WW3

[Larse]

Mind that Russia wanted to join NATO before and refusal to admit them was interpreted as a threat. Whether Russia interpreted our decision right or wrong - we will never know

I've heard Putin suggesting (this was in the noughties) that Russia might join NATO (I think the context was the Baltic states joining). And there was some cooperation in the 90s. But I never heard of any actual overtures being made to actually join. Have you a reference?

I don't believe I used 'justice and what is right' btw. I was giving it the duck test.

 

[Omega]

This doesn't stack up chronologically. Russia annexed Crimea and invaded "Donbas" in March 2014. Poroshenko didn't become president of Ukraine until June 2014. The delay being the constitutional crisis caused by Yanukovich legging it overnight to Russia which (understandably) hadn't been anticipated by the drafters of the constitution.

Sounds like Russian apologia to me. There's lots of it about.

Here is BBC's article with chart showing the trade volumes between Russia and Ukraine - it dips to the lowest in 2014-2015 before normalising https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-65113156
I would recommend checking against largest Russian companies - Gazprom, Lukoil etc. they started leaving after 2014. Wikipedia is quite good, here is an example about Lukoil:
"In 2014, the company faced a sharp decline in retail sales in Ukraine by 42%, caused by Russian intervention in Ukraine. As a result, the management of Lukoil agreed to sell 100% of its subsidiary Lukoil Ukraine to the Austrian company AMIC Energy Management, which was announced at the end of July 2014.[27][28]
In 2015, it sold its service stations in Estonia and Ukraine, and in 2016, it sold its service stations in Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Cyprus.[30][31][32]"

 

[Omega]

I've heard Putin suggesting (this was in the noughties) that Russia might join NATO (I think the context was the Baltic states joining). And there was some cooperation in the 90s. But I never heard of any actual overtures being made to actually join. Have you a reference?

I don't believe I used 'justice and what is right' btw. I was giving it the duck test.

In a March 2000 interview with the British television journalist David Frost, Putin was asked whether "it is possible Russia could join NATO." Putin, who at the time was serving as acting president and weeks later was elected to his first term, responded, "I don’t see why not."http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/st...eakfast_with_frost/transcripts/putin5.mar.txt
Another https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/russia-could-have-joined-nato-but-why-didn-t-they-do-it-55561
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

 

[Larse]

Here is BBC's article with chart showing the trade volumes between Russia and Ukraine - it dips to the lowest in 2014-2015 before normalising https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-65113156
I would recommend checking against largest Russian companies - Gazprom, Lukoil etc

You've failed to address the point I made about the chronology with Petro Poroschenko.

And a drop off in trade is hardly unusual when your trade 'partner' has invaded you. That it recovered at all after 2014 is a miracle. Most probably because of the intertwined nature of the two economies, especially with military hardware and oil. And again unsurprisingly it stopped dead in February 22.

Your position seems to be that this was the reason for the invasion. I'm saying quite categorically that they were the result of two invasions.

 

[Larse]

In a March 2000 interview with the British television journalist David Frost, Putin was asked whether "it is possible Russia could join NATO." Putin, who at the time was serving as acting president and weeks later was elected to his first term, responded, "I don’t see why not."http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/st...eakfast_with_frost/transcripts/putin5.mar.txt
Another https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/russia-could-have-joined-nato-but-why-didn-t-they-do-it-55561
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

Yes. That's the one I was referring to. Not exactly a filled out application for membership form is it?

And it was highly unlikely that Russia would join NATO after the spate of invasions and disputes with neighbouring territories that went on in the previous and subsequent years. Azerbaijan, Moldova, Georgia (twice) and Ukraine (twice).

What's your point here? That Russia was wronged by not being able to join NATO and had a hissy fit, so it's all NATO's fault? Forgetting all the invasions and disputes of course.

 

[Omega]

You've failed to address the point I made about the chronology with Petro Poroschenko.

And a drop off in trade is hardly unusual when your trade 'partner' has invaded you. That it recovered at all after 2014 is a miracle. Most probably because of the intertwined nature of the two economies, especially with military hardware and oil. And again unsurprisingly it stopped dead in February 22.

Your position seems to be that this was the reason for the invasion. I'm saying quite categorically that they were the result of two invasions.

I think I misunderstood you. To me, the reason is always financial. 2014 war was merely to stop Ukraine joining NATO quickly. However, Ukraine started pushing Russian companies out because they were replacing them with Western companies. Then Russian oligarchs decided to compensate the losses and this triggered 2022. One led to the other, all sides could deescalate, but did not

I updated with an example from Lukoil. I add it here again, check their Wikipedia site:

"In 2014, the company faced a sharp decline in retail sales in Ukraine by 42%, caused by Russian intervention in Ukraine. As a result, the management of Lukoil agreed to sell 100% of its subsidiary Lukoil Ukraine to the Austrian company AMIC Energy Management, which was announced at the end of July 2014.[27][28]
In 2015, it sold its service stations in Estonia and Ukraine, and in 2016, it sold its service stations in Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Cyprus.[30][31][32]"

 

[Omega]

Yes. That's the one I was referring to. Not exactly a filled out application for membership form is it?

