia after the break up of the USSR which led to the oligarchic capitalist system they now have? Was it not the west who made sure Yeltsin was installed as their leader after the USSR and Yeltsin and the west's favoured successor (guess who?) who the west backed?
The West had a hand in creating the Russia of today and now want to wash their hands of the outcome. Sorry, Putin is a war criminal, but without the backing of the west he wouldn't be in power.
What next, are you going to invoke the farce that is the liberal rules-based order?
Antman, I cannot explain the statement above, it means what it says, the west wants to punish Russia and is willing to sacrifice as many Ukrainians as it takes to do so.
DS
The whole point of diplomacy and statecraft is that we never know what wars were prevented.
We all knew what Putin's lines in the sand were and Ukraine and NATO was a line in the sane. So what did the USA do? They signed an agreement with Ukraine in November 2021 which included the following: "The United States supports Ukraine’s efforts to maximize its status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner to promote interoperability."
You can't continue to maintain that Putin is some sort of madman hell bent on taking over Europe and at the same time justify provoking him. It is even more irresponsible when the West is unwilling to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression. Nice ally the west, provoke Ukraine's enemy and then refuse to actually defend Ukraine.
As for Putin and the Oligarchs, was it not the wonderful economic advice freely provided to Russia after the break up of the USSR which led to the oligarchic capitalist system they now have? Was it not the west who made sure Yeltsin was installed as their leader after the USSR and Yeltsin and the west's favoured successor (guess who?) who the west backed?
The West had a hand in creating the Russia of today and now want to wash their hands of the outcome. Sorry, Putin is a war criminal, but without the backing of the west he wouldn't be in power.
What next, are you going to invoke the farce that is the liberal rules-based order?
Antman, I cannot explain the statement above, it means what it says, the west wants to punish Russia and is willing to sacrifice as many Ukrainians as it takes to do so.
DS
So if this is about NATO, and Ukraine have agreed to cancel any plans to join NATO< why is their no ceasefire?
Maybe it has something to do with this??? Its pretty obvious what Russia wants and its not to do with stopping NATO expansion. Russia knew full well that invading Ukraine would result in MORE not less NATO troops on its border, but keep believing the propaganda.
Via Southern Ukraine, Russia Eyes “Another Route” to Moldova’s Transnistria
In remarks that will cause concern in Chisinau, a senior Russian commander said Russian speakers were being “oppressed” in a rebel region of Moldova.
balkaninsight.com
This bizarre take ignores the fact that the Ukranians seem quite motivated to defend their country from Russia and resisting the murder, rape and torture of Ukranian civilians but ok, lets play it out.
Your solution then is the West should stop all sanctions against Russia, stop helping Ukraine militarily and economically, normalise relations and step up purchase of Putin's oil and gas again.
The Ukranians should lay down their arms and concede their country to Putin and his kleptocratic state.
What have I missed?
Last edited:
So if this is about NATO, and Ukraine have agreed to cancel any plans to join NATO< why is their no ceasefire?
Maybe it has something to do with this??? Its pretty obvious what Russia wants and its not to do with stopping NATO expansion. Russia knew full well that invading Ukraine would result in MORE not less NATO troops on its border, but keep believing the propaganda.
Via Southern Ukraine, Russia Eyes “Another Route” to Moldova’s Transnistria
In remarks that will cause concern in Chisinau, a senior Russian commander said Russian speakers were being “oppressed” in a rebel region of Moldova.
For David - Putin spoke to the UN Secretary General yesterday. If the war is all about NATO aggression, then why is the ending of this now dependent on territorial issues over Crimea and the Donbas??? I thought the war was all NATO's fault
Watch: Putin tells UN chief he hopes for positive result in Ukraine talks
Russian President Vladimir Putin met the UN Secretary General across his famous long white table earlier today, telling Antonio Guterrez that negotations with Ukraine continue online.He said he hopes for a "positive result" from the talks.
