Russia - General Discussion.

[STURM]

Sturm....
With respect, if everybody “knows” that, then maybe it should be included in the calculations.

If anyone here by now is still unaware that this invasion is unprovoked and illegal and that because of stiff courageous Ukrainian resistance; an isolated Putin is in a very desperate situation and will have to resort to desperate measures; they've seriously lost the plot... If however you see a need for it to ''be included in the calculations'' by all means ...

Deals made over Ukrainian land that do not include the Ukrainians are highly likely to either fail

I will only say that what appears sound on paper doesn't always appear so in reality and that history is full of examples in which the interests of smaller powers are sacrificed at the alter of big power interests....

Not saying this will happen though; merely pointing out that what the Ukraine desires as part of its end game and what it gets can be two profoundly different things. It's not inconceivable that if presented with an opportunity for a lasting peace; which does not include giving in too much to Russia but entails certain adjustments which are at odds to statements they're currently making; the Ukrainians might be willing.

 

[Cooch]

With reference to the above, I’d like to challenge anyone who thinks that negotiating with Putin under the threat of nukes, will produce a result that can be trusted, to tell us why.

We have already had guarantees of Ukrainian sovereignty, independence and borders .... and those guarantees have been broken. This is not about morality. It is not about whether anyone “likes” one side more than the other. It is about whether a deal entered into by deal-breakers, can be trusted.

Especially when one of them has just had it proven to him that threatening to use nukes, gets him what he wants.

 

[STURM]

With reference to the above .

Not my kind of thing but I did enjoy 'Kim'.

I’d like to challenge anyone who thinks that negotiating with Putin under the threat of nukes, will produce a result that can be trusted, to tell us why.

Granted. I'd like to challenge anyone who thinks that warnings and threats from NATO and various Western leaders will actually result in Putin backing off.

This is not about morality. It is not about whether anyone “likes” one side more than the other. It is about whether a deal entered into by deal-breakers, can be trusted.

It was never was about morality but about common interests and shared concerns. Irrespective of all the warnings, hubris and other things; NATO has no desire - if it can help it - for things to get to the next level... Neither is Putin for that matter but the difference he is willing to take things to the next level if he feels he had no choice...

 

[ngatimozart]

The Black Sea .... or if you wanted to be more controversial Snake Island as tonnyc pointed out. You get all the terrifying visuals, but you can keep a straight face and call it a test rather than combat use.

I don't even think the radiation issue would be as severe as people assume. There have been a LOT of nuclear tests done over the years -

one more to prove a point won't be beyond Putins line of thinking..

I also don't believe NATO would want to get directly involved at this level, but it certainly would stoke debate in Europe and may lead to calls to "bring a peace deal to the table" even if it comes at a cost to Ukraine. I.e Crimea

"I don't even think the radiation issue would be as severe as people assume." Tell that to the UK & NZ nuclear test veterans who are dying from radiation damage caused by the British OP GRAPPLE tests in the 1950s. Plus their children and grandchildren who have genetic damage because of those tests. How much do you know about nuclear radiation?

Next point. Putin and Russia have been told in no uncertain terms what the consequences will be if he uses a nuke. Russia will "suffer catastrophic consequences". That leaves no wiggle room for anybody. NATO will respond because at least one member will trigger Article V. Which member triggers it first depends upon which one detects the radiation in their territory first.

Ukraine war: Biden warns Putin not to use tactical nuclear weapons

The US president says Russia will become more of a pariah than ever if such weapons are used.

www.bbc.com

Russia faces 'catastrophic' consequences if it uses nuclear weapons, U.S. warns

Russian President Vladimir Putin renewed his nuclear threats last week as he escalated his war in Ukraine by calling up reservists and moving to annex occupied areas.

www.nbcnews.com

With respect, not so.
I’m deliberately not going to name names, because this does not need to become political, but...

