Scrutable

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 11, 2022 11:06 pm

Something I hadn't realised until I saw Putin's press conference with Macron earlier is that there is a very strong bit of logic to Russia's objection to Ukraine joining NATO. That is, Ukraine could in principle invoke Article 5 on day one of its NATO membership, based on Russia's annexation of Crimea. (Russia is also occupying bits of Donbas, of course, but that's notionally denied, whereas it has formally occupying Crimea.)

On this logic, Ukraine joining NATO would be a de facto declaration of war on Russia by NATO. Doubtless the people who are paid to think about this have already done so, but this was new to me.

(I should confess that I don't know the history of Crimea as Russian or Ukrainian, much beyond it having been transferred from the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR in the 1950s, presumably as part of some Kremlin-v-the-provinces politicking.)

Hitherto, aspiring new members have been required to follow a NATO Membership Action Plan which includes clauses requiring that the aspirant state peacefully settle territorial disputes and internal conflicts as a condition for being considered for NATO membership. See here under ‘I. Political and Economic Issues’
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/offi ... _27444.htm

Ukraine applied to get a national NATO Membership Action Plan in 2008. That request was not granted (and Ukraine has spent the last 14 years on hold listening to Vivaldi).

As you’ll see from the above link, the NATO accession process is complex and lengthy (though not as difficult as joining the EU). Ukraine hasn’t even been given permission to start that process.

Absent a major change in NATO policy, which I think is very unlikely as key members do not want to risk a war with Russia (eg Germany), any talk of Ukrainian NATO membership in the near future is just Russian propaganda.

nekomatic wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:07 am

Behind all the rhetoric about NATO, Moscow’s beef is fundamentally with the EU

Yes, I think that’s a good point.

The biggest threat from Ukraine to the Kremlin is that it could represent an alternative model of how Russia could exist with a functioning democracy, rule of law and market economy.

So Tobias Elwood is arguing that NATO should be enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

I'm sure on various internet forums there are Walter Mitty types engaging in pissing contests about the practicalities.

But enforcing a no-fly zone - thousands of miles from home - against what military strategists call a "near-peer" rival?????? Within range of anti-aircraft systems parked on their own soil??? That realistically would need to be taken out of action first??

A rival that has an "escalate to de-escalate" nuclear doctrine - that specifically says they may use nuclear weapons in a limited/tactical manner "in response to large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation."

While US nuclear doctrine states that "it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force—including potentially nuclear weapons—to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies."

bob sterman wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 12, 2022 6:33 am

So Tobias Elwood is arguing that NATO should be enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

I'm sure on various internet forums there are Walter Mitty types engaging in pissing contests about the practicalities.

But enforcing a no-fly zone - thousands of miles from home - against what military strategists call a "near-peer" rival?????? Within range of anti-aircraft systems parked on their own soil??? That realistically would need to be taken out of action first??

A rival that has an "escalate to de-escalate" nuclear doctrine - that specifically says they may use nuclear weapons in a limited/tactical manner "in response to large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation."

While US nuclear doctrine states that "it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force—including potentially nuclear weapons—to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies."

Yes, it’s bonkers, and isn’t going to happen.

NATO members have though supplied Ukraine with short range antiaircraft missiles.

Do we have any guesses as to who will be supporting Russia if it kicks off?

I'm guessing there will be few actual defenders of the "Russia is being forced to bomb civilians in Kyiv" line, apart from George Galloway obvs, but having seen Diane Abbott's recent comments, it seems like there could be plenty of both-sides-ism from the Corbynites. "Russia is reacting to the provocations of the West in sending anti-tank missiles", etc.

Meanwhile on the far right, at least in the US, there seems to be a split between those who claim that Biden is not doing enough to support Ukraine and those who claim he's doing too much. I guess that will be "settled" by what happens on the ground.

And will the BBC be inviting journalists from RT on for "balance"?

It would have been a massive win for Russia if they had got Corbyn in Number 10 right now.

Blaming NATO, what a c.nt.

And if they'd kept Trump in the White House...

lpm wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 12, 2022 10:47 am

It would have been a massive win for Russia if they had got Corbyn in Number 10 right now.

Blaming NATO, what a c.nt.

And if they'd kept Trump in the White House...

You referring to this by. Dianne Abbot or is there something else?
https://twitter.com/talkradio/status/14 ... 54379?s=21

Aside from the b.llsh.t message, why does she emphasise syllables in such a weird way

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 12, 2022 2:59 pm

Aside from the b.llsh.t message, why does she emphasise syllables in such a weird way

Водка?

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 12, 2022 10:24 am

Do we have any guesses as to who will be supporting Russia if it kicks off?

I'm guessing there will be few actual defenders of the "Russia is being forced to bomb civilians in Kyiv" line, apart from George Galloway obvs, but having seen Diane Abbott's recent comments, it seems like there could be plenty of both-sides-ism from the Corbynites. "Russia is reacting to the provocations of the West in sending anti-tank missiles", etc.

There have been plenty of other comentators suggesting that the UK and US governments are doing their own stoking of tensions around the situation, for their own political reasons. So I wonder why Diane Abbott is being singled out, when paler Y chromosomed commentators are not?

CF

They just need to release a video of Putin kicking a cat

Cardinal Fang wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 12, 2022 4:18 pm

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 12, 2022 10:24 am

Do we have any guesses as to who will be supporting Russia if it kicks off?

I'm guessing there will be few actual defenders of the "Russia is being forced to bomb civilians in Kyiv" line, apart from George Galloway obvs, but having seen Diane Abbott's recent comments, it seems like there could be plenty of both-sides-ism from the Corbynites. "Russia is reacting to the provocations of the West in sending anti-tank missiles", etc.

