Forum menu
There is room for differing opinions surely? Expressing an alternative view isn’t trolling.
Fair point, in which case.
It already exists, it’s called Reddit and frustrated civvies can go and boff themselves to high heaven over warporn there.
Can you not do this please, it adds nothing and the thread is argumentative enough. Just my opinion.
Useful apologist? 😁
Everyone's so black & white, fighting their corner... if some of you would just take a step back for a second sometimes, I think you'd find you're mostly in agreement more often than you realise.
Example:
Is he an unhinged maniac or a rational pragmatist?
Are they the only options? Polar opposites? What about an unhinged maniac who's enough of a pragmatist to stop before the nuclear stage?
Edit: Also, people use extreme or exaggerated language sometimes. Eg "unhinged maniac". It's not to be taken literally... this is called "wilfully misunderstanding"
And... I'm stopping now, getting dragged in (or dragging myself in) and suspect I'm making it worse 😋
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.
Depends how you define mad maybe, he looks to me to be after his place in history as someone that regained some lost parts of the Russian Empire (in whichever political form you care to look at) and is willing to kill 100s of thousands or millions to achieve that. A modern day Peter.
The whole concept of turning up in someone else's country and killing as many as is needed to subjugate them seems "insane" to me, but I doubt it actually meets the criteria. Especially when you consider just how many times its happened, I can't even think of a culture where it hasn't happened at some level. Russias been on the receiving end of that from both East and West.
TBH @piemonster, if you're one of the richest men who's ever lived, and literally have a country in your thrall, at some point you probably leave the shared reality of the rest of us. Doesn't mean that he's a Bond style megalomaniac though, he's still the KGB man that he ever was.
is he an unhinged maniac or a rational pragmatist?
There's an element of both in the mix but he's really neither, primarily he's a cynical opportunist who has been consistently fed bad information.
I’m stopping now, getting dragged in
Dragged into what? This is an internet forum, it's exactly what it was designed for and presumably why you're here?
What about an unhinged maniac who’s enough of a pragmatist to stop before the nuclear stage?
It's entirely possible, probable even? I ask again though what level of risk is worth testing what he will do given the penalty for failure? Honestly if you guys want to persuade me that Putin isn't as crazy or dangerous as this thread - and the media - has generally portrayed him (and not just in the last couple of pages) then that's fine by me. Maybe there is hope of a resolution after all?
Honestly if you guys want to persuade me that Putin isn’t as crazy or dangerous as this thread – and the media – has generally portrayed him
I've never seen Putin as mad or unhinged. I think he's intelligent, charismatic (in the eyes of many Russians) and displays a certain level of pragmatism. He does many of the things he does because he knows he can get away with them and stays away from others, because he knows he can't.
I think the things that motivate him are grievance over lost empire, a perverted sense of patriotism born out of a strong belief in Russian exceptionalism, an ambition to be remembered as a 'great' figure in Russian history along with Peter, Catherine etc. and above all absolute ruthlessness.
There is a view that Russia's terrible demographics mean it's now or never in a last gasp attempt to bring "little Russia" back into the fold. With that distorted world view, I'm sure many of his decisions seem rational to him and many around him.
But... he is well aware of the repercussions for him personally and for his country if he goes nuclear. All his 'patriotism' (no matter how distorted) and desire for a 'great' legacy show that he doesn't want mother Russia turned to glass.
Honestly if you guys want to persuade me that Putin isn’t as crazy or dangerous as this thread – and the media – has generally portrayed him (and not just in the last couple of pages) then that’s fine by me. Maybe there is hope of a resolution after all?
What you fail to account for is that negotiation may encourage him even further. How do you know that your appeasment won't lead him to further adventures which make nuclear war even more likely? Stopping him in Ukraine before he actually gets involved with a war with a NATO country may well be much safer than letting things escalate.
How do you know that your appeasment won’t lead him to further adventures which make nuclear war even more likely?
