Ukraine

[Historian]

Historian I think you have misread me. .

In that case please accept my apologies.

I agree with you insofar as I agree that Putin would love a Polish version of Orban. However, I cannot see that happening. I am sorry that Hungarian memories of the Hungarian Uprising have been eclipsed by other issues, but Poland has had a mainly antagonistic relationship with Russia for centuries. That is why I don't believe that Poland will ever come under the Russian orbit. We could discuss this in more depth but I'm not sure how far that would be relevant.

You are, I feel, still missing the main point, which is that Putin's illegal invasion of the sovereign state of Ukraine (as well as everything else he is perpetrating) is not a response to Western European forced expansionism. Putin needs an external threat to justify his continued reign in Russia. He has therefore claimed that NATO is a direct threat to Russia which is not the case. Those countries which have joined NATO since the end of the Cold War made that choice democratically. That includes the most recent new members, Finland and Sweden, which made a huge change from being neutral (although sympathetic) to joining NATO precisely because of the threat from Putin.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall countries which had been effectively occupied by the Soviet Union had a choice. Stay as they were or become independent. They chose independence for very good reasons.

[french frank]

Putin's logic for the invasion of Ukraine and meddling in the politics of Russia's neighbours is precisely a reaction to NATO and the EU encroaching on their former sphere of influence.

But surely, the Baltic States had been independent of the Russian Empire since 1917? I don't believe they ever willingly came to be absorbed into the now defunct USSR (not the Russian Federation). Putin's "logic" had been crafted by his own megalomaniac ambitions to recreate a Russian Empire. The number of states which have tried to pull away from Russia and its "influence" illustrates that they don't want to be "Russian". again

Russia is hemmed in and the loss of influence in the Baltic states has caused them serious issues. It is not as if they have become neutral. These countries are actively hostile to Russia and with good reason.

What is that good reason? Or more relevantly: what makes it 'good'? What are the 'serious issues' caused to Russia?

It is also worth mentioning that the addition of Ukraine to Russia only dates from the era of Kruschev and at a time when both countries were part of the USSR. This never gets mentioned

You read the wrong newspapers. When anything is quite that well-known, was accepted and world politics moved on it doesn't need to be be mentioned any more than "Queen Anne's dead".

I think that the hawkish attitude in the West is blinkered. Most of these countries cannot afford a military force to counter Russia. Any conflict with Russia would result in catastrophic damage beyond what was experienced in WW2. Would you be happy to have your life destroyed by Russian bombs on a point of principle ?

Many Ukrainians seem to think so. What was it in 1938? "Peace in our time" (aka Appeasement)? That didn't end too well did it?

[Ian Thumwood]

French Frank

According to Stop the War, the majority of Ukrainians now want to cease hostilities . The continuation of the war isn't popular . There will be some compromise as there is ni wish to continue when the infrastructure is totally destroyed. This is what is concerning because any victory will be pyrrhic.

The loss of Baltic countries has been a serious blow for the Russian navy as they have been seriously restricted. There has been plenty about this in the media.

I just feel that the reporting on the Ukraine war has been unbalanced. NATO assistance has delayed the inevitable. A decent effort has been made to thwart Russia but it has failed. Even the economic sanctions trumpeted in the early days of the war have been defied as reported by the BBC.

I just feel that this is a massive risk which, although admirable, will ultimately not defeat Putin. Any change will come from within. I think western aggression just serves his purposes. If anything, it has boosted his support. Not something we want.

[vinteuil]

Poland has had a mainly antagonistic relationship with Russia for centuries.

... I was serving in Warsaw in 1981 and 1982 : there was live expectation that there would be an invasion, and that if it happened the forces of East Germany and the USSR would invade simultaneously. The then-current Polish joke was - you're standing in the street with your revolver, and you see Germans approaching from the west and Russians from the east : who should you shoot first? Answer : the Germans - duty before pleasure...

.

[vinteuil]

According to Stop the War....

... as the man said, "the likes of the Stop the War coalition are not benign voices for peace. At best they are naive, at worst they actively give succour to authoritarian leaders who directly threaten democracies. There is nothing progressive in showing solidarity with the aggressor when our allies need our solidarity and – crucially – our practical assistance now more than ever"


.

[french frank]

... as the man said, "the likes of the Stop the War coalition are not benign voices for peace. At best they are naive, at worst they actively give succour to authoritarian leaders who directly threaten democracies. There is nothing progressive in showing solidarity with the aggressor when our allies need our solidarity and – crucially – our practical assistance now more than ever".

So my point about reading the 'wrong newspapers' wasn't far out. We all do it - I read the Guardian (to the tune of £75 a year for reading it online nb voluntary: I have my principles too ) and on the whole believe their news reporting when it supports my views as it usually does but dislike some of the ishoos they campaign for (I won't go there). But I do find it instructive to read how the other 'extreme' reports and supports their point of view. Hence the interest of a thread like this one.

[french frank]

“知彼知己，百戰不敗。不知敵而知己，則勝敗皆均。既不知敵，又不知己，則每戰必敗。[Sun Tzu]

[vinteuil]

I read the Guardian

... you probably read my # 1955 (today 11:33) in The Guardian 10 February 2022

[Dave2002]

Many Ukrainians seem to think so. What was it in 1938? "Peace in our time" (aka Appeasement)? That didn't end too well did it?

This seems now to be being reported as a war of attrition - but that in itself does not seem a good reason to give up if the Ukrainians still want to fight.

There are probably still many things which Ukraine could do militarily with adequate support.

Russia [Putin] blew all chances for peaceful co-operation by invading. A decade or more ago there might have been chances of meaningful and useful cooperation between Russia and Ukraine.

Russia seems to be "happy" to conduct a scorched earth policy even if it brings little benefit to them. This seems now to extend to the Kursk region, with Russia seemingly willing to destroy it even with Russians living there.

[french frank]

... you probably read my # 1955 (today 11:33) in The Guardian 10 February 2022

Ah, yes, I remember it well! But I do feel that the Appeasement argument is a strong one in this context.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-britain-hoped-to-avoid-war-with-germany-in-the-1930s

[Dave2002]

Ah, yes, I remember it well! But I do feel that the Appeasement argument is a strong one in this context.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-b...y-in-the-1930s

I don't think appeasement has any merits at all - as long as Putin is in charge, and doesn't change his behaviour - which seems very unlikely.

[french frank]

I don't think appeasement has any merits at all - as long as Putin is in charge, and doesn't change his behaviour - which seems very unlikely.

Btw, since you quoted my post, by 'Appeasement argument', I did mean the argument opposing what Ian has been propounding, likening his point of view to Appeasement.