Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

Pickman's model said:
everyone joined (or at least everyone who joined in the 1990s) because the americans were handing out memberships like it was confetti. a better ploy would have been to incorporate russia into the world system rather than look for ways of excluding them. the existence of an anti-russian alliance, and we all knew nato was an anti-russian alliance, has played its part getting us all to where we are, and i'd say that it's a larger part than you suggest.
Click to expand...

It's simplistic (wrong actually...) to say that NATO, and the EU were being used by the US and western European states as an anti-Russian tool - there was a very short period when Russian accession to NATO was being talked about, but it lasted less than a year, and it tailed off because Russia wanted to be treated as the big dog in NATO east of Berlin, with a Russian veto over where US forces could go, who the eastern states could buy their gear from. It was all very 'Spheres of Influence', and Russia got very arsey and threw it's toys out of the pram when it was made clear that that wasn't how Russian membership was going to go.

It was the eastern states who banged on NATO's, and the EU's door, not the other way round - and it was because, for all the lefty talk about the fall of the Soviet Union, for the eastern states it was simply window dressing, it was about Russia, meet the new Russia, same as the old Russia.

They knew, felt it in their bones, that in the end Russia would be back - 5 years, 10 years, 30 years, it didn't matter - Russia that doesn't really believe them to be proper countries, doesn't believe them to be equals, places that exist to act as buffer zones for Russia, places for Russia to exercise more or less control over as the situation demanded.

NATO has become anti-Russian organisation, but In only in the same way that your front door is an anti-burgler device...

Amusingly, NATO has long held off acting as it's eastern states would wish because it sort to avoid pushing Russia into Chinas bossom as a client state - there was a widespread maxim, until quite recently, that Russia had perhaps 10 years before it would be forced to decide whether it wanted to be a European state, or a Chinese vassal state. NATO hoped it would decide to be a European state, not least because that would keep the Chinese somr distance from NATO's border.

What will happen now, with Putin backed into a corner with the economy tanking, and China seemingly not overly pleased with their partners actions, is anyone's guess...
 
If the Ukrainians decide to carry on resisting despite Russia unleashing its heavy bombardment weapons how long could they hold on?

Kiev will fall - but Lvov would be the obvious place to move the government to and by the time the Russians get there it will be well prepared for them and well supplied - its close to the Polish border.

And how long could Russia conduct a drawn out, grinding war against determined, well armed resistance on such a scale, in such a large country, with insurgency in the areas it occupies, in the face of crippling sanctions and potentially high levels of domestic unhappiness? How long before its military threw in the towel? Does it even have the resources to carry out this level of warfare for longer than a matter of months? This is way bigger conflict than Chechnya and with a much stronger opponent.

Putin is not doubt happy to grind on untill all resistance is extinguished and Urkaine (or the entire world?) is mostly rubble and corpses - but are the rest of the regime? Its soldiers? Its people?
 
Last edited:
Cid said:
Yeah, undoubtedly. Press in China I think is taking a very toned-down version of the Russian line, but largely staying silent. Still, I cannot help but think that this is causing huge doubts in CCP inner circles... But that may just be wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

I reckon the united and instantaneous response from the west, strong resistance from Ukraine, and Russia's currency collapse and rapid loss of allies has probably shut up those advocating for an invasion of Taiwan.
 
rubbershoes said:
As long as Putin is in power, Lukashenko can be in power.
Click to expand...

Not true until very, very recently. But now, yes- there's little sense of an independent Belarusian foreign policy anymore (although for some reason they refused to recgnise the ludicrous "People's Republics" in Donetsk / Lugansk last week) and Belarus' state-run economy is now fully dependent on Russia for survival.

I predict Lukashenko will fall first and a very nasty civil war will happen on the territory of Belarus itself, settled in favour of authoritarianism by the Russian army.

The again, I spent weeks saying Putin wasn't serious about invading Ukraine, so what do I know.
 


She really fucking sticks it to him. Proper journalism. She's right, if his kids are languishing in mansions all over Europe then seize them. Deport his kids back to Russia, via Kyiv, see if the cunt wants to flatten it then.

Edit: Eurgh didn't realise there was a load of other noise at the end. I just thought the journalist's points about properly sanctioning were interesting.
 
