Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war

[horsefly 4,326]

1 minute ago, BroadstairsR said:

Pure ad hominem distraction." That's rich coming from you.

Your original post was just a denial (laced with insults) of Hitchens's views without any basis of fact. Just conjecture. For example, you cannot possibly know the restraints, or otherwise, when you state "There are many fingers required to push the red button." 

Hitchens's views were also conjecture, but it is telling that such a high profile public figure known for his extreme views has such concerns that he chose to publish them in the way he did. They cannot be dismissed so readily and with such certainty.

I am not fond of the man, but found his interpretation of the situation disturbing and, to a certain extent, too extreme, but nevertheless worthy of debate.

Last attempt: "How do you see the outcome of this escalating war?"

You have, after all, stated that being unpredictable over the matter is a "childish view."

You must therefore be able to predict the end result.

Oh dear! It would take you seconds to research the facts about the complex processes and individuals involved in launching a nuclear war (In Russia and elsewhere). They do not involve a single individual with a red button. There is no button that Putin alone can press that would launch a weapon into the air; not conjecture, simple fact. 

Hitchin's is frequently derided precisely because he has made a career out of saying things that are deliberately extreme. He is standardly more concerned to promote his controversial profile than display any interest in the truth. Anyone with an ounce of nous would recognise the tripe he was likely to spout by reading his opening line, ""So it is left to me to tell you ...". As if all the thousands of experts and strategists engaged in assessing the right course of action in this war should be ignored in the face of his divine wisdom.

Last attempt: when you answer my question, ""Are you seriously suggesting that the response of Ukraine's allies in vastly increasing the amount of weaponry they are providing, and increasing the power of that weaponry, is not based upon rational evidence based predictions from their expert analysts and strategists about how those policies and decisions will effect the resulting course of the war?", then I will happily say how I think the war is likely to pan out. 

[TheGunnShow 6,100]

11 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Of course the paranoia is nonsense (I added a bit to my last response to you about NATO)

I'll post it again:

"It's purpose was to secure peace in Europe, to promote cooperation among its members and to guard their freedom – all of this in the context of countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union. The Alliance's founding treaty was signed in Washington in 1949 by a dozen European and North American countries."

BUT, we are not Russian. 

Sure, but the key issue here is that Russian political elites essentially want a modified version of the Soviet Union again, buttressed by what is considered to be a nuclear deterrent.

Would Western Europe need to guard its freedom so keenly if Russian political elites hadn't shown themselves so willing to invade? As @Yellow Fever made clear, history is not a bad guide. There are reasons why the Poles in particular are so hawkish - their history has made abundantly clear what happens when powerful neighbours are given an inch - namely they take a mile.

A Pole, in particular, needs no reminder of that. It's clear every single time they sing their national anthem.

Edited January 22, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[horsefly 4,326]

20 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Eh?

Struggling?

Christ! you really are strangely lacking in self-awareness. You just made up the following viewpoint and ascribed it to me despite the fact that it is YOUR words not mine : 

"I take it you believe Ukraine will win it, recover all its previous territories, and that Putin (and those behind him) will just retreat quietly with their tails between their legs?

The outcome of war is as predictable as that?

How naive. That's the only reason to feed Ukraine with weaponry, surely?"

There's only one person struggling here and it ain't me. It's the guy refusing to answer a single question and having to make things up to distract from that failure.

 

 

[BroadstairsR 2,232]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! It would take you seconds to research the facts about the complex processes and individuals involved in launching a nuclear war (In Russia and elsewhere). They do not involve a single individual with a red button. There is no button that Putin alone can press that would launch a weapon into the air; not conjecture, simple fact. 

Hitchin's is frequently derided precisely because he has made a career out of saying things that are deliberately extreme. He is standardly more concerned to promote his controversial profile than display any interest in the truth. Anyone with an ounce of nous would recognise the tripe he was likely to spout by reading his opening line, ""So it is left to me to tell you ...". As if all the thousands of experts and strategists engaged in assessing the right course of action in this war should be ignored in the face of his divine wisdom.

Last attempt: when you answer my question, ""Are you seriously suggesting that the response of Ukraine's allies in vastly increasing the amount of weaponry they are providing, and increasing the power of that weaponry, is not based upon rational evidence based predictions from their expert analysts and strategists about how those policies and decisions will effect the resulting course of the war?", then I will happily say how I think the war is likely to pan out. 

