What Do You Think Today?

[peter]

In the interests of fairness, I have to say I saw a YouTube posting yesterday that undermined my argument that Russia has no plans to invade the Ukraine (at a bigger level than the small scale troop support that we have seen to date).

How correct this information is, I can't say, but TLDR News, who produced the vid, are generally pretty good and precise with their assesment. They pointed out to the setting up of field hospitals and forward positioned helicopter refueling depots (neither of which has been seen up to this point), together with the evacuation of civilians from the disputed Donbas region, as indicative of Russian intentions to mount a larger incursion.

This makes sense, and Putin has certainly laid the groundwork for such an invasion, by his declaration that the Ukraine is not a historically existent entity (as per its claimed borders) and that the Donbas has a rightful claim to independent status which Russia recognizes.

Perhaps he does intend (in the face of a belief of western unreadiness to take any military steps to prevent this) to mount a more substantial incursion in order to drive out the Ukraine state forces from the region and (presumably) leave it in the hands of the Russian sepratist forces who are currently fighting a war of attrition against the said regular army.

But (and this tactic was always on the cards) this is as far as he would go. He would be clinically insane to attempt the full scale takeover of the whole country. The Russian people have little appetite for a war on this scale, it would be bloody and protracted in the nth degree, and would serve no purpose except to turn Russia into a pariah state on the world stage.

Like it or not, Russia must still function as part of the larger world, and although they have made adjustments to their economy in the last few years that to some extent cushion them from dependence on Western interaction (movement of currency away from dollars, increasing gold reserves, development of markets outside of the western sphere of influence etc) they are still in with the West to a degree that any sanctions laid against it have the power to bite deep indeed. Germany's halting of approval of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline (temporarily) will be a blow to the Russian economy just as a starter, and while the small level of sanctions we in the UK have instigated will of themselves be little problem, we do have the capacity to make things much worse if we choose. (This of itself is problematic for Johnson however, because the conservative party is in so deep with Russian backers and donations, that he will ill want to disrupt this flow of cash into the coffers. Also the golden rule for the Tories - you do not fuck with the City of London - is one they would not happily see broken - even to bring Vladimir Putin to book. The power behind the Tories sits deeply ensconced in said City, and the repercussions of such an intervention would strike deep into the Tory heart.)

But this aside, there is no advantage to Russia going the whole hog in terms of Ukrainian invasion, but every advantage to Putin on the domestic front if he can show a restoration of Russian influence in the region of the Donbas. With limited and quickly reversed Western punishment (the public have short memories, and what happens once their attention is turned away is something else), he may well consider that a limited excursion into the Donbas is worth the risk.

In terms of the Western repercussions, we will huff and we will puff, but we won't blow the house down. Our response will be as Macbeth's poor player - full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.

[peter]

Yesterday afternoon, before I went off to work, I caught a brief glimpse of the Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs making a statement to the UN General Assembly on the "situation in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine".

I put those last words in inverted commas because they are a direct quote from the said Ministry webpage in which the text of Dmyitrio Kubela's statement is given in full. I'm not sure that in the current situation as it stood would have exactly constituted an occupation - but let that go; Ukraine has every reason to present its case in as stark a manner as it can, and preaching as Mr Kubela was, to an audience of the converted (and from his own nation's partisan position as it were) it is hardly surprising that he/they would choose such language.

But to return, the coverage of Mr Kubela's speech was given live as it happened on the BBC news channel, and his words came across with the gravitas and significance that they deserved. The United Nations is exactly the forum where such complaints occuring at a national level should be heard, and of course, if possible, be settled.

This being the case, would it not have been politic for the Russian side of this worsening situation to have been presented at the same General Assembly meeting, or is this not how the United Nations functions? Are decisions made after only the one side of any argument are presented; I don't remember the Iraqi government being called to speak before the ill-fated (for that nation at least) invasion was sanctioned (following the infamous presentation by General Sir Colin Powell in which he showed us the non-existent weapons of mass destruction) in 2003.

Is this how things are done then? Is the United Nations a true representative body of all of the nations of earth, in which all, large and small, may be equally and fairly heard - or is it merely a sounding board for decisions that have already been made, and made always in the way that American opinion would have them be made.

It looks now as if full-scale conflict in the Donbas is unavoidable. Putin will be a lucky man if he can contain it to this region alone, and even if he does it is likely to be a bloody and protracted affair. Reports from the region yesterday as well as from the Russian camps set up to receive fleeing civilians from the region were interesting to see. In the BBC coverage the people of the region seemed without exception pleased with the Russian intervention on (what they see as) their behalf (one woman said she had been praying for this since the inception of the Ukrainian state), while the response within Kiev itself was more muted. People in the non russian speaking capital are used to war in the Donbas - it's been going on for eight years - but were beginning to take on board that the current situation might be different. Some of the casual sanguinuity of the past days seemed to have deserted them and there was a distinctly nervous aspect to their replies.

I have not read up on what Putin has said this morning yet, but it would seem that he has decided to up the anti and increase Russian presence in the region in support of the sepratist troops. He has warned against interference in this (presumably to tell the Ukrainian Government to let Russia end the long term dispute in favour of the sepratist movement or face the consequences. The West will certainly not like this, but if he gets away with it, any consequences in terms of economic sanctions and whatever, will likely be more than offset against the gains he will make in his popularity ratings at home (until the sanctions begin to bite).