And it was highly unlikely that Russia would join NATO after the spate of invasions and disputes with neighbouring territories that went on in the previous and subsequent years. Azerbaijan, Moldova, Georgia (twice) and Ukraine (twice).

What's your point here? That Russia was wronged by not being able to join NATO and had a hissy fit, so it's all NATO's fault? Forgetting all the invasions and disputes of course.

My point is that a powerful country can do whatever they please, no justice, just greed. And this applies to us too.
My other point is that politicians are fooling us presenting situation as if there are only two ways forward - give in to Putin or escalate further, - but there are other options too. They are playing not only with our lives, but the lives of our families, they distract us from the catastrophic consequences of the risk escalating the situation further

 

[Chippy_Tea]

He warned us not to allow Ukraine to use our missiles on his soil we have and now he says he has every right to defend Russia against us, Biden has dropped us in deep **** to screw Trump this is not where we wanted to be when this kicked off, as I said he doesn't play by the rules of war this could easily end badly for us all.

 

[Larse]

I think I misunderstood you. To me, the reason is always financial. 2014 war was merely to stop Ukraine joining NATO quickly. However, Ukraine started pushing Russian companies out because they were replacing them with Western companies. Then Russian oligarchs decided to compensate the losses and this triggered 2022. One led to the other, all sides could deescalate, but did not

I agree that it's always financial, but not with the trigger point. The economic elephant in the room was the renewal of EU accession talks that had been reversed by Yanukovych and his consequent self-removal. Joining NATO would not have been as economically significant as joining a large trading bloc, the existence of which on Russia's doorstep would form a sharp contrast with Russian living conditions and economic inequality.

Joining NATO would however have made invasion very risky if not impossible, so two birds, one stone. Not forgetting that this strategy had worked with Georgia and Moldova.

But at the heart of this is the fact that Russia is a kleptocracy and Ukraine under Yanukovych was supposed to be another client kleptocracy like Belarus. So yes, successive Ukrainian governments have sought to (a) remove Russian influence from its economy and (b) crack down on corruption. Both being interchangeable. This being the inevitable reaction to Yanukovych and his cronies' corruption (Yanukovych alone is believed to have embezzled $37 billion from Ukraine's economy).

But all of this came after the 2014 invasions, not before. So perhaps they could be motivations for the subsequent 2022 invasion. Certainly the almost complete blind eye turned to those initial 2014 invasions would have emboldened Putin to make a grab for the rest of Ukraine, which was undoubtedly the aim of the Feb 22 invasion. The problem now is that if he is allowed free rein to annexe the entirety of Ukraine, he will not stop there. He has openly stated that he would like to 'return' the Baltic states to Russia.

 

[Larse]

He warned us not to allow Ukraine to use our missiles on his soil we have and now he says he has every right to defend Russia against us, Biden has dropped us in deep **** to screw Trump this is not where we wanted to be when this kicked off, as I said he doesn't play by the rules of war this could easily end badly for us all.

There have been so many red lines set by Putin, there's a Wikipedia page devoted to them. All kinds of 'escalations' have been mentioned as being red lines likely to lead to action against the west. The supply of F16s, tanks, Germany supplying weapons, Patriot missile systems etc. The reactions to these red lines being crossed have variously been either more civilian targets in Ukraine being hit or the equivalent of a sharply worded letter.

This one seems to be a combination of both with the addition of using a woowoo scary ICBM. Maybe he's serious, but there have been so many red lines crossed with virtually no real escalation, you'd have to wonder should these be taken seriously at all. And does a kleptocrat burn down the world when the alternative is to keep his wealth and keep making threats to scare the world so he can continue his imperial ambitions?

Also Biden didn't do it to screw Trump. Unless by screwing Trump, you mean making sure that Trump has one less way to screw Ukraine.

 

[old dog new tricks]

He warned us not to allow Ukraine to use our missiles on his soil we have and now he says he has every right to defend Russia against us, Biden has dropped us in deep **** to screw Trump this is not where we wanted to be when this kicked off, as I said he doesn't play by the rules of war this could easily end badly for us all.

Sorry can't agree with this the UK made the decision on Storm Shadow, UK made the decision on Challenger II, Europe as whole have made a massive contribution not just the UK that Trump fake news the numbers tell a different story.