I can point to a racial group in this country - in which I have family - in which over 50% are economically and socially indistinguishable from the rest of society. At levels like this, it becomes blindly obvious that group membership is not the determining factor. At the same time, there are sub-groups into which huge resources are poured, yet amongst them, violence and substance-abuse are endemic.... and children are actively discouraged from attending school or getting useful skills.

Actually I will name one, because I have ancestry amongst them. The Irish.
Most Australians are familiar with the Ned Kelly mythos in which Ned claimed to be rebelling against the English on behalf of the poor, downtrodden Irish. Reality is that Ned had a gift of the gab and a penchant for stealing other people’s property, something he later boasted of doing on a large scale before he became notorious. Ned had never seen Ireland. In contrast, there were more Irishmen in the Police Party at Stringybark Creek, than in the Kelly Gang. The Judge who sentenced Ned to death for those murders, was Irish-born..... and to top it off, in the year that Ned was hanged, the Irish-born leader of the Eureka-Stockade rebellion - Peter Lalor - was elected Speaker of the Victorian Legislative Assembly.

The fallacy is in arguing that “anybody” can succeed, because not everybody can succeed in any group. The vast majority lack the skills, intelligence and drive necessary. What matters, is that membership of a particular group does not deny you the opportunity.

I am Maori and Irish and that can be a problem because both groups like to sing, drink, eat, and fight, and not necessarily in that order. That's why we are able to run fast - so's we can out run the paddy wagon. Mind you it's not as bad as being Maori and Scottish when one half of you wants to get drunk and the other half of you doesn't want to pay for it. Us Irish have always been misunderstood. I am aware of the group who you are talking about because my sister works with some of them over west. I have my own theories about their circumstances and causes for that, but that's neither here nor there.

I don't know if it is possible to use such an analysis WRT Russia because it does have a long history of oppression, imperialism, and expansionism. Whilst Napoleon's great walkingabout of 1812 and the German invasion of WW2 have given it reason to be wary of European powers, it's own behavior over the centuries certainly has caused Europeans and others to be equally wary of it. Over the centuries Moscow / St Petersburg were ever expanding wanting more and more, eventually covering something like five time zones; the only country to do so. Even Aussie only covers two time zones - I am not including the SA 1/2 hour difference; and the US / Canada three time zones.

The European nations and later the US were no saints and when they created their empires they wrought some horrors upon the world. However as time progressed they "grew up" and became less autocratic and oppressive although some had lapses. Unfortunately Russia didn't and hasn't because it never really had an "enlightenment" where the likes of serfdom was put to rest and basic rights and powers began devolving from the aristocracy to the Parliaments. In Russia this never happened until after the Tsars were deposited and communism eventually took control. Unfortunately, the serfs and peasants swapped one form of slavery and oppression for another. When it did overthrow communism and did have a chance of finding what it really wanted as a nation, it was taken over by ex KGB types and robber barons, who reinstituted oppression whilst stealing everything possible.

Hence I cannot really accept your argument that the current Russian leadership, political elite, and nation are in the same league as those whom you speak of, because the Russians, especially the leadership and political elite, had a choice whereas the minority group that you speak of haven't had a choice. The Russian leadership and political elite chose to interfere in Ukrainian internal affairs in order to destabilize it and go to war in order to eradicate Ukraine from the face of the Earth.

 

[Cooch]

A further note on Putin and the theory that he is “backed into a corner”.

Regardless of speculation by academics and the media, Putin’s position does not absolutely depend on winning this war. As long as the Army and Security forces continue to work for him, he can maintain power. He rules with the support of other powerful men who command these arms, not “the people”. It is when he loses their support that he is done for.

So as long as THEY think that they have options - that they can maintain their power by getting rid of Putin - then “Russia” is not “backed into a corner”. They can persuade Putin to jump out his own window, declare their willingness to withdraw and probably come out of it ok. Putin himself can’t launch a nuke without going through these gentlemen. They are his chain-of-command, and some of them will be in a position to nix any launch-orders.