Yes, but that doesn't address the issue of the Russian (Putin's) response to defeat. Not a predictable matter .That is Hitchens's point, even though he "is more concerned about promoting his controversial profile" it is a concern held by many.

Or are we two the only one's concerned about this, then? Surely not?

I clearly believe that this is a matter of concern. You clearly do not.

Of course there are "complex processes and individuals concerned in launching a nuclear war Obvious of course even as far as Russia is concerned. But how do you know what these processes are or whether these individuals are not his supporters? He has made a very good job of eliminating dissenters and surrounding himself with support. In fact, Russia has a history of being ruled by omnipotent dictators. Putin is a dictator with immense control established over years, hardly an elected politician.He continues to have the support of the military.

You clearly cannot answer my question re: the outcome, and all you have done is repeat your justification for the West arming Ukraine and your reliance upon what experts, many of whom have predicted  that the Russian economy would have collapsed by now and did not foresee the support that Putin would receive in replenishing his armoury (from Iran for example) or army (latest from Syria) the continued income he receives for his gas and oil from alternative countries other than Europe.

I actually now believe, yes really, that the West had little alternative. But that doesn't make it the correct course of action, when only peace talks will bring this dangerous mess to an end, especially as it is clearly prolonging the conflict. Sleepy Joe needs to wake up, imo.

 

 

[Barbe bleu 837]

Im worried about the possibility of escalation.  Its already very serious and I fear for where this might go

Not the ukraine war. I mean on here.  Horsefly is already in red eye rage mode and  Broadstairs refuses to back down.   If no one stops in I fear that the essay writing will stop and the throbbing blood vessels on the foreheads of both will simply explode.

Edited January 22, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Yellow Fever 3,852]

13 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Yes, but that doesn't address the issue of the Russian (Putin's) response to defeat. Not a predictable matter .That is Hitchens's point, even though he "is more concerned about promoting his controversial profile" it is a concern held by many.

Or are we two the only one's concerned about this, then? Surely not?

I clearly believe that this is a matter of concern. You clearly do not.

Of course there are "complex processes and individuals concerned in launching a nuclear war Obvious of course even as far as Russia is concerned. But how do you know what these processes are or whether these individuals are not his supporters? He has made a very good job of eliminating dissenters and surrounding himself with support. In fact, Russia has a history of being ruled by omnipotent dictators. Putin is a dictator with immense control established over years, hardly an elected politician.He continues to have the support of the military.

You clearly cannot answer my question re: the outcome, and all you have done is repeat your justification for the West arming Ukraine and your reliance upon what experts, many of whom have predicted  that the Russian economy would have collapsed by now and did not foresee the support that Putin would receive in replenishing his armoury (from Iran for example) or army (latest from Syria) the continued income he receives for his gas and oil from alternative countries other than Europe.

I actually now believe, yes really, that the West had little alternative. But that doesn't make it the correct course of action, when only peace talks will bring this dangerous mess to an end, especially as it is clearly prolonging the conflict. Sleepy Joe needs to wake up, imo.

 

 

Russia or more particularly Putins regime will implode well before the inevitable defeat. As many have pointed out it's all really about power games now in a post conflict Russia.

Jo Biden has actually so far got this spot on.

[TheGunnShow 6,100]

20 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Yes, but that doesn't address the issue of the Russian (Putin's) response to defeat. Not a predictable matter .That is Hitchens's point, even though he "is more concerned about promoting his controversial profile" it is a concern held by many.

Or are we two the only one's concerned about this, then? Surely not?

I clearly believe that this is a matter of concern. You clearly do not.

Of course there are "complex processes and individuals concerned in launching a nuclear war Obvious of course even as far as Russia is concerned. But how do you know what these processes are or whether these individuals are not his supporters? He has made a very good job of eliminating dissenters and surrounding himself with support. In fact, Russia has a history of being ruled by omnipotent dictators. Putin is a dictator with immense control established over years, hardly an elected politician.He continues to have the support of the military.

You clearly cannot answer my question re: the outcome, and all you have done is repeat your justification for the West arming Ukraine and your reliance upon what experts, many of whom have predicted  that the Russian economy would have collapsed by now and did not foresee the support that Putin would receive in replenishing his armoury (from Iran for example) or army (latest from Syria) the continued income he receives for his gas and oil from alternative countries other than Europe.

I actually now believe, yes really, that the West had little alternative. But that doesn't make it the correct course of action, when only peace talks will bring this dangerous mess to an end, especially as it is clearly prolonging the conflict. Sleepy Joe needs to wake up, imo.