Last edited:
kebabking said:
It's simplistic (wrong actually...) to say that NATO, and the EU were being used by the US and western European states as an anti-Russian tool - there was a very short period when Russian accession to NATO was being talked about, but it lasted less than a year, and it tailed off because Russia wanted to be treated as the big dog in NATO east of Berlin, with a Russian veto over where US forces could go, who the eastern states could buy their gear from. It was all very 'Spheres of Influence', and Russia got very arsey and threw it's toys out of the pram when it was made clear that that wasn't how Russian membership was going to go.

It was the eastern states who banged on NATO's, and the EU's door, not the other way round - and it was because, for all the lefty talk about the fall of the Soviet Union, for the eastern states it was simply window dressing, it was about Russia, meet the new Russia, same as the old Russia.

They knew, felt it in their bones, that in the end Russia would be back - 5 years, 10 years, 30 years, it didn't matter - Russia that doesn't really believe them to be proper countries, doesn't believe them to be equals, places that exist to act as buffer zones for Russia, places for Russia to exercise more or less control over as the situation demanded.

NATO has become anti-Russian organisation, but In only in the same way that your front door is an anti-burgler device...

Amusingly, NATO has long held off acting as it's eastern states would wish because it sort to avoid pushing Russia into Chinas bossom as a client state - there was a widespread maxim, until quite recently, that Russia had perhaps 10 years before it would be forced to decide whether it wanted to be a European state, or a Chinese vassal state. NATO hoped it would decide to be a European state, not least because that would keep the Chinese somr distance from NATO's border.

What will happen now, with Putin backed into a corner with the economy tanking, and China seemingly not overly pleased with their partners actions, is anyone's guess...
Click to expand...
Nato was set up to oppose the Soviet Union and restrict its sphere of influence. Since the end of the SU it has carried on serving US interests, leading to its disastrous intervention in Afghanistan. It welcomed EE countries in to ensure the west stayed stronger than the east - something which Putin objected to as it was happening. When there is any kind of arms race going on, one side ‘strengthening’ all but inevitably leads to the other side doing likewise.

That doesn’t mean the Russian invasion is NATO’s fault, it certainly isn’t, but don’t try and paint them as complete innocents. They’re playing the game just well enough to make sure it isn’t their gang who take the direct hit.
 
kebabking said:
It's simplistic (wrong actually...) to say that NATO, and the EU were being used by the US and western European states as an anti-Russian tool - there was a very short period when Russian accession to NATO was being talked about, but it lasted less than a year, and it tailed off because Russia wanted to be treated as the big dog in NATO east of Berlin, with a Russian veto over where US forces could go, who the eastern states could buy their gear from. It was all very 'Spheres of Influence', and Russia got very arsey and threw it's toys out of the pram when it was made clear that that wasn't how Russian membership was going to go.

It was the eastern states who banged on NATO's, and the EU's door, not the other way round - and it was because, for all the lefty talk about the fall of the Soviet Union, for the eastern states it was simply window dressing, it was about Russia, meet the new Russia, same as the old Russia.

They knew, felt it in their bones, that in the end Russia would be back - 5 years, 10 years, 30 years, it didn't matter - Russia that doesn't really believe them to be proper countries, doesn't believe them to be equals, places that exist to act as buffer zones for Russia, places for Russia to exercise more or less control over as the situation demanded.

NATO has become anti-Russian organisation, but In only in the same way that your front door is an anti-burgler device...

Amusingly, NATO has long held off acting as it's eastern states would wish because it sort to avoid pushing Russia into Chinas bossom as a client state - there was a widespread maxim, until quite recently, that Russia had perhaps 10 years before it would be forced to decide whether it wanted to be a European state, or a Chinese vassal state. NATO hoped it would decide to be a European state, not least because that would keep the Chinese somr distance from NATO's border.

What will happen now, with Putin backed into a corner with the economy tanking, and China seemingly not overly pleased with their partners actions, is anyone's guess...
Click to expand...
i didn't say nato was being used as an anti-russian tool. i said it was an anti-russian alliance. by enlarging nato the scope for a pacific future diminished. you don't really pursue the issue of what nato expansion did to russia, what message it sent out, whether it created a self-fulfilling prophecy. nato was established in 1949 as an alliance against the soviet union, you're saying that countries joined nato in the 1990s and 200s as protection against russia - at what point wasn't it an anti-russian alliance?

i very rarely read peter hitchens' articles because i think he's a barking loon. and so he is, most of the time, but i find myself agreeing with much of his article here PETER HITCHENS: Why I blame the arrogant West for the Ukraine crisis. sure there are other factors, but imo the environment in which the other factors developed was largely drawn by western attitudes and actions towards russia.
 