But Putin said he cannot sign security guarantees for Ukraine without deciding on territorial issues over Crimea and Sevastopol, annexed by Russia in 2014, and the Donbas - where Russian-backed separatists have been fighting Ukraine for eight years.
Show me where I said any of that.
Go on, put words in my mouth, if that is the best you have, then fine.
I note no solutions are coming from you lot.
What do you propose?
Come on, out with it.
What is your solution?
You claim Putin is a madman, and we all know that Russia has the capacity to obliterate Ukraine and is well on the way to killing tens of thousands of people in Ukraine and bombing it into rubble.
But your solution is to keep giving Ukraine a few supplies and watching them get killed and cities turned into rubble. How's that going, are you happy that lots of people are being killed and cities are being destroyed?
My position is that we need to stop the war because people are getting killed. It is simply unrealistic to think that somehow Russia will stop the war without some sort of credible way out. If you wish to sacrifice people for the sake of making sure Putin ends up with egg on his face then so be it, I will repeat what I said before: you are punishing Russia and Putin to the last Ukrainian.
DS
Dude, you position is super clear. You blame the West for this situation and want to deny absolutely any agency for the Ukranian people in terms of defending their sovereignty and way of life. You concede Putin is bad - oh, he isn't a madman by the way, he's rational in the context of his motivations. But your solution is appeasement.
Ukraine wanted to join NATO. Ukraine wanted to join the EU. Ukraine is defending itself with everything it has, and the lesson for Putin and Russia that winning a land war is much harder than it used to be, and that you can't hold a country that doesn't want to be held. This is irrelevant for you of course.
No one here cares about "punishing" Putin or Russia - pretty clearly its the Russian people who suffer most through sanctions, but we have to use the weapons that are available to us. Your "realpolitik" analysis was a farce - it never played, and we've seen that now through the failure of Russia to defeat the Ukrainian military, to replace Zelensky with a puppet regime, and with the fast tracking of Sweden and Finland into NATO. Yes Ukranians are dying - because they dare to resist the tyrant that you want to appease.
Here it is in black and white dude - Ukrainians are dying because they dare to resist an invasion of their country by Putin and his thugs - not because the West wants to punish Putin. You go and tell them to roll over and see how you go with that.
A solution? Yes, its a mess. We are in this position not because Putin and Russia have been cruelly oppressed by the West but because we let Putin play his games in Europe and the Middle East. We kept buying his oil and gas, and turned a blind eye to his troll farms, his pseudo-military expeditions, and his suppression of oppostion figures and journalists in his own country. In that sense it is the West's fault.
There will (eventually) be some sort of negotiated solution, and that will also be a very bad outcome for Ukraine and its people. That's the mess we are in now.
So you finally concede that the west contributed to this mess, halleluliah.
I'll add that the west contributed even more by expanding NATO (you know NATO, NATO exists for one purpose, to oppose Russia, and NATO membership includes one third of the world's nuclear powers, so, yeah, when NATO expands towards Russia, for some reason Russia gets a little paranoid - gee I wonder why?). Plus, the west have been trying to weaken Russia since the end of the cold war and installed Yeltsin and his chosen (and western backed) successor - Putin, along with setting up the oligarchic capitalism Russia now enjoys.
Realpolitik is used to explain the actions of Putin and Russia. It has explanatory power. To cite analysis to explain motivating factors in no way means I support the actions, I just seek to understand them. Understanding can also contribute to finding solutions which are less deadly, that is my concern.
While it is true that the West, and the USA in particular, dismissed Russia's concerns, Putin resorted to violence which was always a possibility. As Chomsky said "Instead of pursuing diplomatic options, Putin reached for the revolver". What Realpolitik contributes is that the motivation for Putin to choose the invasion option was explicable. What that tells me is that we should have taken this more seriously. The west's response to Russia's build up on Ukraine's border was to sabre rattle, rather than seek to defuse the situation. Putin's reaction was to unleash war.
