| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 11:23 - Mar 2 with 2522 views | giant_stow |
Good to see the leadership crack down on this self-serving nonsense. |  |
|  |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 11:49 - Mar 2 with 2469 views | BlueBadger |
Before the usual crowd start, I'd like to remind everyone of this.
(Stolen from Gordon's thread, yesterday) |  |
| |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 12:03 - Mar 2 with 2421 views | gordon |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 11:49 - Mar 2 by BlueBadger |
Before the usual crowd start, I'd like to remind everyone of this.
(Stolen from Gordon's thread, yesterday) |
One of the most egregious misunderstandings is that NATO has had much influence (positive or negative) on Putin's decision-making to date - except possibly to prevent this happening in the Baltic NATO states.
Putin is obsessed with the historical conquests of Russia in the nineteenth century, of re-creating the Russian Motherland of Alexander I and Alexander II, hence the obsession with places like Crimea, Transnistria, Georgia, Ukraine, and the massive effort expended in the Caucasus region - which are utterly, utterly insane from a Russian 'security concerns' perspective.
If Ukraine had joined NATO in time, the presence of a large NATO military presence on the border could have just about maintained peace - but that would have been the only way. For people to blame this war on the limited deployment of troops and support to Eastern European NATO countries in recent years is, to quote Chris Whitty, a complete inversion of the truth. |  | | |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 12:47 - Mar 2 with 2318 views | Guthrum |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 12:03 - Mar 2 by gordon |
One of the most egregious misunderstandings is that NATO has had much influence (positive or negative) on Putin's decision-making to date - except possibly to prevent this happening in the Baltic NATO states.
Putin is obsessed with the historical conquests of Russia in the nineteenth century, of re-creating the Russian Motherland of Alexander I and Alexander II, hence the obsession with places like Crimea, Transnistria, Georgia, Ukraine, and the massive effort expended in the Caucasus region - which are utterly, utterly insane from a Russian 'security concerns' perspective.
If Ukraine had joined NATO in time, the presence of a large NATO military presence on the border could have just about maintained peace - but that would have been the only way. For people to blame this war on the limited deployment of troops and support to Eastern European NATO countries in recent years is, to quote Chris Whitty, a complete inversion of the truth. |
I'd disagree with that to an extent, based on perceptions from the Russian side.
It's seen, through a lens of nationalistic irrdentism, as other powers encroaching upon Russia's natural sphere of influence, territory which actually used to be part of the Empire/USSR. Indeed a defensive alliance with those powers prevents any easy attempt to absorb or dominate them.
I agree that the mere fact of Ukraine being in NATO would have prevented Putin doing what he is now, as that would have invoked war with the whole alliance, irrespective of how many troops were actually based there*.
The possiblity of NATO expansion - however faint in the case of Ukraine - is certainly one of the things which has rattled Putin's cage. Whether that means NATO should not have kept the possibility on the table is an entirely different issue and comes down to the right of sovreign, independent states to freely make their own alliances.
Plus the fine balance between actions which are strictly correct and those which are wise. Perhaps paying earlier attention (months, if not years ago) to the angry noises coming out of Moscow might have saved a lot of lives. Instead some of the mutual reassurance mechanisms and arms control treaties between Russia and the West which Trump allowed to lapse were not resurrected. It may not have prevented this war, but was an avenue not explored.
* I'm reminded of a French officer discussing British help before the First World War: 'You only need to send one man and we will make sure he is killed'. That casualty would then bring the UK into the conflict. |  |
| |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 12:57 - Mar 2 with 2267 views | GlasgowBlue |
"a conflict in which Britain is playing a provocative role - talking up war, decrying diplomacy and supplying arms to Ukraine as well as supporting increased military deployments to neighbouring countries"
I'm sure somebody will be along soon to say we have misunderstood those words. |  |
| |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 12:57 - Mar 2 with 2279 views | EdwardStone |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 12:47 - Mar 2 by Guthrum |
I'd disagree with that to an extent, based on perceptions from the Russian side.
