Forum menu
As far as I can tell Putin hasn't claimed interest in attacking any Nato or EU country (unless attacked first) and if Russia does, the only way to 'win' is to use it's Nuclear arsenal which of course means the end of at least most of the world as far are humans are concerned.
Ryabkov has made it clear that Nato needs to "withdraw" from the Baltic states for there to be peace in Europe (specifically linking it to the actions in Ukraine). People who think Russia's expansionist ambitions stop at Ukraine aren't listening to Putin's administration.
Even with his control, I think someone in Russia will pop a cap in his ass before that happens.
The moments immediately after Putin's death will be the most dangerous for Europe. What follows next, especially if he is "taken out", is very unpredictable.
I guess I'm not so ready to gamble the future of the world on the ability of unhinged or compromised leaders to not give in to military hawks and use the armaments at their disposal.
I think that scepticism is wise and warranted. Unfortunately I don't think Europe has much choice but to wake up and sort out our individual and collective shit on this. I can see how "preparations" and "deterrent" can lead towards escalation and action, and we need to be as wary of that as we are about leaving the door open for a slow steady erosion of Europe by giving Putin the message that we are not prepared and have no deterrent. I suppose one hope is that a Europe more ready to defend itself might be less likely to take unwarranted military action than one tied to a distant stronger military power with less to lose (the USA).
Ryabkovhas made it clear that Nato needs to "withdraw" from the Baltic states for there to be peace in Europe
Kelvin are you willing to sacrifice your life and that of all your friends and family to preserve the independence of the Baltic states? I have no doubt that Putin would like to 'reintegrate' the Baltics back into his 21st century Soviet Union/Russian Empire. The question for the west is are we willing to take the significant risk of a civilisation-ending war to stop him? This is the cold unemotional calculus we need to be honest about. I think we probably know what Trump's position on this will be.
Even if Trump sits on his hands (he's all but out of a Job come Spring 2028 when they break for the next election)
He (and his corrupt administration) are directing a significant amount of their time & resources to ensuring there won't be free & fair elections in 2028. If he lives that long I expect him or an appointed crony to still be in power beyond then.
I have no doubt that Putin would like to 'reintegrate' the Baltics back into his 21st century Soviet Union/Russian Empire.
And why do you think he'll stop at the Baltics?
Appeasement works just fine right up to the point where it doesn't
Here we go again with the A word. No doubt with the C(oward) word not far behind it. It's probably worth reminding ourselves that attempts at 'appeasement', or as I prefer to call it, 'diplomacy', are focused mainly on the avoidance of war and the millions/billions of deaths and untold misery it would cause. If we're going to be ideologically opposed to efforts to avoid a war, then I guess my question at the start of the thread is redundant. War is inevitable and we might as well just get used to it! With that in mind I'm off to quit my job and live out the rest of my short life as best I can. It's been lovely (virtually) knowing you all.
War is avoidable. The question you have to ask yourself is how do you best prevent a war with Russia? By actively conceding land and people to Putin in the hope that he stops there? By giving him the message that he won't be effectively resisted if he makes land grabs and imprisons and deports populations? Or is something else needed? And without the dependable support of the USA, who provides that "something else"?
If by 'folks like you' you mean people from the left side of the political spectrum,
Nope, I mean folks who're determined to be blind to Russia's multi faceted war of aggression on democracy.
Being prepared for war is cheaper than having to catch-up after the fact.
Nope, I mean folks who're determined to be blind to Russia's multi faceted war of aggression on democracy.
Many of those "folks" are on the right (in the UK and across Europe).
The question for the west is are we willing to take the significant risk of a civilisation-ending war to stop him?
Czechoslovakia is a country a long way away peopled by folk we know little about.
Here we go again with the A word.
So you don't accept that appeasement encouraged Hitler to push things so far that war becaame inevitable? Do you read much history?
