It's good that you mention Trump, because that hasn't gone unnoticed. And even if Johnson's UK wants to be part of the defense of Europe (through NATO), being out of the EU does mean a lot. (Just like, well, Canada)

I wouldn’t trust a populist like Johnson as far as I can throw him. Also he has been actively hostile to the EU and many of his backers including in his own political party and government would like the EU to collapse.

I know that at this point, the stability of NATO isn’t threatened, but if a few bad political steps occur, it could be. I don’t think the EU will take that risk.

Here in the U.K. there are concerns about the Orbanisation of U.K. politics. Which is moving at a scary pace at the moment. Just yesterday a bill was passed removing the independence of the electoral commission, which is now answerable to the government.

If this is true, then nuclear weapons are the next step. Why would Russia just call it quits?

I’m not getting into the likelihood, or not of such scenarios, there is so much we don’t know and so much unpredictability. My point was that if Putin is legacy building, that legacy won’t include instigating nuclear proliferation, or annihilation. A climb down would be preferable, with a renewed conviction that Russia was the victim in all this. So not so bad for his regime.

It needed a jolt to wake them up. Re’ Germany’s dependency on Russian gas.

Trump spoke of leaving NATO, Johnson has become disingenuous about the EU and Putin sees the EU as a threat. The EU can’t rely on the US/U.K. axis any more, for their security.

As I was saying the biggest story emerging out of this crisis is Germany and therefore the EU waking up to the necessity to provide their own security.

Thanks to Putin, Trump and Johnson.

Excellent article on how Johnson’s move in the last chance saloon could mark the end of his premiership and the failure of the Brexit project.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/26/boris-johnson-northern-ireland-brexit-protocol

The Putin apologists are proving unhinged.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that peace talks with Ukraine would continue, while warning there was a “real” danger of a World War III.

There is no prospect of World War III, Russia’s army is in chaos, ill equipped and poorly trained. Largely a spent force. There is no sign of powerful allies of Russia joining the fight. So this talk of WW III is actually code for nuclear conflagration.

Lavrov is just sabre rattling with idle threats of nuclear conflagration. That’s all they’ve got left to scare NATO with. As for wether Putin is insane enough to press the button, I doubt it. Although if cornered it’s possible. But would he want to go down in history for such mindless destruction? I have been forming an opinion that he is legacy building and the legacy he has in mind is not that.

That made me chuckle. You're a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Just what I was thinking.

I don’t know exactly what you were arguing as I haven’t followed that line of reasoning. My comment was about the use of imperfections in western countries as a point of argument in the morality or justification of their support for Ukraine, or criticism of Putin.

Every country is deeply flawed and imperfect in many ways. Geopolitics is about these imperfect regimes rubbing along together without trying to destroy each other.

That Johnson isn’t micro managing events in the U.K. as party of his propaganda initiative. And that Putin isn’t short of propaganda ammunition.

It’s irrelevant because it’s the result of an internal social and political failure within a failing U.K. Any international affairs don’t shape it. It predates the Ukraine crisis anyways.

It might be an example of something Putin can point to and shout look how bad they are. But he was not short of propaganda material to begin with.

I would agree that Johnson is one of Putin’s most lucrative assets.

A little taste of just how much 'support' we in the west have for Ukrainian welfare

This is irrelevant to the political discussion. It is well documented how sick the U.K. economy and work practices are.
The government’s position is to prevent as many refugees arriving as possible.

Not to mention that the U.K. government is dysfunctional atm. We are returning to our place as the sick man of Europe.

I vehemently disagree, but this is not the place to hash that out. I will say though, that until you recognize capitalism as the problem, you will be only ever be left with non-solutions like 'rebuilding the manufacturing base', whose calls simply end up an ever more murderous pitching of nations against nations, workers against workers, such that you get a suicidal bellum omnium contra omnes - a war of all against all. Which is exactly the cloth that this current conflict in Ukraine is cut out of.

I’m referring to capitalism as a monetary system (capitalism in principle) rather than “capitalism” the political system of the West. I’m talking about it as a monetary system which supports markets and the use of capital to generate economic growth. This is practiced successfully by Vietnam and China for example.

Without the adoption of a capitalist monetary system across large populations we are doomed to the next dark ages (much worse this time due to overpopulation and climate change, perhaps existential).

Is this what you are referring to?

idea of 'rebuilding the manufacturing base' is nothing but Trumpian nationalism meant to hide the fact that the destruction of the manufacturing base has in every case enriched powers in the West, and been carried out deliberately by Western power holders

So you are describing an oligarch feudalism?

This, or anything like it would soon collapse any large scale political organisation, erode that wealth and power they crave and we would descend into another dark age. I know some ghoulish oligarchs might look as though that where they’re headed. But I doubt it. They are heading back (in their minds) to a rose tinted view of 19th century imperialism.

