I very vaguely remember... in the early years following The Wall coming down and break-up of USSR... some warned of a rising Russian 'leader' who was very 'nationalist' in intent. Was that Putin? I do not recall name.

Back then, I thought West far too quick to write off Russia as a potential future threat... but, of course, attention shifted to Middle east.

I think it's immensely difficult to have a rational conversation about this topic as there is so much propaganda and counter propaganda about.

We liked Putin back in the late 90s.

He was sober for a start, and Yeltsin had abandoned control of the country to corrupt oligarchs in league often with western mafia capitalism.

We had an ally, a strong ally who wanted to face against Islamist terror.
In 2000 he had suggested Russia join NATO.

He had his own problems with Islamist forces in Chechnya, and he was the first foreign leader to ring George W Bush post 9/11 and offer condolences and help. He facilitated the establishment of US bases in Central Asia for the invasion of Afghanistan.

The quid pro quo of course was no 'interference' in Russia's 'natural areas of interest' - the 'lost' provinces of Belarus, Ukraine, Moldovan transdniestria and the Transcaucasus region.

Someone in the US decided that not only was that unreasonable (despite the continuing existence of the Monroe Doctrine in the Americas) but actively interfered in destabilising pro Russian feelings in these regions.

NATO - pushed eastward against the understanding Russia thought it had (the US records of the 1990 meetings between Sec of State Baker and Gorbachev are available at the National Security Archive at George Washington University, Washington DC - online here - https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between

Despite this, the the US said in 2008 it wanted Georgia and Ukraine in NATO. This pushed Russia's 'surrounded' button. It may seem odd to our vision of the world but it's a Russian fear since Teutonic Knights and Polish/Lithuanian attacks in the West and Mongol/Tartar hegemony in the East.

The overthrow of the elected Ukrainian President Yanukovych (his 2010 election described by international observers to have been transparent, unbiased and an "impressive display" of democracy) by a mob consisting of students infiltrated by armed fascists (not Russian propaganda - you can see them in video and pictures in the Maidan) made Putin realise there was no deal to be done with a West that saw itself as the sole arbiter of what was acceptable in the world.

When Ukrainians wanted the President they had democratically elected (Yanukovych) to continue - Svoboda and Azov thugs killed 40+ people and injured hundreds more in an attack on protestors in Odessa . Then they replaced military units in the Donbas who would not fire on their Ukrainian compatriots who were against the Maidan coup and shot and shelled them into submission. Hardly surprising there was an uprising.

I don't condone or support Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

But if you want to understand how we got here it is worth checking out the last thirty years before blaming it all on 'Mad Vlad', a Russian land grab, or stealing rare earth metals (although the latter no doubt made a stronger case in planning meetings). This was not an out of the blue whim, and Putin had been trying to talk to us about it for fourteen years

We are snowed under with propaganda just as much as Russia is and it is no way to make a rational choice about pushing to join a war where we could end the world.

We should be looking for a negotiated settlement without provoking a NATO/Russian war we managed to avoid for forty three years in the Cold War.

Quote from: Gwydion on 02 October 2022, 12:02:52 PMWe should be looking for a negotiated settlement .........

What should this negotiated settlement achieve?  Ukraine gives up part or all of its territory siezed illegally, by any reasonable judgment, by Putin's Russia since 2014?  I don't think so.  Putin has annexed territory, in two invasions, belonging to a neighbouring country that was never a threat to Russia.  People seem to forget that Putin has form.  He attacked Georgia in 2008 in similar circumstances, using similar rationale, and sent his assassins twice to this country.  Putin has been talking, to anybody who cared to listen, about restoring a Soviet-style sphere of influence, since the fall of the Soviet Union.  I doubt very much if this is the last territorial demand Putin has to make in Europe.  I think he will carry on behaving the way he does until a stop is put to him.

Crimea was only part of Ukraine because of Khrushchev's misplaced largesse and Yeltsin's hasty drunken power grab with Shushkevich and  Kravchuk breaking up the USSR in 1991. A negotiated dissolution would have dealt with that issue as Crimea was clearly Russian.

What would a negotiated solution look like?

I don't know, but a prolonged bit of jaw-jaw would be better than protracted war-war.

(Re Putin and Georgia - the USA's sudden jump in 2008 to offer a NATO Membership Action Plan to Georgia {and Ukraine} despite French and German objections provoked this. Georgia misread the USA's bluster expecting military intervention in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is part of pattern of US provocation of Russia).

