Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Billy Jean King]

Ukrainian farmers will be climbing the table shortly 

Unlike their Perth counterparts !

[renton]

It may be two seperate issues, but while concession of Russia's prewar aims may spare further fighting for Ukraine, its unlikely to normalise relations between Russia and the West. Such a settlement effectively rewards Russia for it's aggression. Therefore, the sanctions stay in place.

So which of Russia's pre-war aims will it give up on to secure economic relief?

[Todd_is_God]

1 hour ago, Jacksgranda said:

So all those German Jews, socialists, communists, homosexuals, disabled, Jehovahs Witnesses, etc etc didn't speak German, having lived in Germany all their lives?

Interesting.

I think we all know what he means by Ethnic Germans tbh...

[vikingTON]

The relations are never going to fully normalise until the type of regime changes substantially (and you could be waiting a while after Putin's gone for that to happen). As a result of the invasion, Russia is likely to become a semi-closed society on the fringes of the global economy. The release of pressure will only be limited even with a peace agreement - and rightly so. 

That's enough of a sanction to constrain both their current and future potential for military aggressive acts - because wars and militaries are a black hole for government money and Russia already has a smaller GDP than Italy while operating within the globalised economy. 

Edited March 12, 2022 by vikingTON

[doulikefish]

11 minutes ago, virginton said:

The 'logic' in your argument is just nonsense: by that standard, no peace treaty would ever be concluded with an aggressor. 

Ongoing aid to Ukraine to reconstruct its economy and develop its develop military capability is all that is needed to provide an effective check on a future invasion. Or they can choose to not negotiate and watch Kiev being shelled into New Grozny over the course of years in a fit of pique, but that would be a rather stupid choice. 

Already tried the "effective check" when peace deals were signed in the 90s.

All your solution does is kick the can down the road for a wee bit.

Putin and the Russian military are being made to look bad here sadly this doesn't end with a give up Crimea and Donbass deal and things return to normal no matter how many times you post a picture of Ainsley and a large pepper mill

[welshbairn]

20 minutes ago, renton said:

It may be two seperate issues, but while concession of Russia's prewar aims may spare further fighting for Ukraine, its unlikely to normalise relations between Russia and the West. Such a settlement effectively rewards Russia for it's aggression. Therefore, the sanctions stay in place.

So which of Russia's pre-war aims will it give up on to secure economic relief?

Linking Crimea to the Donbas. No Mariupol and stick to 2015 borders.

Edited March 12, 2022 by welshbairn

[vikingTON]

8 minutes ago, doulikefish said:

Already tried the "effective check" when peace deals were signed in the 90s.

All your solution does is kick the can down the road for a wee bit.

If it's a choice between 'kicking the can down the road' and cheerleading endless war to the death now because chickenhawks like you don't like what you're seeing on the news every night, then I know which option I'll be choosing every fucking time. 

In Europe alone, we 'kicked the can down the road' in 1948 (Berlin), 1953 (E Germany and Poland), 1956 (Hungary), 1961 (Berlin), 1968 (Czechoslovakia) and in the early 1980s as well. It turned out that this was exactly the right thing to do, because in the long run one of the underlying causes of tensions dissipated. And so there was no superpower war in Europe despite the shrill insistence of hawks on both sides that it was inevitable. 

Time is not on Russia or Putin's side in a geopolitical sense. It is a steeply declining power run by an ageing autocrat. The Ukraine question should absolutely be kicked down the road then. 

Edited March 12, 2022 by vikingTON

[doulikefish]

18 minutes ago, virginton said:

If it's a choice between 'kicking the can down the road' and cheerleading endless war to the death now because chickenhawks like you don't like what you're seeing on the news every night, then I know which option I'll be choosing every fucking time. 

In Europe alone, we 'kicked the can down the road' in 1948 (Berlin), 1953 (E Germany and Poland), 1956 (Hungary), 1961 (Berlin), 1968 (Czechoslovakia) and in the early 1980s as well. It turned out that this was exactly the right thing to do, because in the long run one of the underlying causes of tensions dissipated. And so there was no superpower war in Europe despite the shrill insistence of hawks on both sides that it was inevitable. 

