Ukraine

I said I supported neutrality, not opening the door. Neutrality would have been founded on Ukrainian borders being respected.

What a joke – respected in the way Russia guaranteed Ukraine sovereignty when they gave up their nukes in ‘94.

must be on a wind up?

Avoiding nuclear war is a wind up? Call me selfish but that’s my main interest in this issue.

My preferred solution was Ukrainian neutrality

Putin wouldn’t have accepted neutrality, is the same way that he doesn’t accept it can join NATO or the EU because he doesn’t see Ukraine as a separate country

Any solution now is probably going to involve ceding some of Ukraine to Russia

The bit that he’s bombing the civilians out of their homes, or the bit where he’s murdering their citizens? I think there may have been a point which that was true, I can’t imagine that Ukrainians are in the mood any more.

@dazh how does your ‘realism’ square with suggesting Ukrainian neutrality? Do you believe the Kremlin would have respected it?

Honest question. I am genuinely interested in your answer.

Neutrality was never an option.

how does your ‘realism’ square with suggesting Ukrainian neutrality?

I’m not pretending neutrality is or was easy. Especially now after Putins genocidal lunacy. But it’s the only solution when the opposite is ever escalating war. Neither side can win a total victory so what other solution is there?

How bad does have to get before we start expelling russians as “undesirables” ?

Heating our homes isn’t really the problem though is it?

Yes, it really is the problem, or at least a large part of it. UK natural gas demand nearly halves in the summer (compared to the winter peak), and that’s driven by domestic consumption patterns.

Neutrality would have been founded on Ukrainian borders being respected.

Like the de-nuclearisation treaty Ukraine and Russia signed in the 90s which was founded on Ukrainian borders being respected?

I gotta tell you, I’m not seeing a lot of respect for them right now. Who would have thought that Putin wouldn’t respect a border after signing a treaty? I can’t believe it!

I’m not pretending neutrality is or was easy. Especially now after Putins genocidal lunacy. But it’s the only solution when the opposite is ever escalating war. Neither side can win a total victory so what other solution is there?

Only solution? Not easy? It’s an utter non starter. I suspect you know that.

Of course Ukraine can’t win a ‘total victory’ but they can realistically stop Russia occupying the whole country and firing up their denazifcation ovens in Kyiv and every other part of the country.  I think they were not only right to fight, they had no other option. In doing so they have probably prevented the torture and massacre of thousands more of their citizens.

How bad does have to get before we start expelling russians as “undesirables” ?

Is that directed at me? Victimising normal Russians would be a terrible and unconscionable thing to do. As well as my colleague whose wife’s family are Ukrainian, I have another colleague who is Russian. A 23 year old graduate from Moscow who moved here last year. She’s mortified and upset by what is happening in Ukraine. She’s no more to blame for this than we are.

Yes, it really is the problem

Not as much of a problem as electricity blackouts. You can do without central heating, but not electricity.

Not as much of a problem as electricity blackouts. You can do without central heating, but not electricity.

Yeah, I’m aware of that. You do realise I was talking about total UK gas demand, including gas used for generation?

You do realise I was talking about total UK gas demand, including gas used for generation?

Of course, and in a situation where gas supply is compromised electricity generation would be prioritised over domestic use. Maybe we could avoid blackouts by restricting domestic supply, or accept rolling blackouts in order to supply gas to homes, but we (probably) couldn’t have both. At least not until we ramped up renewables or retrofitted gas power plants to burn coal again.

Only solution?

So what other realistic solution is there? I’m genuinely open to options, but I can’t see any.

Of course, and in a situation where gas supply is compromised electricity generation would be prioritised over domestic use. Maybe we could avoid blackouts by restricting domestic supply, or accept rolling blackouts in order to supply gas to homes, but we (probably) couldn’t have both. At least not until we ramped up renewables or retrofitted gas power plants to burn coal again.

The UK imports less than 5% of its total gas demand from Russia so none of what you suggest is likely to happen. It’s certainly not going to happen outside of winter given reduced demand and the availability of reserves.

Pricing is a different matter.

How bad does have to get before we start expelling russians as “undesirables” ?

Our own version of ethnic cleansing?

Some Russians need expelling, I suspect majority who are here are not pro-Putin

So what other realistic solution is there?

‘Other’ doing some very heavy lifting there. In what way is your suggestion of neutrality any kind of solution? Do you have any realistic expectation that it would be honoured and respected by Putin?  Really?  Any at all..?

Edit to say, I expect this simple question will get a good ignoring, seeing as it’s already been asked several times and not just by me.