They are likely to do so if they are convinced that such an order would only drag them down with Putin.

Yes, I know that we tend to use “Russia” and “Putin” interchangeably as a kind of shorthand for the mechanism of Russian government, but there are times when we need to be a bit more specific.

 

[Cooch]

Granted. I'd like to challenge anyone who thinks that warnings and threats from NATO and various Western leaders will actually result in Putin backing off.

I see that you lack the willingness to meet my challenge, but I’m up for yours.

Firstly, you are demanding certainty about future events. Not having a bona-fide Prophet on hand, we can only deal in probabilities. Realists understand this, so I will offer the following.

1. “NATO threats” got us through the Cold War . We avoided WW3 by doing exactly what we should be doing now.... making it very, very clear that starting it would mean that EVERYBODY lost.

2. Appealing to what NATO “wants” is a false argument. We don’t “want” a world where any kind of war exists, but realists know that there will be wars as long as ruthless men think that war will get them what they want. The highest probability of avoiding war, is to be so ready for it, that any would-be aggressor decides that it’s not worth his while to start one.

3. Letting a Dictator take land because we were frightened of World War 2......is what led to World War 2. Wars are not started because we are ready to fight, but by Dictators becoming convinced that we are too afraid to fight.

 

[Larso66]

"It is when he loses their support that he is done for.""

I'm not so sure of this. Putin and his cable have spent ages turning an already brutal security and military organisation into their own creature. A lot of people are part of this and owe what power they have to it, so they will want to continue as they are. It is very hard to see an uprising of the scale needed to challenge their control and numbers. Also, there's almost no framework for an uprising to utilise, so even if one started in St Petersburg for instance, there's limits to how far it can go. I can't see the necessary country wide protests happening in any co-ordinated way. What protests that could occur will be crushed. Putin will have no qualms doing that.

 

[ngatimozart]

"It is when he loses their support that he is done for.""

I'm not so sure of this. Putin and his cable have spent ages turning an already brutal security and military organisation into their own creature. A lot of people are part of this and owe what power they have to it, so they will want to continue as they are. It is very hard to see an uprising of the scale needed to challenge their control and numbers. Also, there's almost no framework for an uprising to utilise, so even if one started in St Petersburg for instance, there's limits to how far it can go. I can't see the necessary country wide protests happening in any co-ordinated way. What protests that could occur will be crushed. Putin will have no qualms doing that.

I agree to a point. His own people (within his cabal) could quite easily defenestrate him if they have to, but the general Russian population doesn't have the wherewithal to overthrow the regime. The FSB would be all over it pretty soon. The only way an armed insurrection could occur is if the military did it, and they would have to get the GRU onside first.

 

[John Fedup]

"I don't even think the radiation issue would be as severe as people assume." Tell that to the UK & NZ nuclear test veterans who are dying from radiation damage caused by the British OP GRAPPLE tests in the 1950s. Plus their children and grandchildren who have genetic damage because of those tests. How much do you know about nuclear radiation?

Next point. Putin and Russia have been told in no uncertain terms what the consequences will be if he uses a nuke. Russia will "suffer catastrophic consequences". That leaves no wiggle room for anybody. NATO will respond because at least one member will trigger Article V. Which member triggers it first depends upon which one detects the radiation in their territory first.

Ukraine war: Biden warns Putin not to use tactical nuclear weapons

The US president says Russia will become more of a pariah than ever if such weapons are used.

www.bbc.com

Russia faces 'catastrophic' consequences if it uses nuclear weapons, U.S. warns

Russian President Vladimir Putin renewed his nuclear threats last week as he escalated his war in Ukraine by calling up reservists and moving to annex occupied areas.

www.nbcnews.com

I am Maori and Irish and that can be a problem because both groups like to sing, drink, eat, and fight, and not necessarily in that order. That's why we are able to run fast - so's we can out run the paddy wagon. Mind you it's not as bad as being Maori and Scottish when one half of you wants to get drunk and the other half of you doesn't want to pay for it. Us Irish have always been misunderstood. I am aware of the group who you are talking about because my sister works with some of them over west. I have my own theories about their circumstances and causes for that, but that's neither here nor there.