Personally I think it's a good and necessary thing to have people asking the generals and arms dealers why we need to spend billions on arms and accept their proclamations at face value. If the case for rearmament is so strong then it can surely cope with a bit of scrutiny from people who think there might be an better way than blowing up the world and killing millions/billions of people.
This is exactly whats happening. There's a huge amount of debate within the defence world about how much and on what.
The question you have to ask yourself is how do you best prevent a war with Russia?
Not IMO by embarking on a new arms race. So what else? It's going to involve some form of 'appeasement' however you define that. Putin isn't going to give up without something in return. As much as it pains me to be anywhere near to what he says, Trump seems to understand that, but not many here and in Europe seem to. As I said at the beginning, it feels a lot like our leaders have given up on avoiding a war and are now preparing the ground for executing it. This whole discussion doesn't give me much confidence that I'm wrong. It's extremely depressing.
Here we go again with the A word.
So you don't accept that appeasement encouraged Hitler to push things so far that war becaame inevitable? Do you read much history?
I have no doubt that Putin would like to 'reintegrate' the Baltics back into his 21st century Soviet Union/Russian Empire. The question for the west is are we willing to take the significant risk of a civilisation-ending war to stop him? This is the cold unemotional calculus we need to be honest about.
But the question for Putin is whether reintegrating the Baltics is worth a (Russian) civilisation-ending war. Putin is an opportunist. If he thinks he can get away with it, then he'll try it. It's his choice. Nobody is forcing him to expand the borders of Russia. It's got to be worth his while before he will do it.That's why you need credible deterrence. I strongly suspect that if he knew how his Ukrainian adventure has turned out, he wouldn't have started it.
Here we go again with the A word.
So you don't accept that appeasement encouraged Hitler to push things so far that war became inevitable? Do you read much history?
I have no doubt that Putin would like to 'reintegrate' the Baltics back into his 21st century Soviet Union/Russian Empire. The question for the west is are we willing to take the significant risk of a civilisation-ending war to stop him? This is the cold unemotional calculus we need to be honest about.
But the question for Putin is whether reintegrating the Baltics is worth a (Russian) civilisation-ending war. Putin is an opportunist. If he thinks he can get away with it, then he'll try it. It's his choice. Nobody is forcing him to expand the borders of Russia. It's got to be worth his while before he will do it.That's why you need credible deterrence. I strongly suspect that if he knew how his Ukrainian adventure has turned out, he wouldn't have started it.
So what else?
Go on then... if the message isn't "we will stop you" but instead, "where and who do you want in exchange for leaving us alone", where are you drawing your line? Or as long as it's East of the North Sea and the English Channel, does it not matter to you? And what happens when he doesn't stick to that agreement? Like the treaties Russia had with Ukraine?
So you don't accept that appeasement encouraged Hitler to push things so far that war becaame inevitable?
Really not sure bringing Hitler into it helps, but seeing as you ask once Hitler had taken full control of Germany I don't think anything would have prevented WWII. The interpretation that appeasement caused WWII is flawed, it just failed to prevent it. Hitler caused the war, and there was not much anyone could do to stop it. Depressingly the same is probably true of Putin.
Perhaps the best we can hope for is that we reach a position where Russia and the West settle on an uneasy equilibrium much like pre-1990? If that's the case it's going to require some significant and very difficult sacrifices.
This whole discussion doesn't give me much confidence that I'm wrong.
You've said yourself any number of times that you think that any discussion of warfare is intellectually beneath you and you dismiss it as gung-ho screeching despite any number of expert opinions and the words of Putin himself on the subject of the possibility of a wider conflict in Europe. You cant't therefore have any basis in fact with which to pronounce on anything to do with any conflict. Your opinions are basically fraudulent, because you literally don't know what you're talking about, and what's even sadder is that you don't actually want to know, despite asking in the first place.
Your position "We must give Putin what he wants because to do anything else is to risk million/billions of deaths" is entirely made up to satisfy your own intellectual position . You have no idea whether its true or not.