It's seen, through a lens of nationalistic irrdentism, as other powers encroaching upon Russia's natural sphere of influence, territory which actually used to be part of the Empire/USSR. Indeed a defensive alliance with those powers prevents any easy attempt to absorb or dominate them.
I agree that the mere fact of Ukraine being in NATO would have prevented Putin doing what he is now, as that would have invoked war with the whole alliance, irrespective of how many troops were actually based there*.
The possiblity of NATO expansion - however faint in the case of Ukraine - is certainly one of the things which has rattled Putin's cage. Whether that means NATO should not have kept the possibility on the table is an entirely different issue and comes down to the right of sovreign, independent states to freely make their own alliances.
Plus the fine balance between actions which are strictly correct and those which are wise. Perhaps paying earlier attention (months, if not years ago) to the angry noises coming out of Moscow might have saved a lot of lives. Instead some of the mutual reassurance mechanisms and arms control treaties between Russia and the West which Trump allowed to lapse were not resurrected. It may not have prevented this war, but was an avenue not explored.
* I'm reminded of a French officer discussing British help before the First World War: 'You only need to send one man and we will make sure he is killed'. That casualty would then bring the UK into the conflict. |
" We will make sure he is killed" is the "Clothes Wringer" effect.... it commits the nation that sent the poor unfortunate into the conflict, a bit like getting the corner of a garment caught in the mangle, the rest of the item is inexorably drawn in
This is what the Dutch failed to understand when they deserted Srebrenica .... they scampered off because they thought they might get hurt
They were supposed to get hurt...that was the entire point of them being there in the first bloody place |  | | |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 12:59 - Mar 2 with 2256 views | BlueBadger |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 12:57 - Mar 2 by GlasgowBlue |
"a conflict in which Britain is playing a provocative role - talking up war, decrying diplomacy and supplying arms to Ukraine as well as supporting increased military deployments to neighbouring countries"
I'm sure somebody will be along soon to say we have misunderstood those words. |
We probably just don't understand his Liverpudlian irony. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:00 - Mar 2 with 2247 views | gordon |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 12:47 - Mar 2 by Guthrum |
I'd disagree with that to an extent, based on perceptions from the Russian side.
It's seen, through a lens of nationalistic irrdentism, as other powers encroaching upon Russia's natural sphere of influence, territory which actually used to be part of the Empire/USSR. Indeed a defensive alliance with those powers prevents any easy attempt to absorb or dominate them.
I agree that the mere fact of Ukraine being in NATO would have prevented Putin doing what he is now, as that would have invoked war with the whole alliance, irrespective of how many troops were actually based there*.
The possiblity of NATO expansion - however faint in the case of Ukraine - is certainly one of the things which has rattled Putin's cage. Whether that means NATO should not have kept the possibility on the table is an entirely different issue and comes down to the right of sovreign, independent states to freely make their own alliances.
Plus the fine balance between actions which are strictly correct and those which are wise. Perhaps paying earlier attention (months, if not years ago) to the angry noises coming out of Moscow might have saved a lot of lives. Instead some of the mutual reassurance mechanisms and arms control treaties between Russia and the West which Trump allowed to lapse were not resurrected. It may not have prevented this war, but was an avenue not explored.
* I'm reminded of a French officer discussing British help before the First World War: 'You only need to send one man and we will make sure he is killed'. That casualty would then bring the UK into the conflict. |
Agree with some of that, but the fury of the irridentism Putin is waging in Ukraine is triggered by Ukraine being a democratic, outward looking, modern state where the population have rejected overt Russian influence twice in popular uprisings in the last twenty years, married to Putin's belief that Ukraine has no right to exist, and his yearning to prove the weakness & hypocrisy of the West - it just isn't about NATO - although as you say it might have been prevented if Ukraine had been admitted.