Oh it's now *my* appeasement is it? Sorry to disappoint but I'm in no position to be appeasing anyone, let alone Putin. 😂
As I've already said, I have no idea how all this will pan out, but I'm fairly confident that based on existing evidence backing him into a corner in pursuit of total victory and humiliation will not end well. Equally you have no idea if negotiation will result in escalation. We know the immediate outcome of doubling down on war though - a lot more death and destruction - so it seems to me an option worth pursuing if at all possible.
Stopping him in Ukraine before he actually gets involved with a war with a NATO
If he's rational and pragmatic as suggested above then surely he'll know that's a red line he cannot cross. Is he a marauding conquering maniac or a pragmatist getting away with what he can? He can't be both.
If he’s rational and pragmatic as suggested above then surely he’ll know that’s a red line he cannot cross
He’s a chancer with an ideology. He might be tempted into pushing against that red line because appeasement has led him to think he can get away with it. An awful lot of wars have started because one or both parties thought they could get away with something & then discovered they’d miscalculated. See the Kaiser, Hitler, Saddam, Galtieri etc. Putin has already made a miscalculation in invading Ukraine.
A marauding conquering pragmatist getting away with what he can
So he'll know that invading a NATO country is a red line he can't cross. Great lets get on with the negotiations. 👍
If he’s rational and pragmatic as suggested above then surely he’ll know that’s a red line he cannot cross
Unless he's not getting correct intelligence from Ukraine, then he knows that his army cannot defeat a third rate military power like Ukraine, or least Ukraine can hold it to a standstill and to misquote Warren Buffet, the Russian armed forces have been caught without trunks now the tide's gone out, His air force can't even achieve air superiority let alone supremacy, and have essentially gone missing in the conflict. He knows full well that he cannot defeat NATO, it doesn't need to be a red line.
So he’ll know that invading a NATO country is a red line he can’t cross
Or he’ll think that the West is weak and is easily cowed by the threat of nuclear war so that he can bluff them again. His advisors have probably already shown him your contributions to this thread. 😀
Equally you have no idea if negotiation will result in escalation.
actually we do, we let him get away with it in 2015, he used the 'peace' to build up his forces and then invaded, leading to mass deaths and destruction
why do you think he can be trusted this time ?
So he’ll know that invading a NATO country is a red line he can’t cross. Great lets get on with the negotiations. 👍
Showing your true colours here, it's not a good look.
why do you think he can be trusted this time ?
I've never said he can be trusted. He obviously can't be. But neither can he be defeated militarily as long as he has nuclear weapons and the possibility of using them (and the support of China and other states willing to prop up the Russian economy). Christ, the west can't even stop buying his oil and gas, so why would he think they can beat him militarily? He knows full well that western populations will not tolerate the hardships that a war and/or total economic blockade would create. The west, as always, wants to have it's cake and it eat it.
Showing your true colours here, it’s not a good look.
Well if you want to go down the personal insults route, neither is coming across as flag-shagging amateur general. 🙄
The west, as always, wants to have it’s cake and it eat it.
I do agree with you that a lot of the West/NATO are not stepping up enough to defeat Putin...
But neither can he be defeated militarily as long as he has nuclear weapons and the possibility of using them
This doesn’t have to end with the tanks of the 1st US Armored Division trundling across Red Square & training their guns on the Kremlin. Russia can just be pushed back until we reach a stage where Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
But neither can he be defeated militarily as long as he has nuclear weapons and the possibility of using them
The Russians USSR where defeated in the Afghanistan war and at the time where a nuclear armed state.
The Russians USSR where defeated in the Afghanistan war and at the time where a nuclear armed state.
Very true, but it's not a good comparison. For a start the Afghan govt invited the soviet union in to help them defeat the muhahadeen opposition. Also I don't remember the soviets threatening to use nuclear weapons if the west became involved (probably because I was 5 when it started!). In fact at the time the soviets and the west were in a state of detente and were looking for opportunities to de-escalate nuclear confrontation (despite f***-ups like the Korean airlines incident etc). There was never any threat of nuclear weapons in the Afghan-soviet war as the soviets didn't care enough about it to escalate it, no doubt because Soviet leaders at the time were far more sensible and rational than Putin is today.
