Russia - General Discussion.

[Beholder]

I'm not suggesting Russia will, or should, do this but it makes a lot more sense to me than this invasion the Politicians and Journalists keep banging on about.

What You describe is war. Ukraine is not under sanctions, nor weapon coming can end up used against civilian population or in terrorist hands.
Political price is same as invasion. What exacly RF will achieve?

Well you also entitled to your own opinion. However who's in power and how they get it clearly in my book shown how one society has already have enough social construct to be democratic. When the power still moving from one oligarchy to another, when other ethnics Political power being push down on the pretext national security, then it's shown that society is still far to be ready as democracy one

It is not an opinion.
Liberal democracy is about rights. It is fact. Bieng part of oligarchy does not mean You cannot be in power. Everyone can.
Peaceful transition of power is key, as well as honest elections as means to exercise political rights. Both are true for Ukraine.
Singapore for example is not democracy and not on a way to bieng one. Even through is well developed country and personal freedoms not bad at all.
Saudi Arabia not on the way to become democracy either. Nor current state is close to democracy.
Ukraine on the other hand moving toward democracy. Current state leave a lot to be desired, but all key points are present.IMO

 

[Ananda]

Peaceful transition of power is key, as well as honest elections as means to exercise political rights. Both are true for Ukraine.

Since when Ukraine transition to power based on honest elections ? Euro Maidan is basically a coup, and ethics politics pressure toward Russian ethnic still happening. Again that's not a society that ready for democracy.

I don't want to talk more on Ukrainian politics in this thread, as must to. That's why I said everyone can have their own opinion on Ukrainian politics. However for me they're still far for transformation as democracy. This talk on Ukrainian as democracy no more than Western bias cause Euro Maidan is basically pro west Oligarchy.

 

[Atunga]

They are 'designed' to show the Ukraine that it is not alone despite NATO not willing to go to war over it and to send Russia a similar message.

 

[Atunga]

They are 'designed' to show the Ukraine that it is not alone despite NATO not willing to go to war over it and to send Russia a similar message.

How are they designed to show Ukraine they are not alone, When they are left alone to fight for them selves, knowing that in war with Russia, anti tank missiles will do nothing to stop Russian arieal bombardment and cruise missiles attack? According to US and UK, they say it's going to increase the cost of a Russian invasion. What kind of message are they sending Russia by supplying weapons that the Russians can easily defeat? Don't forget that Western media and politicians are almost verbally attacking Ukraine on behalf of the Russians, predicting when the attack is going to happen and even asking Ukraine to brace themselves for an imminent attack. If you really want to solve the problem diplomatically, why supply weapons and give the Ukranians a platform to publicly state how Russians are going to die? Almost every Ukranian official wants to kill Russians, if it's not designed to push the Russians into action then what is it?

 

[STURM]

How are they designed to show Ukraine they are not alone

Would you rather they not send anything and just offer words of encouragement?

NATO is doing what it can realistically do. It has made clear that it will not be involved in a conflict and in addition to sending arms; providing training; diplomatic pressure and other means; what would you have it do?

if it's not designed to push the Russians into action then what is it?

Sending arms to the Ukraine and providing other means of support is not intended ''to push the Russians into action''? If that was the real endgame there are other things NATO could do which would result in a Russian response...

 

[KiwiRob]

There has been some discussion on this in the media/

Nord Stream 2: Why Russia’s pipeline to Europe divides the West

Germany claims the project is commercial, but the US fears Moscow will use the pipeline to increase leverage in Europe.

www.aljazeera.com

“Germany has been resisting pressure from the US because it absolutely needs reliable gas supplies from Russia and, for all it is now one of the top exporters of liquified natural gas in the world, the US cannot replace Russia in that role as key gas supplier to Germany,” said Ronald Smith, senior oil and gas analyst at BCS Global Markets.

“Ukraine stands to lose several billion dollars per year in transit fees – which is what makes NS2 a cheaper option for shipment – a key stream of hard currency income for the country.”

Bypassing Ukraine sharply reduced the country’s leverage with Russia and reduced its income. However, Europe and Germany depend on Russia’s gas, with this current conflict exposing vulnerabilities, meaning Nord Stream 2 has become both a deterrent to war in Ukraine and a punishment option in the event there is one'



Should there be military action the first thing the Russians would do is to neutralise as far as possible the Ukrainian military and to gain as fast as possible its military objectives [whether a race to the Dnieper or a land corridor to the Crimea]; leaving the Ukraine and NATO little time to react.

As far as Western arms into the Ukraine; I doubt if quantities of anti-tank weapons; body armour, munitions of various kinds and other stuff rattles the Russians. Arms supplies and other forms of assistance are welcomed by the Ukrainians and is a sign that NATO is actually dong something but ultimately will make little to no difference if the Russians do invade. The Russians have other things to worry about and they are comforted or emboldened by the knowledge that there is actual zero possibility of NATO troops on Ukrainian soil ready to defend the country and that NATO lacks the political will to be actively involved in immediate future conflict in he Ukraine.



