Annexation...

[Ithoriel]

Seems to me both sides here have made their positions quite clear and that neither side is going to convince the other of the rightness of their cause, so could we bring this to a close and agree to disagree?

To steal a thought, "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Dr. Strangelove

Time to lock the thread, perhaps?

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Watching it carefully

[flamingpig0]

My hope is that after Putin is gone whoever takes over releases the FSB files on who in western societies was receiving money from his regime

[Big Insect]

Time to lock the thread, perhaps?

I agree

[Gwydion]

I said it was difficult to discuss.

It is clearly not a clear cut issue.

A simple 'I'm right, you're wrong' approach does no service to anyone. I had hoped I was using some evidence and logic to put forward a different approach than the mainstream 'Putin's MAD!' argument, which really cuts no ice when you look at what he has done over the years.

US State Department papers and analysis by Western academics with no Russian axe to grind - John Mearsheimer in the US and Robert Wade at LSE for example  - suggest a different interpretation of how we got here than a simple expansionist Russia and a mad new Tsar. By seeking a more nuanced explanation than current media propaganda, such investigations are seeking not to undermine support for Ukraine, but to enable a rational approach to what happens next.

I'm sorry some people feel the thread should be shut down, I thought we were having a discussion rather than inflaming people.

I concur with John over the logic of MAD prevailing over the years and I want to get the best possible result for Ukrainians and the rest of us. A result I see as unlikely to be achieved through John Wayne gritted teeth and a stern eyed Clint Eastwood 'Do you feel lucky punk?' approach.

I make no apology for seeking a deeper understanding than bad guy/good guy, but I apologise if I have upset anyone.
That was not my intention.

[Leon]

I think we're good guys, both sides views have been put across clearly so no problem from here.  I guess the coming weeks will give us more of an indication as to how this conflict gets resolved, especially if Ukraine are able to continue making these advances and regain chunks of their land.

[John Cook]

I'm sorry some people feel the thread should be shut down, I thought we were having a discussion rather than inflaming people.........I apologise if I have upset anyone.

So am I.  So did I.  This forum tends to stifle threads that shows any sign of robust discussion by the participants.  I wonder why it has non-wargaming boards at all, of the kind that can only invite vigorous debate.
Anyway, no apology is necessary, not to me anyway and you certainly haven't upset me.
Mearsheimer's view was that Ukraine should remain a nuclear armed state to deter Putin.  Perhaps he was right about that.
For me it is simple a matter of right and wrong and I'll leave it there. 

[John Cook]

I agree

Why?  You don't have to read it.  It is quite an interesting discussion I thought.  Perhaps all Non-Wargaming discussion should be removed.

[Gwydion]

Thank you John, Best wishes.

[paulr]

I found the different perspectives informative, and the arguments clearly presented

Like some I was a little nervous about the possibility of the discussion descending into acrimony

I suspect this says more about the general level of discourse in public life than it does about the forum members involved

Thank you, Gentlemen

[Big Insect]

Why?  You don't have to read it.  It is quite an interesting discussion I thought.  Perhaps all Non-Wargaming discussion should be removed.

Because these sorts of contentious threads (especially when they appear to get very heated) drive away those members, new members, potential members who are just not interested in polarised political debates.
It is impossible t really know what a thread is about until you start reading it.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

For once Mark is right....

[Rhys]

having Just Burnt through this tread, I don't see anything that contentious (you should see historians arguing, thats an eye opener).
My  thoughts (take what you like)
-If Putin is such a nice reasonable bloke then why is Russian with all its natural resources such a poor impoverish nation?
-The Russian army as it curently stands is "broken" (counter arguments on the back of a postage stamp please). Their moral is very low and thats before a good cold winter with poor/no winter supplies.
-Their modern weapons have been shown to be far less effective than previously believed and seem to be best employed against civilian targets. And who would have though an autoloader was such a poor choice for a tank.
- The current troop densities will make it very hard to deploy a tactical Nuc in a military application (even at a river crossing point). And you couldn't use one in Kerson as that would contaminate the only water source for the Russian oblast of the Crimea.
I'm not sure how it will play out but I think there will be more "death by window" before its done.

[Matt J]

It's in a non-wargaming thread titled 'Annexation' and I don't think the debate is overtly political.

Robust debate is welcomed in my view as long as it doesn't get personal (and just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make it personal!).
I quite enjoy the cut and thrust of these debates.

[Matt J]

My fear is Putin may willingly exchange all his conventional forces in theatre and the black sea (NATO's threatened response) for a nuclear devastated Ukraine.
If he can't have it no one will....