Russia - General Discussion.

[cdxbow]

.....We can hope for an end to all wars and and end to nuclear weapons whilst we're at it. You can give me whole paragraphs of why NATO/the West is not at fault [if I'm not mistaken you said previously that the main fault of NATO in the past was not being firm or enough or something along similar lines] and is not a threat to Russia but the fact remains that as long as the Russians perceive or believe otherwise; the possibility of tensions and war will always be there.

Yes, that's the problem. Other than total dominion over Europe, I don't think Russian suspicion and paranoia of the west will ever let them believe otherwise. That same suspicion and paranoia then makes them behave to their neighbours in ways that drives them to the west.

 

[STURM]

In my book Finland joining would change the calculations about an attack on the Baltics.

I'm not convinced that the Russians have any plans to make a go for the Baltics. The Ukraine is more ingrained in their national psyche and going for the Baltics means open war with NATO. Also, various problems faced in the Ukraine are a sharp reminder of certain limitations faced by the Russian military; this will be apparent to Putin.

 

[Vivendi]

Will it really neutralise any threats? You absolutely sure about that? I'm not as sanguine. On paper if Finland and Sweden join; this would leave just Switzerland, Austria and a few other players. This in theory would usher in a new era of stability and prevent any further aggression from the nefarious Russians. So goes the theory.

In actual reality if the Russians still perceive that its interests are under threat; it will not make a difference if every single country in north, south and west Europe join NATO; the Russians will still react even if the odds are stacked against them. Also note that NATO expansion since the 1990's was intended to make Europe safer and deter possible threats; has it?

Yes I am sure that many Eastern European countries have averted significant meddling and perhaps even invasion from Russia by becoming part of NATO. In particular the Baltics would have been extremely exposed without NATO.

What is making Europe "unsafe" is not NATO, it's Russia and their insistence on using aggression not diplomacy to reach their goals.

I am also puzzled about your one-sided focus on the Russian "threat perception", it seems you do not consider how European countries bordering Russia are looking at it. It is the threat from Russia that has convinced a large number of Easter European countries to join NATO. Right now, NATO is more popular than ever in the Baltics, Poland, Romania, etc. They see a clear threat from Russia. We have the evidence of what happens to countries that are not NATO members, in particular Ukraine. Had Ukraine been NATO member, they would not have been invaded. Had Russia not acted aggressively against Ukraine for many years, NATO would not have been considered an option by most Ukrainians. Russia aggression has pushed Ukraine towards NATO membership. Russian aggression is now pushing Sweden and Finland to consider joining NATO.

It puzzles me that you seriously suggest that Eastern European countries should have been forced to stay out NATO in spite of their well founded fear of Russia, in order to allay an irrational fear from an aggressive Russia. They want their freedom, not becoming part of the Russian empire once again.

We have clear evidence of Russian aggression against European countries. As sovereign countries they should be free to choose their own defence arrangements, including joining an organization like NATO.

Can you please present evidence of "NATO aggression" against Russia?

 

[KiwiRob]

IMO Nato should have ceased to exist once the Soviet Union collapsed, it existed to counter the Soviet threat, there was no more Soviet threat so in the interest of peace Nato should also have been disbanded. I agree with STURM the continued existence and expansion of Nato has had the opposite effect. If there has to be a European defence treaty it should be part of the EU, the US should not be involved in any way shape or form, ditto for the now Brexited UK.

 

[Vivendi]

IMO Nato should have ceased to exist once the Soviet Union collapsed, it existed to counter the Soviet threat, there was no more Soviet threat so in the interest of peace Nato should also have been disbanded. I agree with STURM the continued existence and expansion of Nato has had the opposite effect. If there has to be a European defence treaty it should be part of the EU, the US should not be involved in any way shape or form, ditto for the now Brexited UK.

I don't think it would have made a difference to Putin, to be honest. If an EU defense pact had replaced NATO, it would either have been so weak that Russia would have ignored it (and reserved the right to invade countries that did not accept Russian "influence") or they would have considered it a "threat", just like they consider NATO a "threat" now.

