Arming the Ukrainians

[Spud]

There should be a photo of a squirrel attached to the previous post. It has appeared when I view the page on my phone but not when on a tablet.

[Aruntraveller]

There should be a photo of a squirrel attached to the previous post. It has appeared when I view the page on my phone but not when on a tablet.

Looking at it on my PC and Tufty is showing on that.

[Udayana]

Well Johnson is on his way there next week*, prepare for dead cats, gaffs and depth charges:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1487173180884201475

* assuming we aren't rid of him by then.

[Spud]

Looking at it on my PC and Tufty is showing on that.

Great! Quite cute hey?

[Nearly Sane]

Foreign Secretary is an embarrassment

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/liz-truss-mocked-geography-gaffe-154259362.html

[Spud]

Yesterday at a press conference Putin was concerned that after joining Nato, Ukraine would try and get Crimea back which could mean invoking article 5 of the treaty. He said that would force Russia to use nuclear weapons. So although that is a hypothetical scenario, it makes sense not to allow Ukraine to join Nato so that any situation like that is avoided.

[Nearly Sane]

Yesterday at a press conference Putin was concerned that after joining Nato, Ukraine would try and get Crimea back which could mean invoking article 5 of the treaty. He said that would force Russia to use nuclear weapons. So although that is a hypothetical scenario, it makes sense not to allow Ukraine to join Nato so that any situation like that is avoided.

That's a lovely house you have, it would be a shame if it was burnt to the ground...

[Spud]

That's a lovely house you have, it would be a shame if it was burnt to the ground...

If I don't join your alliance that isn't likely to happen.

[Nearly Sane]

If I don't join your alliance that isn't likely to happen.

said the Mafia boss.

[Spud]

A Radio 4 presenter pointed out to Ben Wallace this morning that we can't import a pre-existing conflict into Nato.

[Nearly Sane]

We can't import a pre-existing conflict into Nato, said the Radio 4 presenter to Ben Wallace.

That's a non sequitur

[Spud]

That's a non sequitur

Sorry about that, have edited the post.

[Spud]

Perhaps Russia is putin troops near the border in order to make Nato think there is a conflict with Ukraine and thus decreasing further the likelihood of them joining the alliance.

[jeremyp]

Perhaps Russia is putin troops near the border in order to make Nato think there is a conflict with Ukraine and thus decreasing further the likelihood of them joining the alliance.

The reason he's doing it is to distract from domestic troubles. He's exploiting the deep seated fear in Russia of invasion from the West for his own political ends.

[Anchorman]

The reason he's doing it is to distract from domestic troubles. He's exploiting the deep seated fear in Russia of invasion from the West for his own political ends.

     


Wot Jeremy said.

[Spud]

The reason he's doing it is to distract from domestic troubles. He's exploiting the deep seated fear in Russia of invasion from the West for his own political ends.

I can see how that could be the case, given the German invasion, but don't see much evidence of it. Russians must realize that Nato is a defence alliance?

[Outrider]

I can see how that could be the case, given the German invasion, but don't see much evidence of it. Russians must realize that Nato is a defence alliance?

To an extent, but he can point to the likes of Afghanistan and the Gulf Wars and suggest quite plausibly that it's stretching the 'defence of Western European nations' claim to justify NATO involvement in those arenas. It's a grey area, and my personal take is that intervention of some sort (perhaps not the particulars of all operations) was justifiable, but I'd accept the criticism that it was at best a stretch of the NATO charter, if not an outright breach of it.

O.

[Spud]

To an extent, but he can point to the likes of Afghanistan and the Gulf Wars and suggest quite plausibly that it's stretching the 'defence of Western European nations' claim to justify NATO involvement in those arenas. It's a grey area, and my personal take is that intervention of some sort (perhaps not the particulars of all operations) was justifiable, but I'd accept the criticism that it was at best a stretch of the NATO charter, if not an outright breach of it.

O.

Would you agree that Ukraine and Russia's problems seem to stem from strong ties left over from the Soviet era now being threatened, and it's those issues that need to be sorted out between the leaders of the two countries. I feel that our role ought be to mediate rather than get involved militarily.
Also, Russia might also point to the presence of about 80,000 US troops in Eastern Europe as justification for its current actions.

