The war in Europe

[largh]

Seems like Putin is going to attack Ukraine unless he is bluffing (wouldn't be the first time). What will follow, you recon?

There is a real chance for the 3rd WW if things escalate out of hands. In any case, such an attack would leave deep scars that would take a century to heal. I was grown up in Finland where people still remember 1939 and think the Russians are not to be trusted. Many people believe that Russia will attack Finland again eventually. The hate against Russians is deeply rooted in that country - because of a similar kind of attack 80 years ago that they seem to target Ukraine this time. My generation was still served that hate but luckily most of us grew out of it. Of course, Russians or any other people are not worse or better than others. All are just people, but got to admit that the elite in Russia has been pretty evil for ages. Things haven't changed in that regard. Seems that Putin has lost touch to reality and is seeing enemies where could have been friends had he acted differently. Power corrupts, I guess. He should have been out a long time ago.

Of course, the confrontation by US and the readiness to judge anything nondomestic does not help the situation. Ukrainian president saying that NATO is the only option, and all that. Seems like kids fighting - that there are morons everywhere or then politicians are thinking in an advanced way which is impossible to grasp for common people. The problem is that these kids have nuclear weapons.

I don't feel hate, rather fear that the world will get fucked once again. Nuclear bombs or not - war seeds hate. Hate takes a long time to be cured. I know many good Russian people and have Russian friends. Hoping that they can cope with the inevitable hate they are going to face in Western countries if Putin is starting a war.

 

[Couchpotato]

It's called Expansionism and it's the political theory Russia has used for hundreds of years. If Nato and the European Union would stop meddling we wouldn't be in this mess.

Basically every neighboring border state that is not a puppet of Russia is a threat.

 

[largh]

Right, or perhaps just an excuse for superpower politics? Taking advantage of anything possible. Weird that they do not utilise their own resources and I fail to see the advantage in the expansionism you mention...

 

[Couchpotato]

I didn't say it was a good theory just that's how Russian politics's work. Let em ask you what would you do if Norway and Sweden were taken over or governments changed.

I'm sure if Canada or Mexico joined Russia or the Nazis in the past the US wouldn't stand for it either. Hence Russia doesn't want a Nato or European Union country on its border.

They see this as a threat to National security. Ever since the last puppet president was exiled in 2014 in Ukraine it's been nothing but a domino effect since then.

Anyway can you sit there and tell me Nato and the European Union have nothing to do with this either. Each see a way to expand their sphere of influence in Europe.

So that my friend is geopolitics at its worst. There are no good sides.

 

[largh]

Anyway can you sit there and tell me Nato and the European Union have nothing to do with this either. Each see a way to expand their sphere of influence in Europe.

That's what I wrote in the 3rd paragraph. To me it appears kids or brain-damaged people arguing. Confrontation is the only thing which unites them.

So that my friend is geopolitics at its worst. There are no good sides.

Ay, in superpower politics there is no good and bad. All superpowers - the US, China and Russia - are evil in their own way. Yet, things have been kinda stable in Europe for decades. They always managed, if not solve, at least freeze the issues they had. Is this shit happening because Angela is out or because Putin wants to make a legacy before he dies/retires?

 

[largh]

Btw, the Crimea has been used as a bait by the Europeans. As far as I have understood from my Russian friends, it has somewhat special status in Russia. It was annexed by the Russian empire for the first time in the 18th century or something, and donated to Ukraine by the Soviet Union after WW2. There has been genocides and disputes going on there for centuries and there is an important Russian military base there. When Ukraine lost their puppet president, Putin went and annexed Crimea. Russians were cheering. In their eyes, Putin took back what belonged to them.

European politicians (and the US) saw their chance to use this long going dispute as a card in their game which in turn pissed off Putin. So, no-one has clean cards in this game. The disputes are centuries old. If we open the book, we can bomb the entire continent to ground, no problem. There are similar disputes everywhere.

 

[Carnifex]

I certainly hope and pray this is all a huge bluff on Putin's part, simply a rattling of the sabers, if you will. That area doesn't need anymore conflicts, let's have some dialogue instead and put the weapons away.

 

[dteowner]

I'm sure if Canada or Mexico joined Russia or the Nazis in the past the US wouldn't stand for it either. Hence Russia doesn't want a Nato or European Union country on its border.

Don't have to hypothesize. Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

[Carnifex]

Totally hard to believe that the sixtieth anniversary of that event will occur later this year. To this day I seriously doubt that many living at the time realized just how close the entire world came to a complete nuclear exchange scenario.

 

[largh]

To this day I seriously doubt that many living at the time realized just how close the entire world came to a complete nuclear exchange scenario.

There was also the other time when a Russian missile-defence system started warning about an approaching missile. That case was saved by one officer, the story tells.

 

[Redglyph]

Able Archer was a close shave too.

It's called Expansionism and it's the political theory Russia has used for hundreds of years. If Nato and the European Union would stop meddling we wouldn't be in this mess.

We can't just turn a blind eye, we saw here what little good it did in the past. The mess is not of our doing, but of the poor state of Russia and Putin's efforts to try and keep everything from collapsing.

As for a total war scenario, I suppose it can never be completely excluded, as the multiple close misses mentioned above illustrate. But would it really be in Putin's interest to trigger it? I would think he has more gain from maintaining pressure than making the situation explode.

He's always been good at teasing and testing how far he could get away with, for sure. That's precisely why we have to keep showing where the boundaries are.

 

[largh]

We can't just turn a blind eye, we saw here what little good it did in the past. The mess is not of our doing, but of the poor state of Russia and Putin's efforts to try and keep everything from collapsing.

