Well it seems there are hints that that Russia is about to invade Ukraine. Hinted by the Russians building up troops near Ukraine’s border. The world has been talking about this for some time now but now is seems serious. I really hope peace prevails.
1 Like
Yes, let’s hope the world stands opposed to military aggression.
Its possible to see benefits to Russia and Putin in particular from possession of Ukraine but hard to see the pressing necessity for taking the risk of invasion. I don’t see any analysis which shows why Russia needs to take Ukraine now, this month, this year. The absence of pressing need to take military action suggests this is just a Putin power play aimed at cementing his domestic position and that he will be able to back away from military action without serious risk. The stream of high-level diplomatic meetings and visits to see him over this suggest NATO is playing along with his self-flattering game plan. which is fine by me - NATO’s role is not to de-throne autocrats.
And there will be a package of heavy economic sanctions if Russia invades. Myself being in Russa now, I am in no mood for an economic crisis. I have plans and goals, trying to raise money etc. It might be good for forex traders who will benefit fom the steeply rising and falling prices, but not for other people.
I find this situation very worrying. Looking back to when the Ukranian president fled to Russia, I did wonder what was the cause of that. Whilst many blame Putin when he sent troops into easter Ukraine, was that all prompted by Ukraine opposition, or did they have more support from Europe than purely a “democratic friend”. When an elected head of government has to flee his country for fear of being assassinated, you may wonder why he chose to flee to Russia.
I’m not supporting Russia’s case, but I do seek news channels other than BBC, CNN, FOX in an attempt to at least get a balanced view. I used to praise BBC for their total impartiality. That was more than 10 years go. Now I am never quite sure of what transparency means any more. Perhaps I am too old and skeptical.
1 Like
The ousted president you mention was Yanukovich. He was pro Russian and his refusal for a proposal to make Ukraine join the European Union caused that coup in 2014.
Fox news and CNN have a reputation of being biased. BBC was supposed to be trustworthy too, but some other trustworthy news agencies I can recommend to you include Reuters, AFP, Sky news or any other independent or neutral news sources.
1 Like
He first went to Kharkiv (second largest city in Ukraine) which is in the NE and about 30 miles from the Russian border.
He went there to garner political support for his pro-Russian stance but was shocked to be met with street protests telling him to leave.
.He then headed to Crimea where he knew there was definite support - the majority of the people there are pro-Russian like the former pres.
The Ukranian parliament voted to remove him as President - he was later convicted by a Ukranian court of treason and sentenced to 9 years (in abstentia) .
He now lives beyond the reach of the Ukranian authorities under the protection of Russia.
There are huge risks for Europe and the world in the current situation and it is sad to see that British defence minister accuses EU attempts (likely directed at France in particular) of appeasement - “the whiff of Munich” is the headline in this morning’s Sunday Times.
1 Like
Hey Sprotz, what’s the public opinion like where you are about the whole situation? Is the public ok with a possible invasion despite the sanctions that Russia suffered after the annexation of Crimea?
I find the prospect of Russia invading Ukraine terrifying. The world has enough problems as it is to add that to them. 
I don’t really follow Russian media because most of the media is state controlled, but I hear that public opinion is that generally they don’t want war, whereas the Russian media is dishing out aggressive propaganda telling its people that NATO is to blame.
1 Like
Tulsi Gabbert, a former Democratic Congresswoman from Hawaii and Army veteran, said that the US should immediately assure Russia that NATO will NOT make any further attempts to persuade Ukraine to join NATO. She thinks this is the only way to get Russia to back down?
3 Likes
The linked article reflects my understanding of source of the current problems. During my thirties and forties I lived in Damascus, Syria and visited the North Eastern oilfields where I found a very peaceful economy with government housing, subsidised shops, free education. In my forties and fifties I visited Azerbaijan five times. Working on design of the trans-Georgian oil pipeline to Turkey and the Med, I was acutely aware of the orange revolution in Georgia, spilling over to Baku only to be crushed by Aliyev. We also have a dear friend who is a refugee from Bosnia, now settled in England. She often talks romantically about never having had to suffer the hardships in Yugoslavia that she has had to suffer being relocated as a refugee. Whilst I strongly support our Government in all that it does, overseas issues are often a result of what the CIA describe as “Blowback”. This is one of hundreds of examples of blowback that we could all live to regret
This is some wishful thinking. It assumes that Putin fears a pre-emptive NATO military invasion of Russia and that his motive in denying NATO forces access to Ukraine is merely to deter that. Neither seems likely to be the true case - its not credible that NATO would feel compelled or strong enough with Ukraine’s membership to invade Russia, nor does it seem likely that all Putin wants to do is defend his borders and not expand Russia.
