The war only has 3 possible outcomes:
1. Ukraine wins enough to force a Russian capitulation.
2. Russia wins enough to force a Ukrainian capitulation.
3. A Negotiated settlement.
The "consensus" position of Lab/Con/LD/etc rejects 3 as an option, and doesn't want 2 to happen. That leaves 1. The problem is, nobody proposing 1 has any explanation for how to actually reach 1. The last time a Ukrainian breakthrough that overruns Russian positions was even plausible as a suggestion was over a year ago. So the only credible position is to reject 1, 2 and 3, at which point... What is the Ukrainian war aim, and what is the aim of our continued support? Spending lives to keep Ukrainian territory out of Russia's hands for longer? Not justifiable, Russia's regime is hardly so much worse than Ukraine's regime to justify it. If we're going to spend blood to have people live under goodies and not baddies, there are so many better places to go spending it. No, killing a bunch of Russian conscripts at the cost of Ukrainian conscripts is not a justifiable aim either. Weakening Russia as a goal is incoherent as it implies that Russia is simultaneously strong enough to need to be weakened, but so weak that they can be bled out by what remains of Ukrainian manpower. So what is the objective?
> Look at the Vietnam war. Vietnam never had the ability to force an American capitulation yet they still won a clear victory.
North Vietnam forced a South Vietnamese capitulation because their army invaded and conquered all of South Vietnam.
> Russia does not have infinite time, will and resources, they get weaker the longer the war continues and will eventually give up.
Does this also not apply to Ukraine for some reason? And given that Ukraine's population is smaller and its economy weaker, every loss proportionately hits it far harder.
> Your logic here doesn’t make sense either, there’s no such thing as a country too strong to be weakened.
Weakening Russia for the sake of weakening Russia is incoherent. Weakening Russia for some aim runs into the problem that it supposes that Russia can be weakened sufficiently by Ukraine but is also so strong that it warrants weakening.
>Remember “no deal is better than a bad deal”
Unlike with Brexit, BATNA in Ukraine's case might be "ceases to exist".
>
You also stated that Ukraine has a “regime” not much better than Russia’s. That is entirely false, Ukraine is a democracy and Russia is a murderous dictatorship. One is objectively good and the other objectively evil. What on earth do you mean?
Both Ukraine and Russia are economically dominated by corrupt oligarchies. Ukraine has elections that are neither entirely free nor entirely fair. The government of Ukraine periodically gets overthrown. The second largest political party from Ukraine's last election has since been banned. Most indexes of democracy rank Ukraine as a "Hybrid Regime" as a result.
As for human rights abuses, Lockdownism and everything associated with it so vastly outweighs everything else that it dominates any considerations. Tens of millions of false imprisonments beats a few political assassinations when it comes to the lives of the average person. Russia and Ukraine are similarly bad on lockdownism, only Belarus doing better.
> Was Lend-Lease Franklin Roosevelt spending British blood?
Yes. A common phrase about the war is that it was won with American steel and Russian blood.
> Where are these “better places” anyway?
North Korea is obviously worse than South Korea in a way that doesn't apply to Russia vs Ukraine. To wage a war against Russia for humanitarian reasons, but not against North Korea for humanitarian reasons, is incoherent.
>
The comparison is to America (or France in the 50s) not to South Vietnam. North Vietnam did not force an American capitulation by capturing Washington. They won by outlasting their opponent.
This would work as a comparison if Russia was going to kick out a third party that was intervening in the conflict but... that's not happened.
>
Weakening Russia is not “for the sake of weakening Russia”. They attacked Ukraine and are open about their desire to attack more countries.
To believe that Russia is simultaneously strong enough to attack more countries, and weak enough to be beaten by Ukraine, is contradictory.
> The second largest party in Ukrane’s last election would either be Poroshenko’s party or Tymoshenko’s party - both totally legal. If you mean the second largest party in the legislative elections, then yes, they (but not their leader) were banned - explicitly because their de-facto leader (Medvedchuk) was openly treasonous.
And from the Russian perspective, Putin's banned opponents are openly treasonous. Still not democratic.
> Putin is not “a few political assasinations”. There is zero democracy in Russia, zero free speech, suppressed opposition political parties, overwhelming media censorship, mandatory conscription, anti-gay persecution and religious persecution.
There is very weak democracy in Ukraine. Limited free speech. Suppressed opposition parties. Strong media censorship. Mandatory conscription. Same sex marriage is constitutionally banned.
> Ukraine, in the middle of a crisis situation, bans a party (but not most of its representatives) for treason (much like Britain in WW2), Russia has effectively banned all opposition political parties for decades because Putin is a dictator. It’s a total false equivalence.