The West for all the blow-hard rhetoric at the United Nations will essentially do nothing. The 'war' will progress as Putin wants; Ukraine proper will put up token resistance and then retreat to shouting, and in ten years or less the sanctions will be lifted, because the West needs Russian gas etc as much as Russia needs the West. And Putin will have his victory. NATO influence in the region will have been pushed back, the Donbas will run with a Government compliant to Russian wishes, and a new status quo will be established, much as it was after the Russian take over of the Crimea.

Or something else altogether will happen, because I've been wrong so many times on this thread that it hurts. I must love the pain!



(Edit: One thing, if diplomacy has failed in this, then it has failed because we have neglected to offer Putin an 'off-ramp' (a way out that doesn't require him to loose face in respect of his home audience. If we have presented all of his options in terms of Western win equals Russian loose, then he would never capitulate and back down. Putin is a man who likes options to choose from, not one who has a decided course to stick with from the outset. We needed to present him with an outcome that he could take back to his people and say "Look - I won!" (while at the same time doing nothing to compromise Ukrainian sovereignty in the Donbas. If the situation now descends into war, then it is this failing on our part that will have led to it.)

[Avatar]

I'm not sure that lack of a "diplomatic off-ramp" is the only possible reason for failure.

Given how things have progressed, I think it equally likely that, sensing a lack of political will in the West, (so beset already by its own concerns), he may have simply decided to seize the initiative and dare everybody to do something about it.

Which, so far, it appears that they are not.

If so, no amount of diplomacy would have made a difference. (Nor are sanctions likely to do anything either.)

--A

[peter]

I think you are right Av: judging from the nature of the offensive as it has developed over the past 24 hours it would appear that Putin was less inclined to accept a diplomatic exit than many thought was the case.

It appears that he genuinely is going for complete Ukrainian regime change rather than just the annexing of a bit more territory to the east of the country, and this is clearly something that had to be planned for significantly in advance. If Putin's intention was to put Russia back to center stage, he's certainly achieved that! What he thinks he can achieve by this is open to question. Surely, even if he does achieve a regime change and the installation of a puppet regime in Kiev, he will have a bloody mess on his hands for years to come - a re-enactment of Afghanistan in the middle of Europe? He will have doomed Russia into an extended period of pariah status on the world stage the economic ramifications of which can only reduce Russia to her knees.

Or not.

Perhaps he is gambling that the West truly has had its day; that the emerging economies of China, India and a nascent Africa will be the ordering principles around which the post-covid world will rotate, and he intends Russia to be part of it. Perhaps his judgement is that whatever he does in Ukraine is not going to hold him back in such a new world order? Perhaps, as Biden says, he really is going for the gold standard of a new Russian led geopolitical area in eastern Europe? If so, he must be gambling that the West (in so far as Europe and NATO go) are much less inclined than their rhetoric would suggest, to step up to the table and counter him. One thing: he must be contemptuous of the idea that sanctions can be used to halt his ambition because he's certainly going to get them now. (Though whether the Tories will be as assiduous in excluding Russia/Russians from City of London activity as yesterday's House of Commons debate implied they would, remains to be seen. Also, Joe Biden has already said that the exclusion of Russia from the SWIFT mechanism of banking exchange is not quite appropriate at this point because "European countries are not ready for it".)

So we are certainly seeing history (of some kind or another) in the making. Early indications are that it might not be of the kind we would choose.

Very little is clear at the present in respect of Putin's future intentions - will he, having secured his compliant administration in Kiev (assuming he is successful in this aim) be prepared to stop there, or will his ambitions run to further expansion of the Russian sphere of influence? This would be a dangerous strategy indeed for, despite his clear contempt for the idea of Western willingness to protect its own interests, NATO's 'compliance' will only run so far and it remains to be seen what the Western response would be if any of its member states were likewise threatened. Putin's warnings that if the West were to interfere in his plans they could expect a response "as yet unseen in the world" (clearly a reference to Russian nuclear capabilities) are ominous, but do they refer to the situation in the Ukraine or to further ambitions not yet manifest? One thing is certain: the West is now paying the price for the marginalisation of Russia that has been its modus operandi since the fall of the USSR. At no point have we extended the hand of friendship to the Russian nation, attempted to bring them into the fold as it were, of a Europe united in a common goal of economic advancement and cooperation. At what point have we heard of any positive communion with Russia - in fact at what point has any notice ever been taken of them at all unless they have been misbehaving themselves?

Rather we have chosen to view the country in the light of its former communist status; "you might not be the USSR, but you still represent the enemy of old" style of thing. There has been no suggestion that perhaps Russia might join the EU, might (heaven forbid) become a member of NATO and combine with the rest of Western Europe in making the continent a powerhouse of world economic activity. Instead we have partaken of an expansion of influence (in direct opposition to that which we originally promised in the heady days of the fall of communism) in an eastern direction. This has been the mistake of Versailles repeated over and again; punishment rather than conciliation. Now we see the consequences of this policy of Russian encirclement bearing fruit. Is it any wonder that (especially given its history) it has become nervous and has decided to push back, to reassert its influence? Where it will end now, is anybody's guess - but in the meantime the people of the Ukraine will bear the cost.

Now that the dogs of war have been unleashed we have little choice but to see it through to the end and support our friends at whatever cost it demands of us. If boots on the ground it must be then so be it. But we should not let our leaders off the hook for their disastrous handling of the world, for the wasted opportunity of a lifetime that was given to them by the collapse of communism and the dissolution of the USSR. They had it all given to them gift-wrapped and they squandered it.

