Russia invades Ukraine

[dakta]

okay, so let's say it goes to talks - which in most cases is where you'd want it- what should Ukraine offer/accept for peace, given freedom and a democratic government in their own country seems squarely off the table?

It's a genuine question - commitment to never join NATO?

 

[DustyBin]

It's slightly stark how many people are advocating for a 'No-Fly Zone' over Ukraine, when we all know full well what would happen as a result.

These people either don't know the consequences of a no-fly zone, as it does mean a direct conflict with Russia. People advocating clearly don't realise how serious it would be.

Aka, we'd be down s*** creek without a paddle, and said creek leads to a high waterfall.

I suspect you're right. It's a total non-starter, as much as I absolutely hate to say it.

Whilst I'd be saying all of the same things as that Ukrainian journalist if I were in her position, the very harsh reality is that Ukraine has little to lose at this point whereas the rest of the world does.

I do think it is time to grant the Ukrainians request for a no-fly zone over their country. The imposition of such a thing does not create war with Russia. Rather it would be the flouting of such a zone by Russian planes that causes them to come into conflict with NATO. Takes two to tango.

The end result is the same though which is why we won't do it.

 

[nw1]

okay, so let's say it goes to talks - what should Ukraine offer/accept for peace, given freedom and a democratic government in their own country seems squarely off the table?

It's a genuine question - commitment to never join NATO?

If that's what it takes, yes. It's a price worth paying for saving lives, and peace.

 

[brad465]

okay, so let's say it goes to talks - which in most cases is where you'd want it- what should Ukraine offer/accept for peace, given freedom and a democratic government in their own country seems squarely off the table?

It's a genuine question - commitment to never join NATO?

Putin has a lot of beef with the EU as well as NATO, and this invasion has led to Ukraine starting the process of joining the EU. Even if a commitment to not join NATO was made by Ukraine, Putin will still not be happy.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Which presumably didn't count as amending the Charter which would be the sticky point. The current UN Charter lists the members of the Security Council - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations#Composition_2
To remove Russia, rather than stating some other country is the successor to the USSR would I imagine require rewriting the Charter. But the section on amending the Charter states: (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations#Chapter_XVIII_-_Amendments)

I suspect you wouldn't see Russia accepting an amendment that wrote themselves out of a permanent Security Council seat.

I wonder if theoretically you could work around that by using the same process as was used for China/Taiwan: Declare that the legitimate representatives of 'Russia' are... the Ukrainian Government! After all Ukraine is a country that forms part of what was the Soviet Union back in the days when the UN Charter was written, so it would seem to be somewhat analogous to the arguments used to replace what is now Taiwan with mainland China as the representative of China: A member of the security council has split into multiple countries, you need to decide which one is the true representative of the original. (Maybe there are some legal reasons why you couldn't do that? - I'm not an expert). It would certainly amount to very poetic justice if that could be done.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I think, from a neutral/pragmatic sense, a partitioned Ukraine (perhaps with the western part accepted into the EU, but never into NATO) and a heavy build up of conventional defensive forces in Poland etc to deter any future Russian expansionism is the best that Ukraine can seriously hope for at this point. It’s **** for the Ukrainian population, but at some point their leadership will have to accept that Russian seizure of part of their land area will be unfixable militarily and that Ukraine is sadly not worth starting WW3 over. The West should have taken this action in 2014 after Crimea and therefore perhaps Kyiv would not (inevitably imo) be about to fall. Weak Western leadership (I’m looking at you TRUMP) over the last 8 years is the underlying reason Putin has been so emboldened.

 

[GS250]

It is this sort of dangerous militarism that will increase the chances of a third world war. We MUST not provoke nuclear conflict. Nothing is worth that.

It's time for talks. I know this may be an unpopular opinion, but maybe, to save any more bloodshed, Ukraine might just need to accept that it cannot be part of NATO. Not an ideal solution but the least worst.

None of us want to escalate this further and making assumptions that Putin is as bad as Hitler is dangerous. He is a thoroughly evil individual but assumptions that he wants to conquer the whole of eastern Europe are dangerously far fetched.