A question whirling about my head - if NATO were to intervene in Ukraine, it would be World War 3: but has WW3 actually started already?

Is this, historical analogies not being perfect, the Sudentenland, the Anschluss, or whatever other example you might wish to use, none of which wouldn't be described as being part of WW2..?
 
ska invita said:
My post was particularly in regards to the suggestion the west sends in as much arms as possible to Ukraine, despite a military win being IMO impossible.

There is some degrees of sheepishness about US+European response here because they know full well they were playing with fire in their attempts to win this slice of the global board for themselves and crucially not be prepared to defend it with their own militaries.

When heavily outnumbered there are different ways to resist dictators without last person standing warfare, both at the state level and at the citizen level, from nonviolent methods to guerilla warfare - often a combination of both based on what individual people want to do. At the state level now negotiations need energising and ramping up, not no fly zones.

Of your What If examples, I imagine each has its own dynamic - I am no expert but I would guess:
If Georgia happens again I cant imagine a different response than last time.
Russia taking on the Baltic States would trigger a NATO war

As to the wider question of the West dealing with armed dictators I would say history suggests we often support them in their endeavours when there is profit to be had. That has included Putin too. Not doing that is where to start in all this.

BTW dont presume to know how you would feel when surrounded by 40 miles worth of Russian military. Retreating from open heavily armed conflict when so heavily outgunned is rational, militarily and personally.


That outside hope is literally deadly. Military strategists have to weigh up the balance of forces and act on that, not outside hope.

BTW Fuck Putin obvs
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm now wondering if they'd be better laying down their arms rather than having the whole country destroyed. At least that would save face for Putin.

Hide as many weapons as they can and the Russians would know they'd have some guerilla war on their hands if they stayed. It's what happens in the aftermath though, and how many Ukrainians would be punished/killed.
 
kebabking said:
A question whirling about my head - if NATO were to intervene in Ukraine, it would be World War 3: but has WW3 actually started already?

Is this, historical analogies not being perfect, the Sudentenland, the Anschluss, or whatever other example you might wish to use, none of which wouldn't be described as being part of WW2..?
Click to expand...
world war three would be the global war on terror. world war four, the hare's running.
 
kebabking said:
A question whirling about my head - if NATO were to intervene in Ukraine, it would be World War 3: but has WW3 actually started already?

Is this, historical analogies not being perfect, the Sudentenland, the Anschluss, or whatever other example you might wish to use, none of which wouldn't be described as being part of WW2..?
Click to expand...
I've been wondering about this historical parallel as well.

It's something that is explicitly addressed in the Fiona Hill interview which was posted upthread

People don’t want to talk about Adolf Hitler and World War II, but I’m going to talk about it. Obviously the major element when you talk about World War II, which is overwhelming, is the Holocaust and the absolute decimation of the Jewish population of Europe, as well as the Roma-Sinti people. But let’s focus here on the territorial expansionism of Germany, what Germany did under Hitler in that period: seizure of the Sudetenland and the Anschluss or annexation of Austria, all on the basis that they were German speakers.

None of which means that WWIII is now inevitable, but the possibility is clearly there.
 
andysays said:
I've been wondering about this historical parallel as well.

It's something that is explicitly addressed in the Fiona Hill interview which was posted upthread

People don’t want to talk about Adolf Hitler and World War II, but I’m going to talk about it. Obviously the major element when you talk about World War II, which is overwhelming, is the Holocaust and the absolute decimation of the Jewish population of Europe, as well as the Roma-Sinti people. But let’s focus here on the territorial expansionism of Germany, what Germany did under Hitler in that period: seizure of the Sudetenland and the Anschluss or annexation of Austria, all on the basis that they were German speakers.

None of which means that WWIII is now inevitable, but the possibility is clearly there.
Click to expand...
we're just waiting for china to come out of the dressing room and onto the pitch. the united states is warming up by the north bank.
 
kebabking said:
A question whirling about my head - if NATO were to intervene in Ukraine, it would be World War 3: but has WW3 actually started already?

