There are many well-meaning people in the West who still seem to believe that Putin can be persuaded that the rational thing to do is settle disputes through diplomacy and then join the international system and prosper. That viewpoint completely misunderstands Putin. He despises the international system, he wants to destroy it and he has no use for diplomatic agreements except as a ruse to cover for his military ambitions.
Absolutely but we must not lose sight of the fact that "Putin" and "the Russian people" are a Venn diagram and not perfectly overlapping circles.
Absolutely but we must not lose sight of the fact that “Putin” and “the Russian people” are a Venn diagram and not perfectly overlapping circles.
From what I can tell, there is a deep feeling of grievance throughout Russia about the implosion of the Soviet Union. Rather than reflecting on "what did we do wrong and how can we do better", they simply blame the West for every problem that Russia has. Now, I do believe that the West made some serious errors, but ultimately Russia's problems are of their own making - other Eastern Bloc countries like Poland have done much, much better. Putin seems to have internalized that attitude of grievance and that's what's driving his policies, but it's not just him, it's pretty much everyone in a position of power in Russia. Getting rid of Putin won't solve the underlying issue of imagined grievances.
Thanks for providing the detail on your objections @nickc, and clarifying that your objection to the historical part is not its out-of-datedness but its incomplete nature. Are the ommissions significant in terms of the argument being put forward?
and as per usual the NATO aspect of his essay both mischaracterises Russian (Putins) motives, and excuses it.
.
Possibly, but you provide no detail on what you have read into it, and what you think the reality is.
I am not arguing with your position here, but as you criticised it as undergraduate level, I am holding you to similar standards.
From what I can tell, there is a deep feeling of grievance throughout Russia about the implosion of the Soviet Union. Rather than reflecting on “what did we do wrong and how can we do better”, they simply blame the West for every problem that Russia has. Now, I do believe that the West made some serious errors, but ultimately Russia’s problems are of their own making – other Eastern Bloc countries like Poland have done much, much better. Putin seems to have internalized that attitude of grievance and that’s what’s driving his policies, but it’s not just him, it’s pretty much everyone in a position of power in Russia. Getting rid of Putin won’t solve the underlying issue of imagined grievances
This does seem to be the case.
Even if the invasion is repulsed, back to pre 2014 borders, what is the future for Russia and a people who hold such views. Why they hold and if such views are 'right' is not really the issue - they hold those views and that needs to be understood.
Even if the invasion is repulsed, back to pre 2014 borders, what is the future for Russia and a people who hold such views
Treat them like North Korea.
Why is Putin clutching the desk and fidgeting like a nervous child in this video? Really does not come across as a calm, confident leader here.
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1517046534113792001
"If you think Putin is interested in a settlement, you do not understand Putin."
No I don't think that thols2, It was a view I put forward a week into the conflict as one possible option. If you go back and look at you're own (many) posts on here you'll see that you don't understand Putin either, none of us do.
That the cited piece is out of date is irrelevant. Not everyone is reacting to the last thing they saw in their Twitter feed.
But I see you have a problem with tenses, I said it was a thought I had a month ago, not what I think now, in fact if you actually read what I wrote you'll see I have a different perspective now.
I said I was half wrong as well, so your tone is uncalled for. No one, at any level has called this situation correctly.
After all, Putin did pull his troops back from the North West didn't he? I didn't see you predicting that?
As you say, I don't understand Putin's intentions but for me outcomes are more important than intentions,
Wether Putin is interested in a settlement or not, ultimately everything ends in some sort of settlement.
To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you're not even wrong.
Why is Putin clutching the desk
He's contemplating pressing the button that drops his minister into the tank full of sharks with frickin laser beams.
'tanks require infantry scouts and AA batteries' definitely a bit of war gaming going on here.
Why is Putin clutching the desk and fidgeting like a nervous child in this video? Really does not come across as a calm, confident leader here.
If you watch closely, his left hand is in his lap throughout without moving once, just like his left leg – it doesn't move at all. However his right hand and right foot are constantly twitching...
After all, Putin did pull his troops back from the North West didn’t he? I didn’t see you predicting that?
They got routed, it wasn't Putin's decision, it was forced on Russia because their northern army was about to be cut off and destroyed. Like most people, I thought this would be a long, brutal war. I don't think many people predicted how badly the Russian forces would perform and that they'd withdraw in defeat so quickly.
Amongst other things, the articke Seosamh77 linked to described how NATO had been set up due to the threat posed by the Soviet Union.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, that changed the dynamic. Not unreasonably, Russia expected NATO to draw back rather than increase the pressure on what was a new, fragile Russia.