The main issue is that Putin and his inner circle never accepted that Eastern European countries became independent countries.

 

[Vivendi]

I'm not convinced that the Russians have any plans to make a go for the Baltics. The Ukraine is more ingrained in their national psyche and going for the Baltics means open war with NATO. Also, various problems faced in the Ukraine are a sharp reminder of certain limitations faced by the Russian military; this will be apparent to Putin.

I agree that the NATO membership is essential to protecting the Baltics from Russia.

They are so small and defenseless, Russia would have had no problems "rolling over" the Baltics, had they not joined NATO. Look at their topography, geography, and their national defenses, and you probably see what I mean. They cannot even afford fighter jets... So had the Baltics been outside of NATO, Russia may well had decided to go for the Baltics first, even before Ukraine. It would have been low hanging fruits, and would also have closed the Suwalki gap and strengthened Russia's position in the whole Baltic Region considerably.

Luckily they were allowed to join NATO.

 

[STURM]

I am also puzzled about your one-sided focus on the Russian "threat perception

I'm.equally puzzled that you refuse or are unable to understand or acknowledge that the Russians too have threat perceptions and that they - rightly or wrongly - view things differently. Yet you speak about me being ''one sided''? It word be nice and convenient if the Russians followed your narrative but they don't.

I also don't buy the idea that more countries joining NATO will deter Russia. You apparently.do and that's fine.

We have the evidence of what happens to countries that are not NATO members, in particular Ukraine. Had Ukraine been NATO member, they would not have been invaded. Had Russia not acted aggressively against Ukraine for many years, NATO would not have been considered an option by most Ukrainians

Yes, yes, so you keep saying. You've done a fine job explaining the NATO narrative over and over again. I.get the picture.

It puzzles me that you seriously suggest that Eastern European countries should have been forced to stay out NATO in spite of their well founded fear of Russia

It" puzzles" me that despite many debares/discussions you still haven't grasped the point I'm driving at... It also puzzles me that your're claiming I mentioned things which I never did. That's us both ''puzzled'' then.

BTW I'm not pro Russian; neither am I pro Western/European/NATO but I find it inconceivable that anyone would dismiss the very notion that NATO's steady expansion over the years wouldn't have unsettled Russia; irrespective of the fact that NATO had no intention to attack Russia. As far back as the 1990's the Russians had warned that NATO's expansion would create issues.

Why Putin sees the US, NATO and Ukraine as a threat | The Strategist

Why has Russia’s President Vladimir Putin become so aggressive in his attitude to the US, NATO and Ukraine? In this article, I begin by examining the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and how it ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Can you please present evidence of "NATO aggression" against Russia?

Can you please point out where I spoke about ''NATO aggression" against Russia''? When and where? I spoke about threat perceptions and key interests; about Russia seeing things differently and about the need for both sides to make certain compromises but "NATO aggression" against Russia?

I it seems you do not consider how European countries bordering Russia are looking at it

From where I'm sitting it seems that you do not consider how Russia which borders NATO countries are looking at it. Is it only the European countries which have perspectives on things? BTW this is discussion on geo politics; not on morality or who's right or wrong...

So had the Baltics been outside of NATO, Russia may well had decided to go for the Baltics first, even before Ukraine.

Is that a personal opinion or an absolute fact?

I agree that the NATO membership is essential to protecting the Baltics from Russia..

I'm sure you would agree. On my part for reasons I've given I don't think Russia would make a go for the Baltics. There are various reasons why it would but also why it wouldn't.

As it stands even if Russia was intent on eventually going for the Baltics and war with NATO; current events means that it's not likely to happen anytime soon and the Russians will need a lot of resources and time to rectify various weaknesses with the military in order to go head to head against NATO.

 

[the concerned]

If Ukraine is allowed to join the EU does that give it the option of being part of the EU defence force. If so that's basically NATO by the back door.