This must be thrown out, but capitalism in principle is essential for such a densely populated planet to live in any semblance of peace and prosperity.

like the way that some European countries have provided revenue for Russia by buying gas and oil. The West has provided revenue for China by buying their cheap consumer goods. It’s even worse because China has been dumping cheap goods on Western countries , making it very difficult to compete from their own production. This economic warfare has had a very destabilising and weakening effect. What I describe is just the tip of the iceberg.

It’s time for the West to rebuild its manufacturing, industrial and social base. And wean itself of China’s succour.

As for morality, there is the morality of representing the Russian people's wish not to be kicked around on the world stage, surrounded and demonized and President Putin's duty to fight for the honor of his country. This is how I see it.

I’m surprised to hear this here. It’s back to front, upside down from the reality.

In reality “Putin’s duty to fight for the honour of his country”, is Putin playing the saviour of the people allegedly receiving hate from outside, so as to boost support and cement need for his autocracy to continue. This is strait from the autocrat playbook.

The idea that the Russian people have been kicked around on the world stage is also false. It may have happened more recently. But for many years before that, there had been many moves to be more inclusive to Russia, for example sporting tournaments have been held there, even an international football tournament was to be hosted by Russia at the moment. This is now cancelled. A colleague of mine who is a curator for the V&A museum in the U.K. was due to stage an important museum exhibition in Moscow prior to the Salisbury poisonings. Which was immediately cancelled at that time. There was lots of socio-cultural (along with economic) integration going on with European people.

It is solely the aggressive and accusative behaviour of the Putin regime over a number of years which has caused the breakdown in this cooperation, leading inexorably to this crisis. Behaviour taken from that same autocratic playbook.

Yes, but with the effects of our modern civilisation it’s the rate of change which is different and destabilising. We may see some extreme weather events and growing in number.

It would be chaos. The climate we’re used to had stabilised over millennia. Now it’s becoming less stable again fast. A nuclear winter would make no difference, or make it worse. But we’re past the tipping point now, so there’s no stopping it.

I’m not receiving any which are not beneficial to my cause, on this issue. Although, I am largely causeless, ambivalent, in relation to the Ukraine crisis.

It is more of an issue in regard of internal British politics. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

I was already writing this before I saw your last post, I will include a link at the bottom. I’m not saying this is actually happening. But there are numerous reports in the media.


I’ve already said this, but I think it is worth highlighting as in my eyes it may be a route into an understanding of why there is confusion, and opposing arguments around the causes, motivations and drivers which brought Europe (Russia included) to this crisis.

The ideology that Western freedoms are good, inviolable, liberating, right. Is taken as gospel by many in the West. This includes the notion that welcoming Eastern European countries into European institutions is an act of benevolence and kindness. That it is so good and progressive, that it could not be seen, or conceived of as being anything else.

That we are helping them, rather than expanding our empire. Blind to the fact that others might see it from the position of an expansion of empire and influence.

https://inews.co.uk/news/russian-troops-digging-up-bodies-ukrainian-civilians-preventing-burials-mariupol-officials-1578550

There are already reports of Russian troops digging up recently buried Ukrainians and incinerating them with mobile incinerators in Mariupol. If they take Mariupol there will be 100,000 civilians to account for. Many are likely already starving to death.

Use your researching prowess.

You asserted that a narrative accepting of the inevitability of an iron curtain emerging from this crisis was likely to cause an escalation in the conflict. And yet failed to justify it, or give any rationale.

Looks like rationale is in short supply.

Yes easily. By the things you imagine happening, not happening.

Enlighten me. I really can’t see a way back from my conclusion (short of total regime change in Russia).

By your lack of a description of a settlement not requiring some kind of iron curtain. I must conclude that you can’t conceive of an alternative.

I trust my own assessment, that’s it. Do you have an unbiased source that you trust?

I’m not going to quote you, or get into misunderstandings. My point about emigration is that it is one of the reasons an iron curtain will be introduced. Along with commercial reasons. I can’t see how this can be avoided, can you?

Simply saying there's 'information' in them all is insufficient for you to choose between them.

Yes, so one makes an assessment.

How? Everything said in this entire thread could be false. The fact that you find it to be intelligent doesn't have any bearing on whether it's actually the case.

It’s unlikely to be false if it’s also being reported on multiple global news outlets, for example.

I doubt it, not with only one person

So your description of a settlement absent an iron curtain, is one indistinguishable from one including an iron curtain? Or in other words, no answer to my substantive point.

Of course it is, otherwise you're deriving misinformation from it.

That’s a simplification, there is real information in such a bulletin. Even the biased narrative is in itself and contains information.

The very fact that this subject is being discussed here in an intelligent way is proof of people deriving knowledge of what’s happening on the ground. As we are all sitting in our armchairs.

Well no, because that would be the 'iron curtain' you were referring to and you asked me what a situation without it would look like. Such a situation would be one in which he didn't do that.

And when there is only one person left in Russia, we’ll apart from those who are paid by Putin to stay there? Will things just carry on as normal?

