Russian invasion of Ukraine

[BlueRodent]

Usual suspects siding with Russia.

Why have most of the Caribbean/Commonwealth countries abstained?

 

[metalblue]

 

[Djibrilshairdo]

Why have most of the Caribbean/Commonwealth countries abstained?

Some are foolishly regarding cheap fuel more important than tourism.

 

[Mon Autre]

It’s incredible that the nation on earth (that has significant resources and population) which is the hardest to invade and conquer (that has proven repeatedly to be so) has such a paranoid national fear of that (almost impossible) event happening. And yet their national psyche is defined by it.

One of my best friends is married to a Russian and he has frequently talked for some considerable time (from well before this war) of the Russian people’s innate fear of NATO expansion representing an existential threat to their nation, which this conflict has underlined is a truly preposterous notion. The idea that any military force could invade and conquer a country that size through the prism of modern warfare is simply absurd, and yet domestic support for Putin’s aggression in Ukraine is rooted in that notion.

I’ve tried to distance my thoughts from those of negativity towards Russian people since this February, but I confess it’s become increasingly challenging. I have found the juxtaposition of their paranoia and cynicism towards the West with their ostensible gullibility towards their own establishment, along with their general lugubrious disposition as a people to be increasingly unattractive to me.

And against all that, I agree, there are people within our society who have (and continue to) revere them as a society. This isn’t limited to left-wingers either. I know of right-wing people who admire their authoritarian society and truculence. I always found that a bit weird tbh.

There are lots of reasons to celebrate the way this conflict has turned, and among those which encompass the defence of freedom and stability on our continent, and the more unified approach of NATO nations to help achieve that, is the wake up call this will have provided to this vain, truculent and paranoid nation that has threatened the use of nuclear weapons in order to cause fear amongst ordinary people about the safety of their children.

I, for one, will always struggle to look past this invasion of Ukraine, and the Russian narrative that has surrounded it, and the people in whose name those deeds and words were carried out. And if I, someone who likes to think of themselves as balanced and fairly moderate in his outlook on the world feels like that, then I expect it’s going to be a long, slow road back to redemption for the Russian people.

It fills my heart with joy that they are getting such a fucking kicking, and although it is truly tragic that it has come at such a cost, the alternative would have been such a terrible thing to witness.

This article is a decent explanation of some of the questions you've asked above. It's behind a paywall but you can read 3 articles a month for free on there! But in short, Russia has been frequently invaded from the west over the past 500 years and it's also vulnerable without access to warm water ports throuhout winter. Hence the original annexation of Crimea. I'm not saying this is the main thing that drives Putin, but it does explain some of why what you mentioned has been in the national psyche.

Why Russia is a prisoner of geography

Haunted by the nightmares of history, Vladimir Putin is the latest Russian leader to use violence and occupation to control the European flatlands to the west.

www.newstatesman.com

 

[aguero93:20]

I can’t speak for others, mate, but there is no criticism from me for the failure to overthrow the regime - my issue with the Russian people (much of which is not based on media output) is their willingness to accept the line that the west harbours empirical aspirations towards their nation. This way of thinking is as undeniable as it is absurd. It simply doesn’t bear any logical or objective scrutiny whatsoever and they are gullible and suggestible cunts for believing it.

For all our faults, I think, as a nation, we display more cynicism and recalcitrance towards those who rule over us, even though as a people, we have a weak track record of overthrowing them.

NATO failed in Afghanistan and the USA and UK combined failed in Iraq, what possible reason so Russia have for thinking anyone could win an offensive war against them? As we proved a century ago and they themselves proved in the 40s, it's far easier to fight a defensive war than an offensive one and projecting force is far more difficult than it seems.
Plus, nobody in the West wants Russia, it's a kip.

 

[Gremlin]

I can’t speak for others, mate, but there is no criticism from me for the failure to overthrow the regime - my issue with the Russian people (much of which is not based on media output) is their willingness to accept the line that the west harbours empirical aspirations towards their nation. This way of thinking is as undeniable as it is absurd. It simply doesn’t bear any logical or objective scrutiny whatsoever and they are gullible and suggestible cunts for believing it.

For all our faults, I think, as a nation, we display more cynicism and recalcitrance towards those who rule over us, even though as a people, we have a weak track record of overthrowing them.

One of my friends was in the military police at the time of German reunification and was sent as part of a delegation to the former East Germany to help them integrate into the new German army. They were discussing how they had viewed the cold war and all of the East Germans were absolutely convinced (because they were told this) that NATO had been poised to invade at any moment, whilst we were all sitting there thinking they were poised to invade West Germany. Looks like that attitude lives on in Russia.

 

[Irwell]

I think it's unfair to say Afghanistan and Iraq were military failures, both were taken with fairly minimal losses and any resistance was limited to fairly weak guerrilla attacks. The problem was that the objective was regime change rather than occupation and to implement regime change there has to be a willingness to change from the locals. I'm not saying there's any intent whatsoever to invade Russia, but if we did it would be with a much larger force and I imagine it would need to be with the objective of long term occupation rather than a quick regime change.

 

[aguero93:20]

I think it's unfair to say Afghanistan and Iraq were military failures, both were taken with fairly minimal losses and any resistance was limited to fairly weak guerrilla attacks. The problem was that the objective was regime change rather than occupation and to implement regime change there has to be a willingness to change from the locals. I'm not saying there's any intent whatsoever to invade Russia, but if we did it would be with a much larger force and I imagine it would need to be with the objective of long term occupation rather than a quick regime change.

Occupation is the problem though, it's close to impossible with a hostile native population.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

This article is a decent explanation of some of the questions you've asked above. It's behind a paywall but you can read 3 articles a month for free on there! But in short, Russia has been frequently invaded from the west over the past 500 years and it's also vulnerable without access to warm water ports throuhout winter. Hence the original annexation of Crimea. I'm not saying this is the main thing that drives Putin, but it does explain some of why what you mentioned has been in the national psyche.

Why Russia is a prisoner of geography

Haunted by the nightmares of history, Vladimir Putin is the latest Russian leader to use violence and occupation to control the European flatlands to the west.

www.newstatesman.com

I am aware Russia has been invaded on numerous occasions but without any meaningful success by those invading. Their fear isn’t rooted in experience or logic.

It’s a akin to City fans going on about ‘typical City’ fourteen years after a takeover that has delivered six PL titles.

Like I said, it doesn’t bear up to objective scrutiny.

 

[Irwell]

Cut the head off the snake and keep enough troops stationed to cut the head off again if more former KGB agents or oligarchs try to take over, then hold free elections and keep those troops in place long enough to let democracy settle.

I know that's what we tried in Afghanistan, but I think there was a flaw to the process in Afghanistan in terms of a large number of highly religious people who disagreed with what was being implemented. I'm not convinced you'd have the same level of fundamental objection in Russia once they started to see what the alternative to a Putin-style Russia was.

That said, by no means am I advocating an attempt to invade Russia!