[Avatar]

I've said it before. Putin is out to recapture the eminence of Russia in global politics. After years of being out in the cold as it were, the Russians (understandably) support the idea. I get it. His methods and principles though, make me worried about the eventual outcome.

--A

[peter]

Just watched a very instructive vid on YouTube featuring Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago giving a (virtual) talk on the background of this situation.

Entitled Professor John Mearsheimer: The situation in Russia and the Ukraine | Kings Politics, he unequivocally lays the blame for this on Western foreign policy and NATO expansionism since 2008 (I think this was his date). The video makes for sobering viewing and is a perfect lesson to take on board in point of placing the rhetoric of our leaders in context. We are not the 'good guys' in this situation - it is far more complex than that. I urge you to watch it.

[peter]

The sad thing is that had the West (and principally America) not interfered to bring about the coup in 2014 that unseated the neutral administration in Kiev and replace it with a pro-western one, then none of this would be happening.

The idea that the Russians were ever going to accept a NATO bulwark shoved right up against their own border is for the birds. Haven't the American people ever heard of the Monroe doctrine? When in 2008 at the termination of the Bucharest conference, the western intention of bringing Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO (and this was explicitly stated at the time, though this is now conveniently forgotten) the Russians drew their line in the sand and said that it wasn't going to happen.

They had (unhappily) swallowed two previous tranches of NATO expansion - the first when Poland and Romania had joined in the 1990's and then subsequently the Baltic States at a later point) but this claimed intention was a step too far. The unseating of the neutral administration and replacement with a pro-Wesern one in 2014 was the catalyst for the Russian invasion of the Crimea (the siting of a Western naval base at the Crimean port of Sebastopol was a no-no for them, let alone because they simultaneously would have lost their only deep water port), and from this moment on, the previously untroubled region of the Ukraine became a thorn of contention. Where previously it had served as a buffer state, suddenly the West wanted it to become a bulwark.

The arming of the Ukrainian forces, and training of the same that we in the West have recently instigated (which began in the Trump era - Obama had refused to do this) has reignited a somewhat dormant situation (since 2014 anyway) together with some deeply provocative acts on our part (the sailing of a British warship through Russian waters in the Black Sea, the flying of American warplanes up to the Russian border) this has brought about the current re-esscalation of the crisis to the point where Russian patience has finally snapped. It (contrary to what we would have as entirely defensive acts) views the arming and training of Ukrainian forces right on its border as deeply offensive (in both senses of the word), and views the turning of the Ukraine into a defacto member of NATO (in terms of realpolitik as opposed to our rhetoric to the contrary) as a positively aggressive move on the Western part.

The Russian actions of the past week are to be seen, against this backdrop, as them signalling to the West in no uncertain terms that they have had enough. They are prepared to lat the Ukraine to waste rather than see the state of affairs that we were pursuing come to fruition.

Putin may have gone 'Tonto' as we have been told, but if this account has any merit the Russian actions would seem less inexplicable than simply that.

[Lefdmae Deemalr Effaeldm]

Entitled Professor John Mearsheimer: The situation in Russia and the Ukraine | Kings Politics, he unequivocally lays the blame for this on Western foreign policy and NATO expansionism since 2008 (I think this was his date). The video makes for sobering viewing and is a perfect lesson to take on board in point of placing the rhetoric of our leaders in context. We are not the 'good guys' in this situation - it is far more complex than that.

No offense to you (I know in most cases it's not ill-intended, propaganda exists to mislead and works on smart and good people too), full offense to the "instructive vid".

If the collective West will end up not the 'good guys' (for now has a chance), it will be not cause the expansionism, it will be for concessions to Putin, and for the weak reaction against him, and for failing to understand the Kremlin's ideology for the disaster it is and massively spread that info.

Still, in that case they'll just be opponents who are too weak, but the blame is 1000% on Putin.

The situation really is more complex than commonly understood though, but in a completely different way. It's not the 51% of blame here, 49% there "complexity", it's the Kremlin's new ideology in countless philosophical articles and books that alas few people tried to even investigate, and then few listened to them. I guess might be that they're mostly serious far right movements researchers like Andreas Umland and Anton Shekhovtsov, people rarely manage to read stuff like that, and they didn't get a "popularization guy" like Demidov for Dugin.

The sad thing is that had the West (and principally America) not interfered to bring about the coup in 2014 that unseated the neutral administration in Kiev and replace it with a pro-western one, then none of this would be happening.

The idea that the Russians were ever going to accept a NATO bulwark shoved right up against their own border is for the birds. Haven't the American people ever heard of the Monroe doctrine? When in 2008 at the termination of the Bucharest conference, the western intention of bringing Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO (and this was explicitly stated at the time, though this is now conveniently forgotten) the Russians drew their line in the sand and said that it wasn't going to happen.

No, that's absolutely not so. Earlier than that, Russians were even boasting that Russia was going to end up in EU and NATO earlier than Ukraine!

And then the Kremlin took in Demidov, a follower of neo-fascist ideologist Dugin as the "United Russia" (Putin's party) official ideologist and started taking offense at everything and finding excuses for war everywhere.

Putin may have gone 'Tonto' as we have been told, but if this account has any merit the Russian actions would seem less inexplicable than simply that.

