Arming the Ukrainians

[jeremyp]

If I might play devil's advocate; parts of Eastern Ukraine, notably the Donbas region, are majority-Russian.

Well they are now since they have basically been depopulated by the Russians.

However, before the war, those regions were majority Russian speaking not majority Russian. We'll never know which country they wanted to be in now, though.

Is it unreasonable for them to be ceded to Russia, If Putin could be persuaded to content himself with that?

Not now. If Putin gains anything out of this, it will be a disaster for World peace.

[ad_orientem]

If I might play devil's advocate; parts of Eastern Ukraine, notably the Donbas region, are majority-Russian. Is it unreasonable for them to be ceded to Russia, If Putin could be persuaded to content himself with that?

One of the biggest, if not the biggest lie, was the idea that Russian speakers were desperate to join Russia and that they were being persecuted for speaking Russian. Apart from a few collaborators and useful idiots, it's Russia. This has never been a civil war but a foreign invasion since 2014. Ukranians have fled or been deported amd replaced by Russians. This is how Russia has always operated: create a fake problem, invade and replace.

[Spud]

I might be, it might not. I can't say. Still, I don't understand why having a related language would make joining NATO (if that really was ever on the cards) more unacceptable (to RuSSia, that is).

We won't understand, probably. Compare the situation with Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka?
Russia said that Ukraine was making biological weapons with the US's help. So their story is that they want to prevent military threats near to their border. They see Ukraine as a threat.
I think if Ukraine had agreed to Russia's terms, Russia wouldn't have obliterated everything. Ukraine would have become like Belarus. Then Russia would have achieved its aim of keeping NATO at arm's length. Frankly I can see this still happening at some point.

[ad_orientem]

Yeah, it really worked. With Finland joining NATO's border with Russia doubles. Putin must be a master strategist!

[Spud]

They're not bothered about Finland joining, only about the deployment of weapons close to the border.

[ad_orientem]

They're not bothered about Finland joining, only about the deployment of weapons close to the border.

So what were all the years of threats about then? The invasion directly led to us applying, which is exactly the opposite of what he wanted. He knows he's lost that fight, hence his comments, but don't believe for one moment that he's fine with it.
Fuck you, Putin! From Finland with love! Kaliningrad is fucked!

[ad_orientem]

So what were all the years of threats about then? The invasion directly led to us applying, which is exactly the opposite of what he wanted. He knows he's lost that fight, hence his comments, but don't believe for one moment that he's fine with it.
Fuck you, Putin! From Finland with love! Kaliningrad is fucked!

[Spud]

Yeah, it really worked. With Finland joining NATO's border with Russia doubles. Putin must be a master strategist!

When I say keeping NATO at arm's length, I mean stopping them deploying nuclear missiles near the border. If Finland does that, he will do the same.

[ad_orientem]

When I say keeping NATO at arm's length, I mean stopping them deploying nuclear missiles near the border. If Finland does that, he will do the same.

Rubbish!

[Aruntraveller]

This is an article about the current distribution of nuclear weapons:

https://tinyurl.com/2vfb9ak8

From memory, this situation on the NATO side has been like this for years and has not changed.

You will notice that Russia already has missiles adjacent to Finland, so who actually is the provocateur?

NB the situation in Turkey regarding US nuclear weapons based there has been of concern, but mainly because of Turkey's unpredictable nature.

Interesting details here about US concerns over Turkey:

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2019-10-30/nuclear-weapons-turkey-1959

[Udayana]

Can't see what actual difference it makes if your opponents nuclear weapons are near your border or elsewhere really.

IMV: Essential listening for anyone interested in whats going on: Ukrainecast: Evgeny Chichvarkin...   

More on Carole Caddwalladr's investigation of Johnson's links with the Lebedevs: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/16/carole-cadwalladr-boris-johnson-lebedevs-prime-ministers-defining-scandal

[Spud]

This is an article about the current distribution of nuclear weapons:

https://tinyurl.com/2vfb9ak8

From memory, this situation on the NATO side has been like this for years and has not changed.

You will notice that Russia already has missiles adjacent to Finland, so who actually is the provocateur?

I had been reading an article, in which Putin is reported to have said, "The NATO membership of the Nordic nations poses no direct threat for us … but the expansion of military infrastructure to these territories will certainly provoke our response". I interpreted "military infrastructure" as nuclear missiles.
Yes the map you posted does show Russian nuclear deployment near the border. I'm wondering if this predates Eastern European countries joining NATO? In which case, it isn't near the original border between the Soviet Union and NATO. If NATO expands Eastwards, should Russia be expected to move its missiles further back?
Going by Putin's comment that if Ukraine joins NATO it may try to take back Crimea, which could lead to NATO being directly in conflict with Russia, and given the possibility that as a NATO member, Ukraine could host US ballistic missiles and US troops, it is understandable that Russia would seek written guarantees that NATO will not allow Ukraine to join or put military infrastructure near its border.

[Spud]

So what were all the years of threats about then? The invasion directly led to us applying, which is exactly the opposite of what he wanted. He knows he's lost that fight, hence his comments, but don't believe for one moment that he's fine with it.
Fuck you, Putin! From Finland with love! Kaliningrad is fucked!

But NATO supplying weapons to Ukraine has basically enabled them to resist Russia, without defeating them. A bit like mounting a vaccine-induced adaptive immune response against a rapidly mutating virus while being exposed to that virus (instead of being fully vaccinated before exposure). The virus learns how to evade the antibodies while they are suboptimal. Ukraine has to be trained how to use the weapons while under attack, and Russia changes tactics and uses artillery instead of tanks. On goes the pandemic, on goes the war.