If that's the case it's going to require some significant and very difficult sacrifices.
Who are you willing to sacrifice? Why do you think that will result in a steady state "equilibrium" rather than further expansion of the new better resourced Russia?
"We must give Putin what he wants because to do anything else is to risk million/billions of deaths
Oh piss off, that's not my position. My position is that if war is going to be avoided we might/will probably have to give him something. Ruling that out will result in the one thing we all (well, some of us) want to avoid.
Who are you willing to sacrifice?
I don't want to sacrifice anyone or anything, but it doesn't change the fact that it might be necessary. I'm not even sure it's something anyone would/could decide, it's far more likely to be dictated by events.
My position is that if war is going to be avoided we might/will probably have to give him something.
Unless you state what the "something" is... you're saying nothing. Kyiv? Vilnius? Tallinn? Helsinki? Kraków? Berlin? But the main question to answer is... then what? We sacrifice "something" to avoid it being taken by force... why does Putin (or successors) stop there?
Oh piss off, that's not my position.
This you?
It's going to involve some form of 'appeasement' however you define that. Putin isn't going to give up without something in return. As much as it pains me to be anywhere near to what he says, Trump seems to understand that, but not many here and in Europe seem to.
This you?
If you can't tell the difference between 'we need to give him everything he wants' and 'we might need to give him something' there's not much I can do. Lets hope the people holding the levers of power understand that sort of complicated nuance. 🙄
You're still not answering the question... you give him "something", why does he stop there if he knows that countries are not prepared to work together to stop him taking "more", possibly right up to "everything he wants". Defending a smaller area (with fewer people and resources) still leaves you with difficult decisions to make about defence and deterrent spending and coordination.
Ryabkovhas made it clear that Nato needs to "withdraw" from the Baltic states for there to be peace in Europe
Kelvin are you willing to sacrifice your life and that of all your friends and family to preserve the independence of the Baltic states?... The question for the west is are we willing to take the significant risk of a civilisation-ending war to stop him? This is the cold unemotional calculus we need to be honest about.
1) it's interesting thay you don't consider Estonia, Lithuania or Latvia to be part of the West
2) it's interesting thay you simultaneously believe Russia is a spent force that would never invade "the west" and that any invasion trigger a "civilisation-ending war".
3) if you want cold unemotional calculus, how about this: if we don't want to fight Russia on the battlefield in the future, then let's stop half-stepping and fully support the Ukrainians (who already are fighting Russia and want to win the fight) to fight Russia now.
If you can't tell the difference between 'we need to give him everything he wants' and 'we might need to give him something' there's not much I can do.
You might want to listen to Putin then. Russia has been offered the 20% of Ukraine it currently holds in exchange for a ceasefire. He's repeatedly turn it down, most notably by continuing to blow things up in the bits of Ukraine he doesn't already posses. There's no giving Putin 'something' if he was going to settle for 'something' he'd have done so already.
Again, why is it you want to be blind to the expansionist and Imperialist aims of Russia?
This you?
If you can't tell the difference between 'we need to give him everything he wants' and 'we might need to give him something' there's not much I can do. Lets hope the people holding the levers of power understand that sort of complicated nuance. 🙄
The Russian Federation was given the USSR seat at the UN, despite Ukraine and Belarus having equal legal title (along with a fourth state that no longer exists)
He was de facto given Crimea in 2014.
Shortly after that he came for the Donbas and not much was done about it apart from a very few states in Europe.
In 2022 he came back for the rest of Ukraine...
It won't stop. Chamberlain made the same error just before WW2 broke out.
I'm amazed that Hungary and the former Czechoslovakia have forgotten about 1956 and 1968 respectively, but their Russian-leaning PMs seem to have.
You've started these arguments before, usually about the prospect of nuclear war. It's tiresome
So you don't accept that appeasement encouraged Hitler to push things so far that war becaame inevitable?