Ukraine is where my late father-in-law was born.  The rest of his family disappeared in 1939 when the Soviets grabbed Eastern Poland and incorporated it into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, formerly the Ukrainian People's Republic, itself annexed  by the Soviet Union in 1920.  Crimea was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in the 1950s but the history of Crimea goes back much further than that and it was never Russian until occupied in the 18th Century. 
But, none of this matters very much because, in 2014, Crimea was part of the territory of Ukraine.  It was recognised as such internationally.  Putin's annexation was illegal, and seen as such by all except his sympathisers and apologists.
Countries that joined NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union did so because they were afraid of Russia, and with very good reason. Trying to blame the US or NATO for provoking Putin is straight out of Moscow's 'song-book' –  provocation is what the Soviet Union and Russia have done for decades and only desisted in the past because of NATO, and because of the consequences of not doing so.
What we see now is history repeating itself.  You cannot negotiate with criminals, or appease them, nor should we.   
Perhaps if my home gets burgled I should negotiate with the burglar and let him keep the DVD player if he returns the TV and radio.  I don't ******* think so.

Calling me a Putin apologist and supporter simply proves what I said about the difficulty of having a rational discussion about this problem, not to mention a polite one.

Crimea was Ottoman and Tartar pre 1783.

The tough guy approach clearly did not work. Perhaps talking in 1999, 2008 and 2014 may have prevented us being in this mess now. But we are where we are and we have to start from here.

So what do we do?

1 Fight a direct war with Russia?
2 Continue to try and destroy Russia by a proxy war?
3 Negotiate?

A direct war is so unpredictable we risk world annihilation. Such a course is the action of a psychotic gambler.

A proxy war? Not as mad a course as 1 but one fraught with risk and financial ruin for all except the USA. And where does Russia begin and end now? And what is the end game? If we win we have a failed state, bitter and vengeful with the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world. A good plan for a safe and secure future?

Negotiate. Yes Putin will get something he wanted – but what? And what does Ukraine get? And what does the West get? To be negotiated, that is the point, which is better than shooting bombing and shelling each other in my opinion.

Quote from: Gwydion on 03 October 2022, 02:05:05 PM1 Fight a direct war with Russia?
2 Continue to try and destroy Russia by a proxy war?
3 Negotiate?

A direct war is so unpredictable we risk world annihilation. Such a course is the action of a psychotic gambler.

A proxy war? Not as mad a course as 1 but one fraught with risk and financial ruin for all except the USA. And where does Russia begin and end now? And what is the end game? If we win we have a failed state, bitter and vengeful with the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world. A good plan for a safe and secure future?

Negotiate. Yes Putin will get something he wanted – but what? And what does Ukraine get? And what does the West get? To be negotiated, that is the point, which is better than shooting bombing and shelling each other in my opinion.

I agree about the difficulty in discussing this.

I don't think a direct war would risk annihilation. Putin does not have the personal ability to launch a Nuclear strike, Only the ability to order it. His senior generals then have to ratify that decision. I agree they might agree to use tactical nukes, but I doubt it.  The West's response even on a conventional level would be devastating for Russia and the Generals will surely know this.  Even in that form, its more than any sane person would want.


The proxy war is far less risky. Financially the Nato can afford it. We have supplied limited kit and funds to Ukraine, but it seems to have had a huge impact on the war and caused large losses of men and materiel to the Russians. If we supplied more of the Nato kit that is sitting around doing very little it would help the Ukranians significantly.  Don't forget they are paying for quite a bit of kit themselves. we could also do it on a lend - lease basis. The Ukranians are not asking for charity , just for us to supply it

THe UK got into huge debt in WW2 and since the 1950's our standard of living has improved year on year.  So it might be tough for a time but we wre unlikely to be made bankrupt.

Negotiation is obviously the best way out. However, you need to negotiate from a position of strength. You also need two parties that are willing to negotiate. Currently, neither Ukraine or Russia are willing to budge.

Ukraine wants the areas taken returned, as do, I believe the majority of the residents of those areas who regard themselves Ukrainian even if they speak Russian as a first language. The  Russians say they are a part of Russia
I think the answer to this would be to get both sides to agree to abide by the results of free and Democratic elections in these areas.

However, until the Russians either replace Putin with a more reasonable leader, or get such a bloody nose that they realise holding these territories is untenable (like Afghanistan), they are unlikely to do this.

The Ukrainians while not wanting to relinquish these territories will only agree to negotiate when they are in a strong enough position to Guarantee that Russia will not try this again.

So that brings us back to the only answer for the immediate future - the proxy war. The West cannot afford to lose this lest Russia try to annex Europe. So the more support we give Ukraine the better.

Otherwise, we will be queuing for bread and driving the 21st century equivalent of a Trabant. 

Quote from: Gwydion on 03 October 2022, 02:05:05 PMCalling me a Putin apologist and supporter.........................