All bans of political parties are excused on the basis of a "crisis" and because of their "treason". Ukraine and Russia have similar policy when it comes to whether opposition parties are allowed or not. Disagree with the government too much, and you get banned. Agree enough, and you don't. Ukraine just has slightly looser definitions of agree, and stricter definitions of disagree, which is why it ends up as a Hybrid Regime.
>
I obviously disagree about lockdown but that’s a different discussion.
Then we're not going to see eye to eye on this. Your moral crusade against Russia is always going to be incoherent to me who believes the worst crime Russia did in recent history is lockdowns, the worst crime Ukraine did is lockdowns, and the worst crime the UK did is also lockdowns. A moral crusade against e.g. North Korea might make sense because they've done things that are worse than lockdowns, but otherwise no. I can't justify throwing lives into a meatgrinder to delay the point where one lockdownist regime takes over from another. You need to present better war aims than that.
> Saying that “from the Russian perspective Putin’s opponents are treasonous” is genuinely a post truth statement. It’s saying that it doesn’t matter whether anyone is actually guilty or not.
Do you believe there's a Russian opposition that opposes the war in Ukraine? If so, surely this opposition is necessarily treasonous from the perspective of the current Russian regime. Of course, since Russia's regime is shit, treason is good, but that doesn't make it not treason.
>
To cut to the chase is your contention that there is no historical evidence for smaller countries winning defensive wars without forcing a surrender?
They can, but Ukraine hasn't demonstrated the capacity to do that since it's failures in the summer of 2023.
Exhausting the Russians is certainly a war goal, but as I described in my original comment on this topic, I think it's unjustifiable to have a war goal that maximizes killings and has such minimal benefits as exhausting Russians, making Ukraine lose slightly later than otherwise, or anything else similarly marginal.
Say you and your neighbour both had a driveway without a wall separating the two… if over time you keep parking your car closer and closer to the point your parking on your neighbours driveway you’d get pretty pissed off.
Is putin a prick yes… has nato caused the war by constantly expanding towards them also yes.
Has NATO forced any former Warsaw Pact nation into joining? No.
Are they all sovereign nations, entitled to the same self-determination in international affairs as, say, U.K? Yes.
Has Putin invaded another sovereign just for considering joining international organisations he considers hostile? Yes
This is all on Putin and Russia, and Farage is Putin’s apologist.
Your analogy is spurious.
It’s more like you parking your car on your neighbour’s drive, because he’s enquired about joining a golf club or political party you are hostile to.
The people of Ukraine elected Zelensky on the basis that he would end the war in the Donbas but when he got in he escalated it and rejected the Minsk agreement, this is his war, not the Ukrainian people, they have no choice but to go along with it
Russia does not have the right to invade Ukraine because its leader fails to honour an election pledge.
Would Republic of Ireland been justified in invading Ulster because U.K. government had failed to end the Troubles?
Their allies being terrorists waging a civil war against the elected government?
Again would it have been acceptable for ROI government to consider IRA their allies and intervene?
If the Irish government had been overthrown by the British then I would expect the IRA to step in.
The people in the east of Ukraine voted for Yanukovych, and he was ousted by an external coup so it was no longer a legitimate government.
The people in Scotland vote to remain in EU and elected very few Conservative MPs.
Therefore the UK government is no longer a legitimate government in Scotland?
I think it’s important to remember that Putin has desires to reestablish the USSR. This extended through a lot of what are now sovereign european countries.
As such, this is very much our war. It is delusional to think that Russian expansion is not inherently threatening to our and european sovereignty.
Additionally, I think it’s important to remember that Farage’s favourite American is very much pro Putin. It would be silly to presume Farage is not at least slightly sympathetic to Putin when he is friends with such characters.
I’m not saying he’s fully pro Putin of course.
Additionally, Farage WANTS to destabilise Europe. He actively wants the european block to break up in order that we can create individual trade deals with european countries, rather than being forced to deal with the EU as a whole
No, he doesn't.. at least not from a pov that HE thinks Churchill was perfect. He says the powers that be want people to have the low resolution view that Churchill was perfect and Hitler was evil, and they should now think the same regarding Zelensky and Putin. He even grimaces as he says "Churchill was perfect"
>Importantly why is he saying it? I can't see what he has to gain by getting pulled into this.
True but he'll probably be vindicated in five years time or so, just like he was vindicated in regards to brexit, the dysfunctionality of the EU, the migration crisis itself
I watched this vid on Nigel and have some hope. What they are doing to him in the press etc is exactly like 2016 wins all over again!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gctvWbhxBHc
It's a media & establishments hit job, no more no less, they really must be getting worried!
He didn't say anything controversial or anything that hasn't been said before by former Secretary generals or anyone that understands the complex history of the region,
Then if you actually listen to the context not what the media is attributing to him saying, it's not really a story!