 

[STURM]

The main issue is that Putin and his inner circle never accepted that Eastern European countries became independent countries.

I think the main issue is that Russia was more than willing for some countries to become part of NATO or Western aligned but less willing with others. Russia's perception also changed as NATO steadily expanded.

.

 

[John Fedup]

IMHO this attached link sums up what the future will look like if Putin isn’t confronted. Calling him on his nuclear bluff will have to happen sooner or later. If China is convinced the West will call him then it might be in their interest to try and restrain Putin but he may be too far gone for even Zi to influence.

The case for direct military intervention in Ukraine | The Strategist

The West is waging a hot economic war against Russia. That Rubicon has been crossed. The West is fighting this war by arming Ukraine and imposing an economic blockade that explicitly aims to eliminate Vladimir ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

 

[John Fedup]

This link further shows Putin’s nuclear blackmail strategy. I have no doubt he will consider a nuclear response in the Ukraine if things were to go very wrong for him. A real Western counter threat might generate internal restraints on Putin and perhaps even a Chinese one.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2022/03/15/russian_shelling_of_the_zaporizhzhia_nuclear_plant_explained_using_a_strategic_deterrence_framework_821825.html

 

[phreeky]

This link further shows Putin’s nuclear blackmail strategy. I have no doubt he will consider a nuclear response in the Ukraine if things were to go very wrong for him.

I think a chance of intervention from other countries on Ukraine territory itself has passed. There was possibly a timeframe at the very beginning where it may have been viewed differently (a foreign force being invited in is most certainly more acceptable than an invading one), however by not crossing that line (the border) early on, a boundary was drawn by de-facto.

I think it will go nuclear if, and only if, Russian sovereignty is threatened. So long as conventional weapons are used within Ukraine and there is no accidental (or purposeful) border breach, it will stay contained within Ukraine and be a long grind with a lot of suffering.

There are of course a heap of very specific scenarios you could put forward and consider. Even some such as a non-NATO (or NATO country acting outside of NATO) entering Ukraine. At this point I dare say most of these potential scenarios have been analysed and pre-meditated responses drawn up, from all sides.

 

[STURM]

I have no doubt he will consider tactical nukes but only if there is direct Western intervention and if things go badly. If it wasn't for Russia's nukes we'd be seeing NATO roops in.the Ukraine or at the very least a no fly zone.

 

[John Fedup]

I think a chance of intervention from other countries on Ukraine territory itself has passed. There was possibly a timeframe at the very beginning where it may have been viewed differently (a foreign force being invited in is most certainly more acceptable than an invading one), however by not crossing that line (the border) early on, a boundary was drawn by de-facto.

I think it will go nuclear if, and only if, Russian sovereignty is threatened. So long as conventional weapons are used within Ukraine and there is no accidental (or purposeful) border breach, it will stay contained within Ukraine and be a long grind with a lot of suffering.

There are of course a heap of very specific scenarios you could put forward and consider. Even some such as a non-NATO (or NATO country acting outside of NATO) entering Ukraine. At this point I dare say most of these potential scenarios have been analysed and pre-meditated responses drawn up, from all sides.

It is what happens post Ukraine. The sanctions will remain and Russia’s economy will continue to tank. Nuclear blackmail to having sanctions removed is likely. If that works for Putin then the West is Putin’s $itch.

 

[Ananda]

For one thing, if West consistent on blocking Russian Hydrocarbon, one thing that will be push down. Time table for green energy.

German should not only relook on their Coal, but also Nuclear energy. Nuclear safety has much improve, so does nuclear waste management. They should put more nuclear option, if West serious for Power Independent from Russia.

Still it will take time to rebuild West Nuclear power capacities. So Coal will be the interim solution. Thus the choice of Russian Gas that are 'relatively" cleaner, or more power independent with 'dirty' coal.

 

[John Fedup]

For one thing, if West consistent on blocking Russian Hydrocarbon, one thing that will be push down. Time table for green energy.