I totally agree with this. I do not for one minute believe Putin wants to go further West. Nor does it make anyone a Putin apologist for believing so. It may be that a compromise will need to be reached at some point.

 

[dakta]

Putin has a lot of beef with the EU as well as NATO, and this invasion has led to Ukraine starting the process of joining the EU. Even if a commitment to not join NATO was made by Ukraine, Putin will still not be happy.

Fair enough - so what do you give him in these talks?

You could suggest the above, no NATO, split Ukraine up and you might get something. You might get your peace. Until the next time they're not happy and that's the question

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Fair enough - so what do you give him in these talks?

You could suggest the above, no NATO, split Ukraine up and you might get something. You might get your peace. Until the next time they're not happy and that's the question

Next time they’re not happy, a strong NATO build up in Poland / Romania etc should act as the deterrent to military expansion. The reason this has happened is because the current NATO border strength has been weakened to the point of lunacy.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I totally agree with this. I do not for one minute believe Putin wants to go further West. Nor does it make anyone a Putin apologist for believing so. It may be that a compromise will need to be reached at some point.

Putin already has a history of treating countries further West as places where he can intervene militarily however he wants - remember certain poisonings in the UK?

Also, although they are more North than West, I wouldn't be so convinced that Putin doesn't have ambitions to re-conquer Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia if he spies any chance to do so.

 

[tommy2215]

Calling for a no fly zone is incredibly naive and taking a far too simplistic view on the war. Its not as simple as just shooting down Russian planes and everything is sorted. For one attempting a no fly zone will just add to carnage there already is.

And Russia are not just going to say "You beat us fair and square. We're going home now". There is absolutely no action too merciless for Putin. Do not think he wouldn't use nuclear weapons. As Nato would have declared war on Russia, it would enable Russia to spread the conflict to several other countries as well.

Additionally there is no telling what China would do if NATO were the aggressor here. World trade would be massively disrupted and we would likely face severe shortages of plenty of supplies. Severe cyber attacks would be rife.

This is not like a video game. This is very different to 1944.

 

[yorksrob]

The only way Putin was able to operate in the UK was due to the thaw in relations that enabled routine travel between the two countries. A full containment policy would make this much more difficult (albeit not impossible - as illustrated by the poisoned umbrella attack in the 1970's).

Given the problems with direct military confrontation with Russia, the West needs to intensify it's current efforts of turning the screw diplomatically and economically on Russia, while ensuring that the Ukrainian forces have all the money, aid and weaponry and expertise they need.

 

[najaB]

Given the problems with direct military confrontation with Russia, the West needs to intensify it's current efforts of turning the screw diplomatically and economically on Russia, while ensuring that the Ukrainian forces have all the money, aid and weaponry and expertise they need.

And follow the lead of Canada - reduce or completely cut off the import of oil and gas from Russia until they withdraw from Ukraine. It will be painful but between unconventional sources (read fracking), pushing through a new Iran nuclear deal and a real investment in renewables it is entirely possible that Western countries could be largely able to survive without Russian petro by this time next year.

 

[yorksrob]

And follow the lead of Canada - reduce or completely cut off the import of oil and gas from Russia until they withdraw from Ukraine. It will be painful but between unconventional sources (read fracking), pushing through a new Iran nuclear deal and a real investment in renewables it is entirely possible that Western countries could be largely able to survive without Russian petro by this time next year.

It will have to be done sooner rather than later.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And Russia are not just going to say "You beat us fair and square. We're going home now". There is absolutely no action too merciless for Putin. Do not think he wouldn't use nuclear weapons. As Nato would have declared war on Russia, it would enable Russia to spread the conflict to several other countries as well.

That's rather speculative, and I'm pretty sure your statement, "Nato would have declared war on Russia" is not correct. If, hypothetically, NATO (or some NATO countries) imposed a no-fly-zone in Ukraine, then we would not by any stretch of the imagination be attacking Russian territory. We'd simply be defending an independent country that (presumably) has asked us and authorized us to be on their territory. We could, if we wished, intervene in Ukraine while making it clear that our intervention is strictly confined to Ukrainian territory and will not involve any military action outside Ukraine or in any location where it's not authorized by the leigitimate Government of that location.