Biden just did what should have been done from the start, Russia deploys Iranian made drones and missiles, Chinese technology and weapons into Ukraine, it actively using North Korean troops in Ukraine, but suddenly it is wrong if Ukraine use its equipment to full potential?

I would actually say we should go further after the decision to scarp 6 of our military capabilities, why do we not offer them to Ukraine as the Russians have shown old kit is better than no kit. Yes watch keeper is now old but rather than scrap it let them see action or be adapted by Ukraine, the Puma's and Chinook yes they are old and past service life but in the front line this changes the safety threshold disappears, to be brutal they will probably become cannon fodder but why not get the use out of them in the meantime?

Wont happen but the A10 Tank buster would be interesting to see how it matched up flies so low and slow that avoids most air defences and eats tanks and light infantry for breakfastm the US keep threatening to ditch it gift some see how they do as the US troops love them for close support. Not sure how they will match up against the current drone technology tho.

Well if we re now be classed actively being part of the war then remove all restrictions and actively support and allow kit to be used to its full potential.

Putin keeps ranting about his red lines whilst he breaks every international law and tramples over human rights, if its gloves off them actually make it gloves off.

Has now been confirmed that Russia informed the US via the Nuclear Risk Reduction channels, so this was a clear effort to AVOID a nuclear conflict as he was aware the west can monitor this launch and sought to avoid the prospect of a full retaliation.

 

[Larse]

Has now been confirmed that Russia informed the US via the Nuclear Risk Reduction channels, so this was a clear effort to AVOID a nuclear conflict as he was aware the west can monitor this launch and sought to avoid the prospect of a full retaliation.

Yes. Meant to mention this earlier but forgot. Was the reason the US closed its embassy in Kyiv temporarily.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

My point is that a powerful country can do whatever they please, no justice, just greed.

Except powerful countries do not rely on North Korean troops and ammunition to defend their own borders. Russia is not as powerful as it thinks it is, as evidenced by a three-day operation to take Ukraine turning into a three-year deadlock.

And any country should not have unlimited rights to invade other countries, and should not be surprised if other powerful countries object.

To me, the reason is always financial.

Well if you think that's Putin's sole driver, then why should one of the world's richest men risk his nice life and further opportunity for profit, by launching the first nuke? Armageddon is really bad for business.

But such a narrow focus will ignore other motivations like revenge and power. Putin spent much of his 30s in East Germany, and was there when the wall came down. He seems to regard Eastern Europe's desire for freedom and self-determination as a plot by the West to humiliate Russia, and part of this seems to be motivated by revenge for that "humiliation". And a big factor in 2014 was wanting to "get back" Crimea and in particular Sevastopol - it's always been important to Russia to get access to warm-water ports that don't freeze in winter, aside from any concept that Crimea "belonged" to Russia for historical reasons. It's a bit like the way Britain thought that the Suez Canal "belonged" to us by right and by history even after the Suez crisis - but we didn't go and invade Egypt to get it back. Then 2022 was all about creating a land bridge to Crimea - and they hoped to take the rest of the Black Sea coast all the way to the Dniester river - they've maintained an army of occupation in Transnistria since 1992.

Putin is just following the grand strategy laid out by his mentor Aleksandr Dugin in his 1997 book The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia - here's a flavour :
The textbook advocates a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian secret services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia's gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries. The book states that "the maximum task [of the future] is the 'Finlandization' of all of Europe".

In Europe:
Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. The Kaliningrad Oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term "Moscow–Berlin axis".
France should be encouraged to form a bloc with Germany, as they both have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".
The United Kingdom, merely described as an "extraterritorial floating base of the U.S.", should be cut off from the European Union.
Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".
Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.
Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian–Russian sphere, although he later writes that they should be integrated into Russia rather than obtaining national independence.
Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia and the Republic of North Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.
Belarus and Moldova are to become part of Russia, not independent.
Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere. This may involve splitting Poland between German and Russian spheres of influence.
Romania, North Macedonia, Serbia, "Serbian Bosnia", and Greece – "Orthodox Christian collectivist East" – will unite with "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".
Ukraine (except Western Ukraine) should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible according to Western political standards. As mentioned, Western Ukraine (comprising the regions of Volynia, Galicia, and Transcarpathia), considering its Catholic-majority population, are permitted to form an independent federation of Western Ukraine but should not be under Atlanticist control.

In the Middle East and Central Asia:
The book stresses the "continental Russian–Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization".
Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow–Tehran axis"....

In the Americas, United States, and Canada:
Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States and Canada to fuel instability and separatism against neoliberal globalist Western hegemony, such as, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists" to create severe backlash against the rotten political state of affairs in the current present-day system of the United States and Canada. Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social, and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".

