Forum menu
It’s interesting that anyone who doesn’t toe the hawkish line is accused of being naive, when in reality all they are doing is pointing out the cold reality of the situation.
The cold reality is that you are toeing the hawkish Putin line - this war started because Putin believes he can take whatever he wants by force, it'll keep going until he learns otherwise.
In a perfect world they would. But it’s very much not a perfect world and geopolitics is a complex game which doesn’t respect the wishes of populations, politicians or commentators. It’s interesting that anyone who doesn’t toe the hawkish line is accused of being naive, when in reality all they are doing is pointing out the cold reality of the situation.
To follow that position logically. If cold reality in an imperfect world tells us Putin wants to recreate the Soviet empire and subjugate other neighbours too, should they and we just accept it?
Its nuts that you’re still giving him the benefit of the doubt on this.
Oh give over, I'm doing nothing of the sort. Whether you like it or not he's not going to be 'defeated' by more weapons and more posturing. If you really think that then we might as well get on with it and launch the missiles now and get it over with. Like I said, it's a good job there are more serious and realistic people in charge of the west's response than many on this thread.
putins ‘way out’ is capturing the whole of Ukraine, completely breaking its culture, replacing all leaders with his appointed puppets
And that's not going to happen either. The endgame of this mess is not going to be one side won and the other lost. The sooner everyone recognises that the better.
In a perfect world they would. But it’s very much not a perfect world and geopolitics is a complex game which doesn’t respect the wishes of populations, politicians or commentators.
Seems a rather odd position for a self-proclaimed anarchist to adopt.
Equally you could argue that had the west not encouraged Ukraine to move towards joining nato and the EU it would never have been invaded.
Nah, still not buying that line. Putin doesn't see Ukraine as a separate country (and has said as much) It rightfully belongs to Russia as far as he's concerned. This is a just another extension of behaviour that has seen two brutal wars in Chechnya, an invasion of Georgia and the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Putin has said that the event that made him who he is today was the (self) destruction of the USSR, and that his ambition is to re-create it, it's probably about time we took that seriously.
Wot Nick said
Oh give over, I’m doing nothing of the sort.
so do you genuinely think if Ukraine agreed to stop fighting tomorrow that Putin wouldn't take over the rest of Ukraine??
What does peace look like in your view? Russia keeps what its captured so far , even though Putin has declared the whole of donetsk, luhansk, zaphorizhaziha and kharkiv as part of Russia, and intends to capture the remaining parts, will Ukraine have to give them up?
putins ‘way out’ is capturing the whole of Ukraine, completely breaking its culture, replacing all leaders with his appointed puppets, doing what he has done to Nalvavny and any opposition in Russia, across Ukraine .
You missed "abduct their children, ship them to Russian Far East and destroying their documents so they can never be reunited with their Ukrainian parents"
Seems a rather odd position for a self-proclaimed anarchist to adopt.
Not really sure what my political leanings have to do with this? But seeing as you bring it up, what should the position be for a 'self proclaimed anarchist'? (I'm not sure I've ever proclaimed that BTW but whatevs)
so do you genuinely think if Ukraine agreed to stop fighting tomorrow that Putin wouldn’t take over the rest of Ukraine??
Where have I said Ukraine should stop fighting? They've been invaded, it's perfectly within their right to defend themselves. If you think that's my position then you've completely misunderstood it (or more likely you've invented whatever you think my view is because you've taken something I've said and extrapolated it into some sort of fantasy lefty peacenik charicature. I really thought you'd be better than that)
What does peace look like in your view?
I've got no idea, I woudn't presume to predict geopolitical events. I don't even have much of an opinion on what it should look like, only that peace would be better than war and greater military escalation. TBH I don't think 'peace' is even achievable. It's obvious that we're entering a new cold war and nuclear stand off with Putin. If we're lucky it'll settle into some sort of stalemate and we can carry on. If we're unlucky on the other hand, that doesn't even bear thinking about.
when in reality all they are doing is pointing out the cold reality of the situation.