Is this, historical analogies not being perfect, the Sudentenland, the Anschluss, or whatever other example you might wish to use, none of which wouldn't be described as being part of WW2..?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's been running through my mind. And we're clearly not the only ones. From the article that's been linked on here earlier...

"Hill spent many years studying history, and in our conversation, she repeatedly traced how long arcs and trends of European history are converging on Ukraine right now. We are already, she said, in the middle of a third World War, whether we’ve fully grasped it or not."

www.politico.com

‘Yes, He Would’: Fiona Hill on Putin and Nukes

Putin is trying to take down the entire world order, the veteran Russia watcher said in an interview. But there are ways even ordinary Americans can fight back.
www.politico.com www.politico.com

Ah, already been posted again, god I'm too slow.
 
andysays said:
I've been wondering about this historical parallel as well.

It's something that is explicitly addressed in the Fiona Hill interview which was posted upthread

People don’t want to talk about Adolf Hitler and World War II, but I’m going to talk about it. Obviously the major element when you talk about World War II, which is overwhelming, is the Holocaust and the absolute decimation of the Jewish population of Europe, as well as the Roma-Sinti people. But let’s focus here on the territorial expansionism of Germany, what Germany did under Hitler in that period: seizure of the Sudetenland and the Anschluss or annexation of Austria, all on the basis that they were German speakers.

None of which means that WWIII is now inevitable, but the possibility is clearly there.
Click to expand...

His invasion of Poland was because they refused to hand over Danzig to him. Danzig was predominately populated by germens and had been made a "free city" within territory taken from German and given Poland after ww1. So some parallels with Putins demands over the "russian" areas of Ukraine. Although arguably, Germany had more of a case.
 
kebabking said:
A question whirling about my head - if NATO were to intervene in Ukraine, it would be World War 3: but has WW3 actually started already?

Is this, historical analogies not being perfect, the Sudentenland, the Anschluss, or whatever other example you might wish to use, none of which wouldn't be described as being part of WW2..?
Click to expand...
Or the Japanese war with China in 1937, or Spain, or the Japanese seizure of Manchuria in 1931 . . .

It's not a world war unless it comes from the world war region of the twentieth century. Otherwise it's just a sparkling global conflict.
 
Last edited:
kebabking said:
A question whirling about my head - if NATO were to intervene in Ukraine, it would be World War 3: but has WW3 actually started already?

Is this, historical analogies not being perfect, the Sudentenland, the Anschluss, or whatever other example you might wish to use, none of which wouldn't be described as being part of WW2..?
Click to expand...
It is WW3. NATO's direct involvement would make WW3 go nuclear.
 
What is keeping me awake at night is that several people has postulated over the past 20 years that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would be precursor to WW3.
The banking crash, covid, invasion of urkaine and accelerating climate change - cumulating impacts to the globes economies, peoples and societies. Dont like it. Sacred for my kids.
 
two sheds said:
Yes, I'm now wondering if they'd be better laying down their arms rather than having the whole country destroyed. At least that would save face for Putin.

Hide as many weapons as they can and the Russians would know they'd have some guerilla war on their hands if they stayed. It's what happens in the aftermath though, and how many Ukrainians would be punished/killed.
Click to expand...
I don't think that can be expected to happen. And, if it does, who would be next? Moldova? The Baltic states? Poland??

And, going by the general Ukrainian attitude, a surrender would create a massive rift in that society - it could even be bloodier and nastier.

I think it's more likely that Ukraine will be battered to its knees, and the resulting insurgency will continue long afterwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Russian ship ‘fires at German helicopter’
Replies
4
Views
388
dilute micro
dilute micro
platinumsage
Ukraine and the Russian invasion, Feb 2022 - tangentially related crap
31 32 33 34 35
Replies
1K
Views
55K
JimW
JimW
tim
The 2023 Russian Coup.
51 52 53 54 55
Replies
2K
Views
70K
_Russ_
_Russ_
Dogsauce
The Russian defenestration thread
2
Replies
52
Views
5K
Bahnhof Strasse
Bahnhof Strasse
platinumsage
Ukraine invasion memes and viral content
70 71 72 73 74
Replies
2K
Views
125K
keybored
keybored
Back
Top Bottom