Somewhat surprised by this, Russia then floated the idea of joining NATO itself, In a sense they held out an olive branch and we pinched all the olives, leaving them with a big stick. Putin is now using that big stick.
Rather than work towards a more stable future, the West decided to put their noses in the trough and sided with the oligarchs. Greed took precedence over ensuring mutual security.
where both sides remain armed and at a high state of readiness for years along whatever front line the war stalls at
This has always looked like the most likely (and sadly probably the best) outcome from the start of this latest series of attacks on Ukraine. The big question is, will other countries step in and help maintain that line and an uneasy ceasefire, if not (and I don’t think they will) it may only be short lived.
Not unreasonably, Russia expected NATO to draw back rather than increase the pressure on what was a new, fragile Russia.
Look at each country and why they choose to join or sign agreements with NATO and/or the EU. It was because they wanted stability rather than what Russia was offering. Many mutual security agreements that included Russia have been torn up over recent decades… not by “the West”, but by Putin. Not least those signed with Ukraine as a partner or recipient of assurances of peaceful coexistence.
Are the ommissions significant in terms of the argument being put forward?
I really haven't got time to write the long form response it requires. Go to the article and read chapter 3 - it's a potted history of Ukraines relationship with Russia which is a somewhat rose-tinted view Then go this this line in chapter 4
The December 1991 referendum on independence produced a 91 percent ‘Yes’ vote
It doesn't take much reading (wikipedia will do, hell you can even watch Michael palin's "Round the world" documentary/drama where he meets a fervently nationalist citizen in Ukraine) about the history of the tensions between these two countries to understand that the Ukrainians have always understood themselves to be subject to an invading country.
Why is Putin clutching the desk
many folks have proposed that he's suffering the early effects of Parkinson's. Personally I've always tended to shy away from diagnosing people on telly*, but the articles are out there if you seek them out
*Unless your name is Donald and you're telling a reporter about your genius medical that asks you to remember "Man woman, TV,"etc etc, then I absolutely will make conclusions about the state of your mental health.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, that changed the dynamic. Not unreasonably, Russia expected NATO to draw back rather than increase the pressure on what was a new, fragile Russia.
Somewhat surprised by this, Russia then floated the idea of joining NATO itself, In a sense they held out an olive branch and we pinched all the olives, leaving them with a big stick. Putin is now using that big stick.
Rather than work towards a more stable future, the West decided to put their noses in the trough and sided with the oligarchs. Greed took precedence over ensuring mutual security.
This is utter nonsense. Nations that had been invaded and occupied by Russia looked to NATO for security against that happening again. They requested NATO membership. The countries like Poland that joined the EU and NATO and embraced democracy have done much, much better than Russia and its puppet states. Putin did not offer an olive branch. He demanded that the West agree to Russia annexing former Soviet republics. Those nations refused and now Putin has started a war to get his way.
thols2.
Whatever the reason, they did pull back didn't they?
By the time I first posted on this thread it was clear that the Russians had been routed North of Kyiv, so that fact was priced in to my comment.
Whatever the reason, they did pull back didn’t they?
Putin didn't decide to pull back, his forces got routed.
This is utter nonsense. Nations that had been invaded and occupied by Russia looked to NATO for security against that happening again
My question is whether all sides will start to double down?
Anyone got any solution instead of double down?
We can all look at the history with agreement/disagreement but they are all in the past now.
many folks have proposed that he’s suffering the early effects of Parkinson’s.
A stroke perhaps? IANAD.
Anyone got any solution
Continue to fight the Russian military to either a standstill or preferably defeat. Use whatever means that takes by logistical support for the Ukrainian forces. When that has been achieved, insist on substantive peace talks that ensure Ukrainian independent by a mutually supportive treaty signed by European members of NATO such as the French and UK. Develop stronger ties between Ukraine and its near neighbours to the west of it such as Lithuania Poland and Romania
Anyone got any solution instead of double down?
Putin is not going to sign any meaningful peace treaty unless his army is routed. Even then, you need to assume that Russia will renege on any agreement in the future if they believe they can get away with it. Therefore, the only way this will be settled is that Ukraine forces the Russian army to withdraw and maintains a sufficiently powerful military to repel any future Russian invasion. The Ukrainian leaders and population know this so they will not accept any settlement that offers less than this. There may be a ceasefire and frozen conflict, but not a peace treaty. I don't know whether that's what you mean by "double down", but at this point, it's up to Putin to decide how badly he wants to lose this, Ukraine has no obligation to surrender to an invading country.
A stroke perhaps?