Well if you want to go down the personal insults route, neither is coming across as flag-shagging amateur general. 🙄
Lol, personal? You clearly don't know me, wanna at least have a stab at pinning that on a comment I made? I'm happy to wait, you've got 462 pages to sift through.
I was offering an opinion on your comment, nothing more, if you don't like people judging you perhaps don't make comments worth judging. Throwing an entire nation under the bus just to ease your anxiety is a pretty shitty thing to do by any standard.
Throwing an entire nation under the bus just to ease your anxiety is a pretty shitty thing to do by any standard.
Mate I'm not throwing anyone under the bus, I have no power or influence. Incidentally though I know some Ukrainians who agree with me. My mate's wife is Ukrainian and her family fled here when it started. All they want is for it to end by any means and to be able to go back home. As far as they're concerned they've already been thrown under the bus by being used as a proxy state because the west is too cowardly to face Putin directly.
Is Putin mad or pragmatic. I would say both. We cant look at him through western values of democracy v dictator. He is using the war as an external threat to hold power but also wants his great legacy. He is more a mafia boss in that way. I dont think he will stop with Ukraine. He wants it frozen, so he can rebuild and in the meantime pick off some of the southern countries. Georgia & Armenia. when he does turn west again he has so much more in his arsenal than straight military confrontation. Like he did funding Aaron Banks and the Brexit vote, sending 150 paratroopers to France to start fights during the 2016 Euros. My money would be on the Suwałki Gap via Baltic state destabilisation next. This is why all of the ex-soviet eastern countries bitterly hate the Russian federation. Cant really blame them.
Should Ukraine negotiate a peace: well thats their choice as a sovereign nation. Its typical western arrogance for us to suggest otherwise.
Is there likely to be a Nuclear bomb dropped? Well what do people actually mean by that? ICBMs launched? Tactical Nukes on the battle field? Dirty Bombs? Well Russian military doctrine advocates early use of tactical nukes, but I think the Americans have made it very clear and spelled out the consequences if they are used. Which is why they haven't been used. Whats more likely is an accident at Zaporizhia, but again I think the Americans have spelt out the consequences of that as well.
I do wonder, aside from Trump using GOP funding withdrawal as revenge because Zelensky wouldn't/couldn't dish pre-election dirt on the Bidens, if the US under Biden are slow walking support because they want Ukraine to bleed the Russian Federation to exhaustion so removing that threat for the next 20 years and are quite happy for so many lives lost in the process. Its not a good look IMO. Its still the least of two evils though.
Its still the least of two evils though.
Careful squirrelking will be along to accuse you of throwing Ukraine under the bus.
Why so antagonistic & confrontational?
Anyway I am not advocating throwing them under the bus I would prefer we gave the Ukrainians what they need to push Russia back and then Russia will think twice about doing it again.
Ukraine; enemy in the woods on BBC2 now, like something from a WW2 documentary, quite harrowing, but compelling viewing.
Watching Enemy in the woods on iPlayer now.
It's a tough watch. Very sad. Unimaginable, really.
It’s pretty depressing watching that and realising that it’s taking place in Europe in 2024. It looks like a conflict from 100 years earlier. The only difference is the drones
The interview with the director on Five Live this afternoon is well worth a listen. He was stressing how much of a war of attrition it is and how Putin is just like Stalin. He couldn’t give a toss about the amount of Russian troops killed. They’re completely expendable. He’ll just keep pouring them into Ukraine until he wins
Putin knows if he uses a nuke the US will come in massively with conventional weapons sinking the entire black sea fleet and assasinating Putin. Tbe US has told Putin this.
Anyone thinking there can be a negotiated solution is hopelessly naive. Ukraine are not going to give up land now and Putin cannot settle without gaining land.
Appeasment never works
Neville Chamberlains views during the rise of Hitler were from the same script. How did that go?
One thing that people forget about Chamberlain was that he started a huge rearmament effort when Hitler started looking dangerous. In 1938, Britain was not ready to fight Germany and was desperately trying to rearm. The tankies saying we should appease Putin are different - they aren't arguing for appeasement in order to buy time to rearm, they are just saying that the West should just let Putin do as he pleases.