 

 

Let's focus on this bit in bold:

What is the correct course of action in your view, and what should be conceded/accepted as a foundation for it to take place?

[BroadstairsR 2,232]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Russia or more particularly Putins regime will implode well before the inevitable defeat. As many have pointed out it's all really about power games now in a post conflict Russia.

Jo Biden has actually so far got this spot on.

You seem certain.

Let's hope that you are correct.

I realise that I seem to be in a minority of one, on this forum at least but I and others are concerned when even the leader of Russia's Lower House (a moderate so far) has stated today that supplying Ukraine with tanks could lead to a "global catastrophe."

This is not nuclear blackmail, this is considered opinion from a significant Russian figure who is more familiar with Putin than any of us could possibly be.

P.S. I believe that Biden should have pressed for talks with Putin. Even the Trump managed that I believe.

[BroadstairsR 2,232]

27 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Let's focus on this bit in bold:

What is the correct course of action in your view, and what should be conceded/accepted as a foundation for it to take place?

Firstly, it needs to be accepted that the Russian paranoia is for real.

Secondly, a NATO peace force needs to be sent in to attempt to separate the combatants.

Thirdly, it has to be accepted by Ukraine that the Crimea is now part of Russia.

As for the Donbas, who knows? Perhaps a properly conducted and internationally supervised election to establish which country the populace would prefer to be in.

Whether either side can agree to this is unknown, but Ukraine is being slowly destroyed, relies on  American money to support its economy and people including children are being killed by the week.

Putin is losing home support since his drafts. He must be clearly concerned about his losses and the resolve of Zelensky and the West  and might well be war wary. Apparently he is a very sick man and may not even last long (Western reports.) Any replacement, not even extremists, have as little to lose as Putin, who has totally committed himself, by compromise. 

Right now this seems wishful thinking, but all wars have to end, and probably some compromise needs to be accepted.

This is where Biden comes into it. Nobody else has the clout. 

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[Yellow Fever 3,852]

26 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

You seem certain.

Let's hope that you are correct.

I realise that I seem to be in a minority of one, on this forum at least but I and others are concerned when even the leader of Russia's Lower House (a moderate so far) has stated today that supplying Ukraine with tanks could lead to a "global catastrophe."

This is not nuclear blackmail, this is considered opinion from a significant Russian figure who is more familiar with Putin than any of us could possibly be.

P.S. I believe that Biden should have pressed for talks with Putin. Even the Trump managed that I believe.

The Russian moderates are generally locked up or silenced. What you hear is just calibrated hyperbole targeted at your fears. Sabre rattling. 

Trump is an isolationist. Didn't and doesn't care about anything else other than himself - certainly not Ukraine, Europe or even NATO (or even the US law and constitution). Nobody rational outside the US as minimum should put any faith in him as you are certain to be hugely let down.

Of course all wars end with some talks - even WW1 and 2. However, Russia still has maximal intentions vs Ukraine (its complete annexation) and clearly has no intentions of withdrawing from the territories it has already illegally seized. Ergo it will have or be defeated on the battlefield if there is no internal coup first.

I'm sure Zalenski will concede a six foot plot  of Ukraine for Putin's body it that's what it takes for peace.

In reality I think Putin has already crossed the rubicon - there is no way back for him.

Edited January 22, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[TheGunnShow 6,100]

1 minute ago, BroadstairsR said:

Firstly, it needs to be accepted that the Russian paranoia is for real.

Secondly, a NATO peace force needs to be sent in to attempt to separate the combatants.

Thirdly, it has to be accepted by Ukraine that the Crimea is now part of Russia.

As for the Donbas, who knows? Perhaps a properly conducted and internationally supervised election to establish which country the populace would prefer to be in.

Whether either side can agree to this is unknown, but Ukraine is being slowly destroyed, relies on  American money to support its economy and people including children are being killed by the week.

Putin is losing home support since his drafts. He must be clearly concerned about his losses and the resolve of Zelensky and the West  and might well be war wary. Apparently he is a very sick man and may not even last long (Western reports.) Any replacement, not even extremists, have as little to lose as Putin, who has totally committed himself, by compromise. 

Right now this seems wishful thinking, but all wars have to end, and probably some compromise needs to be accepted.

