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.
Ukraine
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Bryn View PostSorry, 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.
Comment
-
-
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”.
It's often said that Vladimir Putin has taken leave of his senses, but this is on another level altogether.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RichardB View PostIt's often said that Vladimir Putin has taken leave of his senses, but this is on another level altogether.
Add: Forgot the bit about drinking bleach to kill the virus.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by HighlandDougie View Postnothing like a piece of sophistry as a justification ....
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RichardB View PostNot 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.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by gradus View PostIs 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.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostGut feeling suggests to me that popular political feeling towards government in Belarus would probably be much the same as that in Russia."The sound is the handwriting of the conductor" - Bernard Haitink
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Petrushka View PostBelarus 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.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Petrushka View PostBelarus 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.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RichardB View PostNot 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.
Has the fourth possibility been rejected? By whom?It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View Postby "NATO" do you mean "the governments of the Western powers"?
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.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RichardB View PostBy "NATO" I mean basically the Pentagon.
Originally posted by RichardB View PostWhere 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?
Originally posted by RichardB View PostMeanwhile, the clown has this to say
Originally posted by RichardB View PostAs 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.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
Comment