Of course, we don't know how Russia would respond in that situation. But realistically, whatever we do carries considerable risk. Not doing anything carries risk of its own - namely that an emboldened and strengthened Russia decides to carry on empire-building beyond Ukraine.

Additionally there is no telling what China would do if NATO were the aggressor here.

How on Earth would our defending a country that has asked us to defend them amount to our being 'the aggressor'?

 

[AlterEgo]

okay, so let's say it goes to talks - which in most cases is where you'd want it- what should Ukraine offer/accept for peace, given freedom and a democratic government in their own country seems squarely off the table?

It's a genuine question - commitment to never join NATO?

Ukraine to be a buffer zone country and never join NATO. No point anyway as NATO will be of declining importance in an increasingly multipolar world.

Agreements on Russian troop numbers and naval deployments in the Black Sea and Crimea, as well as troop levels within, say, 100 miles of Ukraine's borders with ALL its neighbours.

 

[Bantamzen]

And follow the lead of Canada - reduce or completely cut off the import of oil and gas from Russia until they withdraw from Ukraine. It will be painful but between unconventional sources (read fracking), pushing through a new Iran nuclear deal and a real investment in renewables it is entirely possible that Western countries could be largely able to survive without Russian petro by this time next year.

And if they don't withdraw?

 

[tommy2215]

That's rather speculative, and I'm pretty sure your statement, "Nato would have declared war on Russia" is not correct. If, hypothetically, NATO (or some NATO countries) imposed a no-fly-zone in Ukraine, then we would not by any stretch of the imagination be attacking Russian territory. We'd simply be defending an independent country that (presumably) has asked us and authorized us to be on their territory. We could, if we wished, intervene in Ukraine while making it clear that our intervention is strictly confined to Ukrainian territory and will not involve any military action outside Ukraine or in any location where it's not authorized by the leigitimate Government of that location.

Of course, we don't know how Russia would respond in that situation. But realistically, whatever we do carries considerable risk. Not doing anything carries risk of its own - namely that an emboldened and strengthened Russia decides to carry on empire-building beyond Ukraine.



How on Earth would our defending a country that has asked us to defend them amount to our being 'the aggressor'?

That's all your view. But that's not the view Russia or China would take. Why do you believe Putin and Xingping think the same as you?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

A member of my family has just sent me a cutting of an article from the International Catholic Weekly which attempts to explain Putin’s thinking in terms of the importance of Kyiv as the historical centre of the ‘Holy Rus’, the ancient lands connecting the concepts of Russian people, sovereign Tsar state and a manifestion of the Kingdom of Heaven. It mentions that in 2018 the Ukrainian Orthodox Church separated from / was excommunicated by the Russian Patriarch of the Orthodox church.

Now I don’t know what level of religious belief Putin holds but this seems to tie in with the traditional Nazi linking of blood, soil and state and could quite easily be another facet to his strategy - in terms of justification to his own population, who are traditionally very religious.

 

[DustyBin]

Any military intervention would need to be via the UN, not NATO, the US, or individual EU countries. It would need to be a truly international peace keeping force. There's no chance of this happening though.

Ukraine to be a buffer zone country and never join NATO. No point anyway as NATO will be of declining importance in an increasingly multipolar world.

Agreements on Russian troop numbers and naval deployments in the Black Sea and Crimea, as well as troop levels within, say, 100 miles of Ukraine's borders with ALL its neighbours.

As distasteful as it is I think we need to accept that Putin will get at least some of what he wants one way or another. The focus at this point needs to be on damage limitation (in more way than one).

 

[Eyersey468]

If Putin at least partly gets his own way whats to stop him wanting more?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

If Putin at least partly gets his own way whats to stop him wanting more?

It depends what his exact motives are. What NATO and EU need to ensure is that they don’t inadvertently create fresh incentives for more aggressive expansion.

 

[brad465]

It depends what his exact motives are. What NATO and EU need to ensure is that they don’t inadvertently create fresh incentives for more aggressive expansion.

