War, what is it good for?

[flash2015]

The reason for that is because Russia had annexed Crimea already and Russian-backed insurgents controlled those parts of Ukraine lol.
I really don't think that's an argument in your direction.

So given your answers I am assuming you are suggesting that Russia should not be allowed to keep anything, including Crimea?

No - I'm just saying that your reasoning for using outdated elections as opposed to the more recent ones is incorrect. I have no position on if Ukraine should try to take back Crimea too (though given the recent attack on the bridge linking Crimea to Russia I assume they might).

This wasn't really the important part of my post. The important part was the question I asked which I don't believe you have answered:

"How badly does he need to be humiliated? Lose all the land gained since the start of the war? Does he need to lose Crimea too?"

[French_boi]

Answer: lose all land gained since the start of the war.

[Octavious]

Answer: lose all land gained since the start of the war.

Define "the start of the war". I imagine many Ukrainians will agree with you, but they may well be agreeing different things.

One massive headache for the West that isn't given nearly enough coverage is there are now an enormous number of Ukrainians who have been given a wide assortment of military weapons. Even if everything works out nicely there will be a a fair few bad eggs who will seek to profit by selling the weapons to criminals across Europe. If things go less well and there's a perception that Ukraine has been betrayed by the West (a deal sponsored by Europe in which Putin walks away with a lot of territory, say) then the bad eggs will be joined by the vengeful and Europe will have a massive problem on its hands.

[orathaic]

Answer: lose all land gained since the start of the war.

Define "the start of the war". I imagine many Ukrainians will agree with you, but they may well be agreeing different things.

One massive headache for the West that isn't given nearly enough coverage is there are now an enormous number of Ukrainians who have been given a wide assortment of military weapons. Even if everything works out nicely there will be a a fair few bad eggs who will seek to profit by selling the weapons to criminals across Europe. If things go less well and there's a perception that Ukraine has been betrayed by the West (a deal sponsored by Europe in which Putin walks away with a lot of territory, say) then the bad eggs will be joined by the vengeful and Europe will have a massive problem on its hands.

Two things, currently the largest source of weapons in Ukraine is the Russian army, bith abandoned equipment and Russians surrendering with their equipment (which the Ukrainian govt has agreed to pay for.... Sure it is probably about 1/10th of the value, but when you are in a multimillion dollar vechile, even 1/10th can be a big difference).

Most Ukrainians consider the start of the war to be 2014, when Russia first sent troops to Luhansk and Donetsk. They may not have been wearing Russian flag on their uniforms as a plausible deniability but there is no doubt that Russia decided to take this territory by force.

[orathaic]

Someone who i agree with, former Finnish Prime Minister, current academic, talking about the mistakes he's made:

https://youtu.be/EQzrleKU9B0

[Octavious]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64695042

An exciting new chapter of grim may be about to start

[orathaic]

What would happen is Poland sent peace keeping troops to Ukraine, to sit on the Belarussian border and deter any attack (freeing up Ukrainian troops to move east and south) threatening Belarus that they are ready to respond and topple Lukashenko if he attacks?

[Octavious]

The Russians would veto any security council initiative, so it would be done without a UN mandate. I believe that in these conditions the Russians could also target them without invoking NATO article 5. I don't think it's a clear cut "no" based on the wording of the article, but I think there's enough grey area for unanimity to be hard to achieve... especially from Turkey.

Regardless, sending Polish forces into Ukraine in large numbers would be a significant escalation which would free up Russia's friends to make far greater interventions if they wish to.

[orathaic]

The Russians would veto any security council initiative, so it would be done without a UN mandate. I believe that in these conditions the Russians could also target them without invoking NATO article 5. I don't think it's a clear cut "no" based on the wording of the article, but I think there's enough grey area for unanimity to be hard to achieve... especially from Turkey.

Regardless, sending Polish forces into Ukraine in large numbers would be a significant escalation which would free up Russia's friends to make far greater interventions if they wish to.

I think you are right about the UN, and about Russia targeting troops, article 5 is about defense, i doubt the US could invoke article 5 when ISIS attacked US military bases in Iraq, but they did after the World Trade Centre attacks.

Russians targeting the Polish troops would seem wasteful, but would need to be a risk Poland was willing to take. But you could be right about escalation from Russia's "friends" i just wonder who they are... Poland invading Belarus would not be reason for Russia to use nuclear weapons (under their own military doctrines) because it isn't Russian soil, but it would likely result in Russia declaring Belarus to be part of Russia' and Annexing the whole territory (remember all Russian troops in the 'annexed' areas of Ukraine are now officially fighting on Russian soil, so they don't have to be paid extra for fighting on foreign soil, and don't need a contract (so conscripts who are not supposed to be sent abroad would are fine to be sent to die in Ukraine's officially annexed territories...)