But you likely wouldn't accept the US invading whichever Southern American state it felt like on that basis, or the destruction of Gaza as "cold realities" You're essentially just saying you'll turn a blind eye to selected country's behaviour because it suits your interests.
I'm happy to condemn them all for what they are; Imperialism. Just because it's not America this time, doesn't make it any better.
But you likely wouldn’t accept the US invading whichever Southern American state it felt like on that basis, or the destruction of Gaza as “cold realities”
Where the hell have I said that I 'accept' the invasion of Ukraine?? FFS stop inventing whatever you think I believe and stick to what I post. It's funny that you guys seem to know better than I do what I think about this, because I have yet to figure it out. The only thing I do know for certain is that I don't want it to escalate to nuclear war. I'll accept pretty much any scenario to avoid that.
Where the hell have I said that I ‘accept’ the invasion of Ukraine??
To be fair, your stated position of "pointing out the cold reality of the situation" could give the strong impression that you accept it.
I’ll accept pretty much any scenario to avoid that.
Which clearly means that you'll accept Ukraine as a Satellite or wholly subsumed into Russia. As that's what either negotiation with Putin or "Accepting the cold realities" means, doesn't it? You can't on the one hand applaud Ukraine for resisting the Russian invasion while at the same time condemn it for not rolling over so that you're not faced with the possibility of nuclear war. Make your mind up.
your stated position of “pointing out the cold reality of the situation” could give the strong impression that you accept it.
Nope. Recognising something has happened and isn't going away is a million miles away from aggreeing with it.
Which clearly means that you’ll accept Ukraine as a Satellite or wholly subsumed into Russia.
I suppose if the choice is myself, my entire family and all my friends dying a horrible grisly death in a post-nuclear war world, or Ukraine being not being a wholly independent state then yeah I'll accept the latter. Who wouldn't? I strongly hope it doesn't come to either of those scenarios but I doubt one can be avoided without the other coming to fruition.
To add to the Putin will not stop, the Kremlin papers from a few weeks ago suggested that he's not going to stop, that he is going to cause more disruption and arguments in any way they can, and that Ukraine is not the end goal either - basically world domination is the end goal.
I suppose if the choice is myself, my entire family and all my friends dying a horrible grisly death in a post-nuclear war world, or Ukraine being not being a wholly independent state then yeah I’ll accept the latter. Who wouldn’t?
What about when Putin invades Poland, Czechia, Estonia, Finland.... Because that's his plan. Success in Ukraine would be succor to his global ambitions and his brutal way of behaving. It would get a lot worse.
Who wouldn’t?
Ukranians.
Anyway, Daz's reality distortion field aside, this is interesting listening on the factors that fuel domestic terrorism in russia:
dying a horrible grisly death in a post-nuclear war world
What makes you think that Putin would use nuclear weapons on 1. a bit of the world that he thinks is his, and 2. the birthplace of the Russian people? And as stupid as that second one should sound in a rational world. I would invite you read Putin's rationale for invasion that he wrote way back in July 2021. That has by the by, nothing what so ever to do with NATO or the EU
You can read it here on the Kremlin site
Just want to point out that (admittedly only from reading the last page or so) that it seems like Dazh made the quite blunt statement that (paraphrase) "I'll accept anything in preference to nuclear war", and everyone's interpreting that to mean "I'll accept anything in preference to the chance of nuclear war".
It's quite different. I'm inclined to agree with the first version, hard as it may be.
Theres only one person threatening nuclear war, the same as he does whenever he doesnt like something. It certainly isnt NATO.
Neville Chamberlains views during the rise of Hitler were from the same script. How did that go?
Give Ukraine what they need to defend themselves. Now. If we had followed your thoughts early in the war, Kyiv would have fallen, and Putins hordes would now be on the Polish/Romanian border with all his armys might intact.
Russia is only under threat from its own policies.
Ah the old “better red than dead” refrain 🤦🏻♂️
Anyway, Daz’s reality distortion field aside
You don't think there's a serious threat of nuclear war? Many/most geo-poliitical analysts and commentators seem to disagree, because almost everything I've read suggest they think we've never been closer to it since the highest heights of the cold war. If only we were lucky enough to a have a Krushchev in charge of the other side instead of a power-crazed lunatic gangster. If you don't think that's real then lucky you.
