The UK Politics & Brexit Thread

[Dryce]

And - personal opinion - Trump was pivotal in alienating Putin. The fact the the US could that easily have a reckless maverick as head of state, that is willing to manage foreign policies on his own and on a whim and without consulting, proved to Putin that he cannot have the Russian border exposed in this way.

The issue with Russia and Ukraine pre-date Mr Trump's presidency. It might equally be purported that this is happening now because Mr Biden appears to be weak.

If Russia does invade.... I predict it will ultimately win, because few countries can withstand the might of the Russian war machine. But the victory will take a heavy toll. The Red Army isn't very good at fighting when it invades other territories, while the Ukrainians will be fighting tooth and nail trying to defend their homes and families.

It's an interesting roll of the dice. I have heard several versions - one that the Russians can roll in and Ukraine will capitulate, another that the Ukrainians will fight tooth and nail and make it very costly and a third that any Russian action will be limited to create a land corridor to Crimea.

But Putin is willing to pay the price, and he knows the Ukrainian will eventually surrender, because the West will retreat and impose more 'sanctions' instead of engaging in actual fighting just as Obama did when Russia invaded the Cremea.

The Russian economy is relatively poor but self sufficient in basics.

I think that if the whole of Ukraine is the target then there is a deeper truth and it's not just about Russia creating a new buffer to replace its lost Soviet Empire. It's also about long term food production. We have seen that Mr Putin can yank Western Europe (and particularly Germany's) chain because a decadent Europe has forgotten about the concept of energy security.

Food security is another potential lever to pull. Ukraine is a significant net food producer.

 

[ChrisHGTV]

The issue with Russia and Ukraine pre-date Mr Trump's presidency. It might equally be purported that this is happening now because Mr Biden appears to be weak.



It's an interesting roll of the dice. I have heard several versions - one that the Russians can roll in and Ukraine will capitulate, another that the Ukrainians will fight tooth and nail and make it very costly and a third that any Russian action will be limited to create a land corridor to Crimea.


The Russian economy is relatively poor but self sufficient in basics.

I think that if the whole of Ukraine is the target then there is a deeper truth and it's not just about Russia creating a new buffer to replace its lost Soviet Empire. It's also about long term food production. We have seen that Mr Putin can yank Western Europe (and particularly Germany's) chain because a decadent Europe has forgotten about the concept of energy security.

Food security is another potential lever to pull. Ukraine is a significant net food producer.

Ukraine also has a lot of hydrocarbons not yet fully exploited. Conventional oil and gas but also unconventionals. I think this also has a bearing, especially re Germany’s current reliance on Russian gas.

 

[grober]

PUTIN isn't afraid of NATO he's afraid of democracy.
Navalny 'poisoned': What are Novichok agents and what do they do?
The Russian cyber espionage machine actively conspired to get Trump elected as the man most likely to divide the US/NATO and they are still at it. Their success can be judged by how many US citizens now actively distrust their own government

Lawmakers Are Warned That Russia Is Meddling to Re-elect Trump (Published 2020)

A classified briefing to House members is said to have angered the president, who complained that Democrats would “weaponize” the disclosure.

www.nytimes.com

 

[m80]

It's an interesting roll of the dice. I have heard several versions - one that the Russians can roll in and Ukraine will capitulate, another that the Ukrainians will fight tooth and nail and make it very costly and a third that any Russian action will be limited to create a land corridor to Crimea.

I see the Crimea as an early Russian strategy to encircle Ukraine, as far as might be possible.
The more recent friendship with Belarus might support that theory.

I don't see a corridor to the Crimea being a need. The bridge has given good access to the region, built more for military purposes following acquisition imo. Flying supplies in is no issue. To a small degree other stuff might be sailed in across the Black Sea. I see the Crimea is already supported as much as is desired, and it's advantage isn't it but using it as a control, or a threat at least, of southern Ukraine.
I can see that should Russia create a corridor then the east Ukraine effectively become Russian.

Theories around aims to enjoy Ukraine's carbon energy resources are interesting.
The US attempt to compensate Europe's reduced gas from Russia by sailing liquid gas across the Atlantic. Not sustainable in my view. But as puppets to the US are we and others merely brokering such a possible advantage for them?
Is it the eu that would attempt to do this by negotiated agreement with Ukraine?

Of course such an incentive would need to be kept quiet as that would blow the whole renewable energy / climate change bs wide open.

Yes the Ukraine situation was always destined to be a head to head stand off, at best.

 

[Dryce]

I don't see a corridor to the Crimea being a need. The bridge has given good access to the region, built more for military purposes following acquisition imo. Flying supplies in is no issue. To a small degree other stuff might be sailed in across the Black Sea. I see the Crimea is already supported as much as is desired, and it's advantage isn't it but using it as a control, or a threat at least, of southern Ukraine.

Land corridors are considerably more valuable than bridges or ships. Bridges are always considered vulnerable and ships can be attacked directly or mined.

So I think you'll find in the backrooms in Russia where they worry about planning and strategy that they are quite bothered by this. If Russia ever shows weakness then in principle in their mindsets they will think Crimea can be squeezed and their control threatened.