I'm not as convinced as you that Putin won't test the resolve of NATO. The balance of the argument in e.g. USA/UK will be precisely the same if Putin invades Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia - people will say why would we risk nuclear Armageddon for places most people have no clue about, when the loss of life and suffering would (probably) be very small compared to what we're permitting to happen in Ukraine. | | | |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:12 - Mar 2 with 2166 views | hype313 |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:00 - Mar 2 by gordon |
Agree with some of that, but the fury of the irridentism Putin is waging in Ukraine is triggered by Ukraine being a democratic, outward looking, modern state where the population have rejected overt Russian influence twice in popular uprisings in the last twenty years, married to Putin's belief that Ukraine has no right to exist, and his yearning to prove the weakness & hypocrisy of the West - it just isn't about NATO - although as you say it might have been prevented if Ukraine had been admitted.
I'm not as convinced as you that Putin won't test the resolve of NATO. The balance of the argument in e.g. USA/UK will be precisely the same if Putin invades Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia - people will say why would we risk nuclear Armageddon for places most people have no clue about, when the loss of life and suffering would (probably) be very small compared to what we're permitting to happen in Ukraine. |
The problem for Putin is all these counties have had a taste of Western life and won't want to rewind the clock back to the old times.
Putin might well want to take all these countries, but in doing so will mean he will face guerrilla warfare for years to come without any endgame.
For him to think he could harp back to old times in the space of a few weeks has proven to be flawed to say the least.
This has similarities with the war of 1812 between the US and Canada. |  |
| |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:14 - Mar 2 with 2143 views | Swansea_Blue |
I’d like to know what they think the alternative is. If allies didn’t provide weapons to help the Ukrainians, what then? They’re wrong about the diplomacy too - that’s part of all the sanctions are about. The seem like an idealist cult with no basis in reality. |  |
| |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:18 - Mar 2 with 2100 views | blueasfook |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 12:57 - Mar 2 by GlasgowBlue |
"a conflict in which Britain is playing a provocative role - talking up war, decrying diplomacy and supplying arms to Ukraine as well as supporting increased military deployments to neighbouring countries"
I'm sure somebody will be along soon to say we have misunderstood those words. |
Owen Jones will be crying on Twitter again.
Good. |  |
| |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:18 - Mar 2 with 2095 views | BlueBadger |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:14 - Mar 2 by Swansea_Blue |
I’d like to know what they think the alternative is. If allies didn’t provide weapons to help the Ukrainians, what then? They’re wrong about the diplomacy too - that’s part of all the sanctions are about. The seem like an idealist cult with no basis in reality. |
Plus, had they not been paying attention to anything that had been going on for the fortnight(at least) prior to the Russian invasion? There was a F U C K of a lot of diplomacy(plus Liz Truss going to talk to people) going on. | |
| |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:20 - Mar 2 with 2083 views | Guthrum |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:00 - Mar 2 by gordon |
Agree with some of that, but the fury of the irridentism Putin is waging in Ukraine is triggered by Ukraine being a democratic, outward looking, modern state where the population have rejected overt Russian influence twice in popular uprisings in the last twenty years, married to Putin's belief that Ukraine has no right to exist, and his yearning to prove the weakness & hypocrisy of the West - it just isn't about NATO - although as you say it might have been prevented if Ukraine had been admitted.
I'm not as convinced as you that Putin won't test the resolve of NATO. The balance of the argument in e.g. USA/UK will be precisely the same if Putin invades Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia - people will say why would we risk nuclear Armageddon for places most people have no clue about, when the loss of life and suffering would (probably) be very small compared to what we're permitting to happen in Ukraine. |
The difference with the Baltic states is they have a concrete mutual defence treaty with everyone else in NATO, who legally have to come to their defence. An automatic trigger. Moreover, for some of those members, it is not far away at all. That then tips the conventional military balance decisively against Russia, leaving the options of defeat or nuclear Armageddon, neither of which assists the survival of the Motherland.
Whereas NATO powers have to make an active decision (debated beforehand) to assist non-ally Ukraine and can opt to spend treasure rather than their own troops' lives.