Just as well then Dan Hodges isn't running the country then:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1498581224339689474

If people want to oppose a no-fly zone, fine. But understand that is an act of appeasement no different to our appeasement of Hitler in 1938. We are refusing to do what we know is morally right out of fear. We are prepared to let a free nation die to safeguard ourselves.

 

[DustyBin]

If Putin at least partly gets his own way whats to stop him wanting more?

Nothing, but I don't think he'll want a repeat of this episode to be honest and any further conflicts will prove even more costly.

 

[Butts]

Not sure if this has been raised but why is the Ukranian Airforce not attacking the "37 Mile Column" it must be a sitting duck !!

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Just as well then Dan Hodges isn't running the country then:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1498581224339689474

I think the definition of what is morally right, must surely take into account the lives of the countless millions (billions?) who would be affected by a much larger conflict.

The difference in 1938 was that Hitler did not have anything beyond his conventional military, advanced though it was at the time. If Nazi Germany had obtained this technology in advance of the conflict (and the West had not), I have no doubt that his forces would have prevailed and we would live in a much, much worse world. Appeasement would have resulted in the same initial outcome (I.e. war.) Direct military action in 1938 would have seen European capitals levelled by nukes.

 

[mike57]

Putin won't stop at Ukraine and I just can't see any other (realistic) way out.

I have to agree, we either face him down and fight him now, which while unpleasent, stands some chance of success, or we wait until he has decided that he no longer accepts the reunification of Germany, having already overrun the Baltic states, Poland and states to the south. So we then end up having the same fight several hundred miles closer to our shores, and after a few million people have been killed, and Europe is broken and overrun with displaced people. Just to clarify Putin has invaded, with no justification, a democratic country, who share a lot of history, and is going to grind it into the ground if he can killing as many of the Ukrainians as he can. If he can do that then what hope for say Germany, where there is a history of conflict.

It may not be what people want to hear, but history says thats how it will work.

 

[tommy2215]

I have to agree, we either face him down and fight him now, which while unpleasent, stands some chance of success, or we wait until he has decided that he no longer accepts the reunification of Germany, having already overrun the Baltic states, Poland and states to the south. So we then end up having the same fight several hundred miles closer to our shores, and after a few million people have been killed, and Europe is broken and overrun with displaced people. Just to clarify Putin has invaded, with no justification, a democratic country, who share a lot of history, and is going to grind it into the ground if he can killing as many of the Ukrainians as he can. If he can do that then what hope for say Germany, where there is a history of conflict.

It may not be what people want to hear, but history says thats how it will work.

Whatever the comparison is, comparisons to WWII are ridiculous frankly. Warfare and the map of the world have changed enormously. We cannot save every country and every citizen at all costs. That might not be what you want to hear but unfortunately it's the case.

 

[nw1]

Just as well then Dan Hodges isn't running the country then:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1498581224339689474

I don't know who this Hodges guy is, but we do not want to do anything that might increase the risk of nuclear conflict. Worse, he says we should shoot down Russian planes if one enters. Utter, utter irresponsible idiot - I know the Mail is pure trash but this really does take some beating.

 

[squizzler]

I think the definition of what is morally right, must surely take into account the lives of the countless millions (billions?) who would be affected by a much larger conflict.

The difference in 1938 was that Hitler did not have anything beyond his conventional military, advanced though it was at the time. If Nazi Germany had obtained this technology in advance of the conflict (and the West had not), I have no doubt that his forces would have prevailed and we would live in a much, much worse world. Appeasement would have resulted in the same initial outcome (I.e. war.) Direct military action in 1938 would have seen European capitals levelled by nukes.

Quite wrong (bold text). He actually had the most potent chemical weapons which is why civilians were issued gas masks.

Saddam in 1991 also had these and could have used them on his scuds against tel aviv. Nobody knew till they struck that they did not.

Dictators don’t tend to use WMD. There is no point in second guessing Putins intentions from what he says because he is a serial liar who says what he thinks will get what he wants. Once we start respecting his pronouncements we are on the back foot. Better to just rely on our own moral compass and compassion for a suffering people.