Russia has already made it clear it opposes Ukrainian membership into NATO and the deployment of certain types of NATO weapons into Eastern Europe. Those points are well understood and are taken very seriously. As for military action; it would have to include actual ground operations and not be limited to air and missile strikes in order for Russia to achieve what it wants.

The irony in this is the US has been buying Russian oil for years, Russia is the second largest foreign supplier of oil to the US. So the idea that the US can stop Germany buying Russian gas is hypocritical.

Russia Captures No. 2 Rank Among Foreign Oil Suppliers to U.S.

Russia is supplying more oil to the U.S. than any other foreign producer aside from Canada as American refiners scour the globe for gasoline-rich feedstocks to feed surging motor-fuel demand.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[STURM]

Another irony is that the Soviet Union imported quire a bit of wheat from the U.S. during the Cold War.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Great for Israel and great for any Ukranian [whether a Jew or a Goy] deciding to move there but Is that actually an accurate gauge to determine whether the Ukraine is more modern or has reach a more advanced state of enlightenment compared to Saudi or vice versa?

IMO it is the best gauge. The amount of time it takes a foreign migrant population to adapt to a local culture versus another foreign population is the best gauge to determining how close or far that population is, culturally, to the local culture and how much it has to adapt.
I know Russian and Ukrainian culture. I know Arab culture. I know Israeli culture. Russia and Ukraine are definitely more ready for democracy, on a cultural level, than at least most Arab/muslim majority state.

As I said; Saudi has the advantage or fortune of never being under communism; it has had decades of interaction with the West and its oil money enabled it to modernise and steadily improve the living conditions of its population; who have access to a good health and education system. I'm not saying everything is a bed of roses in Saudi; I'm personally very critical of Saudi policy in Afghanistan, Yemen and other places. I'm pointing out however that in many ways; despite never having an elected government and still maintaining strict Wahabbist Islamic laws; Saudi in various ways has progressed

You talk as if they all had the same starting point when modern democracy started taking shape. They didn't. Analyzing factors that lead trends is pointless unless both had similar starting points.

We have interactions today with Saudis, with Ukrainians, and Russians. We can measure it ourselves without too much analysis.

I can't speak for Ananda but if you care to examine again what I wrote; Saudi in various ways is more advanced or modern than the Ukraine.

Technological superiority does not really matter in this case. It's more cultural than technical.

But to enable it to survive enables a lot more than merely quelling protests... Doing something overnight and actually having it survive are 2 very profoundly diffrent things.....

Absolutely speaking, neither are easy to setup or maintain, but relatively, one is definitely easier than the other. I explained why I think democracy is harder to create and maintain. How do you explain that it's the other way around?

I'm not trying to convince you on anything. You clearly don't like the Arabs and bias on that, so why bother. However talking that Ukrainian as wholle is better more modern and civilised sociaty then Saudis, that's where I draw the line.

What basis to say Ukrainian more modern then Saudis society ? Base on how the goverment and their politics ? certaintly not. Based on their HDI ? more shown how far Ukrainian below Saudis.

HDI is a welfare and quality of life index. Not relevant for cultural aspects like affinity for democracy.

I also don't hate Arabs, nor do I like Ukrainians as a people. I just see plenty of both and have the perspective to decide which would accept democracy sooner, or have more resolve in a fight for democracy.

What Israel got to do on your arguments ? Because some Ukrainian Jews that move to Israel able to assimilate fast with their fellow Jews ? That's definetely not barrometer to say they are more modern and culture then Saudis.

Hence I specifically mentioned non-Jewish Ukrainians and Russians. You didn't really bother to read what I wrote right? Because then you'd also not talk about their alleged ethnic conflict.

 

[Pentaprism]

What You describe is war. Ukraine is not under sanctions, nor weapon coming can end up used against civilian population or in terrorist hands.
Political price is same as invasion. What exacly RF will achieve?

Well of course I'm talking about War. Everybody discussing the issue is talking about War, there is no point ignoring the reality that we might be going there. But there are Wars and Wars.

My observation is that the US and Israel have been able to achieve a lot with Air Strikes plus maybe a handful of boots on the ground to support. This approach saves a lot of Casualties on both sides. Russia and Ukraine need to consider where they will be after this conflict. A protracted War with Casualties in the Hundreds of Thousands would not only be a local disaster but a Global one. A more limited conflict provides opportunities for reconciliation a lot sooner.

You can take out Aircraft, Air Bases and Ships without many Civilian Casualties. You can significantly degrade your Opponents ability to hurt you. And you can force them to negotiate.