I don't know if it is possible to use such an analysis WRT Russia because it does have a long history of oppression, imperialism, and expansionism. Whilst Napoleon's great walkingabout of 1812 and the German invasion of WW2 have given it reason to be wary of European powers, it's own behavior over the centuries certainly has caused Europeans and others to be equally wary of it. Over the centuries Moscow / St Petersburg were ever expanding wanting more and more, eventually covering something like five time zones; the only country to do so. Even Aussie only covers two time zones - I am not including the SA 1/2 hour difference; and the US / Canada three time zones.

The European nations and later the US were no saints and when they created their empires they wrought some horrors upon the world. However as time progressed they "grew up" and became less autocratic and oppressive although some had lapses. Unfortunately Russia didn't and hasn't because it never really had an "enlightenment" where the likes of serfdom was put to rest and basic rights and powers began devolving from the aristocracy to the Parliaments. In Russia this never happened until after the Tsars were deposited and communism eventually took control. Unfortunately, the serfs and peasants swapped one form of slavery and oppression for another. When it did overthrow communism and did have a chance of finding what it really wanted as a nation, it was taken over by ex KGB types and robber barons, who reinstituted oppression whilst stealing everything possible.

Hence I cannot really accept your argument that the current Russian leadership, political elite, and nation are in the same league as those whom you speak of, because the Russians, especially the leadership and political elite, had a choice whereas the minority group that you speak of haven't had a choice. The Russian leadership and political elite chose to interfere in Ukrainian internal affairs in order to destabilize it and go to war in order to eradicate Ukraine from the face of the Earth.

FYI, Canada actually has 4 1/2 time zones.

 

[STURM]

I see that you lack the willingness to meet my challenge, but I’m up for yours.

Didn't even realise there was a challenge.... To first be 'willing' to do something; one must be aware there's a need to... I was also not aware that I had presented a challenge.

“NATO threats” got us through the Cold War . We avoided WW3 by doing exactly what we should be doing now....making it very, very clear that starting it would mean that EVERYBODY lost.

This isn't a NATO versus anyone else debate or who's right or wrong. I really appreciate the heads up on NATO but it wasn't as if I questioned the validity or purpose of NATO.

Yes ''you'' avoided WW3 but let me remind you that the Soviets too had no desire for WW3; it wasn't only “NATO threats” as you put which got ''you'' through the Cold War but the fact that the Soviets never reached a point where they felt that war had to be waged. The fact that NATO had nukes was a major deterrent [no doubt at all] but the Soviets too had nukes and we now know that they planned to use tactical nukes at a very early stage of a war; in short they were prepared for a nuclear war and we more than willing to bear the consequences if they had no other choice.

Getting back to the present; despite the certainty of a major NATO reaction in the event he uses a nuke; Putin will still probably use it if he feels he has no choice - you spoke of probabilities; there's a probability....

The highest probability of avoiding war, is to be so ready for it, that any would-be aggressor decides that it’s not worth his while to start one.

Sound in principle but it's might not always work. This isn't a PowerPoint brief or an Excel spread sheet where everything looks neat and logical. You make it sound so clear cut and written in stone but what happens if one is ''ready for it'' but faces a dictator [or anyone else] who is still ready to fight.

Letting a Dictator take land because we were frightened of World War 2......is what led to World War 2. Wars are not started because we are ready to fight, but by Dictators becoming convinced that we are too afraid to fight.