Really not sure bringing Hitler into it helps, but seeing as you ask once Hitler had taken full control of Germany I don't think anything would have prevented WWII. The interpretation that appeasement caused WWII is flawed, it just failed to prevent it. Hitler caused the war, and there was not much anyone could do to stop it. Depressingly the same is probably true of Putin.
The similarity is that Germany practised in Spain with a modern war machine. Substitute "Russia" and "Ukraine"
The rest of Europe didn't have that practised, modern military and industry.
We were lucky that Spain had had enough of war and stayed at home
What I don't get is why folks like you who are apparently anti-Imperialist and anti-authoritarian, just look the other way when it's Russia.
If by 'folks like you' you mean people from the left side of the political spectrum, then perhaps consider that the most prominent leftwing politician of recent times was way ahead of everyone else..
Still though, you carry on with your 'leftie libtard cowards' interpretation of any scepticism towards the push to re-arm. Personally I think it's a good and necessary thing to have people asking the generals and arms dealers why we need to spend billions on arms and accept their proclamations at face value. If the case for rearmament is so strong then it can surely cope with a bit of scrutiny from people who think there might be an better way than blowing up the world and killing millions/billions of people.
The three largest world powers have spent decades building their respective militaries up.
Nobody has attacked them in the conventional sense.
Ukraine became denuclearised and look what happened.
It would have been far cheaper and safer to have retained their nukes and serviced them at the cost of a few $bn than the lives lost, folk injured and traumatised, a generation missing an education, tens of $bn to rebuild, etc
The 'something' you give is pause for thought.
The first rung on the ladder to the avoidance of war is diplomacy, are we so sure we have the diplomats with a high level of skill and character to ensure that that can be effective?
If we do, fantastic. But there still needs to be a capable stick should the carrot not work.
A well equipped and prepared military (and intelligence services) that has in place capability to mitigate the risks posed, can if diplomacy fails, offer a proportionate and suitable response/deterrent to aggression in defence of itself or allies across all the domains of warfare.
If that capability is integrated and supported by a cohesive alliance then that's even better.
Maybe if we spent more time acting in a way globally that didn't compromise our integrity, or compromising our defence capability through bullshit conflicts and penny pinching, and hiding behind the USA for so long things would be different.
But here we are.
why does he stop there if he knows that countries are not prepared to work together to stop him taking "more"
Instead of asking me to engage in whataboutery why not present some evidence and make a judgement on that? Al Cairns, Mark Rutte, and now the head of MI6 seem to think there's an imminent threat of him launching a war against Europe - and by that I mean a real war not cutting a few undersea internet cables or poisoning ex-Russian spies - despite the fact, as some on this thread have observed, that he can barely hold on to a 5th of the Ukraine. So aside from rabble-rousing by politicians and officials in the West who stand to gain from massively increased military budgets, where is the concrete evidence that he intends to go to war with Europe? Even on this thread the pro-military types are a bit confused, on the one hand we need to re-arm and be ready to repel an invasion, on the other we shouldn't be worried. No one has yet explained why both these positions are true.
It would have been far cheaper and safer to have retained their nukes
I don't disagree. If we're engaging in hindsight though it would also have been much cheaper and safer not allow Western interests to meddle in the affairs of the Ukrainian state and economy. Many mistakes were made on all sides to lead us to this point, and it's going to require action on all sides to resolve it without escalation beyond the current cluster####. Instead though we have UK and European leaders talking up the prospect of war with extremely provocative language.
it would also have been much cheaper and safer not allow Western interests to meddle in the affairs of the Ukrainian state and economy.
Of all the "meddling" that's been done in the affairs of the Ukrainian state and economy, it's odd that you omit to mention the main state culprit (by an order of magnitude) !
It would have been far cheaper and safer to have retained their nukes
Instead though we have UK and European leaders talking up the prospect of war with extremely provocative language.
Because right now that's mostly all they have after becoming too comfortable in the shadow of security provided by the USA.
Tough words, very little to back it up.
Defence capability if managed effectively should speak for itself. The opposite is also true.
