Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[Awol]

58 minutes ago, peterms said:

I don't see a benefit in presenting ourselves in this wa The audience is not Putin or Russians or the Russian media, but other states.  They are being noticeably cautious in what they say, backing us with a limited form of words which undoubtedly stops short of what May would like.

It is foolish to fail to take simple steps which could reassure third parties and help bring them on side, for the sake of being obstinate.  What possible gain is there by doing so?  In whose eyes?  Would we rather play tough to the gallery of the swivel-eyed UK media rather than seek to bring international opinion behind us?

I see Merkel and Macron have phoned Putin to wish him success in his new term in office, but have stopped short of using the term "congratulate".  Well, I bet that'll show him.

The third parties we are really bothered about in this instance have already accepted the evidence presented to them, their refusal to challenge Russia directly on the issue is political. States look to their own interests and it suits them not to take a firmer line, mirroring their behaviour after the Litvinenko incident.

Solidarity in Europe is a myth, within or without the EU. The American glue that held it all together is dissolving under Trump, so its no shock that the new German (SPD) Foreign Minister Heiko Maas described the poisoning as a “bilateral issue” between Russia & UK, while Juncker sucks up in hope of a nice post-Presidency sinecure in Putin’s state-crime-terror nexus. 

I’d imagine reality is coming as a shock to many UK politicians reared on happy-clappy ‘end of history’ fairytales. Normal service is resuming. 

 

[maqroll]

3 hours ago, bickster said:

Personally, I think we should all do what the best TV detectives do... go to the pub

[Chindie]

Solidarity in anything is nonsense, states act in their self interest. Even in the EU. It's a big part of why ideas of the EU as a superstate were complete pants on head bunkem. Even with Brussels demanding states act in certain ways they just ignored it when they needed to. The only thing holding it all together is the ease of business.

The Russia thing isn't blowing away a mirage. It's just adding a page to a long book.

Also why Putin would be delighted with Brexit. A more fragmented Europe is good for his foreign policy aims. Possibly why there is likely to be Russian fingers in Leave pies.

[snowychap]

7 minutes ago, Awol said:

... their refusal to challenge Russia directly on the issue is political. States look to their own interests and it suits them not to take a firmer line, mirroring their behaviour after the Litvinenko incident.

...while Juncker sucks up in hope of a nice post-Presidency sinecure in Putin’s state-crime-terror nexus.

The difference between these two appraisals appears to be firmly rooted in anti-EU prejudice.

Edited March 20, 2018 by snowychap
Spellings

[Awol]

Just now, snowychap said:

The difference between these two appraisals appears to be firmly routed in anti-EU prejudice.

No, the EU is not yet a state that however much the institutions wish it to be, whereas France and Germany are states & act as such. Juncker is most probably auditioning for his next job, assuming the old soak isn’t already on the payroll. 

I certainly am prejudiced against the EU, but that doesn’t affect the analysis. 

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, Awol said:

No, the EU is not yet a state that however much the institutions wish it to be, whereas France and Germany are states & act as such. Juncker is most probably auditioning for his next job, assuming the old soak isn’t already on the payroll. 

I certainly am prejudiced against the EU, but that doesn’t affect the analysis. 

The 'state' stuff is semantic bollocks, Jon. There appears to be no issue in equating individuals in charge of particular 'states' with the EU if it suits the EU-relevant argument being made (see Merkel and German cars).

The point was that you were allowing a fair amount of leeway to some people and going for the worst possible interpretation for the EU bod.

It does affect the analysis. It means that I, who would otherwise be very interested to hear your point of view, switch off when you trot out the anti-EU meme 'analysis'.

[Awol]

7 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Solidarity in anything is nonsense, states act in their self interest. Even in the EU. 

States can and do act together in the common defence of their mutual security. The US-backed NATO members did exactly that during the Cold War, where solidarity was self-interest. 

Since then Western Europe became increasingly fat and lazy around a reunified Germany, believing its own PR that a major European conflict was unthinkable, credible armed forces were unnecessary and the EU by its existence was some guarantor of perpetual peace. That’s the bonkers bit, conceited & self-deluded horse poo.