We’ve been appeasing Putin & turning a blind eye since the end of the Cold War. As we can see, it has only emboldened him.

He/Russia have slowly been embedding themselves in western economies, taking advantage of lazy/greedy politicians. They think we are so dependant on them we won’t turn off their money tap.

Putin will respect no agreement, anyone who thinks he would is a naive idealist.

This gets settled by Europe tightening its collective belt and supporting its vulnerable citizens as we stop taking Russian gas, while supporting the Ukranian government and forces.

The UK imports less than 5%

So what happens when the EU starts competing with us for 30% we get from Norway? And the 10% from the US and Middle East? There’ll be huge knock on effects from EU supply also being cut off (because we’d never take action on our own)

I would be quite happy for any Russian with regime connections to be expelled, plus a travel ban into the U.K. of any Russian passport holder. The “pain” they will feel is nothing compared to what is being done in their name.

Really? Any at all..?

Good avoidance of the question. Seriously, outside of an agreement between Russia, NATO and Ukraine, which would almost certainly require Ukrainian neutrality, what alternatives are there?

while supporting the Ukranian government and forces.

Genuine question: At what point does Russia decide that NATO supply of weaponry is an act of war?

Daz – we face a choice. Stay addicted to Russian energy and accept an expansionist genocidal maniac, or take some pain.

Stay addicted to Russian energy and accept an expansionist genocidal maniac, or take some pain.

I agree. I’ve already said quite clearly that we should cut off all economic activity with Russia. It’s the only leverage we have.

Good avoidance of the question. Seriously, outside of an agreement between Russia, NATO and Ukraine, which would almost certainly require Ukrainian neutrality, what alternatives are there?

Goalposts moved. You were talking about neutrality as a realistic option to prevent invasion, now you are talking about it as part of a negotiated settlement after the fact.  Totally different things.  Zelenskyy has offered the latter, with security guarantees similar to NATO article 5, so yes that is a possibility as part of a negotiated  peace.

But back to the question you keep dodging. Had Ukraine declared Neutrality prior to the invasion, in an attempt to prevent it, do you honestly believe Putin would have honoured and respected it?

My view is that with continued military and intelligence support and ever tougher sanctions, the Ukrainians have proved they can hold the Russians at bay, even defeat them in places.  They have to keep doing that, because if they don’t, they will be over run and unspeakable atrocities will be visited on the whole population.  They simply have no choice, and we should be doing everything conceivable to help them.  I’ve answered your question, show me the decency of reciprocating.

At what point does Russia decide that NATO supply of weaponry is an act of war?

It clearly won’t do that as that invites NATO into the war, the last thing it can afford. Russian military performance in Ukraine has comprehensively demonstrated that they’re a paper tiger, and any NATO involvement at this point is going to make their destruction even quicker than it’s happening already. That much is clear.

Genuine question: At what point does Russia decide that NATO supply of weaponry is an act of war?

When it wants to, ie when it thinks it can take on and beat NATO. Which it cannot do with conventional forces, and I’m not convinced they are suicidal enough to escalate it to a nuclear strike on a NATO country.

You were talking about neutrality as a realistic option to prevent invasion

I was also taking about post-invasion. I still think though it would have prevented an invasion, or at the very least created the space for negotiation. Whether before or after the invasion it was always the only feasible solution to the wider geo-political forces. Unfortunately NATO got it very wrong in assessing how far to push the strategic balance.

and any NATO involvement at this point is going to make their destruction even quicker

Assuming they won’t use nuclear weapons of course. If Russia already believes NATO is an active participant, which is arguably what it is by supplying weapons, what then?

and I’m not convinced they are suicidal enough to escalate it to a nuclear strike on a NATO country.

Can’t say I share your optimism. The massacres in Bucha and Mariupol shows they’ve gone beyond any rational self imposed restraint.

So what happens when the EU starts competing with us for 30% we get from Norway? And the 10% from the US and Middle East?

The price will go up.

I still think though it would have prevented an invasion

How, Putin has demonstrated that he doesn’t pay any attention to borders, espcially ones he doesn’t think are real anyway.

The massacres in Bucha and Mariupol shows they’ve gone beyond any rational self imposed restraint.

this is standard Russian doctrine, has been since for ever, see Chechnya

The price will go up.

Yeah of course it will but there’s also a significant risk of a supply crisis irrespective of what it costs. Also if I’m wrong and there won’t be much impact, why are we still buying it? It makes the case for cutting off imports from Russia stronger.

this is standard Russian doctrine, has been since for ever, see Chechnya

Which only supports my fear that Putin and his generals are far more nuclear trigger happy than we in the west think they are. So what then?