Invasions on the other are another level of savagery. Results are less certain and losses much higher. Civilians get killed in serious numbers. Political backlash from Domestic and Foreign population likely to be far worse.

As to what Russia wants to achieve? Well my guess is they firstly want to stop Ukraine joining NATO. Secondly they don't want hostile forces in Ukraine that have any punch. They want any potential offensive to start from Poland, not somewhere near their own Border. Putin can bomb Ukraine with virtual impunity, the West will not counter attack and his Population will accept it. But if he invades a lot of Soldiers will come home in Body Bags and his popularity will implode. Afghanistan revisited.

 

[STURM]

The amount of time it takes a foreign migrant population to adapt to a local culture versus another foreign population is the best gauge to determining how close or far that population is, culturally, to the local culture and how much it has to adapt.

If we follow your line of argument; what if an immigrant migrates to Israel but eventually finds it hard to assimilate? Does this imply the country he was originally from is not ready for democracy or has not reached a state of social and political progress? I'm not well read on the topic thus I'll not make any assumptions but I do know for a fact that some immigrants left Israel for other countries. I also know for a fact that some immigrants use Israel as a stepping stone; intending to eventually make it to the U.S. Does this indicate anything fundamentally wrong with them, their countries of origin or with Israel? Of course not..

In a previous post you wrote that ''A Ukrainian moving to Israel can assimilate rather easily. A Saudi Arabian very much not, unless he's a minority, monarchy-hating progressive.'' The reality is that culture plays a very important role [something you alluded to in your last post]; as does religion; thus culture/religion might be the main reason why a Saudi immigrant to Israel [no idea if there has ever been one] would find it hard to assimilate; not because the individual isn't a ''minority, monarchy-hating progressive'' and not because he originally comes from a country which isn't modern; democratic or ready for democracy...

You talk as if they all had the same starting point when modern democracy started taking shape..

I specifically mentioned in a previous post that both countries have different backgrounds so to speak; driven by different historical and other factors which play a huge part in where they are today; whether economically, socially or politically. Saudi had the fortune of having oil money and close interaction with the West. The Ukraine on the other had the misfortune to be under communism for decades; the effects are still seen today; some 3 decades after the end of the Cold War.

Technological superiority does not really matter in this case. It's more cultural than technical.

Who said anything about 'technological'? Again; in various ways/fields/areas Saudi is more advanced than the Ukraine.

How do you explain that it's the other way around?

I merely said that for a tyranny to survive in the long run takes a lot more than just quelling protests [to quote your good self]..

We have interactions today with Saudis, with Ukrainians, and Russians. We can measure it ourselves without too much analysis.

Well that's a revelation for me as I was under the impression it takes a lot more than ''interactions'' to really get a feel of things...

 

[Atunga]

Would you rather they not send anything and just offer words of encouragement?

NATO is doing what it can realistically do. It has made clear that it will not be involved in a conflict and in addition to sending arms; providing training; diplomatic pressure and other means; what would you have it do?



Sending arms to the Ukraine and providing other means of support is not intended ''to push the Russians into action''? If that was the real endgame there are other things NATO could do which would result in a Russian response...

No, it's totally wrong to encourage Ukraine to fight nuclear armed Russia talk less of supplying Ukraine with arms to kill Russians.. this is very dangerous as things can easily spiral out of everyone control.. NATO has no business in Ukraine, they shouldn't be there making trouble at all and they wouldn't be there if not for the fantasy of trying to contain Russia. This in its self is so dangerous because Russia can feel it's back has been pushed to the wall and can resort to all sorts of options, as you know, they have nuclear options.. people like to dismiss Russia as being not democratic and responsible but to be honest they have been very responsible handling their nuclear weapons. I will suggest, don't push them too much.. so tell me, if sending arms to Ukraine and providing other means of support is not designed to push the Russians into some sort of action, what is it then? The Russians have clearly told you that Ukraine is a red line.. what other thing will NATO have done to demand a Russian response?

 

[STURM]

No, it's totally wrong to encourage Ukraine to fight nuclear armed Russia talk less of supplying Ukraine with arms to kill Russians..

Sorry are we on the same page here? Is NATO encouraging the Ukraine ;;to fight nuclear armed Russia''?

so tell me, if sending arms to Ukraine and providing other means of support is not designed to push the Russians into some sort of action, what is it then?

I will tell you ...