 

There's your primary problem - the third one. Crimea is, to all intents and purposes in international law, Ukrainian. You're basically saying Ukraine should cede its territory and set a very shaky precedent in the process (basically Sudetenland for a new century, and double that for the Donbas). The problem there is compromising territory that isn't really a third party's matter to compromise. There are compromises to be made, but a sovereign state's own territory that they have been defending isn't it.

As much as I'll generally accept the idea that the populace should decide, I doubt you'd get agreement on it being properly conducted and internationally supervised, or indeed agreement to accept the results.

[Barbe bleu 837]

42 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Russia or more particularly Putins regime will implode well before the inevitable defeat. As many have pointed out it's all really about power games now in a post conflict Russia.

Jo Biden has actually so far got this spot on.

Would an abrams or two make it more spot on though?

[BroadstairsR 2,232]

20 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

There's your primary problem - the third one. Crimea is, to all intents and purposes in international law, Ukrainian. You're basically saying Ukraine should cede its territory and set a very shaky precedent in the process (basically Sudetenland for a new century, and double that for the Donbas). The problem there is compromising territory that isn't really a third party's matter to compromise. There are compromises to be made, but a sovereign state's own territory that they have been defending isn't it.

As much as I'll generally accept the idea that the populace should decide, I doubt you'd get agreement on it being properly conducted and internationally supervised, or indeed agreement to accept the results.

The history of the Crimea is extremely complicated. It was Russian before it was Ukranian, but retains a strong ethnic Russian populace. Note the highlighted first sentence of the last paragraph.

"In 1783, the Russian Empire annexed Crimea after an earlier war with Turkey. Crimea's strategic position led to the 1854 Crimean War and many short lived regimes following the 1917 Russian Revolution. When the Bolsheviks secured Crimea it became an autonomous soviet republic within Russia. During World War II, Crimea was downgraded to an oblast. In 1944 Crimean Tatars were ethnically cleansed and deported under the orders of Joseph Stalin, in what has been described as a cultural genocide. The USSR transferred Crimea to Ukraine on the 300th anniversary of the Pereyaslav Treaty in 1954.

After Ukrainian independence in 1991 the central government and Crimea clashed, with the region being granted more autonomy. The Soviet fleet in Crimea was also in contention but a 1997 treaty allowed Russia to continue basing its fleet in Sevastopol. In 2014, the Russians occupied the peninsula and organized an illegal referendum in support of Russian annexation, but most countries recognize Crimea as Ukrainian territory."

Wiki.

In the context of all that can this latest development be viewed as just another episode

in this complicated history?  In reality it is not just Truss who is ignorant of the the history of the whole area?

 

 

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[TheGunnShow 6,100]

3 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

The history of the Crimea is extremely complicated. It was Russian before it was Ukranian, but retains a strong ethnic Russian populace. Note the highlighted first sentence of the last paragraph.

"In 1783, the Russian Empire annexed Crimea after an earlier war with Turkey. Crimea's strategic position led to the 1854 Crimean War and many short lived regimes following the 1917 Russian Revolution. When the Bolsheviks secured Crimea it became an autonomous soviet republic within Russia. During World War II, Crimea was downgraded to an oblast. In 1944 Crimean Tatars were ethnically cleansed and deported under the orders of Joseph Stalin, in what has been described as a cultural genocide. The USSR transferred Crimea to Ukraine on the 300th anniversary of the Pereyaslav Treaty in 1954.

After Ukrainian independence in 1991 the central government and Crimea clashed, with the region being granted more autonomy. The Soviet fleet in Crimea was also in contention but a 1997 treaty allowed Russia to continue basing its fleet in Sevastopol. In 2014, the Russians occupied the peninsula and organized an illegal referendum in support of Russian annexation, but most countries recognize Crimea as Ukrainian territory."

Wiki.

 

 

 

By the very same logic, the Åland Islands are Swedish and in a 1917 referendum, around 95% of all Ålanders wanted to go back under Swedish rule, which was as they were until the Treaty of Fredrikshamn in 1809. Yet Sweden and Finland maintain excellent diplomatic relations and Åland is generally considered to be quite the success story ( @ÅlandicCanary should know best here, I know the basics from holidaying there three times).  In fact, Sweden and Germany could start a war with Denmark over Bornholm, although Bornholm has - generally - been Danish-ruled. Then there's Kaliningrad. Which was initially German/Teutonic Knight-ruled but the German government rescinded all claims to it as part of reunification.

European history has generally been so tumultuous, with so many territories changing hands, that acquiescing to power could cause a litany of further issues in the long run.