Even now Europe’s not defenceless and a United show of diplomatic force (including Washington) would blunt Putin’s probing. Without it NATO’s credibility erodes, making Europe more vulnerable to aggressive Russian revisionism. That’s the path now being taken by Paris, Berlin and most importantly, Washington. 

[Awol]

26 minutes ago, snowychap said:

The 'state' stuff is semantic bollocks, Jon.

No, it’s fundamental. What Juncker says or does is irritating / amusing / embarrassing depending on the time of day, but it doesn’t matter hugely. The EU is not a core member of NATO or have a seat on the UNSC.

What states do and say does matter, particularly France & Germany in this context. 

 

[Chindie]

So it boils down to self interest. I'm glad you agree.

The rest is as Snowy says, run through an anti EU filter. Europe remains unlikely to have a major conflict because everyone is too busy making money off each other. Start to fragment that, and it becomes more likely. Defence spending is still significant.

I was having lectures on the possible death of NATO 10 years ago. I've still got the books. Hasn't happened yet. An increasingly hawkish Moscow will only ensure that further.

But I've no interest in debating you so I'll just assume you think I'm wrong and will reciprocate.

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, Awol said:

No, it’s fundamental. What Juncker says or does is irritating / amusing / embarrassing depending on the time of day, but it doesn’t matter hugely. The EU is not a core member of NATO or have a seat on the UNSC.

What states do and say does matter, particularly France & Germany in this context.

I'm sorry but what on earth are you on about? This isn't about the relevance of nation states versus supra-national bodies (though it's interesting that you talk of NATO in such a different way when it is not a 'state', either)

My comment was about your differentiating between what was said by one lot of people and what was said by another.

You happened to brush away anything wrong by the one lot because 'states will do' and sharpen the knife in to Juncker as a representative of the EU. How about what Verhofstadt has tweeted on the matter? Is he not a representative of the EU?

My point is not to defend Juncker or the EU or to criticize individual nation states but to question the value of your analysis due to the obvious prejudice(s) on which it is based.

[ml1dch]

25 minutes ago, Awol said:

Since then Western Europe became increasingly fat and lazy around a reunified Germany, believing its own PR that a major European conflict was unthinkable, credible armed forces were unnecessary and the EU by its existence was some guarantor of perpetual peace. That’s the bonkers bit, conceited & self-deluded horse poo

It's certainly not guaranteed by its existence. I don't think anybody would claim such a silly thing. 

But it comes off a bit like somebody loudly shouting that having a supporting wall isn't a guarantee that a house won't fall down, over the noise of them smashing it with a sledgehammer.

[snowychap]

46 minutes ago, Awol said:

Since then Western Europe became increasingly fat and lazy around a reunified Germany, believing its own PR that a major European conflict was unthinkable, credible armed forces were unnecessary and the EU by its existence was some guarantor of perpetual peace. That’s the bonkers bit, conceited & self-deluded horse poo.

And here is the kind of analysis that I'm interested in (excluding the already pooh-poohed obvious ).

I don't totally agree with you about the 'fat and lazy' aspect or the 'believing its own PR' but that betrays the fact that you and I approach the idea of peace (in Europe) from different and incompatible standpoints (which is fair enough).

I do, however, have a great deal of common ground in thinking that Europe (and beyond) have a pretty deluded view that the peace that has largely reigned is just the norm (I'm talking the lack of major cross border European-wide military campaigns here).

My opinion is that the retreat within the EU (and wider Europe as in a post-Brexit EU) towards hard(er) borders will be much more likely to lead to belligerent actions (even between weakened states) than anything direct from outside of the existing EU. Why would you throw your troops in to Europe (Putin) if you can foment enough internicine rancour that the largest potential threat on your land border self-destructs?

Edited March 20, 2018 by snowychap

[Awol]

29 minutes ago, Chindie said:

But I've no interest in debating you so I'll just assume you think I'm wrong and will reciprocate.

