Ukraine

[Barbirollians]

Odious indeed.

I don't agree with all of what Nick Cohen writes but much of the animosity towards him from the far left appears to be based on his calling out of anti-Semitism in the left . I trust that is not the case here.

The revisionism concerning Serbia is alarming - it seems to foster the lies currently being spread by the leader of Bosnian Serbs denying the Srebrenica massacre and lauding Mladic.

[french frank]

An interesting point that struck me about this BBC analysis:

1. Successive US presidents have played into [Putin's] hands. Bill Clinton, the occupant of the White House when Putin came to power, handed this ultra-nationalist a popular grievance by pushing for the expansion of Nato right up to Russia's borders. As George F Kennan, the famed architect of America's Cold War strategy of containment, warned at the time: "Expanding Nato would be the most fateful error of America policy in the entire post-Cold War era."

2. When Obama refused in 2013 to enforce his red-line warning against Bashar al-Assad when the Syrian dictator used chemical weapons against his own people, Putin saw a green light.


Go in or stay out? Where may one go in and where stay out? Putin is an autocratic murderous thug out to extend the borders of his 'Russian Federation'. What is the effective way of dealing with him?

[Ein Heldenleben]

It's a matter of facts rather than of individual perceptions of course, and it's sometimes amazing what gets through into the supposedly liberal mainstream media. I was looking earlier at a new article from the odious Nick Cohen, whose headline begins "Far right and far left alike admired Putin", and then goes on to give precisely zero evidence of any admiration for Putin on the "far left", apart from these few words: "In the UK, the Labour leadership ordered MPs from the rump of the Corbyn left to disassociate themselves from a letter blaming Putin’s war on Nato or lose the whip." (The STW letter of course did not "blame Putin's war on NATO" and it's quite shameful that Cohen is allowed blithely to trot out this lie.) This is the kind of reason why it's necessary to cast one's net wider than such outlets in order to get a more balanced view.

Richard - It’s not right to describe Nick Cohen as “odious” . That is vulgar abuse of a distinguished journalist who has admirers across the political spectrum and it does your argument no service. I think you owe him an apology.

[Barbirollians]

An interesting point that struck me about this BBC analysis:

1. Successive US presidents have played into [Putin's] hands. Bill Clinton, the occupant of the White House when Putin came to power, handed this ultra-nationalist a popular grievance by pushing for the expansion of Nato right up to Russia's borders. As George F Kennan, the famed architect of America's Cold War strategy of containment, warned at the time: "Expanding Nato would be the most fateful error of America policy in the entire post-Cold War era."

2. When Obama refused in 2013 to enforce his red-line warning against Bashar al-Assad when the Syrian dictator used chemical weapons against his own people, Putin saw a green light.


Go in or stay out? Where may one go in and where stay out? Putin is an autocratic murderous thug out to extend the borders of his 'Russian Federation'. What is the effective way of dealing with him?

I agree - it seems that the West's only route is to make life so difficult for ordinary Russians that they revolt - or the oligarchs do and there is a palace coup. It is very depressing but as the alternative is WW 3 I think we have no choice,

[Ein Heldenleben]

An interesting point that struck me about this BBC analysis:

1. Successive US presidents have played into [Putin's] hands. Bill Clinton, the occupant of the White House when Putin came to power, handed this ultra-nationalist a popular grievance by pushing for the expansion of Nato right up to Russia's borders. As George F Kennan, the famed architect of America's Cold War strategy of containment, warned at the time: "Expanding Nato would be the most fateful error of America policy in the entire post-Cold War era."

2. When Obama refused in 2013 to enforce his red-line warning against Bashar al-Assad when the Syrian dictator used chemical weapons against his own people, Putin saw a green light.


Go in or stay out? Where may one go in and where stay out? Putin is an autocratic murderous thug out to extend the borders of his 'Russian Federation'. What is the effective way of dealing with him?

Good question. One thing already mentioned ad nauseam on the thread - by making London a safe haven for ill gotten gains we have contributed to the easy ride Putin has had from the oligarchs . Once they start losing money and have it taken away that’s part of his power base gone. Unfortunately it’s not a hugely important one (or so the Russia experts aver) .

[oddoneout]

Good question. One thing already mentioned ad nauseam on the thread - by making London a safe haven for ill gotten gains we have contributed to the easy ride Putin has had from the oligarchs . Once they start losing money and have it taken away that’s part of his power base gone. Unfortunately it’s not a hugely important one (or so the Russia experts aver) .

Not to them perhaps but very much so to vested interests(including the current government) in this country?

[french frank]

The aspect that interests me more than blaming NATO, the West, Putin or whoever (choose your villain, folks) is how the world extricates itself from this awful situation - and frankly I do think the responsibility lies with the West. Not because the West is criminally or otherwise to blame, but because I don't think the prospect of all-out war is a deterrent for Putin: bring it on.

This DIEM discussion, but especially with Yanis Varoufakis (sorry, I watched this whole video last night and don't have the timing for YV's contribution) was interestig. Varoufakis speaks of the necessity for the 'Finlandisation' of Ukraine: total neutrality.

But in both Sweden and Finland there are now popular majorities for joining NATO and the respective leaders aren't ruling it out (they already cooperate with NATO). If sovereign, independent countries want the 'protection' of NATO, does one blame NATO or the USA?