I suspect Luchashenko would prefer to remain in power than either Putin Annexing his country or Poland attempting to destabilize his government. But a Polish invasion - if it was able to seriously threaten Minsk would result in Belarus asking for Putin to annex them...

Who do you think would do more for Russia if Poland moved troops in but didn't attack anyone? Iran, North Korea, China, or Belarus? Does Russia have any other friends?

[Octavious]

Who do you think would do more for Russia if Poland moved troops in but didn't attack anyone? Iran, North Korea, China, or Belarus? Does Russia have any other friends?

They are the major players, certainly. I don't imagine there will be any direct military assistance from the likes of India, and certainly not from Orban, but they may well up their support (India economically in terms of buying energy, Orban in terms of upping his political arguments in favour of reducing hostilities).

But it would be unwise to completely ignore Africa. Many African nations have been openly pro-Russian from the start, with a strong degree of popular support from their people. African nations that have abandoned Western ties in favour of China are no longer desperate not to upset us and may start to play a larger role.

[orathaic]

I don't have good dáta on it, but only two african countries voting in favour of Cimrea being part of Russia in 2014, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Several more abstaimed.

Latest vote, Eritrea and Mali voted with Russia, and i know at least one has Wagner group mercanaries operating in the country.

Sure several more are neutral/abstaining. But i don't know why, even if they are pro-Russia, you expect them to have any sway in the war. Syria likewise.

B: Belarus

D: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea)

E: Eritrea

M: Mali

N: Nicaragua

R: Russia

S: Syria

So i am only now ignoring Nicaragua, why did they take Russia's side?

[Octavious]

That's a very optimistic way of looking at it. When the UN voted to condemn the invasion in March there was a huge amount of Western diplomatic pressure on African nations to join the condemnation, and yet despite this 25 African nations refused to do so. The likes of Morrow, Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt have been happily importing Russian energy and softening the blow of western sanctions.

The West has been seen by many third world nations as acting incredibly selfishly. Western Europe grumbles about increasing prices as it buys up all the liquid gas it can find, seemingly blissfully unaware of impact of the price increases on other nations as Pakistan and Bangladesh suffer from blackouts. India and China continue to increase trade with Russia.

It is not the world vs Russia by any stretch of the imagination. It is the West vs Russia. No one else gives a damn

[orathaic]

You are entirely right, and the west often likes to paint itself as 'the international community' or like they are this singular united block of free democracies which nobody could possibly disagree with... Lots of criticism there, I'm sure i have made such before.

And yes, many other countries did abstain, but a majority of countries voted to condemn Russia, right? The West, if it was mostly using political pressure, is pretty influential (i don't think that was in question). And yeah, I'm sure lots of countries aren't impressed with rising gas prices, much like those who rely on exports of Food from Ukraine are not going to be happy with Russia invading, reducing grain production, and blocking exports from Ukrainian ports...

How and Ever, most countries relying in Russian exports still don't fancy seeing super-powers invading their neighbours and changing borders by force being 'allowed'- some of them just don't buy the west's narrativr that suggests they have never done this, or that it is on when Western Nations decide to try it, but Russia is evil for trying - #Libya, #Iraq, #Afghanistan, #Syrian Kurdistan #Iraqi Kurdistan, #Yemen... But the West being a bigger threat to global security (unless you sign up with their economic interests, i guess) doesn't mean Russia is good.

[Octavious]

I don't think anyone here has argued that Russia is good. But, from the perspective of Africa, Russia is very far away and offers zero threat of invasion. Russia is a real threat to very few nations beyond the ever present possibility that things go tits up with NATO and the world is destroyed. The West's recent flirting with this possibility will concern most nations far more than the fate of Ukraine

[orathaic]

I mean, if you lived in one of the countries beside Rusisa with a large Russian speaking minority (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) i am sure the threat feels very real.

If you live in one of the countries where Russia 'peacekeepers' have been deployed to help ensure Russia's preferred ally gets the better deal out of a peace, then I'm sure you see Russia as, if not a threat, but definitely a problem. (See also Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia).

With the rest of the central Asian Stans (excepting Afghanistan) also having to consider the threat to their security from Russia.

Or if you are in one of the foreign (and not former soviet) nations where Russia has used military force in the last decade: see Mali* and Syria.

Russia is a potential ally, and thus threat to whoever they are opposing.

*I Grant entirely that France is the same threat in Mali, and has a post colonial influence which is equally problematic, though Russia never really decolonised, partly because much of the Russian far east is largely as uninhabited as Greenland (which Denmark has also not decolonised).

And the Syrian civil war wasn't exactly a clear cut situation for Western actors to be a positive influence... Iran and Turkey.. anyway.

[Octavious]

I mean, if you lived in one of the countries beside Rusisa with a large Russian speaking minority (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) i am sure the threat feels very real.

