Rayvin

Who is advocating nuclear war?

Agreed, but based on the evidence so far, he's going to slowly steamroll across various nations unopposed by any serious military because we're all afraid of nukes/wasted years failing to switch to renewables.

Fair point, to which I direct my other comment:

Wasn't really aimed at you, I'm just worn down now. I don't think Ukraine can win. I don't think they'll survive, it'll be cultural genocide. I think he'll go again for other countries. I think we'll get that war further down the line anyway, just having given Russia more time to prepare for it. I don't think the Russian people are going to overthrow him, I think he genuinely does have majority support.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/28/moldova-facing-very-dangerous-moment-amid-fears-it-could-be-drawn-into-ukraine-war Putin is way ahead of me anyway.

Fuck it, let's just give him the keys to Europe. Within another 10 years he would have owned our discourse in full anyway.

This is exactly what I want for the world but I don't see how we can get there with Putin poisoning the wells in Western democracies and invading his neighbours. I know that a lot of people who rightly accuse the US military industry of all manner of evils across the world struggle to see a man whose defiance of NATO made him something of a posterchild to the left and whose conservative, strongman act made him a posterchild to the right, but he is every bit as bad as the US side in terms of who he is, but worse, he's not remotely reined in by the checks and balances that exist in Western democracies. Such as they are. He is the equivalent of one of our warhawk imperialist arch capitalists but without any accountability to anyone. I have no hope. Brexit killed the last of my hope, learning Putin basically financed the damn thing twisted the knife in, and I stand here almost alone on the moderate left hand side of the spectrum (that I know, many people now don't believe in because IMO he's done such a fucking good job of muddying the entire fucking discourse in our countries that no one knows which way is up anymore) screaming and shouting to my comrades about the ACTUAL FASCIST who is invading a European democracy and they just don't want to hear it. Or they do hear it, have a moment of cognitive dissonance, and then default back to talking about how the US is the real enemy. I assure you, there is no hope left.

I saw Biden is trying to pass a motion to recover damages to spend on Ukraine from oligarch frozen assets, maybe we can use that as a symbolic gesture if nothing else. What happens if Putin says no to your framework there though - he turns around and says 'when we started this I was taking it upon myself to clear up the Ukrainian question for generations of Russians to come. Ukraine is Russian. We will only accept an end to hostilities if the whole country is absorbed back into the Russian empire'. That's what their stated objective was at the start, so that's why I keep bringing it up. I don't think he needs a leg to stand on other than 'might makes right'. To be clear though, if that could be achieved then fine. Doubtful though.

Russia of course itself asked about joining NATO, and was told that it would have to apply the same as everyone else - which would have entailed becoming a true democracy. Putin said he wouldn't stand in line like a minor country, and here we are. So if NATO was such a great threat to Russia, why try to join it? And if the issue wasn't fear of western systems of governance and power distribution, why later resist when they were insisted upon?

I'm not, don't worry - I do think you think I'm naive but be assured that this is a common view on here anyway. I don't think you're raging either. I'm not myself. We're fine.

What I agreed with, in that article, was that the slow burn approach we're taking is not a good outcome. But I also don't think a negotiated settlement that isn't Russia fucking off with nothing is an outcome that can afford to stand. The only message that ceding ground to him gives is that anyone can get away with anything if they threaten to throw nukes around. China and Russia will both start taking left and right. What do we do then? "Insane" was an exaggeration on my side, admittedly. Everything else stands though. And maybe I'm wrong, but ultimately it's a risk worth taking in my view. Russia has apparently been telling people that 'we all die someday' to calm its citizens down at the prospect of nuclear war. Odd to say it but I agree with them. We all die someday, and if that's what it takes to resist their imperialism then so be it. We can't just live in fear of the consequences of doing the right thing. It's just my view though.