They're also much less inexplicable with a stash of his ideologist's articles. He literally wrote that war for the sake of war is a good thing. And that fascism is the only option for Russia's ideology. And called Ukrainians a race of bastards. I don't know how it gets clearer than that.

no amount of diplomacy would have made a difference. (Nor are sanctions likely to do anything either.)

Agree.

I've said it before. Putin is out to recapture the eminence of Russia in global politics. After years of being out in the cold as it were, the Russians (understandably) support the idea. I get it. His methods and principles though, make me worried about the eventual outcome.

I can offer slight adjustments from what I understand, but a very good description, especially without having lots of rare inside info.

Mostly off is the Russians support it part, there are a few factors that distort the picture, mostly cause Putin was rather methodically rooting out - killing, imprisoning, squeezing out of the country and scaring into silence all who raised their voices to oppose him and used to spread the truth and lead protests, that's why few voices against him are heard now. Politicians, activists, journalists, common people just going to protests or writing in social networks. From Nemtsov, Novodvorskaya, Politkovskaya and many others who are dead now, to the thousands of people arrested in the recent few days for protests, including one with a blank banner.

It's also not really for Russia's glory, though might be how he perceives it, he's dragging Russia into the living nightmare of Dugin's neo-fascist ideology, that's something ~0 Russians would want if they knew what was going on.

[peter]

Mmm..... Let's be fair here: the video I recommend is not exactly 'propoganda' is it. It's a debate between a respected Professor of International Relations at the University of Chicago and the King's College Political Tripos at Cambridge University.

I cannot but agree one hundred percent that Putin is off the scale a bad man and leaning certainly (if not there already) in the direction of becoming a dictator of a fascist bent. But history shows that the actions of one side can provide the leg-up upon which individuals who would not normally be given the time of day are raised up to take the reins of power (think Versailles).

I suggest the video of Professor John Mearsheimer as a succinct account of the history leading up to the current crisis, and perhaps his attribution of blame may be questioned, but the facts remain. Nato did expand eastwards, we did march right up to the Russian front door (in a manner that America, with its Monroe doctrine, would never have countenanced were the situation reversed), we did arm and train the Ukrainian army (Johnson now boasts of it) and sail our warship into Russian territorial waters....... and what are the Russians supposed to make of these things? That it's just the benevolent West being defensive (when said arms and soldiers will be used to bolster fighting in the Donbas)?

But Mearsheimer is by far from alone in his assessment of the folly of Western foreign policy in the post Soviet period. Tim Powers in his book Prisoners of Geography predicted exactly this situation five years plus ago. There was never any circumstance (he told us) that the Russians could accept the Crimea falling into Western hands (or the hands of an American leaning administration in the Ukraine). The 2014 coup guaranteed the Russian response, and everything we see now stems from it.

And now we have the unsettling news (not well reported, but significant nevertheless) that Turkey has said it will blockade Russian ships in the Black Sea. Together with its supplying the Ukrainian army with drones (which Professor Mearsheimer says have been used to good effect against opposition targets in the Donbas) this is an escalation that could spin off in all sorts of unwanted directions. Germany has in addition, now reversed its policy of not supplying arms to the Ukrainian army and will be providing artillery and stinger missiles forthwith. These things are an indication that this situation is hotting up, and containing it to a fight between Russia and the Ukraine may prove much more difficult than we would like. If this thing is to spread, it will be because of incremental ratcheting up - not because anybody (the Russians included) would want it to. The danger is that it will gain a momentum of its own that becomes unstoppable.

And in the Ukraine itself things become surreal; the President dishes out arms to the untrained populace, tells them to make Molotov cocktails and go out and stop the Russian forces; not being funny, but what is he thinking. Such behaviour can only result in the slaughter of innocent people who cannot realistically make any difference to the defeat or advance of the Russian invasion. This might sound patriotic, but it is suicide: the suggestion that they should do this is irresponsible at the least (how sad was it to see the pictures on the BBC of people obeying this instruction and sitting in a park on Saturday afternoon making up said cocktails). Whatever regime sits in the Ukrainian capital, the life of one person should not be spent to buy it, soldier or civilian - but from where we are, at least now civilian lives should be protected. The images of Russian forces killing the civilian population might be a powerful incentive to Western leaders to step up aid to the beleaguered nation - but I cannot believe that the President would deliberately stoop to such tactics and so must assume that his perorations are resultant from a misguided idea of what it is right to ask of the people in such situations.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the history behind all of this, we are now in that place where it is exactly that - history - and of no further consequence. We failed to learn from it and must now watch this failure unfold before our eyes. Like drops of paint falling into water, the spins and swirls of fate will now determine our future and any control our leaders have on the situation they have precipitated (and I mean leaders on both sides, for when did the people themselves get any say in such matters) will be subject to the whimsies thereof and minimal at best.

[Forestal]

An interesting video about Putin's driving ideals that I saw earlier today, and makes a lot of sense.

It's not all-encompassing, but it's a decent overview of what might be prompting this seemingly irrational Russian invasion.

[peter]

Gratitude for the link Forestal (I wish my machine would do that, but it doesn't seem to let me) - I will watch it later, I promise, but first I'm going to post what I'm trying (with little success) to hold onto in my age addled brain in respect of what I've heard in the last twenty four hours.

