Ukraine

[RichardB]

Yes, that essay by Lawrence Freedman is very interesting indeed. As LHC says, there are other things to discuss aside from how the present situation came about. Although indeed nothing in it contradicts the last article I linked to, particularly Freedman's citing the current view (in the West) that "Ukraine’s best hope is to defend for as long as possible to give economic sanctions the chance to bite", something that will have to be achieved without the air cover that Zelenskiy is asking for, and bearing in mind that it isn't at all clear how long it might take for the sanctions to "bite", given that for example Cuba has been under more punitive sanctions for the last six decades or so.

[RichardB]

Sorry, but what is the evidence for Putin being actively drawn into "an expensive and draining quagmire . . . " by NATO? That is just a sleight of hand way of passing the blame from Putin to others.

Not in the least. Given that Putin has invaded, NATO has a number of possible choices: allow Ukraine to be overrun and a puppet government installed by Putin; intervene militarily to force the Russian army out; arm the Ukrainian army in the knowledge that this will lead to a protracted conflict in which many Ukrainians will lose their lives but which with every passing month will weaken Putin's Russia; or put every possible effort into achieving a ceasefire followed by some kind of settlement which might stop the bloodshed. The first two possibilities have clearly been rejected for different reasons, and, it seems, so has the fourth.

[RichardB]

Meanwhile... "Former president Donald Trump has floated the idea that US should the cover the fighter planes with Chinese flag and “bomb the s*** out of Russia”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-news-today-putin-russia-china-b2029885.html

It's often said that Vladimir Putin has taken leave of his senses, but this is on another level altogether.

[french frank]

It's often said that Vladimir Putin has taken leave of his senses, but this is on another level altogether.

Yes, but we've known this for a long time, haven't we? Remember, this is the man that wanted to 'nuke' the hurricanes. He is a man without even the semblance of intelligence, and he's still brighter than a lot of his supporters.

Add: Forgot the bit about drinking bleach to kill the virus.

[RichardB]

Yes, but we've known this for a long time, haven't we?

Indeed, I thought I would bring it up because it's so off the scale even in comparison with his previous crazed utterances!

[RichardB]

nothing like a piece of sophistry as a justification ....

It isn't sophistry, it's an acknowledgement of the complexity of the situation and the fact (surely clear to everyone with more than a child's understanding of the world) that it isn't just a matter of good guys vs. bad guys!

[Bryn]

Not in the least. Given that Putin has invaded, NATO has a number of possible choices: allow Ukraine to be overrun and a puppet government installed by Putin; intervene militarily to force the Russian army out; arm the Ukrainian army in the knowledge that this will lead to a protracted conflict in which many Ukrainians will lose their lives but which with every passing month will weaken Putin's Russia; or put every possible effort into achieving a ceasefire followed by some kind of settlement which might stop the bloodshed. The first two possibilities have clearly been rejected for different reasons, and, it seems, so has the fourth.

The fourth option you posit, I do not see as being entirely off the agenda, though it would appear that Russian forces have not honoured what ceasefires have so far been negotiated to permit humanitarian evacuation of civilians (other than to the tender embrace of Russia or Belorus, that is). Meanwhile, efforts continue to be made by various countries' leaders to push for a general ceasefire. Italy and, with due circumspection, Israel, spring to mind. Had NATO found itself able to admit Ukraine, well in advance of this invasion, the possibility of the second option might have prevented Putin's adventure, but the situation in eastern Ukraine and the role of the Azov regiment made that a non-starter. It seems pretty clear that the Ukrainian people themselves ruled out the first option.

[gradus]

Is Belarus quite as dependable for Putin as seems given the fairly recent history of mass protest against the 're-election' of the resident tyrant? I haven't seen much comment on this.

[Serial_Apologist]

Is Belarus quite as dependable for Putin as seems given the fairly recent history of mass protest against the 're-election' of the resident tyrant? I haven't seen much comment on this.