Anyone thinking there can be a negotiated solution is hopelessly naive. Ukraine are not going to give up land now and Putin cannot settle without gaining land.
Completely agree with this statement.
Adding my own thoughts to this...
The reality is that Europe, once again, has a political entity that is willing to kill huge numbers of people in exchange for land, either direct control of, or dominance of the political control of that land.
There is no going back, and appeasement does not reduce any of the threats, in my view it dramatically increases them. Nor is there anyway to remove that threat in the short to medium term, and realistically the long term too. The "risks" no matter what, are firmly in place and we'll all be living with that for the rest of our lives. The only "off ramp" worth a damn is internal change, for which I hold out zero hope. Even if somehow theres a short term "loss" to the aggressor, the political ideologies that support territorial aggression aren't going anywhere soon.
if the US under Biden are slow walking support because they want Ukraine to bleed the Russian Federation to exhaustion so removing that threat for the next 20 years and are quite happy for so many lives lost in the process. Its not a good look IMO. Its still the least of two evils though
I don't think it's as much a deliberate choice, more the result of various factors. They don't want to risk escalation by Putin so are limiting the provision of any longer range weapons. They also have to get most military aid cleared through Congress, which is now proving to be a problem. Added to that stocks and manufacturing capability of ammunition, shells and missiles was pretty low - even now the US is struggling to both keep Ukraine supplied and maintain it's own stocks of certain items (especially given the danger of a major war, either in Europe or Asia, is higher now than it's been for decades). Ofc some of the decision making will factor in the best way to degrade the Russian military and that may be a prolonged medium intensity conflict but it's far from the only factor.
Anyone thinking there can be a negotiated solution is hopelessly naive.
TJ do you appreciate the enormity of that statement? If you’re right then there’s a significant chance we’ll all be dead soon. In this instance ruling out any negotiation is borderline psychopathic.
If you’re right then there’s a significant chance we’ll all be dead soon.
Stop with the nuclear Armageddon doom-saying. You've said yourself on any number of threads that you feel discussion about the actual realities of war are just for arm-chair generals. You don't know anything about these sorts of weapons other than what's been propagandised at you, and your ignorance is showing.
If Putin was going to use nuclear weapons, he would have done so by now. His primary aim is the survival of his regime. His regime can survive a stalemated war, but he knows that using nukes would mean the destruction of his regime.
Russia and negotiations. I think she gets it and has been in and around this topic for quite a while. She also states a Ukrainian victory means Russia returns to its original borders pre 2014. Not that Russia is defeated as a country per se.
Born in Soviet-occupied Estonia in 1977, Kallas came from a family that lived the horrific reality of “Russia’s imperialistic dream”. In 1949 her mother, Kristi (then six months old), her grandmother and her great-grandmother were all sent to Siberia under Stalin’s mass deportations of Baltic citizens who were deemed “anti-Soviet”.
https://youtube.com/shorts/u1cTRn5tBs8?feature=shared
You don’t know anything about these sorts of weapons other than what’s been propagandised at you,
True. If we're to take our own nuclear weapons then it appears they don't even work. Putting nuclear weapons aside though (which is ludicrous), we're still talking about a WW3 with "nice" conventional weapons if we're not prepared to negotiate at some point. Ruling out negotiation is a warmnonger's prospectus, and no doubt put forward by those who don't have to go and fight.
rickmeister Full Member
Russia and negotiations. I think she gets it and has been in and around this topic for quite a while. She also states a Ukrainian victory means Russia returns to its original borders pre 2014. Not that Russia is defeated as a country per se.
I think this is a useful point to make. It feels like some contributors to this thread are talking at cross-purposes to some extent, whether deliberately or not. I think that those who are doubting that a negotiated solution is possible are indeed unlikely to be advocating the military defeat and occupation of Russia, while those who are saying negotiation must happen don't seem to mean that Ukraine must immediately stop resisting militarily and sue for peace.
Or maybe I'm wrong and everyone here hold a variety of radically absolutist views.