[Bryn]

The aspect that interests me more than blaming NATO, the West, Putin or whoever (choose your villain, folks) is how the world extricates itself from this awful situation - and frankly I do think the responsibility lies with the West. Not because the West is criminally or otherwise to blame, but because I don't think the prospect of all-out war is a deterrent for Putin: bring it on.

This DIEM discussion, but especially with Yanis Varoufakis (sorry, I watched this whole video last night and don't have the timing for YV's contribution) was interestig. Varoufakis speaks of the necessity for the 'Finlandisation' of Ukraine: total neutrality.

But in both Sweden and Finland there are now popular majorities for joining NATO and the respective leaders aren't ruling it out (they already cooperate with NATO). If sovereign, independent countries want the 'protection' of NATO, does one blame NATO or the USA?

Does one blame the populations of Finland and Sweden? Both counties, after all, have centuries-long experience of warrior rivalry with Russian empires.

[Ein Heldenleben]

The aspect that interests me more than blaming NATO, the West, Putin or whoever (choose your villain, folks) is how the world extricates itself from this awful situation - and frankly I do think the responsibility lies with the West. Not because the West is criminally or otherwise to blame, but because I don't think the prospect of all-out war is a deterrent for Putin: bring it on.

This DIEM discussion, but especially with Yanis Varoufakis (sorry, I watched this whole video last night and don't have the timing for YV's contribution) was interestig. Varoufakis speaks of the necessity for the 'Finlandisation' of Ukraine: total neutrality.

But in both Sweden and Finland there are now popular majorities for joining NATO and the respective leaders aren't ruling it out (they already cooperate with NATO). If sovereign, independent countries want the 'protection' of NATO, does one blame NATO or the USA?

I don’t think the Finlandisation of Ukraine will go anywhere near satisfying Putin. Finland’s got 250,000 in the armed forces and 900,000 in Reserve. Russia would have a pretty tough time taking it on. What I fear , and this is really just idle speculation is that Putin is biding his time - hoping for a Trump re-election. Then possibly a Yalta/ Congress of Vienna carve up of Europe with (some - not East Germany ) former Warsaw Pact countries being de-military zones. They would then be to all and intents and purposes satellite Russian states - possibly democracies but open to arm twisting .The problem is we don’t really know what Putin wants and what Trump thinks - other than he doesn’t appear to be a big fan of NATO.

[french frank]

Does one blame the populations of Finland and Sweden? Both counties, after all, have centuries-long experience of warrior rivalry with Russian empires.

Well, I don't. But that's because I'm a naive dupe of the Western powers. I need an example of where NATO has intervened where there was previously a peaceful situation and intervention was therefore in that sense an act of aggression. Is having mere moral objections to a leader ordering the gassing of his opponents, the violent oppression of civilians or genocide ever a reason to intervene? or just in limited cases?

[Ein Heldenleben]

Well, I don't. But that's because I'm a naive dupe of the Western powers. I need an example of where NATO has intervened where there was previously a peaceful situation and intervention was therefore in that sense an act of aggression. Is having mere moral objections to a leader ordering the gassing of his opponents, the violent oppression of civilians or genocide ever a reason to intervene? or just in limited cases?

The list of NATO operations is surprisingly short . It’s all a bit rich really. I just remember Michael Foot rightly excoriating NATO for not intervening in Yugo ( he even made a film about it ) while right wing MP’s like Alan Clark cautioned against it - constantly and boringly citing Rommel’s problems at the hands of the Serbs in WW2 as if that had any relevance in the era of supersonic jets with full bomb loads. Foot was right , Clark was wrong. Now we’ve got the wince - inducing sight of MP’s who turned a blind eye to Putin and his rich oligarch mates for years all piling on the Save Ukraine bandwagon.

[Joseph K]

I don't agree with all of what Nick Cohen writes but much of the animosity towards him from the far left appears to be based on his calling out of anti-Semitism in the left . I trust that is not the case here.

Actually, it is true that I hate Cohen because he reminds me of my own antisemitism. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the fact of Cohen's animosity towards the Left irrespective of whether it's antisemitic or not.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Actually, it is true that I hate Cohen because he reminds me of my own antisemitism. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the fact of Cohen's animosity towards the Left irrespective of whether it's antisemitic or not.

How can you “hate” Nick Cohen”? And what do you mean by saying you are anti- Semitic ? Is this irony or are you really getting close to breaking the law ? I fear this thread is now spiralling into areas that I don’t want to be associated with by participating in it .

[Historian]

Posts are not very effective in showing either irony or sarcasm. I am quite sure that Joseph K is not at all anti-semitic.

As so often, when people are deeply concerned the discussion can grow heated. I would be very sad to see this thread disappear.

Now, more than ever, the ability to have a civilised debate encompassing different points of view should be maintained. Perhaps we could all reflect on that and think about whether what we post is really relevant to the main issue which is Ukraine.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Posts are not very effective in showing either irony or sarcasm. I am quite sure that Joseph K is not at all anti-semitic.

As so often, when people are deeply concerned the discussion can grow heated. I would be very sad to see this thread disappear.

Now, more than ever, the ability to have a civilised debate encompassing different points of view should be maintained. Perhaps we could all reflect on that and think about whether what we post is really relevant to the main issue which is Ukraine.

Couldn’t agree more but in a context where journalists are being shot at we should not be describing prominent UK journalists as “odious” or saying that we “hate “ them. That is a red line for me. Civility extends beyond just the members of this forum doesn’t it ? I don’t even “hate “ Putin. I do however profoundly dislike his actions.