Some suggestions now that Borodyanka is even worse than Bucha/ Irpin – though it’s hard to imagine what worse means in this context, probably numbers killed I think. Hard to process.

I think I read somewhere that the Russian army simply doesn’t acknowledge the existence of the Geneva Convention. Russian soldiers are taught nothing about it. As Nickc says I think this is just how they wage war.

What I find odd though is the repeated denials. This suggests there is an acceptance that these things are wrong at least to some extent. Or are the denials simply for the benefit of Western sensibilities?

Putin has demonstrated that he doesn’t pay any attention to borders, espcially ones he doesn’t think are real anyway.

Exactly, he sees Ukraine as part of ‘greater Russia’, not as an independent state. If he were to be appeased with ‘neutrality’, he would have simply constructed another pretext for invasion. The ‘Nazi problem’ would have required not just neutrality, but regime change.

The massacres and brutality would have happened anyway, because the aim is the absorption of Ukraine into Russia, the reinstatement of Kiev as a historic ‘Russian’ city, the securing of all the Black Sea ports, and the removal of effective democracy.

Putin’s internal domestic stability relies on the presence of an external enemy, be it ‘Chechen radical Muslim terrorists’, ‘Georgian oppressors’, ‘Nazis in Ukraine’ or NATO. As one enemy is vanquished, another is presented to the people. Eurasia has to always be at war with Eastasia. Without an external threat, Russians would look inwards, and may notice that they have been robbed blind.

Or are the denials simply for the benefit of Western sensibilities?

If there’s one thing that recent western history has taught us, is that liars can just shout ‘fake news’, and no matter how implausible the lie, there are crowds gullible enough to believe it.

Daz I just don’t understand where you’re going with this. Putin wants us to think he might use nukes in order to get us to back down (ie in our support of Ukraine). Are you suggesting we should? In which case he will just be further emboldened. If he really is mad enough to use nukes then frankly we’re all f***** anyway.

I just don’t understand where you’re going with this.

Is that not obvious? My only interest is in stopping the war, avoiding escalation between NATO and Russia and ultimately nuclear armageddon. By any means necessary.

While powerful people argue about territory and money, the people who bear the brunt are normal people. On both sides. War only benefits the rich and and powerful, and the rest of us are expected to fall in line and support their psychopathic and narcissistic tendencies.

Someone earlier said it’s a defence of nuclear deterrents. It’s the opposite in my view. The only reason Putin feels emboldened to do what he’s doing in Ukraine is because he has 8000 nuclear warheads at his disposal.

Deterrence only works if all actors are rational. We’re way beyond this now and I’m terrifyingly confident in where it’s heading. Quite frankly if we’re all f**** already then it wouldn’t give me any comfort that we stood up to Putin in the process cos we’ll all be dead anyway. Male pride has a lot to answer for.

Also if I’m wrong and there won’t be much impact, why are we still buying it? It makes the case for cutting off imports from Russia stronger.

We’re not, in significant quantity. If you’re talking about Europe, the impact will be very significant price increases.

There is No evidence of Russia encroaching on NATO territory?

Wrong – a Russian sanctioned assassination of a British citizen on British soil has already taken place. Also, wrong again. Russian agents used chemical weapons to attack British citizens on British soil and killed an innocent woman. Also, there have been a number of Russian state sanctioned assassinations on British soil. And once again, Russia was likely involved in the 2016 Referendum and as such this country has been permanently economically and politically damaged as a result. Russian interference in the referendum may well have made your fish and chips more expensive.

Russia is also sponsoring far-right activists in Europe.

None of us want the threat of nuclear conflict hanging over us, but seeing the accounts of Russian atrocities in Ukraine does not fill me with one iota of confidence that Putin is going to stop if we simply roll over and let him conquer a nation of 44m people and turn it into a puppet state.

I’m terrifyingly confident in where it’s heading.

As confident as you were that Russia would never invade, that it was all just a bluff and show of force, that NATO and the West were just talking it up and exaggerating the threat of invasion?

Which only supports my fear that Putin and his generals are far more nuclear trigger happy than we in the west think they are

So what? you’re just a bloke hammering away at his keyboard like the rest of us, who cares what you think is more likely? you’ve no more info that the rest of us have about the likelihood or otherwise of Putin being stupid enough to turn the launch key. You’re the one who thinks he’s not an idiot after all.