You spoke about probabilities and about being a realist. Well I'll say it again - chances are the Ukrainians might have to make certain concessions as part of any future peace deal and chances are that Ukraine's backers might pressure the Ukraine in making certain concessions. That's the reality and no I'm not suggesting that Russia be rewarded by being allowed to keep everything it holds or something similar. I don't see this as appeasement but reality and yes the Ukrainians should not be forced to do anything they don't want to but it's delusional to think that the Ukraine's backers will have zero say in the matter; after all they have their own interests to watch out for. It's also delusional or unrealistic to think that the Ukraine will not budge an inch if it means an end to the war. Whether or not Putin can be trusted is a different issue but the fact remains that at one point the war has to end.

Unless of course you see a scenario where a totally defeated Russia agrees unconditionally to withdraw from all lands it's holding [pre and post 24th February] and agrees to everything else expected of it without having any demands of its own - as realist I don't see this happening. I'll also say - again - that it's not unheard of for smaller powers to be sacrificed on the alter of big power politics/interests.

Wars are not started because we are ready to fight, but by Dictators becoming convinced that we are too afraid to fight. .

War are started due to various reasons; excessive hubris; not having the will to fight; underestimating or not really understanding the other side [the Vietnam war a prime example] ; not being politically ready to fight [Britain in 1938]; etc.

 

[Rob c]

The fallacy is in arguing that “anybody” can succeed, because not everybody can succeed in any group. The vast majority lack the skills, intelligence and drive necessary. What matters, is that membership of a particular group does not deny you the opportunity.

While you are not physically denied opportunity by your belonging to a group, Your up bringing and and the general ideology of the group including ethic beliefs held over generations are just as an effective block to progress by an individual. It is well understood that the first five or so years of a kids life are hugely influenceable in their adulthood.
I remember once reading of a then famous psychologist (cannot remember the name) saying give me the young children to the age of five and I will give you the man. Your upbringing in a high percentage of cases will shape you for the rest of your life.

 

[John Fedup]

While you are not physically denied opportunity by your belonging to a group, Your up bringing and and the general ideology of the group including ethic beliefs held over generations are just as an effective block to progress by an individual. It is well understood that the first five or so years of a kids life are hugely influenceable in their adulthood.
I remember once reading of a then famous psychologist (cannot remember the name) saying give me the young children to the age of five and I will give you the man. Your upbringing in a high percentage of cases will shape you for the rest of your life.

The environment versus genetics debate about an individual’s development is important but environmental considerations are very important IMHO. By environmental, I include the issues like malnutrition which is a significant issue in Africa and mental religious abuse (in numerous locations), great incentives for child soldiers and suicide bombers.

 

[seaspear]

Going back a few years and I can remember those days Prime minister Thatcher stood up to the Soviets
Margaret Thatcher on Anglo-Soviet relations (1979) (alphahistory.com)
Thatcher and the Soviet Union: The Iron Lady who helped bring down the ‘Evil Empire’ — RT
I have memories of being in Austria in 1980 of being told if hostilities started the tanks could be there in half an hour this was the fear factor back then , this article shows the then Soviet readiness for deployment
1987-09-01.pdf (cia.gov)

 

[Vanquish]

FYI, Canada actually has 4 1/2 time zones.

Actually Canada has 6 time zones covering 4 1/2 hours.

Time Zones - Open Government Portal

There are six time zones in Canada. From west to east the main time zones are: Pacific, Mountain, Central, Eastern and Atlantic. The island of Newfoundland observes a sixth time: it decided to set...

open.canada.ca

 

[John Fedup]

Actually Canada has 6 time zones covering 4 1/2 hours.

Time Zones - Open Government Portal

There are six time zones in Canada. From west to east the main time zones are: Pacific, Mountain, Central, Eastern and Atlantic. The island of Newfoundland observes a sixth time: it decided to set...

open.canada.ca

Should have known that. Keep forgetting about Atlantic time as I rarely visit there compared to NL. One other time confusion, Saskatchewan doesn’t use daylight savings time.