Was it wise for the foreign secretary Liz Truss to say live on the BBC Sunday morning news slots that she supported individuals in the UK who wanted to up sticks and head for the Ukraine to join up with the Ukrainian defense forces? Certainly there has been a large number of Ukrainian nationals resident in the UK who have expressed a desire to return to their country to join the fight, but Truss was referring more to the request from her Ukrainian counterpart (I think it was) for people of other nationalities to also come. They would be made welcome and their journeys facilitated (he said). I have grave reservations about such a way of recruitment to the Ukrainian cause: it seems to me likely that the Ukrainians will finish up with every fruit-loop and basket-case that thinks this is a video game and wants to weild a gun if they adopt this policy. That our Foreign Secretary should endorse such an ad-hoc process I find bizarre. Has she never seen The Prime of Miss Jean Brody? What does she think this is - the Spanish civil war? Besides which, the presence of UK civilians within the Ukrainian fighting forces is a provocation, an escalation of its own kind. If Russia reacts badly to such presence then her words of encouragement cannot but be held against her. Besides which, the fighting of wars is a professional business best left to professional soldiers; there is little place for the untrained idealist in a modern battle-field and his presence can only result in disaster - for him and the professional soldiers who have to carry him.

Second point; in his statement yesterday, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister warned that it was only a matter of time before the Belorussian forces joined in the fight with their Russian allies and swept over the border into the Ukraine. Putin would no doubt be very pleased to have them in the fight, not least because it seems not to be going his way at the moment: the stiff resistance being put up by the Ukrainian army seems to be far more effective than he had planned for and this can only be giving him doubts about the wisdom of the course he has opted to take. Much of his planning will have been dependant upon a swift victory and toppling of the Ukrainian administration, and getting bogged down for the long haul will not be part of this plan at all. But nevertheless, the entry of the Belorussian forces would be exactly the kind of escalation I referred to above - the spinning of the conflict off in directions unprepared for, making both the controllability and the predictability of the enterprise far more difficult.

Lastly, it would not be possible to not refer to Putin's carefully veiled threat in respect of his readiness to unleash his nuclear arsenal if things look to be going badly. I'm not sure of his wording or what indeed he was referring to. Was he saying that if the West were to get involved this was an option? Was he referring to the use of nuclear weapons within the Ukrainian theatre or was the implication that he would be prepared to 'go wider' in his targeting? I mean fuck! - It's early days to be throwing around that kind of talk and this is what you'd expect from somebody who was in the process of 'reining-in', not the key-holder to the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world (or one of them). I'm absolutely sure that some of his politburo mates must have been looking askance at each other, rolling their eyes and quietly calling up the men in white coats. That is silly talk man - just plain silly!

And on the Russian side, the support for Putin's war seems to be luke warm at best. Rumours are that even some of the top cabinet members are not happy and are expressing their reservations. There are widespread demonstrations against the war across the country (would we still be allowed to do this here, or has Priti Patel stopped it yet?) and the Russian people are by no means convinced that Putin is pursuing the right course. It's been said repeatedly that Putin would be insane to embark upon a full scale invasion of the Ukraine (hence the suprise when he did) and that such an act could well topple him. The longer this goes on, the more tenuous his position becomes - and the more dangerous he (and by extension, the situation) becomes as well. Both we and he need a swift resolution to this, but there is no sign of one coming as yet. There was some talk of talks yesterday, but nothing seems to have come of it and given the distance between the positions of the Russian and Ukrainian administrations, there doesn't seem to be much hope of a reconciliation on that score.

So anyway, that's my thoughts: I'll go and watch Forestal's vid and maybe post a bit on that later.

[Forestal]

Today's events are going to be interesting, as are the remainder of the week, as Russia has been barred from Swift and partly due to this, the Rouble has dropped 30% against the Dollar. This can't be good news for Russia and there is already talk of one of their major banks being unable to pay its debt.

As the fighting continues it will be very interesting to watch the financial markets, is this just hot air being blown from the UK press? Or are Russian banks genuinely at risk of collapsing under the pressure of international sanctions?

Regardless, I have seen that this has caused Germany to pledge a further £84b to military spending and 2% of their GDP to NATO. I think a quote my partner saw on reddit really sums it up: "You know you messed up when you cause Germany to rearm itself."

[Avatar]

no amount of diplomacy would have made a difference. (Nor are sanctions likely to do anything either.)

Agree.

I've said it before. Putin is out to recapture the eminence of Russia in global politics. After years of being out in the cold as it were, the Russians (understandably) support the idea. I get it. His methods and principles though, make me worried about the eventual outcome.

I can offer slight adjustments from what I understand, but a very good description, especially without having lots of rare inside info.

Mostly off is the Russians support it part, there are a few factors that distort the picture, mostly cause Putin was rather methodically rooting out - killing, imprisoning, squeezing out of the country and scaring into silence all who raised their voices to oppose him and used to spread the truth and lead protests, that's why few voices against him are heard now. Politicians, activists, journalists, common people just going to protests or writing in social networks. From Nemtsov, Novodvorskaya, Politkovskaya and many others who are dead now, to the thousands of people arrested in the recent few days for protests, including one with a blank banner.

It's also not really for Russia's glory, though might be how he perceives it, he's dragging Russia into the living nightmare of Dugin's neo-fascist ideology, that's something ~0 Russians would want if they knew what was going on.

Good to see you around Effy, and hope you're keeping as well as can be.

And yes, agree that I was not taking into account the difficulty inherent in being a voice of opposition against him. (Although in 2015 perhaps more were in favour (albeit on dubious grounds) than now.)

Certainly a big mess, and equally pleased to see how this was far from the push-over he clearly expected as well.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

An interesting video about Putin's driving ideals that I saw earlier today, and makes a lot of sense.