Rejection of Russian influence is the key thing. Putin could tolerate an independent Ukraine if it were inclined towards Moscow, as under Yanukovych. But the possibility of joining Western groupings such as NATO or the EU risks putting it out of his grasp for good. | |
| |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:21 - Mar 2 with 2078 views | blueasfook |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:14 - Mar 2 by Swansea_Blue |
I’d like to know what they think the alternative is. If allies didn’t provide weapons to help the Ukrainians, what then? They’re wrong about the diplomacy too - that’s part of all the sanctions are about. The seem like an idealist cult with no basis in reality. |
For "Stop The War" you may as well read "Commie-loving Marxists". I bet they're frothing at the mouth at the thought of a reversion to the USSR. | |
| |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:28 - Mar 2 with 2030 views | Guthrum |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:12 - Mar 2 by hype313 |
The problem for Putin is all these counties have had a taste of Western life and won't want to rewind the clock back to the old times.
Putin might well want to take all these countries, but in doing so will mean he will face guerrilla warfare for years to come without any endgame.
For him to think he could harp back to old times in the space of a few weeks has proven to be flawed to say the least.
This has similarities with the war of 1812 between the US and Canada. |
It's not Western life per se which is the issue. After all, Moscow has had for decades all the shops and entertainment you can find in other European capitals. Business and enterprise is reasonably free. Nobody is proposing a return to Soviet austerity.
What it comes down to is self-determination (however dodgy or corrupt the resulting government might be) against having policy - particularly foreign policy - dictated by Russia. | |
| |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:36 - Mar 2 with 1980 views | gordon |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:20 - Mar 2 by Guthrum |
The difference with the Baltic states is they have a concrete mutual defence treaty with everyone else in NATO, who legally have to come to their defence. An automatic trigger. Moreover, for some of those members, it is not far away at all. That then tips the conventional military balance decisively against Russia, leaving the options of defeat or nuclear Armageddon, neither of which assists the survival of the Motherland.
Whereas NATO powers have to make an active decision (debated beforehand) to assist non-ally Ukraine and can opt to spend treasure rather than their own troops' lives.
Rejection of Russian influence is the key thing. Putin could tolerate an independent Ukraine if it were inclined towards Moscow, as under Yanukovych. But the possibility of joining Western groupings such as NATO or the EU risks putting it out of his grasp for good. |
Yes, certainly agree with the point in the second paragraph - the requirement that (for example) a vote in national parliaments would need to pass before military action effectively rules it out, because of the risk of nuclear war. Just would wonder how automatic that automatic trigger in the first paragraph would actually be in practise - if Russia attacked multiple countries then of course, but what about a small territorial incursion into the disputed area at the Estonia-Russia border, for example? Would we risk nuclear war for 50km2 of Estonia forest?
The third paragraph, I'm just making the point that in my view it's democracy and the will of the Ukrainian people that has moved Ukraine beyond Russian control (ultimately - this invasion/occupation can only end in failure, however long it takes), not supra-national treaty agreements or international organisations.
That's what's so infuriating about the Stop the War coalition - with the Orange revolution, Maidan, and now this invasion, Ukrainians have resisted imperialism again and again, only for British 'anti-imperialists' to de-legitimise their actions and motives, while amplifying the arguments of the imperial power. | | | |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:37 - Mar 2 with 1953 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:14 - Mar 2 by Swansea_Blue |
I’d like to know what they think the alternative is. If allies didn’t provide weapons to help the Ukrainians, what then? They’re wrong about the diplomacy too - that’s part of all the sanctions are about. The seem like an idealist cult with no basis in reality. |
Yes. Their views are no different today from what they were non February11th. | |
| |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 14:28 - Mar 2 with 1818 views | Guthrum |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 13:36 - Mar 2 by gordon |
Yes, certainly agree with the point in the second paragraph - the requirement that (for example) a vote in national parliaments would need to pass before military action effectively rules it out, because of the risk of nuclear war. Just would wonder how automatic that automatic trigger in the first paragraph would actually be in practise - if Russia attacked multiple countries then of course, but what about a small territorial incursion into the disputed area at the Estonia-Russia border, for example? Would we risk nuclear war for 50km2 of Estonia forest?