Which is why Ukraine gave zero ****s and went Leroy Jenkins in Ukraine.
we'll be back on Euromaidan being a CIA psyop again soon
I'm beginning to think there is a Russian troll bot on the forum.
it's odd that you omit to mention the main state culprit (by an order of magnitude)
You must have missed my comments about mistakes 'on all sides' and my opinion of Putin being an imperialist nutter hellbent on rebuilding something that looks like the Soviet Union (without the universal jobs and free healthcare).
I'm beginning to think there is a Russian troll bot on the forum.
Yes lets call anyone who wants to avoid war a Russian sympathiser. I'm surprised we haven't had the phrase 'useful idiot' yet. As I said, this discussion doesn't do anything to persuade me that war is unlikely. Quite the opposite in fact.
Tough words, very little to back it up.
Aye. They must have been reading this forum.
Instead of asking me to engage in whataboutery why not present some evidence and make a judgement on that?
March last year, there was an attack on a UK warehouse owned by Ukrainians that supplied protective gear to Ukraine. Russia destroyed a shopping centre in Poland, and has attacked its rail infrastructure and Polish police arrested people last year trying to install cameras along its rail lines further; Poland is currently mobilizing troops, Lithuania is even changing its rail gauge
All these countries see Russia as a current threat. Perhaps we should ask them if they feel like giving Putin 'something'
Instead of asking me to engage in whataboutery why not present some evidence and make a judgement on that?
LOL at the ironing
All these countries see Russia as a current threat. Perhaps we should ask them if they feel like giving Putin 'something'
Well it's that or war. What's your preference?
Dismissing the threat posed by Russia is foolish, they are producing more drones and missiles than the rest of Europe combined and they have the experience in using them we do not , Russia has spent years mapping our undersea cable network, https://news.sky.com/story/why-uks-undersea-cables-are-vulnerable-and-putin-has-pretty-good-map-of-where-they-are-13431588
they invested in Brexit hoping to push us away from the EU, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42342216 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/14/how-400-russia-run-fake-accounts-posted-bogus-brexit-tweets
they have carried out assassinations here, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/26/skripal-poisonings-bungled-assassination-kremlin-putin-salisbury
sabotage of warehouses https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/men-who-organised-russia-backed-arson-at-london-warehouse-jailed/
and hacking of private and public computer networks networks. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/10/russian-hackers-target-software-used-by-treasury-nhs/
He may have trashed his economy but hes transformed it onto a war footing and the Russian people with tightly controlled media just suck it up (compare what we did to truss when she made mortgages payments go up a bit)
Hes also been able to replenish his troops with cannon fodder from N Korea
the real issue here is that dazs position of just letting Putin take what he wants has been shown to fail
Russia faced zero consequences for taking Crimea , so obviously Putin just came to take some more
We already know exactly what will happen if Trump forces Ukraine to concede; the same as last time: Russia rebuilds and comes back for more territory .
The question is @dazh why would do you think repeating the same thing will work this time?
Aye. They must have been reading this forum.
Don't know what you mean by that but let me make my position abundantly clear.
My first operational tour was experiencing the aftermath of the Bosnian civil war, so I've seen what happens when diplomacy fails.
My subsequent tours were Afghanistan, Iraq, another Iraq and then my final Afghanistan. So I've seen the impact when diplomacy isn't even started. When war is waged on a erroneous notion, flimsy justification or revenge.
I may not be as informed in geopolitics as some, may be a little rough around the edges, but what I do know that you and many others don't, is the cost.
So I don't advocate for enhanced capability to perpetuate war, I wouldn't wish my negative experiences on another single human.
But our military capability must be, first and foremost for the defence of our nation and that of our allies. It should be capable of providing an impactful deterrent to others who would wish us and our allies harm.
You speak from a position of privileged ignorance, be grateful for that, but stow the snark. You asked the question, you got responses then promptly have seen your arse when they challenged you and your position.