 

[Cooch]

While you are not physically denied opportunity by your belonging to a group, Your up bringing and and the general ideology of the group including ethic beliefs held over generations are just as an effective block to progress by an individual. It is well understood that the first five or so years of a kids life are hugely influenceable in their adulthood.
I remember once reading of a then famous psychologist (cannot remember the name) saying give me the young children to the age of five and I will give you the man. Your upbringing in a high percentage of cases will shape you for the rest of your life.

True in many ways….… and inconsistent with the idea that it is oppression by outsiders that is the problem.

 

[Cooch]

The environment versus genetics debate about an individual’s development is important but environmental considerations are very important IMHO. By environmental, I include the issues like malnutrition which is a significant issue in Africa and mental religious abuse (in numerous locations), great incentives for child soldiers and suicide bombers.

And again, these are all issues that a nation like Russia has under its own control. It is not the fault of “The West” if Russia does not feed and educate their children.
Those ethnic and cultural groups that value health, education and work, have a strong tendency to prosper. Those that blame fate or some other outside agency, do not.

 

[Cooch]

Didn't even realise there was a challenge.... To first be 'willing' to do something; one must be aware there's a need to... I was also not aware that I had presented a challenge.

Beg pardon, but I specifically use the word..

You may be too young to remember, but the Soviet doctrine of International Socialism made it quite clear that they regarded domination of the entire world by their system, a historical inevitability. It has been pointed out that Soviet military doctrine the design of Soviet forces and all Soviet military exercises were offensive in nature.

Your fallacy is in criticising strong responses to Russian actions on the grounds that they don’t guarantee good outcomes, while ignoring the fact that the kind of negotiations you want make future wars and future use of nuclear weapons, even more likely.

Giving Putin what he wants because he threatens, or uses , nuclear weapons will make it very clear to every belligerent nation that having such weapons will enable them to “win” . Giving that idea to Russia, North Korea, Iran or any other potential nuclear nation gives them more incentive to both obtain, and use them.

 

[STURM]

You may be too young to remember, but the Soviet doctrine of International Socialism made it quite clear that they regarded domination of the entire world by their system, a historical inevitability.

I'm quite aware that the Soviet end goal was spreading the socialist revolution to the rest of the world but this is quite different to suggesting that they were just waiting to launch a dastardly attack on the free world but were deterred by NATO.....

If anything they were paranoid about a NATO attack. We know that on a number of occasions during major NATO exercises the Soviet leadership was convinced that NATO was on the verge of launching a first strike. It was Soviet intel that convinced the leadership that an attack wasn't imminent.

It has been pointed out that Soviet military doctrine the design of Soviet forces and all Soviet military exercises were offensive in nature.

In Soviet and Russian doctrine going on the defensive is a temporary solution until such a time they can go on the offensive because only by going on the offensive can decisive results be obtained..... You'll have noticed that a similar approach is also adopted by several Western armies.

Your fallacy is in criticising strong responses to Russian actions on the grounds that they don’t guarantee good outcomes, while ignoring the fact that the kind of negotiations you want make future wars and future use of nuclear weapons, even more likely.

I actually think it's a fallacy on your part to assume what I suggested or mentioned makes ''future wars and future use of nuclear weapons, even more likely''. You make it sound as if it's written in stone or holy writ. Didn't you say something about about ''probabilities'' and about being a'' realist'' in a previous post.

Giving that idea to Russia, North Korea, Iran or any other potential nuclear nation gives them more incentive to both obtain, and use them.

North Korea and Iran want nukes primarily for regime survival; the nukes are to act as a deterrent against Western attempts at regime change. They gained that ''idea'' a long time ago and in the case of North Korea; having seen what happened to Saddam, Gadaffi and the Ukraine; is convinced more than ever that nukes are the only thing keeping the regime intact.

 

[John Fedup]

WRT to nuclear weapons and regime/sovereignty survival, the take home lesson for Ukraine is any negotiations on settlement with Russia will only be worthwhile if Ukraine gets some hikes back otherwise Russia will be back knocking the door down in 10 years or less.