There have been plenty of other comentators suggesting that the UK and US governments are doing their own stoking of tensions around the situation, for their own political reasons. So I wonder why Diane Abbott is being singled out, when paler Y chromosomed commentators are not?

CF

I’m sure that wasn’t aimed at me but for the record I found the Abbott video but the only Corbyn video I found described as him criticising NATO wasn’t actually him really criticising NATO. I think some of it might be down to her really strange delivery of some of her sentences.

Abbott obviously gets a lot of criticism which is thinly disguised racism (and often straightforward racist abuse) but she often gets criticism because she comes out with some remarkable sh.t. In the same way Laura Keunssberg is often criticised by purveyors of bollocks of the sexist variety but sometimes it’s just because of some bad choices in what she puts out. Because some criticism is sexist or racist doesn’t mean it all is.

Some people have suggested that this video of Diane Abbott might be fake, but it was tweeted by TalkRadio's blue-tick account, and while they are right of centre, they are regulated by Ofcom and would presumably be in a lot of hot water if she did not, as they claim, say these things on their live feed.

https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/14 ... xUAnjGn6ig

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 12, 2022 10:06 pm

Some people have suggested that this video of Diane Abbott might be fake, but it was tweeted by TalkRadio's blue-tick account, and while they are right of centre, they are regulated by Ofcom and would presumably be in a lot of hot water if she did not, as they claim, say these things on their live feed.

https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/14 ... xUAnjGn6ig

Their clip of Corbyn on their feed is what I found to be misleadingly described. If you actually watch the clip it doesn’t come across anywhere near as bad as the Abbott clip (although there may be something somewhere else which does).

Is there anyone more prominent than these two in this country who is blaming NATO more than Russia for the situation?

Cardinal Fang wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 12, 2022 4:18 pm

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 12, 2022 10:24 am

Do we have any guesses as to who will be supporting Russia if it kicks off?

I'm guessing there will be few actual defenders of the "Russia is being forced to bomb civilians in Kyiv" line, apart from George Galloway obvs, but having seen Diane Abbott's recent comments, it seems like there could be plenty of both-sides-ism from the Corbynites. "Russia is reacting to the provocations of the West in sending anti-tank missiles", etc.

There have been plenty of other comentators suggesting that the UK and US governments are doing their own stoking of tensions around the situation, for their own political reasons. So I wonder why Diane Abbott is being singled out, when paler Y chromosomed commentators are not?

CF

I don't get the point of US and UK talking up an invasion unless it's for their politics. Now if Putin doesn't invade, he'll appear weak, and that isn't a look that he'll like

It's not like Russia, the US or the UK for that matter are particularly worth listening to on geopolitics. They're all full of aggressive bluster and exceptionalist b.llsh.t.

What are nice countries saying? Let's hear from, say, Finland.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 13, 2022 11:23 am

It's not like Russia, the US or the UK for that matter are particularly worth listening to on geopolitics. They're all full of aggressive bluster and exceptionalist b.llsh.t.

What are nice countries saying? Let's hear from, say, Finland.

Its not looking optimistic over this weekend.

Finns are urged by the government to leave Ukraine.

And:

[Finnish President] Niinistö said that he was "very worried" that war will break out in Ukraine if the tensions are not resolved through diplomatic means.

[...]

Niinistö suggested that the west may have become overly complacent.

"Like almost all Europeans, I have been happy to live in peace. We are perhaps a little too used to a safe, beautiful life," Niinistö said.

[...]

[Finnish Foreign Minister]Haavisto noted that the preparations for a military operation and the assembly of Russian troops along the Ukrainian border make the situation very flammable – but expressed the belief that the crisis could still be resolved through diplomacy

https://yle.fi/news/3-12315471

Finland spent the Cold War sitting uneasily between the US and USSR, forced into continual appeasement of their neighbour.

Let's hear from Costa Rica.

Quick google later...

Oh, guess what, they think Russia are lying c.nts, support a peaceful Ukraine, "reaffirm our resolute commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, within its internationally recognized borders and territorial waters" and "call on Russia to immediately cease its aggression against Ukraine".

https://www.un.org/press/en/2022/sc14783.doc.htm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 13, 2022 11:23 am

It's not like Russia, the US or the UK for that matter are particularly worth listening to on geopolitics. They're all full of aggressive bluster and exceptionalist b.llsh.t.

What are nice countries saying? Let's hear from, say, Finland.

Also, the buildup of Russian forces has been independently observed by people using commercial satellite images. The rows of tanks are definitely on the border. Though of course satellite images don’t tell us why they are there.

There’s lots of people claiming that the buildup of Russian forces are all for show and that Putin doesn’t intend to use them.

But IMHO this is just another example of treating the world like a game of risk. Over months, huge quantities of personnel and equipment have been transported over thousands of kilometres. It’s been an enormous logistical exercise for Russia. States don’t generally commit that level of resources for a bluff.

That isn’t to say that an attack is inevitable. Putin still has to sign the order.

Also, we know Putin wants to invade

Also, we know Ukraine have thought about EU membership and Putin really doesn't want that

Also, we know that Putin sees the Ukraine as part of a wider three Russias, and wants to try to recreate that despite Ukraine's historical ties being more to Poland than Russia

Also we know that Putin has for a very long time now been a very bad actor in terms of world politics, and wants to disrupt both EU and NATO relations.

I mean, really, when you look at it, it would be pretty f.cking ridiculous to look at all this and say that NATO are overreacting or acting in bad faith.