This is where piecemeal acquisition of territory traditionally starts to beget more piecemeal acquisition of territory. Move one chess piece forward and you start to think about protecting it - so move by move your attack becomes self-propogating.

 

[m80]

Land corridors are considerably more valuable than bridges or ships. Bridges are always considered vulnerable and ships can be attacked directly or mined.

So I think you'll find in the backrooms in Russia where they worry about planning and strategy that they are quite bothered by this. If Russia ever shows weakness then in principle in their mindsets they will think Crimea can be squeezed and their control threatened.

This is where piecemeal acquisition of territory traditionally starts to beget more piecemeal acquisition of territory. Move one chess piece forward and you start to think about protecting it - so move by move your attack becomes self-propogating.

Blow a bridge, sink a ship, possible. But I suggest Russia would be able to provide good protection for these.
The weaponry of an advanced ally could do that though, that would escalate this beyond recognition though. V dangerous.

Defending a 400 mile corridor, in an invaded country, would be nigh on impossible. I suggest again, that disadvantage would outweigh any logistical advantage.

 

[AMGeed]

Made me smile. Posting here, although joke thread more appropriate.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[190]

Made me smile. Posting here, although joke thread more appropriate.

This made me smile - from the Spectator

 

[markjay]

MI6 uncovered plot to install a pro-Moscow puppet leader in Ukraine

As Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky warned of a 'large-scale war', Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said that Yevhen Murayev was being lined up to run the country as a satellite of Moscow.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[m80]

MI6 uncovered plot to install a pro-Moscow puppet leader in Ukraine

As Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky warned of a 'large-scale war', Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said that Yevhen Murayev was being lined up to run the country as a satellite of Moscow.

www.dailymail.co.uk

That contradicts the thinking that a Russian invasion is imminent.
Better that Moscow waits until their man is in place, can then manipulate policy toward a more peaceful hand over, and save lives.

I was amused yesterday to read of tank topping Truss who blamed Russia for their invasion / desertion of Afghanistan, and the negative effects of that.
While supporting the US in their anti Russian initiatives.

Does she really not remember the US, and our, handing back the country to the Taliban so recently.

If we are to be taught to despise Russia for it's actions at least a few brain cells should be used in the endeavour.

 

[markjay]

That contradicts the thinking that a Russian invasion is imminent.
Better that Moscow waits until their man is in place, can then manipulate policy toward a more peaceful hand over, and save lives.

I was amused yesterday to read of tank topping Truss who blamed Russia for their invasion / desertion of Afghanistan, and the negative effects of that.
While supporting the US in their anti Russian initiatives.

Does she really not remember the US, and our, handing back the country to the Taliban so recently.

If we are to be taught to despise Russia for it's actions at least a few brain cells should be used in the endeavour.

True, though foreign policy is about the country's current and future interests, and not about a coherent portrayal of historic events. The latter is best left to academics, and not to government ministers.

And, at this time it would seem that our government believes that repelling Putin's attempts for intervention and influence (militarily and politically) in Ukraine is in the UK's best interest. We have been wrong before, mind.... but that's me talking like an academic, rather than like a pragmatic realpolitik government minister.

 

[m80]

True, though foreign policy is about the country's current and future interests, and not about a coherent portrayal of historic events. The latter is best left to academics, and not to government ministers.

And, at this time it would seem that our government believes that repelling Putin's attempts for intervention and influence (militarily and politically) in Ukraine is in the UK's best interest. We have been wrong before, mind.... but that's me talking like an academic, rather than like a pragmatic realpolitik government minister.

I don't have issue with intelligent analysis of history, it often is relevant to the current situation. It is in this situation.
Low intelligent statements by Truss and others does no more than stir up a hatred in those that don't see past the stupidity.
Is it a recruitment strategy?

Many media articles are showing the advance of the eu, NATO, in a map / period style. It shows how Russia have been under continual and increasing threat from the West.
When the US site yet another missile silo in a recently acquired NATO state, saying this is to deal with threats other than Russia, while some here might accept that I'm sure Moscow won't.
NATO have Baltic military bases in close proximity to Russia. The threat there certainly isn't from Finland and Sweden.
We in support of the US policies have been prodding the Bear more often than is healthy.
We now send, limited amounts so far, weaponry to the Ukraine, by coincidence so do the US. 1 or 2 more states are following on now.
Should a Russian tank commander and crew be terminated I'm pretty sure Moscow will hold a memory of that against us. We are in danger of passing a point of no return with our clumsy involvement.

From the days of accepting American missiles on our east coast it was obvious that we would be the sacrificial 1st strike casualty. That would provide America with better opportunity to defend.
At least other European states might now divert such attentions.
We should recognise how much of a puppet we are.

 

[markjay]

...We should recognise how much of a puppet we are.

I think we should recognise that we are a tiny island state with only 60+ million people, and we need to form a close alliance with at east one other superpower in order to survive and thrive.

We certainly don't want a hug from the Russian bear, and the Chinese are not very appealing either. We've already severed the links with the EU (to the extent that the EU can be called a superpower), which leaves us with the US or nothing

It was always a tough question which of the two do we find more compatible (or, rather, less incompatible) with our own ideology, views, goals, and interests: the US or the EU? But in 2016 we've made up our minds.