Really? I am quite sure the reverse is true. Indeed, the threat of accidental nuclear war triggered by western action I'd rank as an infinitely greater threat than Russia trying an invasion off its own initiative.

If you live in one of the countries where Russia 'peacekeepers' have been deployed to help ensure Russia's preferred ally gets the better deal out of a peace, then I'm sure you see Russia as, if not a threat, but definitely a problem. (See also Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia).

I imagine this is true. I am not convinced that the Ukrainian developments have done much to change this, however. Those neighbours in Russia's sphere of influence who don't have protection will have always been in this position. Not that this is of great importance to the people who live there, admittedly.

Russia is a potential ally, and thus threat to whoever they are opposing.

True, as is everyone with power. Which explains rather neatly why Putin and Russia have viewed NATO and the EU as real and growing threats in recent decades.

[orathaic]

I mean, if you lived in one of the countries beside Rusisa with a large Russian speaking minority (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) i am sure the threat feels very real.

Really? I am quite sure the reverse is true. Indeed, the threat of accidental nuclear war triggered by western action I'd rank as an infinitely greater threat than Russia trying an invasion off its own initiative.

Given the history of nuclear weapons not going on accidentally and Russia invading Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, more than once.

I'm not sure i see your calculus.

Russia may be attempting to secure themselves against a possible land war with NATO. The Baltic states have to worry that NATO was becoming seen more and more Obselete, as countries like France, Germany and Italy were looking at their historical importance and wanting to have an independence from US foreign policy interests.

The Baltics must now be relieved by the renewed commitment to NATO, while also having their real fears of Russia reinforced by the demonstrated willingness to use conventional weapons against former soviet republics.

Now for the reverse? Who do you think is equally terrified of accidental nuclear war?

[Octavious]

Given the history of nuclear weapons not going on accidentally

You need to work on your history. We have come scarily close to nuclear war on several occasions, and this is based purely on the history we know about. In the Cuban missile crisis a submarine commander actually made the decision to launch nuclear weapons, and it was only opposition from his crew that prevented disaster. There was the documented case in the 70s when the US command center detected a full scale Soviet strike and nuclear bombers and missiles were prepped for retaliation before it became apparent it was a computer glitch. In the 80s and 90s Russia had similar false alarms, with President Yeltsin having to make the final call in the 95 incident not to retaliate.

Even if you say that in a typical year the odds of disaster are 1 in 1000, you don't have to advance human history all that far before the cumulative impact of those odds get very worrying indeed. As things stand, I think we are in a far worse place than a 1 in 1000 chance.

Russia invading Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, more than once.

So has Western Europe. But Russia has never shown any inclination whatsoever of invading a NATO or EU nation. The only way the Baltics get invaded is if Russia and the USA start a big war and the Russians travel through them on the way to Berlin. The odds of anyone in Moscow thinking they could get away with invading any individual NATO nation without WWIII consequences is zero.

Who do you think is equally terrified of accidental nuclear war?

No one should be terrified of anything. But anyone with any sense should be deeply concerned.

Come on, ora, you're a similar age to me. You didn't live in the fear of imminent nuclear war, but surely your parents talked about it? The sense of impending doom, the utter powerlessness? My grandad was stationed in Germany, and my dad and Gran had bags packed ready for evacuation because of Cuba. We were bloody close, mate.

[orathaic]

<Snip>

Come on, ora, you're a similar age to me. You didn't live in the fear of imminent nuclear war, but surely your parents talked about it? The sense of impending doom, the utter powerlessness? My grandad was stationed in Germany, and my dad and Gran had bags packed ready for evacuation because of Cuba. We were bloody close, mate.

Can't say that was ever a thing.

My parents grew up in Ireland, which remains neutral since the founding, with the only wars we have ever fought as a almost unified nation being the war of independence and the Irish civil war.

I guess my parents grew up assuming the bike would be targeted elsewhere. The 'sense of impending doom' is not something i ever rememeber being mentioned.

[Jamiet99uk]

<Snip>

Come on, ora, you're a similar age to me. You didn't live in the fear of imminent nuclear war, but surely your parents talked about it? The sense of impending doom, the utter powerlessness? My grandad was stationed in Germany, and my dad and Gran had bags packed ready for evacuation because of Cuba. We were bloody close, mate.

Can't say that was ever a thing.

My parents grew up in Ireland, which remains neutral since the founding, with the only wars we have ever fought as a almost unified nation being the war of independence and the Irish civil war.

I guess my parents grew up assuming the bike would be targeted elsewhere. The 'sense of impending doom' is not something i ever rememeber being mentioned.

I am sure that if Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland were reduced to a blasted, irradiated wasteland due to total nuclear annihilation, the Republic of Ireland would be entirely undamaged.