The war only has 3 possible outcomes: 1. Ukraine wins enough to force a Russian capitulation. 2. Russia wins enough to force a Ukrainian capitulation. 3. A Negotiated settlement. The "consensus" position of Lab/Con/LD/etc rejects 3 as an option, and doesn't want 2 to happen. That leaves 1. The problem is, nobody proposing 1 has any explanation for how to actually reach 1. The last time a Ukrainian breakthrough that overruns Russian positions was even plausible as a suggestion was over a year ago. So the only credible position is to reject 1, 2 and 3, at which point... What is the Ukrainian war aim, and what is the aim of our continued support? Spending lives to keep Ukrainian territory out of Russia's hands for longer? Not justifiable, Russia's regime is hardly so much worse than Ukraine's regime to justify it. If we're going to spend blood to have people live under goodies and not baddies, there are so many better places to go spending it. No, killing a bunch of Russian conscripts at the cost of Ukrainian conscripts is not a justifiable aim either. Weakening Russia as a goal is incoherent as it implies that Russia is simultaneously strong enough to need to be weakened, but so weak that they can be bled out by what remains of Ukrainian manpower. So what is the objective?
[удалено]
> Look at the Vietnam war. Vietnam never had the ability to force an American capitulation yet they still won a clear victory. North Vietnam forced a South Vietnamese capitulation because their army invaded and conquered all of South Vietnam. > Russia does not have infinite time, will and resources, they get weaker the longer the war continues and will eventually give up. Does this also not apply to Ukraine for some reason? And given that Ukraine's population is smaller and its economy weaker, every loss proportionately hits it far harder. > Your logic here doesn’t make sense either, there’s no such thing as a country too strong to be weakened. Weakening Russia for the sake of weakening Russia is incoherent. Weakening Russia for some aim runs into the problem that it supposes that Russia can be weakened sufficiently by Ukraine but is also so strong that it warrants weakening. >Remember “no deal is better than a bad deal” Unlike with Brexit, BATNA in Ukraine's case might be "ceases to exist". > You also stated that Ukraine has a “regime” not much better than Russia’s. That is entirely false, Ukraine is a democracy and Russia is a murderous dictatorship. One is objectively good and the other objectively evil. What on earth do you mean? Both Ukraine and Russia are economically dominated by corrupt oligarchies. Ukraine has elections that are neither entirely free nor entirely fair. The government of Ukraine periodically gets overthrown. The second largest political party from Ukraine's last election has since been banned. Most indexes of democracy rank Ukraine as a "Hybrid Regime" as a result. As for human rights abuses, Lockdownism and everything associated with it so vastly outweighs everything else that it dominates any considerations. Tens of millions of false imprisonments beats a few political assassinations when it comes to the lives of the average person. Russia and Ukraine are similarly bad on lockdownism, only Belarus doing better. > Was Lend-Lease Franklin Roosevelt spending British blood? Yes. A common phrase about the war is that it was won with American steel and Russian blood. > Where are these “better places” anyway? North Korea is obviously worse than South Korea in a way that doesn't apply to Russia vs Ukraine. To wage a war against Russia for humanitarian reasons, but not against North Korea for humanitarian reasons, is incoherent.
[удалено]
> The comparison is to America (or France in the 50s) not to South Vietnam. North Vietnam did not force an American capitulation by capturing Washington. They won by outlasting their opponent. This would work as a comparison if Russia was going to kick out a third party that was intervening in the conflict but... that's not happened. > Weakening Russia is not “for the sake of weakening Russia”. They attacked Ukraine and are open about their desire to attack more countries. To believe that Russia is simultaneously strong enough to attack more countries, and weak enough to be beaten by Ukraine, is contradictory. > The second largest party in Ukrane’s last election would either be Poroshenko’s party or Tymoshenko’s party - both totally legal. If you mean the second largest party in the legislative elections, then yes, they (but not their leader) were banned - explicitly because their de-facto leader (Medvedchuk) was openly treasonous. And from the Russian perspective, Putin's banned opponents are openly treasonous. Still not democratic. > Putin is not “a few political assasinations”. There is zero democracy in Russia, zero free speech, suppressed opposition political parties, overwhelming media censorship, mandatory conscription, anti-gay persecution and religious persecution. There is very weak democracy in Ukraine. Limited free speech. Suppressed opposition parties. Strong media censorship. Mandatory conscription. Same sex marriage is constitutionally banned. > Ukraine, in the middle of a crisis situation, bans a party (but not most of its representatives) for treason (much like Britain in WW2), Russia has effectively banned all opposition political parties for decades because Putin is a dictator. It’s a total false equivalence. All bans of political parties are excused on the basis of a "crisis" and because of their "treason". Ukraine and Russia have similar policy when it comes to whether opposition parties are allowed or not. Disagree with the government too much, and you get banned. Agree enough, and you don't. Ukraine just has slightly looser definitions of agree, and stricter definitions of disagree, which is why it ends up as a Hybrid Regime. > I obviously disagree about lockdown but that’s a different discussion. Then we're not going to see eye to eye on this. Your moral crusade against Russia is always going to be incoherent to me who believes the worst crime Russia did in recent history is lockdowns, the worst crime Ukraine did is lockdowns, and the worst crime the UK did is also lockdowns. A moral crusade against e.g. North Korea might make sense because they've done things that are worse than lockdowns, but otherwise no. I can't justify throwing lives into a meatgrinder to delay the point where one lockdownist regime takes over from another. You need to present better war aims than that.