[Outrider]

Would you agree that Ukraine and Russia's problems seem to stem from strong ties left over from the Soviet era now being threatened, and it's those issues that need to be sorted out between the leaders of the two countries.

Yes and no, it's certainly a legacy of that idea of Soviet era 'Russia', but Ukraine does not appear to have a significant desire to return to that arrangement; this is a case of Russian imperialism, which predated the Soviet era, rearing its head again as Putin tries to invoke nationalism and a sense of 'manifest destiny' to detract from the obvious failings of his regime.

I feel that our role ought be to mediate rather than get involved militarily.

Nice sentiment - Putin's problems aren't going away, and if he invades Ukraine (which has made friendly overtures to NATO and the west long before this kicked off) where's he going to look next? We didn't intervene militarily when he invaded Crimea, and here we are a few years later with him emboldened by that and threatening the same thing again.
 

Also, Russia might also point to the presence of about 80,000 US troops in Eastern Europe as justification for its current actions.

He not just might, he already has. He doesn't get to dictate to those countries which troops they can and can't have in their own space, though. Those troops have been in place, in slightly varying numbers, since the 1950s, why is it now such a problem? Why is the presence of troops in non-Ukrainian countries that aren't bordering Russia a justification for a potential second invasion of the Ukraine?

O.

[jeremyp]

I can see how that could be the case, given the German invasion

Germany in WW1 and WW2. France in the early 1800's.

, but don't see much evidence of it.

Evidence of what? The deep seated fear or Putin's motive?

[Spud]

Evidence of what? The deep seated fear or Putin's motive?

Fear of invasion by the West.
Love this:
Putin's new table encroaches into Ukraine:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/

[Udayana]

As I'm seeing it:

Putin has effectively taken parts of Donetsk and Luhansk, with Nato countries being completely ineffective. Ukraine won't get them back.

Next, Putin will go for the rest of those regions, bit by bit if necessary. Of-course, if Nato stops paying attention at any point he will make a grab for Kiev and take the whole country.

Apart from sanctions, the threat of which achieved nothing, and which are difficult to implement, you either give up Ukraine or send in "peace keeping" troops to help Ukraine maintain the "line of control" and other borders.

Ukraine could keep Russia at bay by itself for a while but it can't last and would be likely to turn into another Afghanistan.
 

[splashscuba]

Ukraine could keep Russia at bay by itself for a while but it can't last and would be likely to turn into another Afghanistan.

I don't think that's a good comparison as they are able to supply and re-supply directly from the border, without those nasty mountains in the way.

It may be his game plan to seek a change in government which supports Russia without resorting to a long drawn out campaign whilst keeping control of the regions they have invaded. He's got form for this.

[Spud]

I don't think that's a good comparison as they are able to supply and re-supply directly from the border, without those nasty mountains in the way.

Russia can do the same though.

It may be his game plan to seek a change in government which supports Russia without resorting to a long drawn out campaign whilst keeping control of the regions they have invaded. He's got form for this.

Judging by Syria, I think he will keep it focused on Donetsk and Luhansk and any other regions which seek independence.This was quite predictable, I think the masses of Russian forces are there in case Ukraine attempts to take them back. The only time I can recall us arming a group actually working was the Kurds against Isis, who were a relatively small army and also up against Nato and Russia.
If your shop is being robbed it's best to give the robbers what they want and if the police cannot catch them, cut your losses then strengthen your security: if Putin is satisfied with these regions and goes away, let the rest of Ukraine join Nato and the EU as a security measure. Then have and agreement with Russia not to mass armament near the border.

[Udayana]

I don't think that's a good comparison as they are able to supply and re-supply directly from the border, without those nasty mountains in the way.

Yes, Putin could move much faster and then more comprehensively against any ongoing terrorists / freedom-fighters.

It may be his game plan to seek a change in government which supports Russia without resorting to a long drawn out campaign whilst keeping control of the regions they have invaded. He's got form for this.

Yes, he could do this, creating another Belarus type state?