I called you no such thing.  Perhaps you could re-read what I wrote, which was that "Putin's annexation was illegal, and seen as such by all except his sympathisers and apologists."  That is a matter of fact.  Other than the usual suspects, the international community in the UN largely condemned it.  Yes, I know Crimea was once Ottoman territory, I said as much, "it was never Russian until occupied in the 18th Century".
Be that as it may, nobody is trying to destroy Russia by a proxy war.  That is, frankly, absurd – it has been tried before. Russia, on the other hand, certainly tried to destroy Ukraine by its illegal February invasion.  That it failed was a combination of Russian military incompetence, Ukrainian resistance, and support to Ukraine from its international friends, which it has every right to expect to receive.   
The 4th Option which you have overlooked is the one being pursued now, that Ukraine is provided with the means to resist, to the point that Putin, or somebody else in the Kremlin, realises that the game is not worth the candle. 
The "mess" as you put it, is one entirely of Putin's making and the "end game" must be that he does not profit from his aggression and seized Ukrainian territory is restored to it. 
Putin is an aggressive autocrat who is reviving the kind of expansive Russian nationalism that goes back to the Czars.  History shows us what happens when you try to negotiate with despots.  No latter-day Munich Agreement, thanks very much.

Quote from: Orcs on 03 October 2022, 04:17:31 PMI agree about the difficulty in discussing this.

I really don't understand why it should be difficult to discuss it.  The issues are pretty much black and white in my view.  I agree with you generally though.  Putin has to be stopped now, and emphatically.  If he isen't he will just feel able to pursue his adventures elsewhere.  As for nuclear war, MAD is as valid now as it was during the Cold War.

"In Europe and America there's a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mister Krushchev said, "We will bury you"
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It'd be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too
How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy?
There is no monopoly on common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology, regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the president?
There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie we don't believe anymore
Mister Reagan says, "We will protect you"
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

We share the same biology, regardless of ideology
But what might save us, me and you
Is if the Russians love their children too" - Sting

QuoteI think the answer to this would be to get both sides to agree to abide by the results of free and Democratic elections in these areas.

Orcs, I think you mean a democratic election. We had a Democratic election here in 2020 and we are still paying for it.

And Mike, 

Quote from: d_Guy on 04 October 2022, 03:25:56 AMOrcs, I think you mean a democratic election. We had a Democratic election here in 2020 and we are still paying for it.

And Mike, 

Yes, That's true.

I think we in the UK get a very opaque view of the US Political scene. Mainly what our media want us to believe

Forget about 'Free and Democratic Elections'.
Ukrainians ousted democratically elected pro-Russian leader. Current Leadership intensely supported in most of Ukraine. Russia... ?
'Debatable Lands' have just had Referendum... and NOBODY. except Russia, gives result ANY credibility. A 99% vote is a sick joke! But... has been done. There is no 'democratic' solution... only military... to a point where everything 'settles' to some extent. Maybe by end of 2023?

Negotiation? Ukrainians WON'T. Putin cannot afford to, or He's gone.
'Pray... and pass the ammunition'.

QuoteI really don't understand why it should be difficult to discuss it.  The issues are pretty much black and white in my view.  I agree with you generally though.  Putin has to be stopped now, and emphatically.  If he isen't he will just feel able to pursue his adventures elsewhere.  As for nuclear war, MAD is as valid now as it was during the Cold War.

Which is why it's difficult - because I don't think there is anything straightforward or black and white about it.

I see no evidence of Putin wanting to invade Europe as a whole. Indeed he would have been content if we had not funded and organised the Maidan overthrow of Yanukovych.

Now we have, and he has invaded, I support self determination for Ukraine, but not at any cost.

Re Crimea - you didn't say it had been Ottoman - as your own quote of yourself shows - you left its pre Russian status blank. I just wanted to make it clear it has never been Ukrainian.

Your fourth option is simply the proxy war rewritten for PR purposes.

The 'mess' is born of Western interference in the 2014 Maidan coup which was either a massive miscalculation or a successful plan to goad Russia into a mistake.

I thought for a long time it was the former - but seeing who is profiting from the war and thinking about the attitude of some parts of the US establishment I am beginning to slide towards the latter.

The claim that the 2014 Maidan Revolution was a US/EU sponsored coup is a myth perpetrated by Putin and the Russian media.  It is typical Russian decomposition and disinformation of the kind that the GRU and FSB, are very good at.  The 'Western-backed Nazi coup' nonsense was still being disseminated on the eve of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and is part and parcel of Putin's rationale.
   
The idea the Crimea is historically Russian is risible and no more than Putin's fiction, a narrative that comments by the then incumbent of the White House and right-wing European populist politicians helped to reinforce.

Under Stalin's regime Crimea was ethnically cleansed of its non-Russian people and re-populated with ethnic Russians, an established Russian/Soviet policy of removing native populations from their lands, yet in the 1991 referendum on Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union more that half of Crimea's, predominantly Russian, population voted for independence from Moscow.  Putin's referendum in 2014 was no more than a coercive exercise in legitimizing the illegal annexation and was dismissed as such by the Council of Europe and the UN.

Crimea has only ever been Russian by virtue of invasion and annexation.  It became  part of Russia in 1783 after another Russian autocrat with expansionist ambitions took it by force. Crimea has been part of Ukraine for approaching 70 years, so to say that it has never been part of Ukraine is just wrong. 

It is a black and white issue as far as I'm concerned and really couldn't be clearer.