I do oppose our own actions. Check out the terrorism thread - doesn't get posted in much these days but I was in there for a very long time railing against our various interventions. As such, again, my position here is consistent. The fact that the US did kick off over the Cuban missile crisis doesn't mean that they should have. Although back at that point I could see for either side how this would have been a more significant issue. Back then we had two world superpowers, now we have one. Russia is not an equal to America and it never will be again. That doesn't mean it should be treated disrespectfully, but it does mean that it has to accept the US international order, and that if various Eastern European countries are afraid of being invaded by it, and ask to join NATO, that it just has to accept this and work on improving its relationships with these countries through softer means. This is just realism - or it should have been. I'd be fine with Ireland having missile launchers because they're a democracy and a mature, civilised nation.

It's the repeated suggestions that I'm being somehow "hoodwinked" into a blood frenzy by a government that I consistently hate and oppose in almost all things that makes me think this. I am not. I believe what I'm saying, and I would have believed it if the UK was cowering in the corner (as we more or less are) telling everyone that Putin wasn't such a bad guy and that he's just misunderstood (disclaimer, I'm not attributing that view to you, it's just an example of an opposing government line). I don't want the war and death that will follow if we send troops in. I lament the deaths of Russian soldiers as much as Ukrainian civilians. But you cannot do nothing when faced with unchecked aggression.

Yes, a lot of your opinions of me appear to be that I'm a naive idiot that just dives blindly into any particular opinion depending on what is put in front of me. You're welcome to that opinion but I don't sit here in awe at your reasonings either. We fundamentally disagree about some core points in here and that's fine, but I continue to believe that opposing imperialist warmongering has to be a consistent act, and that means whether or not it's the US. On the Azov point - It's not selective, it's a matter of degrees. I've looked into Azov and found that yes, they're nazis, but there are 900 of them according to the very link you just provided. 100,000 rapists and murderers are now rampaging across Ukraine thanks to Putin. It's a matter of degrees. It's also clear that the relevance of Azov in this at all is only to provide a flimsy justification for the notion that Russia is somehow doing this to defeat Nazis. Do you believe that's even remotely on their list of genuine issues? NATO is clearly never going to attack Russia. Putin knows it, NATO knows it, the fact that we haven't used this clear cut excuse to immediately attack Russia proves it. What they are afraid of, if anything, is Western systems and processes eliminating their mafia state control setup. The wider battle here is democracy (such as it is) and authoritarianism. We are losing.

Fine, but you do me the same courtesy of setting out what you think we should do if Putin says he will only agree to peace if he gets to absorb Ukraine into Russia, and lays out plans to re-establish the Soviet era Russian empire borders. Two separate points there. Ukraine on its own, and then everything else. For my answer - I don't think he'll nuke us. I've said it many times but hell, I'll say it again. I think he's a bully, but he's not stupid enough to start a nuclear war that can only possibly guarantee the annihilation of his country no matter who else he takes down in the process if we aren't actually invading it. He's not going to go nuclear if we throw him out of a country that he has invaded. People will die in the process, but probably fewer than if we just let him proceed with his raping and pillaging.