[BroadstairsR 2,232]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

By the very same logic, the Åland Islands are Swedish and in a 1917 referendum, around 95% of all Ålanders wanted to go back under Swedish rule, which was as they were until the Treaty of Fredrikshamn in 1809. Yet Sweden and Finland maintain excellent diplomatic relations and Åland is generally considered to be quite the success story ( @ÅlandicCanary should know best here, I know the basics from holidaying there three times).  In fact, Sweden and Germany could start a war with Denmark over Bornholm, although Bornholm has - generally - been Danish-ruled. Then there's Kaliningrad. Which was initially German/Teutonic Knight-ruled but the German government rescinded all claims to it as part of reunification.

European history has generally been so tumultuous, with so many territories changing hands, that acquiescing to power could cause a litany of further issues in the long run.

No. Sorry Gunn Show I feel your first paragraph is irrelevant. The history of this area is far more complicated and has resulted in much bloodshed and even ethnic cleansing.

Besides, the Crimea only became part of the Ukraine in 1954.

However, I am not using this fact to justify Putin's annexation, more to try to understand the reasons behind it.

"Firstly, it needs to be accepted that the Russian paranoia is for real."

As I said as my first pointbove re:peace talks.:

 

.

 

 

[TheGunnShow 6,100]

6 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

No. Sorry Gunn Show I feel your first paragraph is irrelevant. The history of this area is far more complicated and has resulted in much bloodshed and even ethnic cleansing.

Besides, the Crimea only became part of the Ukraine in 1954.

However, I am not using this fact to justify Putin's annexation, more to try to understand the reasons behind it.

"Firstly, it needs to be accepted that the Russian paranoia is for real."

As I said as my first pointbove re:peace talks.:

 

.

 

 

It isn't irrelevant at all. We're talking about the country that essentially rules it so the bloodshed and ethnic cleansing is not really of much relevance - it merely highlights the tumultuous history of the region. Not to mention, your source even says Russia ceded it to Ukraine in 1954, which arguably makes it even more unjustifiable. It's basically the territory equivalent of saying "here you go, have this, we agreed", then going back on that.

Crimea is Ukrainian under current international law, so any switch would basically ignore law.

I don't dispute that Russian paranoia is real. What I do dispute is that it can be a sound basis for negotiation.

[BroadstairsR 2,232]

"Crimea is Ukrainian under current international law, so any switch would basically ignore law."

We all accept that, but the issue here is the Russian response to defeat if Putin remains in control. Some dismiss this as unimportant, others are genuinely concerned that things could become nasty.

It is unpredictable, as is Putin. Do you dismiss it? Are those that don't in the wrong? 

"I don't dispute that Russian paranoia is real. What I do dispute is that it can be a sound basis for negotiation."

I actually said that "accepting" it should be a basis for negotiation.

•  1

 

 

[BroadstairsR 2,232]

2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Im worried about the possibility of escalation.  Its already very serious and I fear for where this might go

Not the ukraine war. I mean on here.  Horsefly is already in red eye rage mode and  Broadstairs refuses to back down.   If no one stops in I fear that the essay writing will stop and the throbbing blood vessels on the foreheads of both will simply explode.

I'm more worked up by the fact that I have flu-like symptoms at the moment and am stuck in.

Just passing the time really, although any response I get in reply to my views that becomes insulting and demeaning does invite a refusal to "back down."

I have my views, others have theirs. Each should be respected and not demeaned or twisted and intentionally misinterpreted. Once those attitudes are involved, things get nasty and transcend debate.

 

 

[TheGunnShow 6,100]

18 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

"Crimea is Ukrainian under current international law, so any switch would basically ignore law."

We all accept that, but the issue here is the Russian response to defeat if Putin remains in control. Some dismiss this as unimportant, others are genuinely concerned that things could become nasty.

It is unpredictable, as is Putin. Do you dismiss it? Are those that don't in the wrong? 

"I don't dispute that Russian paranoia is real. What I do dispute is that it can be a sound basis for negotiation."

I actually said that "accepting" it should be a basis for negotiation.

•  1

 

 

•  

The real matter with thinking too much about the Russian response to defeat is that you're nolens volens saying "we have to mitigate their tantrums in defeat".