This was in 1997. Any of it sound familiar?

 

[old dog new tricks]

Wow almost looks like Putin's play book except i do not think he has that much a plan tbh going by recent events.

My only concern is as he reaches the later stages of his life that he will want to leave some form of legacy and may resort to silly measures to achieve it, but on the other hand ,money talks and his backers will not accept a nuclear war or any war with wider Europe or the US, that's bad for business!

If we think Putin is ruthless the organised criminals that back him are far scarier and will stop at nothing to protect their assets and lifestyle

 

[Omega]

He warned us not to allow Ukraine to use our missiles on his soil we have and now he says he has every right to defend Russia against us, Biden has dropped us in deep **** to screw Trump this is not where we wanted to be when this kicked off, as I said he doesn't play by the rules of war this could easily end badly for us all.

The ability "not to play by the rules" is an indicator of high intellectual capabilities as long as nobody can stop them. Look at our financial sector - they keep screwing us up, it is immoral, but they always get away with it

 

[Larse]

The ability "not to play by the rules" is an indicator of high intellectual capabilities as long as nobody can stop them. Look at our financial sector - they keep screwing us up, it is immoral, but they always get away with it

For a given value of "getting away with it". The reality is that even if individuals by and large escaped scot free, the industry became much more heavily regulated. Doubtless the wheel will turn and regulation may be loosened, but it's not a given.

 

[Omega]

I agree that it's always financial, but not with the trigger point. The economic elephant in the room was the renewal of EU accession talks that had been reversed by Yanukovych and his consequent self-removal. Joining NATO would not have been as economically significant as joining a large trading bloc, the existence of which on Russia's doorstep would form a sharp contrast with Russian living conditions and economic inequality.

Joining NATO would however have made invasion very risky if not impossible, so two birds, one stone. Not forgetting that this strategy had worked with Georgia and Moldova.

But at the heart of this is the fact that Russia is a kleptocracy and Ukraine under Yanukovych was supposed to be another client kleptocracy like Belarus. So yes, successive Ukrainian governments have sought to (a) remove Russian influence from its economy and (b) crack down on corruption. Both being interchangeable. This being the inevitable reaction to Yanukovych and his cronies' corruption (Yanukovych alone is believed to have embezzled $37 billion from Ukraine's economy).

But all of this came after the 2014 invasions, not before. So perhaps they could be motivations for the subsequent 2022 invasion. Certainly the almost complete blind eye turned to those initial 2014 invasions would have emboldened Putin to make a grab for the rest of Ukraine, which was undoubtedly the aim of the Feb 22 invasion. The problem now is that if he is allowed free rein to annexe the entirety of Ukraine, he will not stop there. He has openly stated that he would like to 'return' the Baltic states to Russia.

Putin said, that whose who don't want the return of USSR - those don't have the heart, those who want the return of the USSR - they don't have the brains. So, Baltic is definitely out of the table and Putin agrees with this
I am not sure what you meant about EU, but having a border with the EU would immensely beneficial to Russia as long as this is not a border with NATO too. Though probably on one condition - EU elite accepts Russian elite. It is the elite who always has the financial goals in any conflict.
I am under impression that we are also a kleptocracy, though Trump is a definite outlier - most of our Prime Ministers come from Eton, this is a good indicator that our democracy is not very democratic. However, I do not see anything better than this . Only pity that our current politicians are demagogues

 

[Laner]

A nuclear conflict will sort out over population, so it’s not all bad.

 

[Omega]

A nuclear conflict will sort out over population, so it’s not all bad.

Well, if you don't mind dying, then it is your choice. However, don't decide for others

 

[Omega]

Wow almost looks like Putin's play book except i do not think he has that much a plan tbh going by recent events.

My only concern is as he reaches the later stages of his life that he will want to leave some form of legacy and may resort to silly measures to achieve it, but on the other hand ,money talks and his backers will not accept a nuclear war or any war with wider Europe or the US, that's bad for business!

If we think Putin is ruthless the organised criminals that back him are far scarier and will stop at nothing to protect their assets and lifestyle

I hope this is not the last warning from Putin. It looks like there is no more ways to escalate, but there are lots:
1. Putin gives nuclear weapons to Iran
2. Putin gives a warning that the nuclear strike is imminent. I would expect we will have at least one sensible politician who will call him. Putin will record the conversation and they say that the nuclear strike was called off because we understood the gravity of the situation
There are still lots of options. However, the more complicated the game gets, the higher the probability for something to go wrong. And then... boom
Both sides will escalate, and most likely this will end up in a nuclear conflict. Russia will disappear, maybe we too
To me, being a Programme Manager, this is not a programme as nobody even wants to address the risks, but a stupid gamble