You are right I assume, but at the same time highlight why this mess is taking place. Don't understand me wrong, I do support democracy and equality to the fullest, but a dictator of a country that has been under an autocratic regime throughout the history is likely to see things differently. No doubt many European politicians think naively about human rights, etc., but many others see their chance to influence Russia hoping that the dictatorship would finally fall. Take the recent Navalny case: was it really necessary for European countries (and the US) to interfere with internal affairs of a country? Who says that he would have been any more democratic or better leader than Putin? Is it our job to deploy sense of justice over countries that have always been autocratic?

All this case did was to piss off Putin once again. Navalny was offered a chance to leave. He did not take it and will now rot in a jail until he or Putin dies. There are numerous similar cases where a more adult move would have been not to interfere. Aggression and judgement is not the right way to influence on things.

That said, Putin cannot be allowed to take whatever he wants because if he is allowed, he will take it. It is a bit of a chess-mate or at least a very fine balance. There is hoping that Putin is bluffing still. If not, we might be screwed.

 

[Redglyph]

Take the recent Navalny case: was it really necessary for European countries (and the US) to interfere with internal affairs of a country? Who says that he would have been any more democratic or better leader than Putin? Is it our job to deploy sense of justice over countries that have always been autocratic?

I'm not sure there's a good or a wrong answer to this or any intervention in other countries in general. I wouldn't like to be in the shoes of those who have to make that decision every time. We just see with enough hindsight that those regimes often turn out badly, and trying to contain them instead of letting them loose seem the correct option.

Yes, it's subjective, but as subjective as a cop may be when arresting a criminal, and a judge when condemning them. It's the best way we know to maintain stability.

For this specific case, there's the fact it has been performed in UK territory. We can hardly let foreign countries get away with that type of murder (with likely risk of collaterals), even on a previously Russian citizen.

 

[largh]

For this specific case, there's the fact it has been performed in UK territory. We can hardly let foreign countries get away with that type of murder (with likely risk of collaterals), even on a previously Russian citizen.

You are mixing up guys now. The person murdered in UK by Putin's spies was Litvinenko, a former Russian spy. Yeah, they used radioactive poison in the murder. Hard to believe how can they be so clumsy without meaning to look clumsy (just hiring a thug to shoot him would have been much more effective way). UK, understandably, got pissed off. Was that some sort of move by Putin or do these people exercise some sort of advanced thinking that is impossible for common people to grasp?

 

[Redglyph]

You are mixing up guys now.

I am Yeah, the case you mentioned is completely different.

I believe we should denounce acts against human rights and other abuses, but how far should we go? It needs more experience and information than what we'll ever get to give a sensible answer IMO. At least for me.

 

[fadedc]

Yeah it's complicated, my understanding is that NATO was formed largely to counter Soviet aggression. If Russia is threatening to invade you, it makes sense that you'd want to join it. Obviously if Mexico joined forces with Russia we'd have a conniption. On the other hand, if we started planning to invade Mexico, it would probably be our fault if they joined up with our rivals.

Either way, an actual global war would disrupt life so much as to make us look at 2020 as the good old days. I suspect Putin knows that and is playing high stakes chicken. But I think that's also why the US is relying on an economic response instead of a military one if the attack happens. It's a threat that Putin could believe we would actually go through with.

 

[MAHak]

Sorry if I disappoint any Fallout fanboys, but we’re not going to get a great power war (WW3) over Ukraine. The US is not gonna make a nuclear retaliation over the Russians invading Ukraine, its simply to far away from the US’ sphere of influence and no where near an imperative to its national security. The Russians know it, the Ukrainians know it, everyone knows it.
Although that doesn’t mean that a Russian invasion won’t have severe economic repercussions. The sanctions in place now over the Crimea and Donbas cases, already stings, although its brunt is wearing off as the Russian economy is adapting to the situation. One should also remember that conquest is very expensive, and that the yearly cost for the Russians to maintain its presence in Crimea, cost as much as its annual educational budget. So there is an argument to be made that Russia simply can’t afford to conquer much of Ukraine.
Anyway I see this whole debacle as part of a greater effort by China and Russia, and regional revisionist powers like Iran, to bring down the US by stress testing the US’ resolve to come to the aid of its European allies. As sooner or later the US is gonna be fully occupied with containing China.
Historically, lesser great powers have always schemed to take down the dominant great power.

 

[JDR13]

The economic repercussions will go a lot further than Russia. Market indexes across the world will tank hard if there's a war. The mere possibility of it has already had an effect over here.

 

[SleepingDog]

I think that there is a long history of "paranoia" on both sides going back prior to the WW2.

An interesting perspective is given in the podcast below (less than 10 minutes).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct2dpl

Personally I think that Russia sees Nato's and the EU advance towards it's borders as a threat. When you threaten some-one they either fight back or roll-over. I also note that there are over 8 million Russian speakers in the Ukraine. Not sure what the UK would do if there was a United Ireland and the "Unionist" started to be targeted. This does not mean I endorse what Putin is doing.

I don't think that NATO will go to war with Russia over this but agree that the economic sanctions will be more severe and there will be a look at why the current sanctions are not working as well as expected.

 

[Couchpotato]

Well Ukraine was part of the Russian empire for centuries, and was part of the USSR. It didn't become independent till 1991 when the Soviet Union dissolved after the Cold War.

What does Russia want?

A key source of the tension is Ukraine’s intentions to join Nato, which President Putin sees as a threat to Russia’s borders. Russia has issued a list of demands that would reduce Western influence in Ukraine and Belarus, including that Ukraine never become a Nato member. However, the West has rejected suck demands, calling President Putin’s desires “non-starters”