If it was NATO's intention to 'push the Russians into some sort of action' there would be faster and more effective ways than sending Ukraine arms in order for it to better defend itself.... If you've noticed I've personally been critical of NATO policy and of the Russia is solely or largely to blame narrative but the idea that arms to the Ukraine is intended to bait the Russians is preposterous.... Like I said before; the arms by themselves improve the ability of the Ukrainians to defend themselves and are vey symbolic but will not lead to anything decisive; thus the Russians will not lose sleep over it. There are concerned with far more serious and bigger things/issues.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

No, it's totally wrong to encourage Ukraine to fight nuclear armed Russia talk less of supplying Ukraine with arms to kill Russians.. this is very dangerous as things can easily spiral out of everyone control.. NATO has no business in Ukraine, they shouldn't be there making trouble at all and they wouldn't be there if not for the fantasy of trying to contain Russia. This in its self is so dangerous because Russia can feel it's back has been pushed to the wall and can resort to all sorts of options, as you know, they have nuclear options.. people like to dismiss Russia as being not democratic and responsible but to be honest they have been very responsible handling their nuclear weapons. I will suggest, don't push them too much.. so tell me, if sending arms to Ukraine and providing other means of support is not designed to push the Russians into some sort of action, what is it then? The Russians have clearly told you that Ukraine is a red line.. what other thing will NATO have done to demand a Russian response?

Take this comment, replace "NATO" with "Russia" and vice versa then come back to me.

 

[Atunga]

Sorry are we on the same page here? Is NATO encouraging the Ukraine ;;to fight nuclear armed Russia''?



I will tell you ...

If it was NATO's intention to 'push the Russians into some sort of action' there would be faster and more effective ways than sending Ukraine arms in order for it to better defend itself.... If you've noticed I've personally been critical of NATO policy and of the Russia is solely or largely to blame narrative but the idea that arms to the Ukraine is intended to bait the Russians is preposterous.... Like I said before; the arms by themselves improve the ability of the Ukrainians to defend themselves and are vey symbolic but will not lead to anything decisive; thus the Russians will not lose sleep over it. There are concerned with far more serious and bigger things/issues.

If NATO is not encouraging Ukraine to fight Russia by sending it arms to kill Russians, what are the arms and all the other support you talk about for? Something that some NATO countries are seriously against.. so instead of encouraging Ukraine to talk to Russia directly and sort issues out in a brotherly diplomatic manner, you supply them weapons and you threaten Russia with sanctions on behalf of Ukraine, what's the end goal then? your happy to arm two brothers against each other, and this time arming Ukraine against nuclear armed Russia? Honestly this is NATO making trouble, I don't think anybody is going to learn until something terrible happens

 

[Atunga]

Take this comment, replace "NATO" with "Russia" and vice versa then come back to me.

Why would I replace NATO with Russia? Give me 3 reasons please

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Why would I replace NATO with Russia? Give me 3 reasons please

1. To see
2. The absurdity.
3. In your comment.

 

[Beholder]

As to what Russia wants to achieve? Well my guess is they firstly want to stop Ukraine joining NATO. Secondly they don't want hostile forces in Ukraine that have any punch. They want any potential offensive to start from Poland, not somewhere near their own Border. Putin can bomb Ukraine with virtual impunity, the West will not counter attack and his Population will accept it. But if he invades a lot of Soldiers will come home in Body Bags and his popularity will implode. Afghanistan revisited.

1. West will actually stop it. So it cannot be prolonged air bombardment campaign.

2. Lets look at possible motivation.
First, You are mostly right about what RF may want from Western POV. But, they already had it. Ukraina was very far from NATO with ongoing conflict within it's borders and NATo was not going to move it's forces within Ukraine.
Moreover Putin does not need to do anything. He can continue as is and conflict will continue wihtout one shot fired.

3. Let's look at possible price versus ground invasion.
Firstly, sanctions will follow anyway. Secondly if Ukraine left standing after battle, then West undoubtedly will arm it to teeths.
Thirdly RF is part of Budapest memorandum and guarantor of Ukraines territorial integrity along with England, France, US and China.
Direct declared hostilities with Ukraine are very costly, if in the end Ukraine left standing from diplomatic POV.

It is better not to start such thing at all, or go all out.IMO

 

[the concerned]

If things escalate could the US and fellow countries convince Turkey to shut the Black Sea to Russia.

 

[John Fedup]

If things escalate could the US and fellow countries convince Turkey to shut the Black Sea to Russia.

Only if Erdogan saw some benefit for himself and if there is any, I don’t see what it could be.

 

[Feanor]

If things escalate could the US and fellow countries convince Turkey to shut the Black Sea to Russia.

I find this to be fairly unlikely. There are far too many mutual dealings between Russia and Turkey, including Russian involvement in the Turkish nuclear power plant program, the Turkish Stream gas pipeline, etc. In recent years the situation has gone in the opposite direction with the Turks not being particularly stringent on enforcing the convention vis-a-vis Russian subs heading to the Mediterranean.

This is not to imply that Russia and Turkey are friends or allies. It's more that they've found a number of mutually beneficient arrangements, and unless something drastically changes, they will likely continue to engage with each other.