Furthermore, what would "accepting" this paranoia as a basis for negotiation really mean? At the moment it merely seems to look like letting Russia have sovereign Ukrainian territory, without Ukrainian say-so, just to stop them going full cretin. And this is a Russia that Ukraine willingly ceded nuclear missiles to so that it would not be attacked in the first place as per the conditions of the Budapest Memorandum.

They've already demonstrated their sheer lack of reliability here. What more ground should we give in negotiation?

[BroadstairsR 2,232]

13 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

The real matter with thinking too much about the Russian response to defeat is that you're nolens volens saying "we have to mitigate their tantrums in defeat".

Furthermore, what would "accepting" this paranoia as a basis for negotiation really mean? At the moment it merely seems to look like letting Russia have sovereign Ukrainian territory, without Ukrainian say-so, just to stop them going full cretin. And this is a Russia that Ukraine willingly ceded nuclear missiles to so that it would not be attacked in the first place as per the conditions of the Budapest Memorandum.

They've already demonstrated their sheer lack of reliability here. What more ground should we give in negotiation?

Ok then.

Let the war be fought to the bitter end, whoever ends up the winners.

Let the missiles/rockets continue to rain upon Ukrainian citizens (who probably care less about the Crimea than their own and their families lives being in danger.).

Let young men continue to slaughter each other, either Ukrainian or Russian.

Let it escalate beyond predictability.

Boo to any attempt for compromise and peace. There is right on our side after all.

 

I consider this to be the most dangerous period in my lifetime, and I'm not talking about covid.

Boo to me being alarmist with my 'childish' concerns.

Edited January 22, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[TheGunnShow 6,100]

Well, what is there to compromise? Ukraine's territory shouldn't be on the table.

[BroadstairsR 2,232]

 

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Well, what is there to compromise? Ukraine's territory shouldn't be on the table.

Of course not, but it is.

Sorry Gunn Show, but I've finally given up and am incapable of further debate. Nobody seems capable of addressing my primary, and frequently mentioned, concern, so I won't bother repeating  it again.

 

[Yellow Fever 3,852]

10 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Well, what is there to compromise? Ukraine's territory shouldn't be on the table.

Saw this article today. Putin isn’t paranoid at all but just an expansionist calculating tyrant trying to recreate the Soviet empire.

Last few paragraphs I think are apt.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/22/vladimir-putin-ukraine-west-russia-president

 

 

[horsefly 4,326]

18 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Im worried about the possibility of escalation.  Its already very serious and I fear for where this might go

Not the ukraine war. I mean on here.  Horsefly is already in red eye rage mode and  Broadstairs refuses to back down.   If no one stops in I fear that the essay writing will stop and the throbbing blood vessels on the foreheads of both will simply explode.

Wrong again! The blood is bursting from my ears not through my eyes, eye sockets, or temporal veins. Attention to detail is important.

[horsefly 4,326]

18 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Yes, but that doesn't address the issue of the Russian (Putin's) response to defeat. Not a predictable matter .That is Hitchens's point, even though he "is more concerned about promoting his controversial profile" it is a concern held by many.

Yet, very obviously, the expert analysts and strategists of every country opposing Russia will indeed have engaged precisely in a continuing extensive and rigorous process of modelling/predicting all the various responses that are likely to result from Putin's defeat. I described Hitchins' banal claim, "who knows what Putin might do " as silly because it conflates the fact that no one can guarantee a particular outcome with the denial that there can be any kind of rational prediction based on expert knowledge and evidence. A statement like "Who knows what Putin might do" is entirely vacuous to a government considering how it should respond to his invasion. All areas of government policy and decision making depend on the analysis of experts and the evidence they provide for the predictions they make about the likely outcomes of a particular policy or decision. "Who knows what Putin might do" is vacuous because it provides no substantive evidence of any kind that can feed into the decision making processes involved in forming a response. To think otherwise would be to believe that there can be no response to any invasion or military threat from a nuclear power other than to acquiesce immediately to their demands, because, after all, "who knows what they might do" if they were defeated. 

The remarkable consensus of the multiple nations supporting Ukraine with increasing amounts of armaments of an increasing power required to drive Russian troops from Ukrainian land, is clear evidence that the expert advice of all those countries is that they they predict escalation to a nuclear war to be extremely unlikely. Hitchin's talk of nuclear Armageddon is little more than disingenuous scaremongering  designed to lure the gullible into supporting his specious "arguments". 

[horsefly 4,326]

18 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Firstly, it needs to be accepted that the Russian paranoia is for real.