It's not all-encompassing, but it's a decent overview of what might be prompting this seemingly irrational Russian invasion.

That's a very informative video.

[peter]

Today's events are going to be interesting, as are the remainder of the week, as Russia has been barred from Swift and partly due to this, the Rouble has dropped 30% against the Dollar. This can't be good news for Russia and there is already talk of one of their major banks being unable to pay its debt.

As the fighting continues it will be very interesting to watch the financial markets, is this just hot air being blown from the UK press? Or are Russian banks genuinely at risk of collapsing under the pressure of international sanctions?

Regardless, I have seen that this has caused Germany to pledge a further £84b to military spending and 2% of their GDP to NATO. I think a quote my partner saw on reddit really sums it up: "You know you messed up when you cause Germany to rearm itself."

I saw an interesting interview in which a commentator opined that the exclusion of Russia from the Swift international payment system represented the 'nuclear option' of the Western ability to exert pressure in non-lethal ways, and that if we were forced to resort to it, then we had effectively already failed. The Russians have detached themselves in large part from reliance upon the system, such that the exclusion will (if it is fully applied - I believe it is only partially so at present) do far more damage to Western countries that trade with Russia than to the Russians themselves. The collapse of the Russian economy (interest rates rocketing, currency value plummeting, banks teetering etc) will only serve to make this volatile situation ever the more dangerous as the Putin administration in its desperation, strikes ever more fiercely to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion (from its point of view).

Putin's increasing isolation similarly renders him all the more dangerous, not less so. Backed into a corner of win at all costs or perish utterly (and this is increasingly where he finds himself - he cannot survive as Russian President unless he now achieves total victory in the Ukraine) he is at his most dangerous. Barring an internal 'coup' in which he is removed from power (a possibility - Russian internal power politics can equal that of the West in its adversarial nature) the man has little choice left but to deliver total victory, and the fierce resistance he is meeting from the Ukrainian forces will be met with ever mounting levels of ferocity. This fight is existential now for Putin as much as it is for the Ukraine.

Behind the scenes the diplomatic efforts continue. President Macron has spoken to Putin urging him to exercise restraint in the shelling of cities, particularly in areas of high civilian population and to ensure that road systems whereby people can escape from the violence are left open. Putin has by accounts said that he will do this but the images on the front pages today would tell a different story. The scene is set for this to become very ugly indeed and I just wish I could retreat to the simplicity of my youth where I could divide the world neatly into the good guys (us) and the bad guys (them).

But the trouble is I no longer trust my own leaders, or yours either.

Like Neil Oliver in his recent posting on YouTube, the complicity of the West in dealing with any and ever regime the world over that furthers its own economic advantage (what have our responses to human rights violations in the likes of China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar been other than lip-service) makes any criticism of anyone else seem tainted at best. We shake a finger with one hand while grasping a fistful with the other. We listen to leaders like Trudeau singing the praises of the courageous anti-war protesters in Moscow while simultaneously his heavy-horse mounted police ride over the protesters gathered in Ottawa against vaccine mandates. Priti Patel announces her intention allow a hundred thousand Ukrainian refugees into the UK, but only as long as they complete the usual visa applications (and at the same time pushing legislation through the House that would make exactly the same kind of demonstrations that we are seeing in Moscow illegal in the UK - at her own discretion of course).

You'd have to be dead from the neck up not to be anything other than horrified by what is transpiring in the Ukraine - a tragedy of unimaginable proportions is unfolding on that unfortunate people and Vladimir Putin is to blame for this. He will likely take Ukraine to the edge of complete destruction - who is going to stop him (certainly not the West - our boots will not be caked in Ukrainian mud and blood) - and the world will watch aghast. But anyone who still thinks this situation is divided into the black and the white, who seeks the neat separation of the world into deaths head wearing Nazis and cor-blimey Tommys is living in cloud cuckoo land. That we are where we are is a reflection of the complete and abject failure of Western foreign policy since the end of the Soviet era. The only beneficiaries of this lie to the East, those who will sit this one out, quite happy to see their adversaries (both Russian and Western) spend their energies in self-destruction instead of the cooperation that should have been the case, where we could have mounted a united front against the rise of Chinese economic might.

[peter]

How did Clive Myrie keep a straight face on this evening's news telling us that "The Russian state uses its media outlets to push its own narrative and the people believe it"? Not being funny, but after the two years we've just had that seems a bit rich coming from the BBC don't you think?

[peter]

The pressure to step up aid to Ukraine beyond that of supplying arms and equipment is becoming intense. Following the rocket attack on a TV tower next to a holocaust memorial site in which a family of five died, President Zolensky implored the West to set up a no-fly zone over Kiev, saying that as long as the skies remained clear, his forces could deal with the situation on the ground. What, he asked, was the point of the words "Never again" on the memorial if in the face of the attack on Ukraine the world was going to stand by and do nothing. Elsewhere an anti-corruption journalist asked of Boris Johnson, why he was trying to avoid world war three when it had already started, and it was the women children and civilians of Ukraine that were paying the price of our desire not to get involved?

She has a point. Johnson had made it plain that there was no intention (by any NATO member country) to aid in the war by putting boots on the ground, and of the no-fly zone he said that it must be realised that this would entail the shooting down of Russian planes which would take us into entirely different territory. And for his part, he for once in his life, is being honest. In reality, given the failure of sanctions to deter Putin from advancing his program (in a bizarre and most probably totally miscalculated way) there is in reality nothing that NATO can do.