Perhaps the removal of Putin would improve the situation. But I think the whole regime would need to be changed, or another Putin clone might emerge with no change. Also without wholesale reform of governance in Russia, European leaders might not be able to develop trust in any regime which emerges.

It’s not necessary to trust a media resource in order to derive information from it. Better to take a broad take of many sources to arrive at a sense of what is happening on the ground.

emigration would be relatively free.

And when growing numbers of people emigrate due to the dire standard of living in Russia due to sanctions etc. Presumably Putin will seek to restrict the numbers leaving. ( presumably you can see where this is leading)

We’re in the 21st century. There are multiple media resources.

So, without that iron curtain. After the conflict has been resolved. Will every Russian citizen be free to emigrate?

Your assessment of the likelihood is irrelevant. I just can't get my head round the enthusiasm with which a load of armchair laymen want to speculate about the likelihoods, it's like we're betting on a boxing match.

We’re all laymen here, or hadn’t you noticed. I’m making a substantive point, which you haven’t countered. That a new iron curtain is descending across Europe.(not a physical barrier, but one in terms of commerce and immigration, or emigration)

I find it more than a little disturbing.

Well welcome to a debating society. If you can’t take the heat don’t enter the kitchen.

What I'm talking about are the factors that we, as laymen, get to deal with - whose story do you trust and why?

So you admit to being a layman. That’s a good start.

I don’t trust anyone’s story, I don’t need to, I make my own assessment.

Now what does a resolution to this conflict look like, without an iron curtain between Europe and Russia?

“seems” is based on what is coming through on the various media sources. The poor state of the Russian army is self evident. I was listening to a Russian citizen talking on the radio the other day. Saying that she knew of fighting age men in Russia going into hiding, because they were being conscripted at gun point.
Looks pretty shoddy to me.

So what does a negotiated settlement involve in terms of commerce, or emigration? The releasing of sanctions and back to normal. The splitting up of Ukraine. It doesn’t look likely to me. I note that today Putin admitted the talks had failed.

Russia is not an economic superpower. And now it seems their so-called superpower army is a shambles.

I doubt that. There's an entire internet full of alternative narratives, if you've seriously not come across any it seems hard to believe that you're actually interested in one.

And your opinion as to the most likely outcome?

I wouldn’t be so disheartened. Those treaties were written when the West was the world (as the rest of the world was under developed, or aligned with Western states).

Now in a more global world we need to look to the UN to take a more legalistic and international arbiter role. Most of those countries you cite are not carrying out, or likely to invade their neighbours. I see the invasion of Ukraine as fallout from the disintegration of the USSR. That marauding countries invading their neighbours is largely a thing of the past.

What is more of an issue for civilisation is ideological terrorism. Maoism and Islamic derived extremism. Like a cancer, they can quietly spread and infect nations.

We shouldn’t forget the elephant in the room though, climate change. That global politics etc will soon become concerned with the climate crisis and humanitarian concerns of the population. There will be a lot of barriers going up to prevent mass migration and worst effected countries becoming broken, or failing states.

20th century style wars and international disputes will pale into insignificance as humanity struggles with these new challenges.

Yes, NATO could do more, I’m not of the opinion that Putin would escalate the nuclear risk. It looks as though NATO has chosen not to do more and hide behind the excuse of the nuclear threat. But of course we don’t have a line into their war room, so it’s guesswork, I’m afraid.

Yes, they will have chlorine barrels I expect. A good way of flushing out whose left after they’ve levelled the city. Just blame Ukrainians,

That's one way of looking at it. Trouble is, as I'm sure you'll admit, it's only one of many plausible narratives.

Is there another plausible outcome, I’d like to hear it?

It's also the one most likely to lead to escalation if it's adopted.

It’s not a narrative, or a narrative that may be adopted. It’s an opinion of the likely outcome.

The narrative of NATO is well known. What is adopted is a military and political strategy and one which is largely confidential, I expect.

The problem is this...

I don’t see it as a problem, but rather an inevitability. We and the world have seen what the US gets up to for many years. But in reality that doesn’t figure here. This crisis is between Russia and a previous member state of the USSR. There is a bit of proxy war going on, but what figures larger than that is the attempts to support Ukraine against Russian aggression by NATO. This confrontation was inevitable from the point that Putin decided to rebuild the Russian nation in the image of USSR. NATOs involvement may result in a failure by Russia and the building of a new iron curtain. If NATO hadn’t got involved in this way, a similar, or worse crisis would have developed sooner or later. And an iron curtain rebuilt, but in a different position.

Unless Russia decides to embrace a more peaceful, cooperative, unaggressive course these episodes will continue to the detriment of the Russian people. Now Europe has woken up and will arm themselves again, a new dynamic will evolve and the Russian people will experience a new crisis of identity and governance, as a result of sanctions and a phobia of commercial involvement from the West.

You do realise that Russia can and will use chemical weapons with impunity, right?
For two reasons, it is what they have previously demonstrated to do, it’s in their playbook and they are safe behind a veil of plausible deniability.

They know that NATO won’t respond, so why not?