The third paragraph, I'm just making the point that in my view it's democracy and the will of the Ukrainian people that has moved Ukraine beyond Russian control (ultimately - this invasion/occupation can only end in failure, however long it takes), not supra-national treaty agreements or international organisations.
That's what's so infuriating about the Stop the War coalition - with the Orange revolution, Maidan, and now this invasion, Ukrainians have resisted imperialism again and again, only for British 'anti-imperialists' to de-legitimise their actions and motives, while amplifying the arguments of the imperial power. |
Indeed, it's clear that the Ukrainian people, as things stood prior to this invasion, were inclining away from Russia and towards the West. More so since the 2014 annexation of Crimea, plus the breaking away of the Donbas rebel areas has significantly reduced the pro-Russian vote.
If, in that scenario, Estonia invokes the treaty, then NATO is bound to come to their assistance. But that still doesn't mean we'd counter-invade anywhere else, or nuke Moscow immediately. NATO is a defensive alliance, not looking for any excuse to open hostilities with their rivals.
Plus the disputed territory between Estonia and Russia is pretty much all occupied by the latter, being absorbed after 1945 and not given back in 1991. | |
| |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 16:17 - Mar 2 with 1626 views | GlasgowBlue |
The state of this from Labour Left Alliance.
"We are against NATO as a clearly US directed predatory alliance which is against humanity"
"They are intent on encircling Russia with hostile regimes and military bases, this is the culmination of 3 decades of strategic tricks and manoeuvres."
'Putin fell into a trap laid by Joe Biden"
"I'm for the defeat of Ukraine in this battle"
"it's not [Zelenskyy's] Jewishness that's the problem it's that he's a Zionist and he works with fascists" | |
| |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 16:21 - Mar 2 with 1621 views | J2BLUE |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 16:17 - Mar 2 by GlasgowBlue |
The state of this from Labour Left Alliance.
"We are against NATO as a clearly US directed predatory alliance which is against humanity"
"They are intent on encircling Russia with hostile regimes and military bases, this is the culmination of 3 decades of strategic tricks and manoeuvres."
'Putin fell into a trap laid by Joe Biden"
"I'm for the defeat of Ukraine in this battle"
"it's not [Zelenskyy's] Jewishness that's the problem it's that he's a Zionist and he works with fascists" |
Stupidity beyond words. Not much of a trap from Biden if NATO aren't going in. |  |
| |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 16:25 - Mar 2 with 1606 views | giant_stow |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 16:17 - Mar 2 by GlasgowBlue |
The state of this from Labour Left Alliance.
"We are against NATO as a clearly US directed predatory alliance which is against humanity"
"They are intent on encircling Russia with hostile regimes and military bases, this is the culmination of 3 decades of strategic tricks and manoeuvres."
'Putin fell into a trap laid by Joe Biden"
"I'm for the defeat of Ukraine in this battle"
"it's not [Zelenskyy's] Jewishness that's the problem it's that he's a Zionist and he works with fascists" |
Must admit, I chuckled at how the group's reasonable one (women with the red hair) is still completely unreasonable. | |
| |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 16:49 - Mar 2 with 1559 views | BloomBlue |
| Well done for Starmer taking a strong stance on this on 16:17 - Mar 2 by GlasgowBlue |
The state of this from Labour Left Alliance.
"We are against NATO as a clearly US directed predatory alliance which is against humanity"
"They are intent on encircling Russia with hostile regimes and military bases, this is the culmination of 3 decades of strategic tricks and manoeuvres."
'Putin fell into a trap laid by Joe Biden"
"I'm for the defeat of Ukraine in this battle"
"it's not [Zelenskyy's] Jewishness that's the problem it's that he's a Zionist and he works with fascists" |
"They are intent on encircling Russia with hostile regimes" This idea that NATO is aggressive and that's why Putin attacked Ukraine, surely if NATO was aggressive the fact Putin has invaded Ukraine would be the perfect excuse for NATO to be aggressive and attack Russia. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