 

[m80]

I think we should recognise that we are a tiny island state with only 60+ million people, and we need to form a close alliance with at east one other superpower in order to survive and thrive.

We certainly don't want a hug from the Russian bear, and the Chinese are not very appealing either. We've already severed the links with the EU (to the extent that the EU can be called a superpower), which leaves us with the US or nothing

It was always a tough question which of the two do we find more compatible (or, rather, less incompatible) with our own ideology, views, goals, and interests: the US or the EU? But in 2016 we've made up our minds.

We refused to assist the US in Vietnam, thankfully. It didn't seem to cause us any harm.

I don't feel we need to ally ourselves with the US each time for fear of upsetting them. Sometimes, well more than sometimes, they are empire strengthening and should be seen as such.
What gains were made in Afghanistan? I can see abundant losses.
When the near o/n decision to evacuate Kabul was made there wasn't much consideration to anything but US policy.
Little Lizzie sitting on Uncle Sams knee isn't going to gain Lizzie more than a pat on the ass in gratitude.

 

[markjay]

...What gains were made in Afghanistan? I can see abundant losses...

The American goal in Afghanistan was to deny Al-Qaida ground used for terror training camps (and possibly also to capture or kill Bin-Laden which would have helped heal the Americans' wounded national pride post 9/11). However, the US targeted these camps as early as 1998 following the US embassies bombings, so both strategically and politically it was nothing new.

The Afghanistan War seemed like a 'safe' conflict, because unlike Vietnam, the Americans committed very little ground troops to the campaign, focusing their efforts on massive air raids against a country with no airforce of its own and no radars or anti aircraft systems to speak off (other than some ZPU 14.5mm and ZSU 23mm canons, and SA-7 'Strela' shoulder-missles, none of which were a significant threat to US bombers and fighter planes). Ground forces comprised mainly of special forces who liaised with local anti-Taliban tribes such as General Dostum' Northern Alliance.

So it seems that the lessons from the Vietnam war were indeed learned. Which they were, because the Afghanistan War was quickly won (unless you count the end day as 30th August 2021...) and with a minimal number of American casualties.

The (now obvious) issue is the end-game, or exit strategy. Russia never had this issue in the Cremea, because they are not planning on leaving it. But history does tell us that wars where the winner eventually retreats 'magnanimously' can have unexpected outcomes. It worked out well in the case of Japan and Germany, but for the latter it took two wars to get it right. It didn't really work well anywhere else.

 

[C240Sport97]

We've already severed the links with the EU (to the extent that the EU can be called a superpower),

EU - apart from France - is not even a regional power, let alone a super power. EU nations - particularly Germany - have freeloaded off the US, UK and France for decades.

 

[m80]

Crimea is Russian now, there is no expectation of a change there in the foreseeable.
The West desire for Russia to leave Ukraine alone so they can negotiate control of it and it's resources. But best not forget its strategic position being so close to Russia.

Russia has fear of the Western advancement, and Ukraine has become a stand off because Russia see that as an advance too far.
Russia want the West to back off and leave that buffer in place.

Putin has opened negotiations with his demands. He doesn't expect all to be met, so there will be a minimum outcome when they do 'really' get round the table.
To support his negotiating position he has made a pretty big show of potential power. That is concentrating, minds in the West.
Some Western politicians are saying how naughty he is and he should behave. These are with some informal demands, that are pathetic really.

Putin isn't known for bluffing, he demonstrates ability, in fact Ukraine accept that ability as actual and likely to be deployed.

As is seen historically Putin moves his pieces into place and creates a winning position. The negotiations are then in his favour.

Putin sees a direct threat to Russia. He finds that unacceptable and has acted to protect his country and people.
The West want Ukraine under their control, who ultimately drives this can be debated, but it is for advantage/s not survival.

I hope this is the start of the diplomatic games, because if Putin has ambitions to take Ukraine, even in part, unless the West are willing to escalate this massively, and I don't see that, he isn't turning round.

Meanwhile showing solidarity with Ukraine, while being nice, seems ultimately to be pointless.

 

[grober]

BBC World News - Global Questions, What's Putin's Strategy?
MAKES INTERESTING VIEWING/LISTENING? FROM KIEV!

Global Questions - What is Putin’s strategy? - BBC Sounds

As President Putin threatens Ukraine, we ask what is his wider foreign policy strategy?

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Dryce]

If we are to be taught to despise Russia for it's actions at least a few brain cells should be used in the endeavour.

Well the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a fairly significant venture when it happened and seeded a sequence of consequential events.

The western media tends to blame the US or ourselves for everything eventually and forget that the the Soviet contribution was what helped seed it.

The Russians have had a habit of encroaching on their border nations and I think we shouldn't forget their use of a chemical weapon in our own country.

And beore anybody bangs on about the second world war I think it's worthwhile taking note that that what set that off was the Soviet Union making a pact with the Nazis and invading Poland.

 

[davymead]

American Eagle eyes on the job, so to speak … poor res apologies.