Sadly, personally I feel that about the best possible outcome for the West and Ukraine amounts to Ukraine slowly driving Russia out of its territory, with material but indirect support from the West, followed by a long period of border tensions that may only reduce after Ukraine becomes a more closely integrated part of the West's military alliances (whether that includes NATO membership or not), or after long enough passes that Russia's political class evolves into one with less of a confrontational and expansionist attitude.
That does not feel like something that'll happen quickly, but short of dramatically unlikely events I can't see a better result.
Putting nuclear weapons aside though (which is ludicrous)
Look up a Russian doctrine called "Escalate to De-Escalate" if you want to know how Russia thinks about their use. Essentially it boils down to - Tell your enemy that you will use them right at the start of any conflict in order to shock them into doing what you want; surrendering, or negotiating.
See: Sept 2014 A Ukrainian Colonel said “The Russian side has threatened on several occasions across unofficial channels that, in the case of continued resistance, they are ready to use a tactical nuclear weapon against us.” The Russians have been saying this for ten years now.
Also: The Russian Defence Ministry threatened turning Romania into “smoking ruins.” The head of their nuclear force threatened “an intense attack carried out by Russian strategic units” in December 2015 against missile defence sites in Romania and Poland.
While I don't think negotiations should be out of the question, it shouldn't be on Putin's terms at all.
Look up a Russian doctrine called “Escalate to De-Escalate” if you want to know how Russia thinks about their use. Essentially it boils down to – Tell your enemy that you will use them right at the start of any conflict in order to shock them into doing what you want; surrendering, or negotiating.
Which only works if your opponent believes that you aren't bluffing. If you are bluffing and your opponent calls your bluff, you are now in a much weaker position. In the Cold War, both sides came to the realization that any conventional attack on the other side would almost certainly escalate into a global nuclear conflict - neither side was willing to find out if the other was bluffing or not. In this case, Russia launched a botched conventional attack and then didn't escalate to nukes once that failed. That signaled that nuclear threats are a bluff, provided that NATO does not become directly involved. Supplying Ukraine with weapons has not triggered a nuclear strike, neither has Finland and Sweden joining NATO. Russian talk of going nuclear is just boasting aimed at a domestic audience, everybody else knows that it's just bluffing.
This thread has generally been a good one for informed and nuanced discussion. I think noting and commenting on events as they happen is all part of that, and doesn't warrant the accusation of 'flag-shagging' or 'armchair generals'. Isn't it more about understanding the current situation and it's complex and shifting realities? As an example, a single strike on an oil refinery has multiple potential implications worthy of discussion. Interpreting that as war porn is perhaps understandable in complete isolation, but the tenor of this thread shows that there's a measured and concerned approach to the matters discussed (in general).
On the nuclear threat; things are worse than they have been in recent decades, but it is a function of the new cold war. But the fact remains that on the extinction-level threats, it's not meaningfully closer than before. That's because nuclear strategy demands the check-mate of threat and counter-threat. That involves taking action that makes the deployment of nuclear weapons a realistic threat, and going through the motions of shows of force, and in Putin's case, sabre-rattling. This new phase of a cold war has a different dynamic to the past due to Russia's changed stance in the world, but the fundamental principles remain the same, and the actions we have seen from all sides are basically the same as in the past - re-asserting the matrix of threats. Nuclear arsenals don't prevent conventional warfare and proxy wars, and that is what is happening again. I'm not a Nuclear evangelist by any means, just accepting of the reality, and that it's a genie that's escaped its bottle, and unlikely to find it's way back in again.
As mentioned a number of times above, Russia knows it can't use nuclear weapons as things currently stand, and Putin knows it. If NATO/EU-aided Ukraine over-reached by trying to take Russian territory after liberating pre-2014 Ukraine, then that would be a more likely scenario for using a tactical nuke. But that is a very unlikely scenario given the current reality, not least Ukraine's stated aims and that of Nato/EU/allies. Also, the consequence of a tactical strike isn't necessarily Threads on a global scale.
I know many will know all this already but it's worth stating all this so we don't talk about choices that don't exist in reality, or that don't account for complex realities on all sides.