Now the war is happening, what the west is up to? The US Defence Secretary is now saying they are gearing up to provide more arms to Ukraine. What is this, war by proxy with the Ukrainian people and their cities as collateral damage? No sign of any willingness to bring this to an end. No statecraft, no diplomacy. This, in the full knowledge that Russia has the ability, and the inclination, to obliterate Ukraine. What are they expecting, that Ukraine should attempt to win militarily rather than seek a settlement? It is clear that the western strategy is to see whether 1) Putin and Russia will withdraw at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians dead and multiple destroyed cities, or 2) whether Russia just obliterates Ukraine. How's that going by the way, is it ok, are Ukrainians just collateral damage?
Ukraine is the meat in the sandwich. Zelensky has offered compromises - Russia has rejected them and the USA rejects any move to compromise on neutrality, Crimea or Donbass.
Meanwhile, the war continues, people die and cities get obliterated. The Russians kill and maim, and the USA adds fuel to the fire. Both sides only want peace on their terms, until that happens people are being killed.
DS
I've mentioned several times before that the West has been way too weak in it's previous responses to Putin so you've got that wrong for starters.
You continue to push the anti NATO dialogue that Putin has attempted to push out, yet ignore that the Russians actions since the war began indicate that the statements around NATO expansion are purely propaganda and that the entire purpose of this war, is to reconnect all states that have Russian speaking popultaions.
You continue to push an appeasement strategy (call it statecraft if you want, but what you are calling for is appeasement) despite the fact there are numerous times when appeasement has not worked. In fact, as I pointed out before, the appeasement strategy engaged by the west with Putin is very similar to the appeasement strategy that the west pursued with Hitler in the early 1930's.
In both occasions, the aggressor (Hitler and Putin) has viewed the west as timid and weak. Potentially not since the 1930's have we seen a weaker political system around the world. No dominant political parties, all having to pander to multiple parties resulting in weak decision making both domestically and on the International stage. No governments are currently interested in wars, much like they weren't back in the early 30's.
In both occasions, the aggressor has stated on numerous occasions that they want to merge states that are naturally speaking populations (in Hitlers case German and Putins Russian).
In both occasions, the aggressor has invaded and taken control of some of those regions without any real penalty. Hitler with Sudetenland, Putin with the Donbas. This lack of response to these invasions, further instilled the view that the west were weak in those leaders.
In both occasions did those leaders then invade a country in full, Hitler with Czechslovakia and Putin with Ukraine but this is where the differences lay. Hitler knew how to invade, he had a very sound strategy for invasion, the Russians did not. This is the only bit where these different invasion scenarios differ and the west has reacted with Ukraine, they didn't do the same with Czechslovakia, in fact they doubled down on appeasement and indicated that Hitler could keep Czechslovakia, it was only when Hitler then invaded Poland did they realise that appeasement wouldn't work, and we all know how the next 6 years ended.
Appeasement is seen as weak by military leaders, and this should be where we as Australians should be concerned. A weak response from the west in Ukraine, would have opened the door to the Chinese in terms of expansion.
There is no easy answer unfortunately (and there never was, despite what you seem to indicate). Putin viewed the west as weak and unless we had shown this differently, he was always going to invade. Ultimately now, the resolve of the Ukrainians is high and all of this will result in a very bloody conflict (we are already seeing that). Russia will not leave without at least gaining the entire Donbas region and have it legitimately recognised as part of Russia (this won't be easy to do without the west seeming weak yet again), but more probably as they have indicated they want all of southern Ukraine and part of the south west to merge through to Moldova. Again this will not be an easy solution for either side.
Western media have failed dismally in reporting the Ukraine war - Pearls and Irritations
Western news agencies have rushed to tell the Ukraine side of the story but they have ignored the Russian side of the story.
johnmenadue.com