And Putin knows this.

We are not going to start WW3 in defence of the Ukraine. Despite having led them up to the confrontation via our disastrous foreign policy of Russian encirclement and exclusion, now the chips are down the hollow nature of Western friendship is becoming apparent. All the words in the world will not save the Ukraine now - this has become an existential fight for Putin that he has to win - but that which the country needs is the one thing we will not - cannot - provide.

But the slow progress of the Russian advance (being put down in the press to logistical problems and the stiffness of the resistance) might be a reflection of deeper problems. The ties between Russia and the Ukraine run deep. Very deep. Thousands of Russian men are married to Ukrainian women and vice versa. There are huge numbers of Russians living in the Ukraine who regard themselves as Ukrainian citizens (and again vice versa). There is going to be an inbuilt resistance in the Russian forces when it comes to turning their guns on what they regard as essentially their own brothers and sisters, and this could well be behind the reported low morale that is afflicting the Russian troops on the ground. Alas the commanders, said to be becoming frustrated with the slow pace of advance (as is Putin reportedly) are resorting to rocket and other heavy armament attacks, likely to result in much heavier casualties among the civilian population, as an alternative option.

Given that we cannot help the people of Ukraine with military aid, that sanctions and talk are not going to be a fast enough option to stop the humanitarian crisis in the making, do we not have a moral imperative to do the one thing that could bring about an end to this war rapidly and with minimal additional casualties? That is to do the unthinkable and agree to talk to Putin with a regard to addressing his concerns. If our high handed insistence that "we do not treat with aggressors" is to be bought at the price of piles of Ukrainian women and children, heaps of civilians raised high on the alter of Putin's fury, Putin's desperation, then it is a candle not worth the wick. Do we have nothing if not a moral imperative to consider this as a way of halting this tragedy in the making.

Our leaders must be praying that Putin is deposed from within the Kremlin itself or that the Russian army rebel, because clearly he is not going to give up, the Ukrainian army cannot defeat him (hold him, yes - defeat him, no) and we can do nothing militarily that doesn't escalate the situation beyond all imagination. If sanctions are not going to work - and there is no evidence that they are - then if we do not negotiate, or one of these things happen, then we are in this for the long haul.

I see that China have said that it could act as an intermediary in talks to bring the situation under control - ironic in itself - and that Belorussian troops are on the verge of entering the fray if they have not done so already. We are on the verge of seeing the Ukraine being turned into a failed state, with neither government nor infrastructure on the edge of Europe. A hell-pit of fury akin to Libya on our borders. Russia becoming a pariah state, closed off to the rest of the world, secretive and insular with little clue coming out as to who rules it, what circumstances prevail and its people susceptible to the types of extreme nationalism that can breed and flourish in such isolation. The world will not be improved by any of this and it is our duty to future generations to do whatever - whatever - is necessary to stop it from happening. We have done harm enough already: time to begin to do some good.

(Aside: In a Times front page list of different things going on - YouTube banning Russian media, Apple halting sales of products in Russia etc - came one statement, given no explanation or background, and not referred to in any other paper. It read " In other developments: (then followed the list, bottom of which was) Britons who wished to join the fighting in Ukraine were told that they could be prosecuted for war crimes." An attempt to reverse the Liz Truss statement that she supported individuals who wished to go to Ukraine independently and join the conflict, do you think? I think so.)

[peter]

The exclusion of Russia from the rest of the world as a response to its actions in the Ukraine continues apace with multiple countries banning Russian airlines from flying into their airports, multiple companies acting to decouple themselves from any Russian involvement they may have, multiple household brands declaring that they will no longer send to, or sell their items in the country, multiple sports declining to include fixtures with Russia or allowing Russia to compete in their countries. Sanctions are being applied across the board and the central Russian bank assets are frozen, a penalty that has previously only ever been applied four times - to Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Syria. This is brutally damaging to the Russian economy and will make the pursuit of this war ever more damaging as time goes on.

That Russia will become a pariah state in Western eyes is a done deal: there is nothing now excepting a complete change of administration that will prevent this. Putin's crimes are simply too great, and assuming that the West is not yet a totally spent force globally (which may be an assumption too far I readily concede) then this is going to be of monumental significance. We might not be going back into the era of Soviet separation in which I grew up, but we might as well be.

In such a world no one from the West will visit Russia, what goes on in the country will be shrouded in mystery and the pain of sanctions against the country will, as is always the case, be levied on the people who have had no say in the actions of their leadership. Anti Western sentiment will flourish, suspicion and hostility toward the equally not responsible people of the various countries that have overseen their isolation will proliferate and the world will be a more divided and sorry place.

There are many who will be rubbing their hands together at the thought of such Russian downfall, but I'm not one of them. I have a great respect for the country, for its people, for the proud and sophisticated race that often with its emphasis on the arts and high culture seemed to put us to shame. That a wall should once again be driven between us, that the world should be retreating back into the insular and divided state that I grew up in - this seems to me a tragedy almost beyond my ability to comprehend. Is this the legacy that we will leave to the next generation? A Ukraine raised to the ground, a wasteland of devastation where the law of the gun prevails, and beyond that a Russia, closed and hostile - think an Islamic State without the Islamic, bristling with nuclear weaponry all pointed toward us?. In the immortal words of Oliver Hardy to his incompetent sidekick, I say to our leaders, that's another fine mess you've gotten us into!