I’m doing those IR/Security lectures again now and it’s been very interesting to note what’s changed in that community. Or at least it’s been interesting for me, because I don’t know everything. 

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

You’re proposing that we go beyond what we are required to do, for a hostile state.

other states are already well aware of Russia’s modes of operation, hits, murders and so on. Giving Russia a sample, which they will 100% deny is their stuff will change not one thing. There is nothing at all to be gained in terms of other states views by providing Russia a sample which they will claim is, I dunno, Israeli, or American , or British, it would make things worse. Go beyond what’s called for and have some Russian state scientists say “ it’s Israeli poison”or whatever. How the heck does that help? Why would we be so utterly stupid?

other states reluctance to do much is highly likely to come from things like gas pipelines, weighing their own national interests and political situations against going through the motions of “support” to an ally over a targeted, but messy hit on a spy.

Corbyn’s words on that particular aspect ( the sample ) are again just, being kind, “niaive”. Put in is not some wayward innocent, who’s just strayed momentarily, he’s a cold blooded, calculating violent, crooked tyrant, who is playing the West and our values.

we should stick to what we’re obliged to do, and not indulge him further.

Can you explain how the two bolded parts fit together? Because it seems to me that one could say that if our friends and allies have an unshakable belief in Russian evil, then it's hard to see what impact Russian claims that Israelis or Americans made the chemical would have. After all, they already believe with full conviction that Russia is evil. So how would it 'make things worse'? On the other hand, if we don't actually believe that our friends and allies are unshakably convinced of Putin's evil, then doesn't peterms have a point that we should do what we need in the court of public opinion to keep them onside?

[PompeyVillan]

If only Russia were to shut up and go away the problem would be solved. 

[chrisp65]

We don't need experts and we don't need facts.

 

[peterms]

I'm left with the feeling that the reason we don't want to give the Russians a sample is because we want to frame the story, and not have them do analysis which could prove embarrassing.

For example, if analysis can show (as is claimed) where the precursors were obtained but not who done it, and the precursors turn out to come from, oooh, Lesotho or Tibet or somewhere more politically embarrassing, tnat wouldn't be good, would it?

[snowychap]

18 minutes ago, peterms said:

I'm left with the feeling that the reason we don't want to give the Russians a sample is because we want to frame the story, and not have them do analysis which could prove embarrassing.

For example, if analysis can show (as is claimed) where the precursors were obtained but not who done it, and the precursors turn out to come from, oooh, Lesotho or Tibet or somewhere more politically embarrassing, tnat wouldn't be good, would it?

I don't agree with your feeling, Peter. I think it's more to do with the May control-freakery thing.

I'm willing to accept, however, that my analysis of this is utterly based on my already firmly taken position that Putin is the most dangerous individual in the world (Zuckerburg a close second).

[peterms]

11 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I don't agree with your feeling, Peter. I think it's more to do with the May control-freakery thing.

I'm willing to accept, however, that my analysis of this is utterly based on my already firmly taken position that Putin is the most dangerous individual in the world (Zuckerburg a close second).

Fair enough.

I had expected that by now we would have seen a chemical weapons attack in Ghouta, supposedly by government forces but actually by one of the various Saudi-backed groups that go under the general name of "rebels", and that the supposed Russian involvement in this UK incident would be called as evidence of Russian/Syrian preparedness to use such weapons, justifying some further US action against Syria.

Obviously I am too cynical.

[snowychap]

3 minutes ago, peterms said:

Fair enough.

I had expected that by now we would have seen a chemical weapons attack in Ghouta, supposedly by government forces but actually by one of the various Saudi-backed groups that go under the general name of "rebels", and that the supposed Russian involvement in this UK incident would be called as evidence of Russian/Syrian preparedness to use such weapons, justifying some further US action against Syria.

Obviously I am too cynical.

Wow. Your 'fair enough' leads you on to something else about Ghouta?

Which side are you looking to finding yourself on there, Peter?