Secondly, a NATO peace force needs to be sent in to attempt to separate the combatants.

Thirdly, it has to be accepted by Ukraine that the Crimea is now part of Russia.

First, I'm not sure what you mean by "Russian paranoia". Are you claiming that all Russians are paranoid about being invaded? What evidence do you have this, and how long has this been widespread through the nation? Certainly Putin enjoys spouting this narrative  to justify his invasion, but I remain to be convinced that widespread paranoia is real.

Secondly, the idea that a NATO peace force should be sent in to separate the combatants would be one sure way of guaranteeing a massive escalation of the war. Putin hates NATO and indeed blames it for the war in the first place. Indeed, his current narrative stresses time and again that Ukraine's resistance is nothing more than a proxy resistance on behalf of NATO. The idea he would contemplate accepting the presence of a NATO peace force is a total non-starter.

Thirdly, not only did Russia cede Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950s, it confirmed that decision in 1991 in a deal that saw Ukraine give up its nuclear weapons in return for a legally binding guarantee of the integrity of its borders (including its ownership of Crimea). Crimea remains Ukrainian territory irrespective of the presence of Russian invaders. You don't gain legal possession of a house by breaking in, violently ejecting the owners, and declaring "this is my house now". Ditto for another nations legally recognised territory.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

Those who committed terrorism in the Baltic should not be surprised that there are measures Germany can take that will stifle their bloodthirstiness, not to speak their profiteering from this war. What are the Ukrainian's plan for making peace, when they have no more country or infrastructure left and have taken Dombass back? hypothetically speaking, they must have plans to make peace/negotiate a cease fire, so they can rebuild at vast costs?

I'm sure those who don;t understand 'Russia's paranoia', spoken about in Putin's annual press gathering every year since 2015 will have a clever answer to give with regards to PEACE.

[Yellow Fever 3,852]

24 minutes ago, horsefly said:

First, I'm not sure what you mean by "Russian paranoia". Are you claiming that all Russians are paranoid about being invaded? What evidence do you have this, and how long has this been widespread through the nation? Certainly Putin enjoys spouting this narrative  to justify his invasion, but I remain to be convinced that widespread paranoia is real.

Secondly, the idea that a NATO peace force should be sent in to separate the combatants would be one sure way of guaranteeing a massive escalation of the war. Putin hates NATO and indeed blames it for the war in the first place. Indeed, his current narrative stresses time and again that Ukraine's resistance is nothing more than a proxy resistance on behalf of NATO. The idea he would contemplate accepting the presence of a NATO peace force is a total non-starter.

Thirdly, not only did Russia cede Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950s, it confirmed that decision in 1991 in a deal that saw Ukraine give up its nuclear weapons in return for a legally binding guarantee of the integrity of its borders (including its ownership of Crimea). Crimea remains Ukrainian territory irrespective of the presence of Russian invaders. You don't gain legal possession of a house by breaking in, violently ejecting the owners, and declaring "this is my house now". Ditto for another nations legally recognised territory.

Quite agree HF.

Russian 'paranoia' is a red herring as an excuse for Putin's actions. He knows the 'West' has no designs on Russia beyond the hope that it will reform itself into a modern democratic trustworthy state. However, he stokes this 'mad' aspect both at home and abroad (rather like Farage does with immigration) as a free hit but it's demonstrably false. 

I suspect that whereas before February 2022 the world had tacitly accepted Crimea had slipped into the RF now it will almost certainly be retaken as part of the price for Putin's errors. As long as it remains in RF hands it threatens the integrity of Ukraine.

Putin is frankly fighting a 19th/20th century imperialist war for territory. The final settlement will no doubt include displaced peoples very much like what happened to various German enclaves post WW2. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

17 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Those who committed terrorism in the Baltic should not be surprised that there are measures Germany can take that will stifle their bloodthirstiness, not to speak their profiteering from this war. What are the Ukrainian's plan for making peace, when they have no more country or infrastructure left and have taken Dombass back? hypothetically speaking, they must have plans to make peace/negotiate a cease fire, so they can rebuild at vast costs?

I'm sure those who don;t understand 'Russia's paranoia', spoken about in Putin's annual press gathering every year since 2015 will have a clever answer to give with regards to PEACE.

Paranoia? So why doesn't he allow an opposition?

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Paranoia? So why doesn't he allow an opposition?

you should have been at the press gathering and ask him that question. why did Myanmar kill the Rohinga by the thousands when they are peaceful Buddhists?