Gut feeling suggests to me that popular political feeling towards government in Belarus would probably be much the same as that in Russia.

[Petrushka]

Gut feeling suggests to me that popular political feeling towards government in Belarus would probably be much the same as that in Russia.

Belarus has refused to commit troops to help in Russia's invasion having first decided to then stepped back. Suggests that Lukashenko isn't as confident of Russian victory after all and there might have been mutinies. Looks like the Mussolini figure.

[gradus]

Belarus has refused to commit troops to help in Russia's invasion having first decided to then stepped back. Suggests that Lukashenko isn't as confident of Russian victory after all and there might have been mutinies. Looks like the Mussolini figure.

I too had Mussolini in mind. Does a similar fate await him..

[Serial_Apologist]

Belarus has refused to commit troops to help in Russia's invasion having first decided to then stepped back. Suggests that Lukashenko isn't as confident of Russian victory after all and there might have been mutinies. Looks like the Mussolini figure.

Interesting in view of the Russians' attempts to substitute for western rescue agencies in the besieged cities by transferring uprooted Ukrainians to Russia and Belarus, where doubtless there will be labour camps to welcome them.

[french frank]

Not in the least. Given that Putin has invaded, NATO has a number of possible choices: allow Ukraine to be overrun and a puppet government installed by Putin; intervene militarily to force the Russian army out; arm the Ukrainian army in the knowledge that this will lead to a protracted conflict in which many Ukrainians will lose their lives but which with every passing month will weaken Putin's Russia; or put every possible effort into achieving a ceasefire followed by some kind of settlement which might stop the bloodshed. The first two possibilities have clearly been rejected for different reasons, and, it seems, so has the fourth.

The problem with that analysis is that something called "NATO" doesn't actually have those choices. Or by "NATO" do you mean "the governments of the Western powers"? They have actually chosen option 3 which you have apparently written off as a terrible decision. The fourth should in theory be the best but what does the West do to bring about meaningful discussion with Putin? There are apparently discussions going on between Ukraine and Russia where Russia allows the escape corridors for civilians to leave and then shells them when they do attempt it. It also appears they are only allowed to "escape" to either Russia or Belarus. Has this been confirmed?

Has the fourth possibility been rejected? By whom?

[RichardB]

by "NATO" do you mean "the governments of the Western powers"?

By "NATO" I mean basically the Pentagon. Where are the offers for direct discussions between NATO and Russia? Wouldn't this be a good idea since NATO is the real enemy as far as Putin is concerned?

Meanwhile, the clown has this to say: "If you look at the the situation in the EU, they have a border-free zone, in Schengen. They can’t actually impose controls, even if they wanted to.
We have a different system. And I think it’s sensible, given what’s going on in Ukraine, to make sure that we have some basic ability to check who’s coming in and who isn’t". So that means that one of the advantages of Brexit is that we have the "control" that enables us to refuse entry to Ukrainian refugees (that we've made a big fuss about supporting), right? As Keir Starmer said this morning "there should be a simple route to sanctuary for those that are fleeing for their lives". I'm no fan of Starmer of course, but this is the way it should be.

[french frank]

By "NATO" I mean basically the Pentagon.

Thank you. That does clarify matters as it's not exactly what I had understood by NATO

Where are the offers for direct discussions between NATO and Russia? Wouldn't this be a good idea since NATO is the real enemy as far as Putin is concerned?

Yes, it would be a good idea - and I take it you mean why hasn't the Pentagon come up with an offer. I understood the US Commander in Chief has spoken with Putin? but it might be a question of, 'What is Putin demanding?' rather than, 'What is Putin prepared to offer'.

Meanwhile, the clown has this to say

Thank you, I'd rather not. An ignorant bully who's wandered into the wrong room. Offer him a few billion dollars to shut up and go away and he might accept.

As Keir Starmer said this morning "there should be a simple route to sanctuary for those that are fleeing for their lives". I'm no fan of Starmer of course, but this is the way it should be.

That's the least that should be acceptable to all parties.