I don't believe the Tories do particularly care about the people of Ukraine, but I do. I also care about Western civilisation and consider where we have come to as, while very flawed, the best of all other current alternatives - and that it is therefore worth protecting. We're all taken in by propaganda whether Russian or Western (as far as this conflict goes), it will be inevitable. I am however comfortable that my position here aligns with what I believe to be right. There are more nazis in the UK and Russia than there are in Ukraine, I'm not remotely interested in the war being justified by the existence of Azov. Women are being mass raped and war crimes are abundant. Azov are a footnote compared to this. We have showed our power by blocking them, and they have continued. They are now making inroads into Moldova and threatening to expand the conflict. We are not forcing them to do this, they are doing it because they are imperialists. Which Western leader has claimed we want to attack Russian soil, incidentally? Crimea isn't Russia soil by any international, legal metric. It's a spoil of war. Yes I get upset about Yemen - although the last time I raised this, Renton I believe made some really good points on what that was a very different situation, and why it was doing a disservice to all involved to compare the two. Yemen does sound more complicated with two side competing over a single territory. Not one side valiantly trying to defend itself against an aggressor to which it has done no harm. Civilians die of course, and this is as reprehensible in Ukraine as it is in Yemen - but they are different situations. I don't disagree with you about the government's motives, although I suspect even in the jaded and morally collapsed Tory party, there are some who believe that Western civilisation and its values are worth defending. Even if they don't realise the harm that they themselves do to it. Again though, I'm not 'agreeing with the government'. I want us to go in and stop the guy, and I did pretty much immediately because he is an unmitigated cunt who cares nothing for the lives of even his own soldiers, when compared to the prospect of a grand legacy that he could leave behind. If the US was less wedded to war this still would have happened, because Putin is still an autocratic fascist. Maybe it would have happened sooner, frankly. Ukraine can't deal with this. They are going to lose, and the stated intention of the exercise is for the entire country to be assimilated into Russia, for the Ukrainian culture to be annihilated, and for those who defended themselves to be punished. Russia has decreed this, and so shall it be. Nuclear war is suicide but we will only get to that stage by the actions of one deranged lunatic, and it isn't on us if that happens. It's on him. We need to start pointing the finger squarely where the blame is. No western leader is going to launch a first strike nuclear attack on Russia. NATO is not going to countenance a military invasion of Russia. Thus the only way we get nuclear war, is if the 70 year old with the 14 year old's brain currently running Russia, decides that he's being humiliated. If it comes to that, so be it, but it's not on us. We can't just bend over every time a crackpot state like Russia starts throwing threats around otherwise they will simply keep taking, punishing, lying and persecuting.

I think Russia is probably sabre rattling harder than anyone at the moment, we're getting fresh warnings of nuclear Armageddon every morning from their side. "Our patience is running out, and you should know there will be consequences" was this morning's message. If we don't respond, do we not just looked cowed and pliant? I think Crimea we have to at least 'appear' to be consistent about because it was an illegal conquest and the idea that such things can be ignored imperils the entire international legal framework. I daresay when push comes to shove, it will be ignored though. Agree on the last point but better our money than our lives. Ukraine is arguably sacrificing for all of us.

I do see the other side of it tbf, but I think that analysis hinges on the idea that Russia are just reacting to the US. I don't think they are, and they've said as much themselves. There is definitely a wider ambition of restoring the former Russian empire, and while that ambition remains, I just don't see how we can be at peace without just signing away the freedoms of millions.

I agreed with this straight from the off as well fwiw. I still agree now.

Likewise - but for instance, we could get there right this moment if we all agreed to give Putin full dominion over the entire Western world. Is that a price worth paying for peace? What I'm saying is that either we accept that we're prepared to give him peace no matter the cost, or we have to acknowledge that there are red lines. The problem we seem to have is that no one is very certain on what those red lines are. I think we've been caught entirely unaware with this move tbh.

I think you have a lot of valid points in general about the US being belligerent and I would normally be one that side of the aisle too, but I cannot see how this is anything other than squarely on Putin. This may well be part of a wider US geopolitical issue, but it is also very clearly a matter of Ukraine's right to exist. It is very much also their war - primarily their war, in fact. They are being conquered by an imperialist power. Whether the US is a total shitshow is an entirely separate point on this matter IMO because Putin launched this all off his own bat to "solve the Ukraine question for future generations of Russians" as he said himself. I would also say that the article I linked puts forward two options - obviously the author prefers that we surrender to the psychotic bully (and I do get why because lives saved and so on are a factor. How many lives is national autonomy, your nation, you culture, worth?) But the other side is we become actively involved. Which I would support. I don't know what sort of hellish world we would be living in if we just let Putin have Ukraine. And then when he takes something else, then what? Let that happen. Etc. If Putin is prepared to engage in wars of aggression like this, we've already lost the battle on solving things peacefully. It's him who should be desperately looking for an off ramp, not us who should be trying to find him one.

I dunno, looks like he's taken it on board and made the comment in ignorance. I think intent is everything with this sort of stuff personally, and it's not clear to me that he had any genuine racist intent. Ignorance yes.

Good piece, basically arguing that we have to either go to war, or cede Ukraine - since that's where it's going to end up anyway: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/27/ukraine-war-end-putin-russia-talks

Well Villareal have collapsed Fair play to Liverpool I guess.