I thought that however you would expect it to have effected his face / speech too if it was so severe as to disable his arm and leg (although it *is* his left side that is effected so perhaps)?
substantive peace talks that ensure Ukrainian independent by a mutually supportive treaty signed by European members of NATO such as the French and UK.
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances - 1994
Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation - 1997
These lasted well!!
I will wait for a while to see more responses.
... I don’t know whether that’s what you mean by “double down”, ...
The term double down is as below. The term is used by the American Political Analysts.
double down
phrasal verb of double
US
1.
strengthen one's commitment to a particular strategy or course of action, typically one that is potentially risky.
"he decided to double down and escalate the war"
2.
(in blackjack) double a bet after seeing one's initial cards, with the requirement that one additional card be drawn.
"the amount only increases when you choose to split or double down"
I thought that however you would expect it to have effected his face / speech too
Is it purposefully filmed from his right side so as not to show the left side of his face? Whatever it is, he's not well.
Even then, you need to assume that Russia will renege on any agreement in the future
I read an intersting article that suggested that the Tzars would purposefully renege on every treaty they signed, as by design treaties limited the actions of the Tzars, and as Tzars were appointed by God, their actions could not be limited by treaties and it was litterally their devout duty to break the treaty at the earliest oppurtunity.
Re: strokes - some old fashioned understanding on display here. Strokes can vary in intensity and the effects of them vary over time. Don't assume anything.
Vlad could have one of many different illness/conditions as the symptoms are often the same for many. Whatever it is let's hope he expires very soon.
many folks have proposed that he’s suffering the early effects of Parkinson’s. Personally I’ve always tended to shy away from diagnosing people on telly*, but the articles are out there if you seek them out
Yep, there's speculation about whether Putin has Parkinson's or some form of cancer but I tend to shy away from armchair diagnoses, it's only been useful for generating clickbait.
Anyone got any solution instead of double down?
We can all look at the history with agreement/disagreement but they are all in the past now.
We can all agree that Putin (and by extension Russia) has failed to honour the terms of Ukraine's nuclear disarmament and that Putin has scant regard to international treaty obligations. Whatever Putin does next will be viewed with the utmost cynicism, it hasn't helped him that the vaunted Russian military has so readily had its' shorts whipped down by the Ukrainians.
So, we cannot take Putin at his word if he were to promise to pledge to de-escalate, nor should we expect him to voluntarily retire to his dacha somewhere, so I agree with thols2 that containment is the only other option. As before, I would not be surprised to see one (or more) or Russia's republics to secede in the medium term.
The Ukrainian leaders and population know this so they will not accept any settlement that offers less than this. There may be a ceasefire and frozen conflict, but not a peace treaty. I don’t know whether that’s what you mean by “double down”, but at this point, it’s up to Putin to decide how badly he wants to lose this, Ukraine has no obligation to surrender to an invading country.
This. Even if Ukraine were to surrender Donbas, there would be no guarantee that Putin/Russia wouldn't attempt another territorial grab further down the line.
nickc
that article is a variant of “It’s NATO” there are other readings available.
That's not what I took from the article at all, point the bit were it says 'it's NATO'? He's more commenting on the pantomime surrounding that.
@seosamh77, linking directly to pdf files tends to remove them from their context, it is more useful for others if you link to the originating page from which they are linked (that is, the page of the first publisher of the pdf). Without knowing the context of the original publication, it is difficult to know what to expect of it (eg in terms of scholarly depth).
I don't know where it originated or I would have. That's why I posted the link to the short authors bio.
This. Even if Ukraine were to surrender Donbas, there would be no guarantee that Putin/Russia wouldn’t attempt another territorial grab further down the line.
I am not so sure about territory grab beyond Ukraine but judging from the information available
Ukraine will definitely come under Russian control regardless of the resources and time spent to subdue the country. It looks like it is a case of who has more "stamina" ...
Ukraine but judging from the information available
Ukraine will definitely come under Russian control regardless of the resources and time spent to subdue the country.
what available information is saying that?
Russia are trying desperately to cling on to the bits they have taken!
> 1/10th of their troops and equipment are dead or destroyed and more captured
The economy has been hamstrung
Theyre attempting a push to take more of Donbass but its alreday costing them dearly, they still cant take Mariupol and forced into a humiliating retreat from Kyiv
Their war has been an absolute farce, UKr have spent years fortifying East Ukr, unless they mobilizse fully (Putin is unable to do that because then he'd have to admit his special operation has failed and is now a war) Then hes just sending more of his troops to be slaughtered
Murray
Chapter 14 confuses me. The concluding paragraph says:
“Some of the old tools—internationalism, class solidarity, a fierce and uncompromising analytical clarity—will be needed to rearm the left against this new round of inter-imperial contention: against the powerful, against both their wars and their peace.”