German should not only relook on their Coal, but also Nuclear energy. Nuclear safety has much improve, so does nuclear waste management. They should put more nuclear option, if West serious for Power Independent from Russia.

Still it will take time to rebuild West Nuclear power capacities. So Coal will be the interim solution. Thus the choice of Russian Gas that are 'relatively" cleaner, or more power independent with 'dirty' coal.

Nuclear, yes, coal, a very difficult sell IMO. Build some LNG tankers and start importing from alternative suppliers.

 

[Ananda]

Build some LNG tankers and start importing from alternative suppliers.

Alternative suppliers means getting Iran and Venezuela. Especialy Iran. That's where the excess aditional supply available. Caracas and Tehran will be happy to see West looking them as the 'alternatives'. They can see this as the chance for asking bigger price (in money and political bargain) with West

Even that, still not going to replace all Russian supply. Euro Zone need to get more Gas as Middle East mostly goes to Asia, while West playing chummies with Russian hydrocarbon before.

Takes time to rebuild the Nuke Power. In the mean time what Euro Zone alternative from all Russian Gas, asside increase their own 'dirty' coals? It's dirty, but at least mostly their own. Unless Canada and US want to pump more, and not using the additional capacity for North American own use (especially US that also Import Russian Hydro Carbon).

 

[John Fedup]

Alternative suppliers means getting Iran and Venezuela. Especialy Iran. That's where the excess aditional supply available. Caracas and Tehran will be happy to see West looking them as the 'alternatives'. They can see this as the chance for asking bigger price (in money and political bargain) with West

Even that still not going to replace all Russian supply. Euro Zone need to get more Gas as Middle East mostly goes to Asia, while West playing chummies with Russian hydrocarbon before.

Takes time to rebuild the Nuke Power. In the mean time what Euro Zone alternative from all Russian Gas, asside increase their own 'dirty' coals? It's dirty, but at least mostly their own. Unless Canada and US want to pump more, and not using the additional capacity for North American own use (especially US that also Import Russian Hydro Carbon).

Canada and the US certainly could expand NG production fro Arctic reserves. More oil is possible if political opposition to oil sand production is minimized. It seems the US is already making overtures to Venezuela. Perhaps Australia has additional NG export capacity. At this point dealing with Iran is better than providing Putin with money.

 

[cdxbow]

IMO Nato should have ceased to exist once the Soviet Union collapsed, it existed to counter the Soviet threat, there was no more Soviet threat so in the interest of peace Nato should also have been disbanded. I agree with STURM the continued existence and expansion of Nato has had the opposite effect. If there has to be a European defence treaty it should be part of the EU, the US should not be involved in any way shape or form, ditto for the now Brexited UK.

Wow. You are very 'brave.'
Why would Russia stop it's expansion because there no NATO? Russia has been repeatedly invading it's neighbours for centuries before NATO existed. The 'NATO made me do it; argument by Putin is tosh, just the usual Russian blame everyone else, never take any responsibility for their own actions. Russia didn't invade the Ukraine because of NATO, it invaded because that's usual Russia behaviour.

The biggest motivation for Russia's neighbours to join NATO has been Russian behaviour. Increasingly belligerent, aggressive and uncivil, culminating in a brutal and illegal invasion of the Ukraine.

 

[John Fedup]

Wow. You are very 'brave.'
Why would Russia stop it's expansion because there no NATO? Russia has been repeatedly invading it's neighbours for centuries before NATO existed. The 'NATO made me do it; argument by Putin is tosh, just the usual Russian blame everyone else, never take any responsibility for their own actions. Russia didn't invade the Ukraine because of NATO, it invaded because that's usual Russia behaviour.

The biggest motivation for Russia's neighbours to join NATO has been Russian behaviour. Increasingly belligerent, aggressive and uncivil, culminating in a brutal and illegal invasion of the Ukraine.

Absolutely spot on wrt Russian behaviour being the real problem.