2 Likes
Have you heard of the expression “keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer”? To match the garbage dished out by CNN or FOX, I occasionally watch RT, Al Jazera and other Asian-focussed news channels. I don’t watch anything Iranian - I am not sure what their propaganda machine uses. For any particular conflict, there is almost always three levels - the local, regional and global. Global used to be just USA and Russia, but now it is China too.
The Syrian conflict is about civil war, inflamed by regional powers of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran, then ultimately decided by USA and Russia. That is the one I am most closely keen to monitor because my wife’s family is stuck in Damascus with no hope of leaving, as are 6 million other citizens there.
I am not well up on Ukraine but have been involved with oil and gas work in the Black Sea and Caspian Sea, areas of significant Russian influence and battle with the West for control.
Actually saw this video a few days back. This former Soviet journalist also said the same thing in 2018. What he said was a guarantee of 50 years off NATO membership.
He makes a very compelling argument about the perceived slights by American policies in the 90s & early 2000s. Like the expansion of NATO, refusal of Russian membership in NATO and the US ignoring Russian cooperation. Gives a fascinating insight to Putin’s possible motivation.
2 Likes
Just saw this in a live broadcast feed from Al Jazeera. It appears to echo the concerns Russia sees from having Ukraine join NATO membership.
Russian membership of NATO?
Apart from maybe Jeremy Corbyn who would see that as a good thing?
Vladimir Pozner asks a good question from the audience. For the 22 years from 1985-2007 what did the former Soviet Union/Russia do to antagonize the West?
The membership was suggested before Russia adopted a more intolerant attitude of the West. Keeping that time in context I think it made sense to seriously consider it at the time. Especially if the EU wanted a stable Europe and recognized Russia as a vital trading partner. If the EU has a vetting policy to allow nations into the EU why wasn’t a similar process adopted to grant Russian membership into NATO?
To me atleast, it would’ve ensured a better standard of living for Russian citizens, incentivized more open market policies in Russia & had a strong ally against the real threat of China today.
1 Like
NATO was created purely for the defence of Europe from Soviet aggression. Its arguable that the collapse of the USSR was the correct time for immediate winding up of NATO. As it turned out, this would have been short-sighted but once the present generation of Russian politicians and military leadership has passed on, this idea should be looked at again.
The foreseeable results of Russian induction into NATO on the other hand would have been the spread westwards of Russian political influence, advantages to the Russian economy and the likely collapse of the NATO military alliance.
1 Like
Yea, that makes sense. Plus Yelstin’s oligarchy was in no way compatible with the West.
From the little I’ve read so far Putin wanted to build stronger ties with the West on his ascendance to power. He wanted acknowledgement and cooperation with the West at the time. Having worked and networked in Europe during the 90s would’ve made him a lot of more open-minded that his other political contemporaries. That’s evidenced by allowing US forces in Ulyanovsk for operations in Afghanistan.
Even if no NATO membership, atleast other compromises. If you look at admissions to NATO membership you’ll see the sudden addition of 3 members in 1999 and 7 in 2004. Alarming expansion, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union, if you consider that only 4 other countries were added to NATO after it’s formation.
Edit:
Not sure if I agree with this. Besides the expansions NATO, it could be argued that there were many other factors that led to Putin’s aggressive stance on the west. Particularly events like the US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty & invasion of Iraq despite Russian opposition.
Any country in Europe that doesn’t want to be constantly looking over its shoulder at Russia would obviously wish to join NATO.
As for Putin, he’s an unreformed KGB Colonel with a ruthless reign of terror over his people both inside his borders and outside and a talent for lining his own pockets.