Ukranians.
Of course they wouldn't, and it's why they're entitled to defend themselves. Are you saying though that Ukraine having the freedom to join NATO and the EU is an issue on which it is worth going to nuclear war for? I don't know about you but that seems like a massively extreme and unhinged position to take.
You don’t think there’s a serious threat of nuclear war?
Not particularly higher than its ever been in the last 70 years, no.
Are you saying though that Ukraine having the freedom to join NATO and the EU is an issue on which it is worth going to nuclear war for?
Isn't that literally the point of NATO? If the basis is "If you attack one of us, you attack all of us" then surely that's going to limit Putin's ability to use them, not increase the chance of him using them..
What has been slightly overlooked in the 'Putin would just carry on' line of reasoning is what his would mean for other parts of the world where smaller countries or territories are being loomed over by much larger neighbors with authoritarian governments.
China and Taiwan
Venezuela and Guyana
Argentina and the Falklands
I'm sure there are many others bubbling away.
If Russia had been allowed to take Ukraine without the huge global blowback it's faced then it would have effectively fired the starting pistol on a whole new era of imperialist wars of aggression, which would have made the economic impact that we've seen so far from the war in Ukraine look like a mere speedbump.
This could still happen is Ukraine is abandoned, so giving them what they need to drive the Russians back isn't just a moral imperative. it's entirely in our own selfish interests.
FFS. derailment.
Can we keep this to factual / reporting.
Ah the old “better red than dead” refrain
Well yes, but only if it actually, literally, comes right down to it.
All this bluster is IMO exactly that and I tend to agree with this:
Not particularly higher than its ever been in the last 70 years, no.
So it's a moot point right now - we aren't actually in much danger of a fiery nuclear armageddon.
+1 nick & hatter.
Edit: And +1 RNP 🤣
Not particularly higher than its ever been in the last 70 years, no.
I envy your optimism. As I said, during the cold war the USSR was led by relatively rational actors in the form of Krushchev, Brezhnev et al. They weren't perfect of course but they were a far cry from the unhinged narcissism and nihilism of Putin.
Isn’t that literally the point of NATO?
Yes and Ukraine isn't part of it, and likely never to be seeing as Putin appears to hold it as a red line.
Can we keep this to factual / reporting.
Best ask the mods. I doubt they want two Ukraine threads for obvious reasons.
Geez guys you are feeding the **** (insert word here = troll / attention seeker / whataboutry master etc...). This forum should look into giving users the ability to mute others, its on some forums (like nextdoor) and it makes for a much nicer experience, and quite amusing if you read some randomness, open the hidden comments and realise its the same argumentative sod you've already muted getitng kicks out of winding other people up
Anyway
So it seems highly likely it was an ISIS attack, so my bet it was Putin wasn't right, however he is doing his best to pin it on ukraine to justify his actions. We may see it as blatant bs, bit like the 'world famous salisbury cathedral' incident . but I doubt its so obvious to his home audience where he controls the media. So it may well turn out to be useful for putin to be able to strengthen support for his actions
Also, its being reported ukraine went after svestatopol again last night, and hit one of the major communications ships which I think was being repaired after a previous drone attack. That is a lot of very very expensive assets being destroyed. I've read that svestatopol is the only port in the area that has the capabilities to load subs and ships with cruise missles.
narcissism and nihilism of Putin
I think the more interesting part of that is the lack of a clear successor.
The rhetoric is that Putin want's to build his legacy, but unlike for example North Korea we're not drip fed news of whoever in his cabinet is his assumed successor which must be a big part of that vision.
Geez guys you are feeding the **** (insert word here = troll / attention seeker / whataboutry master etc…).
Again, no one is trolling. Dazh is expressing his views which seem to go against the consensus on this thread. That requires a little courage which I respect, even if I largely disagree with him. I get the strong impression his views are honestly held and he's entitled to share them without getting bullied out of the thread. There is room for differing opinions surely? Expressing an alternative view isn't trolling.
