Russia Surrounded

[vimothy]

it's also worth adding that Putin's presence doesnt change the geopolitical reality around the importance of the Crimea for russia or the relevance of its pipelines, transiting through ukraine, and so whoever replaces putin will orient themselves in a similar manner, in those respects at least

 

[DannyL]

I'm not sure whether you're reading that comment correctly. you think europe can supply ukraine on it's own, without the us?

It depends on the political will. I think we need to hugely ramp up armament production in anticipation of Trump ceasing support for Ukraine. Is there the political will and clarity to do that? I'm not sure.

 

[vimothy]

ok, but you must also recognise that its not simply a matter of will, capability is also a factor

 

[DannyL]

it's also worth adding that Putin's presence doesnt change the geopolitical reality around the importance of the Crimea for russia or the relevance of its pipelines, transiting through ukraine, and so wherever replaces putin will orient themselves in a similar manner, in those respects at least

I don't agree really. I suspect - I'm not certain but I suspect - the war is in some part driven by Putin and the system of absolute control he's put in place. Your comments I think refer to a Russia that's much more rational than the reality.

 

[DannyL]

ok, but you must also recognise that its not simply a matter of will, capability is also a factor

of course but we won't establish what those limits even are without the will.

 

[vimothy]

of course but we won't establish what those limits even are without the will.

we already know what those limits are, it's not a question of will at this point

 

[vimothy]

I don't agree really. I suspect - I'm not certain but I suspect - the war is in some part driven by Putin and the system of absolute control he's put in place. Your comments I think refer to a Russia that's much more rational than the reality.

this question doesnt have anything to do with putin, necessarily - purely in geopolitical terms, what are russia's interests? obviously they're the same with or without him. what are you thinking will change if putin is replaced?

 

[DannyL]

That's the thing though "purely in geopolitical interests", what if that's not the driving force? My point is it's an autocracy with the whims and hubris of a dictator playing an outsize role.

 

[HMGovt’s Glorious Return!]

DannyL has a raging war hard-on

here you go mate https://fightforua.org/

 

[Mr. Tea]

That's the thing though "purely in geopolitical interests", what if that's not the driving force? My point is it's an autocracy with the whims and hubris of a dictator playing an outsize role.

This is, after all, the man who compared himself to Peter the Great, founder of the Russian Empire:

 

[DannyL]

DannyL has a raging war hard-on

here you go mate https://fightforua.org/

It's just honesty.

 

[Mr. Tea]

It's just honesty.

He's looking forward to having a comrade in the forthcoming land war in Asia.

 

[vimothy]

That's the thing though "purely in geopolitical interests", what if that's not the driving force? My point is it's an autocracy with the whims and hubris of a dictator playing an outsize role.

that's doubtless true as well

 

[vimothy]

but nevertheless, the geopolitics doesnt go away, absent putin, and the feeling amongst russians that Ukraine and especially Crimea is a part of russia doesnt go away either. its similar to how china thinks about taiwan or argentina thinks about the Falklands. it's not dependent on a particular govt or dictator but rather on a particular national conception.

 

[luka]

theres a supermarket we have in london called Waitrose. they probably do them. or just go to a deli.

 

[vimothy]

u can buy anything in london, it's a different world

 

[DannyL]

but nevertheless, the geopolitics doesnt go away, absent putin, and the feeling amongst russians that Ukraine and especially Crimea is a part of russia doesnt go away either. its similar to how china thinks about taiwan or argentina thinks about the Falklands. it's not dependent on a particular govt or dictator but rather on a particular national conception.

You could say the same about Ireland & Scotland vs England. How would a Scottish nationalist respond to claims that Scotland must always be part of the UK? First analogy I thought of, might be inaccurate as a 1-1 comparison but I hope it exposes the absurdity of what you're saying. Just because a particular country has a nationalist & racist conception of a territory that they used to subjugate doesn't mean we have to kowtow to it in the 21st century.

The key principle is "ask the people who live there". `The Ukrainians do not want to be ruled by Russia. We should support their right to self-determination.

 

[DannyL]

It makes me think there's something deeply conservative and reactionary behind all this "realist" talk. Can't quite get at it but it seems an intellectually respectable way to justify the imperialist interests of "great" powers.

 

[luka]

they're definitely is. but that doesn't mean thre's nothing in it. the US will want to maintain access to oil etc. you can see the way it moves to secure its interests. thats geopolitics. britain hasnt got the muscle to play that game any more.

 

[DannyL]

they're definitely is. but that doesn't mean thre's nothing in it. the US will want to maintain access to oil etc. you can see the way it moves to secure its interests. thats geopolitics. britain hasnt got the muscle to play that game any more.

I think its Vim's "hey this is total rational, fair enough, Captain Kirk" tone that does my head in. States obviously look after their own interests. They can be extremely cruel and unjust in doing so. One of the virtues of living in a democracy is you can protest against it when they start to shit all over people and (try and) hold them to account.