Keir Starmer

mosssideblue said:
Diplomacy with Putin, look where that got Ukraine
Click to expand...

TBF the opportunity for diplomacy was long gone before he’d invaded back in 2016 but there was a time the west could and should have better engaged with Putin (and his predecessors) and maybe, just maybe, history would be different.

Broadly speaking the west (primarily the US) have dismissed Russia as a bit player since the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War - we simply failed to cash in the peace dividend at the time. Russia wanted to face the west, Russia wanted to have a vital role in Europe. The west saw Russia as no longer a threat, weak if you like. Someone with a big ego was always going to eventually take that badly and stop trying to entertain the west. Unfortunately that someone with a big ego was a bigger **** and whilst it’s no excuse for invading Ukraine but we can’t wash our hands of any culpability in where we are today.
 
metalblue said:
TBF the opportunity for diplomacy was long gone before he’d invaded back in 2016 but there was a time the west could and should have better engaged with Putin (and his predecessors) and maybe, just maybe, history would be different.

Broadly speaking the west (primarily the US) have dismissed Russia as a bit player since the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War - we simply failed to cash in the peace dividend at the time. Russia wanted to face the west, Russia wanted to have a vital role in Europe. The west saw Russia as no longer a threat, weak if you like. Someone with a big ego was always going to eventually take that badly and stop trying to entertain the west. Unfortunately that someone with a big ego was a bigger **** and whilst it’s no excuse for invading Ukraine but we can’t wash our hands of any culpability in where we are today.
Click to expand...
Genuine question, why was it up to the West to better engage with Putin? How do you appease a tyrannical megalomaniac?

You can't sit down and negotiate with people like this; and it's worth noting that negotiations have been attempted since 2022.
 
Blue and true said:
Genuine question, why was it up to the West to better engage with Putin? How do you appease a tyrannical megalomaniac?

You can't sit down and negotiate with people like this; and it's worth noting that negotiations have been attempted since 2022.
Click to expand...

Putin was the result of western failures rather than the start. Russia was already pulling back under Yeltsin when Putin took the reins, the west failed to reset anything even if that were possible. The invasion of Ukraine was the best part of 2 decades in the making.

History is littered with examples of actions causing reactions many years later - diffferent actions = different outcomes. The west’s failure to engage with Yeltsin is where I place the blame. We are where we are and you can’t negotiate now.
 
metalblue said:
Putin was the result of western failures rather than the start. Russia was already pulling back under Yeltsin when Putin took the reins, the west failed to reset anything even if that were possible. The invasion of Ukraine was the best part of 2 decades in the making.

History is littered with examples of actions causing reactions many years later - diffferent actions = different outcomes. The west’s failure to engage with Yeltsin is where I place the blame. We are where we are and you can’t negotiate now.
Click to expand...
It was more complex than the west failed to engage with Yeltsin. Yeltsin was total unsuitable as a leader. I remember one occasion when he was too pissed to get off a plane for a state visit. His lack of leadership, favouring of oligarchs and general ineptitude led to a situation where a malign actor like Putin was able to subvert the fledgling democracy that was forming there.

Once Putin was in place there was plenty of engagement from the rest of the world in spite of Chechnya, Georgia and various other situations that Putin caused. They were even given the World Cup four years after they first invaded Ukraine.

There’s only one place to point the real blame and nothing the west has done in the intervening years made it more or less likely to lead us where we are now.
 
Last edited:
metalblue said:
Putin was the result of western failures rather than the start. Russia was already pulling back under Yeltsin when Putin took the reins, the west failed to reset anything even if that were possible. The invasion of Ukraine was the best part of 2 decades in the making.

History is littered with examples of actions causing reactions many years later - diffferent actions = different outcomes. The west’s failure to engage with Yeltsin is where I place the blame. We are where we are and you can’t negotiate now.
Click to expand...
The USA needs Russia to become an enemy of the West so that it can use NATO to control Europe. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation could not be accepted by the West because it was too big. If Russia becomes a part of Europe, Europe will become too strong and the US will lose control over Europe. All of this has nothing to do with democracy, it is the oldest theme in human history, the confrontation of power.
 
west didsblue said:
It was more complex than the west failed to engage with Yeltsin. Yeltsin was total unsuitable as a leader. I remember one occasion when he was too pissed to get off a plane for a state visit. His lack of leadership, favouring of oligarchs and general ineptitude led to a situation where a malign actor like Putin was able to subvert the fledgling democracy that was forming there.

Once Putin was in place there was plenty of engagement from the rest of the world in spite of Chechnya, Georgia and various other situations that Putin caused. They were even given the World Cup four years after they first invaded Ukraine.

There’s only one place to point the real blame and nothing the west has done in the intervening years made it more or less likely to lead us where we are now.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say the west didn’t engage, my premise is they should have better engaged. It is certainly complex, less double speak out of Washington and the Pentagon (and thus Clinton) and more sensitivity towards the causes of domestics pressures faced by Yeltsin and other moderates would have resulted in better outcomes. It certainly would have avoided the Budapest ”cold peace” outburst.

There is absolutely no doubt that the US played their hand badly, Clinton even said as much in his memoirs. This is not opinion or subjective - you could argue it wasn’t done with intent and that might be fair. The Partnership for Peace was a dead duck with the US’s incompatible two track approach of expanding NATO eastward along with some parallel security arrangement that tagged Russia in there - the fact if ever got off the ground is a miracle - it’s shaky nature evident in the bombing of Yugoslavia. Sure there was an inherent distrust domestically in Russia, even among liberals, but the PFP would have alleviated that if managed better, another significant factor in all of this, often overlooked, is Russia was no longer selling weapons to the former Soviet bloc - they were now buying western NATO standard weapons - this damaged Russian industry, these people had influence, they were In Yeltsin’s ear and people feared for their jobs. To coin a phrase “it’s the economy, stupid”. Yeltsin wanted something slower, under the banner of PFP, something he could sell domestically with slow changes that he could better manage. He wasn’t even ideologically opposed to NATO expansion.

Early Putin was a different beast to the one he is today - he wanted to join NATO at the start of his presidency.
 
Vic said:
Average sentences are up by a third under the Tories so it's a proposal to reduce by 10% sentences that the Tories have increased by over 30% - to no obvious effect on deterrence or reoffending.

Headlines in the Tory press are not a basis for policy.
Click to expand...
How do you add up non victims?
 
metalblue said:
Early Putin was a different beast to the one he is today - he wanted to join NATO at the start of his presidency.
Click to expand...
Not sure that’s true. It’s widely believed that he instigated the Moscow apartment bombings when he was PM in 1999 the response to which was the war in Chechnya. At the time Putin took huge credit for the response which probably secured his victory in the presidential elections later that year.
He’s always been a **** who thinks nothing of getting fellow Russians killed to prop up his power base.
 
west didsblue said:
Not sure that’s true. It’s widely believed that he instigated the Moscow apartment bombings when he was PM in 1999 the response to which was the war in Chechnya. At the time Putin took huge credit for the response which probably secured his victory in the presidential elections later that year.
He’s always been a **** who thinks nothing of getting fellow Russians killed to prop up his power base.
Click to expand...

Fascinating as this is and would love to talk some more on it it’s probably best we leave it there else @kaz7 will put us both on the naughty step ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top