[Aruntraveller]

Spud,

Please bear in mind that Russia invaded another country, is the aggressor and is killing people.

It is not part of a fatuous analogy.

Stop defending the indefensible.

Thank you.

[ad_orientem]

But NATO supplying weapons to Ukraine has basically enabled them to resist Russia, without defeating them. A bit like mounting a vaccine-induced adaptive immune response against a rapidly mutating virus while being exposed to that virus (instead of being fully vaccinated before exposure). The virus learns how to evade the antibodies while they are suboptimal. Ukraine has to be trained how to use the weapons while under attack, and Russia changes tactics and uses artillery instead of tanks. On goes the pandemic, on goes the war.

The latest intelligence reports suggest that Ukraine is preparing to retake Crimea and so it should, along with Donbas. We should give them everything they need to accomplish that. They are on the frontline in defence of our shared values. NATO is effectively already at war with Russia, why should we worry which weapons we give Ukraine. Putin already escalated by invading. Russia's nuclear threats are meaningless. Our longterm goal should be the destruction of Russia.

[ad_orientem]

I had been reading an article, in which Putin is reported to have said, "The NATO membership of the Nordic nations poses no direct threat for us … but the expansion of military infrastructure to these territories will certainly provoke our response". I interpreted "military infrastructure" as nuclear missiles.
Yes the map you posted does show Russian nuclear deployment near the border. I'm wondering if this predates Eastern European countries joining NATO? In which case, it isn't near the original border between the Soviet Union and NATO. If NATO expands Eastwards, should Russia be expected to move its missiles further back?
Going by Putin's comment that if Ukraine joins NATO it may try to take back Crimea, which could lead to NATO being directly in conflict with Russia, and given the possibility that as a NATO member, Ukraine could host US ballistic missiles and US troops, it is understandable that Russia would seek written guarantees that NATO will not allow Ukraine to join or put military infrastructure near its border.

Putin said! Don't believe anything Putin says. Everything is a lie, especially if they deny something. Don't believe anything until the Kremlin denies it!

[Spud]

ad o,
No - unless NATO can go in and fight with them, and is prepared to suffer huge losses due to nuclear war, let Ukraine go.

[ad_orientem]

ad o,
No - unless NATO can go in and fight with them, and is prepared to suffer huge losses due to nuclear war, let Ukraine go.

What? Russia's threats are all bluff! Putin always banks on us falling for it. He goes all in on us going for the less riskier option now. We let Ukraine go and it does not end there. Less risk now equals more risk later. Now is the time to go for the jugular and call his bluff. Sorry, but to do anything else than make sure we do all we can to make sure Ukraine wins and Russia loses (including giving longer range equipment) is to be in the side of a genocidal dictator.

[Spud]

What? Russia's threats are all bluff! Putin always banks on us falling for it. He goes all in on us going for the less riskier option now. We let Ukraine go and it does not end there. Less risk now equals more risk later. Now is the time to go for the jugular and call his bluff. Sorry, but to do anything else than make sure we do all we can to make sure Ukraine wins and Russia loses (including giving longer range equipment) is to be in the side of a genocidal dictator.

That would mean NATO going in and getting fully involved: I doubt Ukraine could kick them out on its own. The problem is we've been involved in several wars lately and nobody from here has much appetite for more.

[Aruntraveller]

That would mean NATO going in and getting fully involved: I doubt Ukraine could kick them out on its own. The problem is we've been involved in several wars lately and nobody from here has much appetite for more.

Is your middle name Neville?

[ad_orientem]

That would mean NATO going in and getting fully involved: I doubt Ukraine could kick them out on its own. The problem is we've been involved in several wars lately and nobody from here has much appetite for more.

We don't have to put boots on the ground. Ukraine isn't asking for that. They're asking for weapons. We need to arm them to the teeth. The Russian army is already in trouble. It's running out of ammo and man power.

[Spud]

We don't have to put boots on the ground. Ukraine isn't asking for that. They're asking for weapons. We need to arm them to the teeth. The Russian army is already in trouble. It's running out of ammo and man power.

But you have to get the equipment there and train them to use it. Plus it wil bankrupt both sides and Ukraine will be decimated.

[Spud]

Is your middle name Neville?

Is Russia aiming to overrun Europe?

[Aruntraveller]

Is Russia aiming to overrun Europe?

This is from a report about a speech Putin gave:

In his speech, Putin reached back far further than the cold war to find his grievances. He stated clearly that the processes that led to Russia losing territory a century ago must be reversed. He pointed out what he said were catastrophic mistakes by the Bolsheviks in recognising Ukraine as a republic, and ceding land to end the war with Germany in 1918. He lamented the loss not of the Soviet Union, but of the “territory of the former Russian empire”.

Full article here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/22/putin-speech-russia-empire-threat-ukraine-moscow

History teaches us that empires, dictators, and madmen don't stop at just one country.

As there are elements of all three of those in this tragic tangle of Putin, history, and misplaced wounded pride, I have no reason to hope that Putin would stop at Ukraine.

At the beginning of this conflict you were surprised he'd invaded, even when you had the evidence of massed troops on the border:

It's amazing how he lied saying they had no plans to invade.
How wrong was I thinking they would only invade Donbas. I must say I hope Ukraine will surrender soon.

 I'm not sure you're understanding of Putin or history is that well-informed.

[Maeght]

Is Russia aiming to overrun Europe?

The statements from Putin sound very similar to those from Hitler.