I don’t see anything in the paper that shows how the international left being united will solve this problem, even if one accepts that this is a battle between 2 empires.
I don't think that bit is saying that the international left will solve the problem, I think that more a comment about the pressures we'll face at home due to the enhanced Militarisation of European countries.
If the reigning political-economic order remains in place, it is difficult to see this ramping up of military expenditures not coming at the cost of what little remains of social safety nets. Neoliberal
And regards to the 2 empires, Russia isn't the empire it's talking about.
Ukraine will definitely come under Russian control regardless of the resources and time spent to subdue the country.
I’m not at all sure what you’re trying to say here. If you’re asserting that you believe that Ukraine will capitulate to Russia, why has Russia’s military been comprehensively outfought?
what available information is saying that?
EU is still buying gas from Russia so that is the monetary resources for a start albeit they will "stop" buying soon, other nations that do not really bow to the West/NATO will continue to trade with them etc.
Russia are trying desperately to cling on to the bits they have taken!
Assuming they are willing to scarify 20 - 22 million people like they did in WWII, how long will it take to reach that number of casualty?
I’m not at all sure what you’re trying to say here. If you’re asserting that you believe that Ukraine will capitulate to Russia, why has Russia’s military been comprehensively outfought?
No, I am not saying Ukraine will capitulate but rather saying that Russia/Putin will fight to the end to gain control of Ukraine.
Ukraine will definitely come under Russian control regardless of the resources and time spent to subdue the country.
Definitely? That is a very strong word.
Definitely? That is a very strong word.
Yes, Russia is now stuck in the situation. It will be too costly for them to get out even when it means costing more to stay in. The latter is still a better option for them.
—the sheer size of the Russian military means they can continue to fight for some time given the political will
If nothing else as been shown in this conflict, that the Russian military is a busted flush is perhaps one of the more obvious ones.
I don't think it's been proven that it's a busted flush yet. It's been proven that the help Ukraine has been given has been enough to stop Russia advancing. How much land it can now take in the East is subject to how current events play out.
Essentially it's been proven that UKraine has been given enough defensive options, so far. Have they been given enough offensive options? Dunno we'll see.
Your man Beau has and interesting take on the motivations for assistance.
I don’t think it’s been proven that it’s a busted flush yet. It’s been proven that the help Ukraine has been given has been enough to stop Russia advancing. How much land it can now take in the East is subject to how current events play out.
Essentially it’s been proven that UKraine has been given enough defensive options, so far. Have they been given enough offensive options? Dunno well well see.
Your man Beau has and interesting take on the motivations for assistance.
The aid that the Ukraine have been given is defensive, as there's a fine line that the west can dance on to support Ukraine, offensive weaponry is, in my opinion, beyond that line and would have Russia escalating in some manner.
The defensive equipment supplied has helped Ukraine, but the reality is that Russia are not utilising smart weapons, or doing what you'd expect in a conflict like this,, there was no 'shock and awe' about this at the start, they are still doing what they were doing in WW2, throwing ill equipped and trained troops at the problem.
Assuming they are willing to scarify 20 – 22 million people like they did in WWII, how long will it take to reach that number of casualty?
theres no way Putin would be able to do that, he has nothing like the grip on power stalin had
If he hasnt mobilized now its too late for this war
Assuming they are willing to scarify 20 – 22 million people like they did in WWII, how long will it take to reach that number of casualty?
The Soviet Union lost more than 12m soldiers during WW2, but was supported by western military equipment and economic aid in an effort to defend itself from invasion. Russia’s population demographics here can’t readily support losing that many men of fighting age. Nor can Russia’s industry equip so many soldiers either. If I understand what you’re trying to say correctly, to assert that Russia will mobilise millions of soldiers, support them logistically, arm them, train them and deploy them is extremely fanciful.
EU is still buying gas from Russia so that is the monetary resources for a start albeit they will “stop” buying soon, other nations that do not really bow to the West/NATO will continue to trade with them etc
“Bow to” is a bit of a weird flex.
Russia is now stuck in the situation. It will be too costly for them to get out even when it means costing more to stay in. The latter is still a better option for them.
The reality is that the Russian military is weak and is unable to conquer Ukraine. They've been at war for less than two months and they've lost about 30% of their fighting capacity without achieving any of their major objectives. They got routed in the north and have made little progress anywhere else. The idea that they can win this war is a fantasy.
