ChatterBank0 min ago
Should We Send Troops To The Ukrain?
Just listening to Tobias Elwood, the threat of war in Europe is very real this morning
https:/
https:/
Answers
bobbi: 10:20, Putin is worried that Ukraine will join Nato and/or the EUSSR. That just adds more direct abutting to NATO countries. Although Russia already borders NATO I think they see this as an eastward expansion to far. He's also worried that they are becoming more and more westernised in their attitudes and culture. Russia has discarded communism but...
10:26 Mon 14th Feb 2022
Ukraine could never be under Russia’s thumb.
The only reason the only other fully European ex-Soviet state, Belarus, is is because they never lost their original post-Soviet leader.
Ukraine ditched first Kravchuk and then (with difficulty) Kuchma.
And later Yanukovich.
Since then Russia’s actions have only driven the country further to the west.
There is I suppose a bleak scenario where Putin tho is he can bomb the place to bits and ethnically cleanse it. Causing a refugee crisis in the west and moving in compliant Russians to take their place.
I think he’d do that if he could get away with it.
Putin tho while he may have no moral compass, presumably likes a nice life.
Stability at home and a comfortable retirement in his Black Sra palace eventually
The only reason the only other fully European ex-Soviet state, Belarus, is is because they never lost their original post-Soviet leader.
Ukraine ditched first Kravchuk and then (with difficulty) Kuchma.
And later Yanukovich.
Since then Russia’s actions have only driven the country further to the west.
There is I suppose a bleak scenario where Putin tho is he can bomb the place to bits and ethnically cleanse it. Causing a refugee crisis in the west and moving in compliant Russians to take their place.
I think he’d do that if he could get away with it.
Putin tho while he may have no moral compass, presumably likes a nice life.
Stability at home and a comfortable retirement in his Black Sra palace eventually
well, I hope you're right; I regard you as AB's Ukraine expert. My own feeling is that he annexed the Crimea and noted that the west did nothing, and that Russian energy gives him a significant lever to get what he wants from the west. It may be that all he wants is western leaders taking the knee to him and saying they understand his security concerns, which he seems to be getting.
I don't pretend to know what will happen any more than anyone else.
It is likely the US and UK are getting different intelligence from Ukraine, although you would think they'd share it with them (maybe they are).
Zelensky's position is difficult: he has to think of the consequences at home for the lurid warnings coming from further west. Whereas the west presumably is partly covering all bases by preparing for the worst, while at the same time no doubt keeping up the constant highlighting of what Putin MAY do in the hope it has a deterrent effect.
It is likely the US and UK are getting different intelligence from Ukraine, although you would think they'd share it with them (maybe they are).
Zelensky's position is difficult: he has to think of the consequences at home for the lurid warnings coming from further west. Whereas the west presumably is partly covering all bases by preparing for the worst, while at the same time no doubt keeping up the constant highlighting of what Putin MAY do in the hope it has a deterrent effect.
I'm trying hard to remember when, but last century (not all that long ago) the USA and UK both committed to protecting Ukraine's independence, I'm certain and so is OH. Something to do with Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons in exchange. If we remember rightly, then that would imply that we would provide 'boots on the ground' wouldn't it? Open to correction.
From that agreement:
“ The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.”
Note the last six words. It was a very different world then. Ukraine had a massive nuclear arsenal and it was seen as a big deal to make them give them up. Hence the signatories were falling over themselves to compensate
Nonetheless it’s plain that that agreement died in principle a long time ago
“ The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.”
Note the last six words. It was a very different world then. Ukraine had a massive nuclear arsenal and it was seen as a big deal to make them give them up. Hence the signatories were falling over themselves to compensate
Nonetheless it’s plain that that agreement died in principle a long time ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.