Nihal is presently interviewing the director of Ukraine - Enemy in the Woods which is on tonight and is on iplayer. It sounds like grim viewing. All filmed on the front line and showing the reality of it, which he described as being like the first world war
Looks well worth a viewing
Woohoo! 🙄
Exhibit A top of page 459. Thats not an alternative opinion. It contributes jack all, but to annoy others
And I'm completely up for 2 threads, one where people can argue about alternative reality and whose opinion is more important, like it matters
And the other one for pulling together various bits of important information about what is going on.
The rhetoric is that Putin want’s to build his legacy, but unlike for example North Korea we’re not drip fed news of whoever in his cabinet is his assumed successor which must be a big part of that vision.
NK has the advantage of keeping it in the family and so hopefully (in their eyes) familial loyalty and patience.
Problem for Putin is the second he announces a successor then power starts drifting to them and they might think about speeding up the retirement process.
Problem of dictators/monarchs throughout the ages although of course the familial loyalty has failed on multiple occasions over the years.
And I’m completely up for 2 threads
Start a new one then. This one is about Ukraine and all that's going on with it, including geopolitical aspects and whatever any of us might think about it. If you want one limited to war dispatches and discussion of military hardware then feel free.
If you want one limited to war dispatches and discussion of military hardware then feel free.
It already exists, it's called Reddit and frustrated civvies can go and boff themselves to high heaven over warporn there.
but they were a far cry from the unhinged narcissism and nihilism of Putin.
But as I said, why would he drop a nuclear bomb onto land that he thinks as his own? He doesn't want to lay waste to it, that was never the plan, the plan was to install a puppet regime, and bring in back into the Russian sphere like Belarus.
But as I said, why would he drop a nuclear bomb onto land that he thinks as his own?
You mean the land he's now laying waste to with non-nuclear weapons? I have no idea if he would use nukes if backed into a corner. Do we really want to find out? What odds are worth risking, given the penalty for failure is the death of billions and the end of civilisation as we know it?
Putin is often - quite rightly - compared to Hitler with regard to his ruthlessness, megalomania and lack of empathy and rationality. It's an interesting bit of whataboutery to wonder if Hitler would have pressed the button in the final days of the third reich if he had the means? If the answer is yes then it's not a great leap to think the same of Putin.
You mean the land he’s now laying waste to with non-nuclear weapons?
It's not quite the same, is it...
Do we really want to find out? What odds are worth risking, given the penalty for failure is the death of billions and the end of civilisation as we know it?
Even Putin understands that it would be a bullet-in-a-bunker moment for him. And he is above all else, a pragmatist. When all he has to do (as as happened every other time) is wait until the west gets bored and looks away, dropping a nuclear weapon on anything is a waste of time, other than the threat of course.
Even Putin understands that it would be a bullet-in-a-bunker moment for him.
But what if Putin ends up hiding in a bunker?
Curious what the Russian setup is, re. nuclear weapons. Does Putin have a big red button with his fingerprint that launches nukes in all directions? Or does it require more people's involvement, which seems more likely?
In which case in reality there is probably no bullet-in-a-bunker moment, cos if Putin says "launch the nukes!" his second in command just says "no" and hands him a bullet.
(Of course there's also tactical nukes and all sorts of other scenarios, but while we're discussing the end of the world...)
Even Putin understands that it would be a bullet-in-a-bunker moment for him. And he is above all else, a pragmatist.
Well lets hope so. Doesn't seem to match the impression of him generally expressed on this thread though does it? Is he an unhinged maniac or a rational pragmatist? He can't be both, and I tend to agree with most on this thread that his actions to date indicate the former. In fact I'm pretty sure if I'd described him as you just have I'd have been immediately piled on as an apologist or useful idiot or some other insult.
Is he an unhinged maniac or a rational pragmatist? He can’t be both,
You're the only one [in this last exchange of a couple of pages] to suggest that he's mad, no -one else has. Most others have said that he has acted if not rationally, then consistently.