(Aside; I hesitate to use the C word on the Watch, but what's happened to the pandemic while all of this has been developing? After saturation coverage for the last two years it seems to have disappeared overnight. Presumably people have now found something more significant to worry about - the possibility of nuclear annihilation (actually quite real in unpredictable circumstances such as this) - so have forgotten their propoganda generated bogeyman friend of yore. My boss is currently off sick with anxiety - he's apparently terrified of a nuclear attack. He was previously terrified of getting Covid and seems to my thinking, to have become addicted to the fear that our Government deliberately stoked as a tactic for managing the pandemic. They have much - much to answer for here, as they do in the situation in the Ukraine.)

(2nd Aside: I'm old enough to remember how all of this came about (and thanks to Peter Hitchens for reminding us). How the solidarity movement in the shipyards of Poland gave rise to Lech Walesa and his calls for freedom. Perestroika, Glasnost, and Michael Gorbachev. How when popular dissent for the Russian hegemony that was the Soviet Union became impossible to ignore, the said Union simply gave up the ghost and in large part peacefully dismantled itself and returned autonomy to its member states. The Chinese authorities who we now fawn over had, as Hitchens reminds us, a somewhat different approach. They simply crushed the nascent movement of the people towards demands for greater freedoms under the tracks of their tanks.)

[peter]

Putin has declared his intention to dig in and see this thing through to the end: in a ninety minute conversation with President Macron of France the Russian leader made clear his intention to bring the entire country (as opposed to just the eastern region ) under Russian control and stated his unshakable belief that the Ukrainians and Russians were "one people".

Ukrainians had been "brainwashed" into thinking otherwise, he felt, and to demonstrate his commitment to his beliefs he commenced to blow the shit out of a number of key Ukrainian cities, promising worse was yet to come.

I believe him. He is so far down the road of his activities, so committed to his course of bringing the country under his heel, that he could not stop now even if he wanted to. He will achieve his aim in the Ukraine - or destroy the country in the process. There is also a very real possibility that he is prepared to carry out his threat to use his nuclear weapons if any third country attempts to intervene in his war. (The rather stupid revelation that US intelligence is being provided to the Ukraine to help guide its fight against the Russian forces could be construed as just such an intervention.)

Reports in the papers suggest that the invasion was instigated with neither the knowledge nor agreement of his own inner cabinet, and that most of them now sit benumbed at the table, too afraid to resign or speak out against the war for fear of reprisal (probably in the form of swift death). Suggestions that marshal law will be imposed in Russia are also being made, as public unrest at what is happening begins to show itself, and the country's second biggest gas producer openly voices its opposition to the war.

Meanwhile, President Biden uses his state of the Union address to deliver more meaningless promises and self-congratulatory rhetoric, claiming to stand "side by side" with the Ukrainian people, leading a standing ovation to their ambassador, outlining how much he is doing - when the truth is that nothing he says is of the slightest value or help to a beleaguered people being pulverised by an out of control madman in the Kremlin. They need help, not hot air. Or if that help is not to be forthcoming (and it isn't - it can't be), then they need words not spoken to the American people - but spoken to the madman himself, to do whatever is necessary to de-escalate the situation on the ground in the Ukraine. Row back NATO presence (while still retaining member status) from the newly admitted member states of Eastern Europe. Recognise the Donbas regions as separate autonomous states. Create the neutral buffer zone that Russia so needs to protect its security and provide it peace of mind. Do this in return for an immediate and complete withdrawal of all Russian forces from the Ukraine. For a resumption of meaningful dialogue between the most powerful nation in the West and the largest nation in the East.

"You don't negotiate with aggressors, especially not madmen," you will say. No you don't. You give them whatever they want to defuse their fear, their anger, more especially if they have their finger on the button controlling thousands of nuclear warheads.

So stop with the hot air Biden and actually do something useful for the Ukrainian people, for the world. Putin doesn't want to talk to Macron - he doesn't even want the Ukraine as part of Russia - he wants to talk to you. Tell him what he wants to hear. Bring this situation off the boil. Restore the world to where it needs to be in order to move forward. Even if it means a reversal of the foreign policy of the last twenty years. The hawks in the pentagon have led you astray. Time to recognise that and put it right.

(Edit: I don't know. I read what I've posted and am beset by doubt. I make these posts mostly for the purpose of keeping my mind busy, practicing the art of writing which, though I don't do it well, I love. I hope that now and again somebody might read what I've written, but it doesn't matter much - I'm doing it more for myself than anything else (selfish I'm aware, but there it is). But (back on topic) perhaps the truth is that America has truly shifted its attention eastward to China - that it has no real interest in Europe anymore. That its words on the Ukraine notwithstanding, it really isn't prepared to do that much in an area that it no longer regards as being truly important. If so then so be it: we will just have to make the best of it on our own. But spare me the rhetoric about how 'good' the intelligence was in respect of Russian intentions in the Ukraine. It's no clever thing to know that if you goad and poke at a wasp with a stick, sooner or later it will sting you.)

[Forestal]

If it helps, I've been reading your daily posts for the best part of a month now, if not replying to all of them.

I think the American hope that this point, along with those of the rest of NATO is that the economic sanctions will provide sufficient to incite another Russian revolution ala 1917. They and we and I are hoping beyond hope that the people of Russia as a whole stand up and tell Putin they're mad as hell and they aren't gunna take it anymore.