Time is not on Russia or Putin's side in a geopolitical sense. It is a steeply declining power run by an ageing autocrat. The Ukraine question should absolutely be kicked down the road then. 

Chickenhawk

[Sergeant Wilson]

[DeeTillEhDeh]

If it's a choice between 'kicking the can down the road' and cheerleading endless war to the death now because chickenhawks like you don't like what you're seeing on the news every night, then I know which option I'll be choosing every fucking time. 
In Europe alone, we 'kicked the can down the road' in 1948 (Berlin), 1953 (E Germany and Poland), 1956 (Hungary), 1961 (Berlin), 1968 (Czechoslovakia) and in the early 1980s as well. It turned out that this was exactly the right thing to do, because in the long run one of the underlying causes of tensions dissipated. And so there was no superpower war in Europe despite the shrill insistence of hawks on both sides that it was inevitable. 
Time is not on Russia or Putin's side in a geopolitical sense. It is a steeply declining power run by an ageing autocrat. The Ukraine question should absolutely be kicked down the road then. 

Kicking the can down the road really is the only short term strategy here. It may not what be we want but it's the only pragmatic solution that avoids escalating this crisis. It's all and fine cheering on the Ukrainians but we should not get drawn into romanticised nonsense - Russia may have made an absolute arse of this but they will not give up the Donbas or the Crimea.

But there also needs to be a longer term strategy to prevent or at least make it not worthwhile for further Russian attempts at expansion.

This crisis was 20-30 years in the making and the West need to take some of the blame because of their kid gloves approach to Putin in the past. You'd hope they would have learned the lessons but I'm not so sure.

[Granny Danger]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

Your policy of not reassuring a nuclear armed power that a direct confrontation with NATO is on the cards is the worst kind of warmongering drivel. 

Wars are caused by the gap between rhetoric and actions.

There is already a warmonger; you really need to pay more attention.

Edited March 12, 2022 by Granny Danger

[vikingTON]

20 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

There is already a warmonger; you really need to pay more attention.

To think that you edited that word salad 'contribution'. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

There is already a warmonger; you really need to pay more attention.

No-one is denying that Putin is a warmonger.

But this isn't 1939.

The continued false equivalence with WW2 ignores the elephant in the room that is MAD.

[Granny Danger]

3 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

No-one is denying that Putin is a warmonger.

But this isn't 1939.

The continued false equivalence with WW2 ignores the elephant in the room that is MAD.
 

Are people comparing it to 1939?  I’m certainly not.  But at the risk of sounding trite I believe there is a line in the sand.  I also like to think that there are those in Russia who would stop Putin if he wanted to deploy nukes.

[Mr Waldo]

And it is not the 1950's / 1960's when the Warsaw Pact existed.

[Granny Danger]

11 minutes ago, virginton said:

To think that you edited that word salad 'contribution'. 

There’s something sad about a supposed adult using memes to the extent you do.  Try to use your words better.

[dirty dingus]

3 minutes ago, Mr Waldo said:

And it is not the 1950's / 1960's when the Warsaw Pact existed.

And bar the one former member all the others would happily see Russia flattened.

[BFTD]

5 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Are people comparing it to 1939?  I’m certainly not.  But at the risk of sounding trite I believe there is a line in the sand.  I also like to think that there are those in Russia who would stop Putin if he wanted to deploy nukes.

I'm not convinced there are even people in the US or UK that would stop their leaders using nuclear missiles, so I wouldn't expect better from the Russians.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Are people comparing it to 1939?  I’m certainly not.  But at the risk of sounding trite I believe there is a line in the sand.  I also like to think that there are those in Russia who would stop Putin if he wanted to deploy nukes.

I'm not as convinced as you are.

He's spent the last 20 odd years building up a network of sycophants around him and eliminating opposition - it's going to take a very brave (or stupid) person to take him on at the moment.

It's a one way ticket to the morgue.

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, BFTD said:

I'm not convinced there are even people in the US or UK that would stop their leaders using nuclear missiles, so I wouldn't expect better from the Russians.

You really think Biden or Johnson could reach that decision?  Neither is capable.