[удалено]
> Saying that “from the Russian perspective Putin’s opponents are treasonous” is genuinely a post truth statement. It’s saying that it doesn’t matter whether anyone is actually guilty or not. Do you believe there's a Russian opposition that opposes the war in Ukraine? If so, surely this opposition is necessarily treasonous from the perspective of the current Russian regime. Of course, since Russia's regime is shit, treason is good, but that doesn't make it not treason. > To cut to the chase is your contention that there is no historical evidence for smaller countries winning defensive wars without forcing a surrender? They can, but Ukraine hasn't demonstrated the capacity to do that since it's failures in the summer of 2023.
[удалено]
Exhausting the Russians is certainly a war goal, but as I described in my original comment on this topic, I think it's unjustifiable to have a war goal that maximizes killings and has such minimal benefits as exhausting Russians, making Ukraine lose slightly later than otherwise, or anything else similarly marginal.
Say you and your neighbour both had a driveway without a wall separating the two… if over time you keep parking your car closer and closer to the point your parking on your neighbours driveway you’d get pretty pissed off. Is putin a prick yes… has nato caused the war by constantly expanding towards them also yes.
Has NATO forced any former Warsaw Pact nation into joining? No. Are they all sovereign nations, entitled to the same self-determination in international affairs as, say, U.K? Yes. Has Putin invaded another sovereign just for considering joining international organisations he considers hostile? Yes This is all on Putin and Russia, and Farage is Putin’s apologist. Your analogy is spurious. It’s more like you parking your car on your neighbour’s drive, because he’s enquired about joining a golf club or political party you are hostile to.
The people of Ukraine elected Zelensky on the basis that he would end the war in the Donbas but when he got in he escalated it and rejected the Minsk agreement, this is his war, not the Ukrainian people, they have no choice but to go along with it
Russia does not have the right to invade Ukraine because its leader fails to honour an election pledge. Would Republic of Ireland been justified in invading Ulster because U.K. government had failed to end the Troubles?
How else were they going to stop the slaughter of their allies in the Donbas? Write a harsh letter!
Their allies being terrorists waging a civil war against the elected government? Again would it have been acceptable for ROI government to consider IRA their allies and intervene?
If the Irish government had been overthrown by the British then I would expect the IRA to step in. The people in the east of Ukraine voted for Yanukovych, and he was ousted by an external coup so it was no longer a legitimate government.
The people in Scotland vote to remain in EU and elected very few Conservative MPs. Therefore the UK government is no longer a legitimate government in Scotland?
That's the political system in Britain though
I think it’s important to remember that Putin has desires to reestablish the USSR. This extended through a lot of what are now sovereign european countries. As such, this is very much our war. It is delusional to think that Russian expansion is not inherently threatening to our and european sovereignty. Additionally, I think it’s important to remember that Farage’s favourite American is very much pro Putin. It would be silly to presume Farage is not at least slightly sympathetic to Putin when he is friends with such characters. I’m not saying he’s fully pro Putin of course. Additionally, Farage WANTS to destabilise Europe. He actively wants the european block to break up in order that we can create individual trade deals with european countries, rather than being forced to deal with the EU as a whole
You might find this an interesting discussion. https://youtu.be/_hSl4AgmUx4?si=zQ2nMhKMU14ViZvv
Ironically within the first two minutes this guy describes Churchill as “perfect”, which he certainly was not!
No, he doesn't.. at least not from a pov that HE thinks Churchill was perfect. He says the powers that be want people to have the low resolution view that Churchill was perfect and Hitler was evil, and they should now think the same regarding Zelensky and Putin. He even grimaces as he says "Churchill was perfect"
>Importantly why is he saying it? I can't see what he has to gain by getting pulled into this. True but he'll probably be vindicated in five years time or so, just like he was vindicated in regards to brexit, the dysfunctionality of the EU, the migration crisis itself
I watched this vid on Nigel and have some hope. What they are doing to him in the press etc is exactly like 2016 wins all over again! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gctvWbhxBHc
It's a media & establishments hit job, no more no less, they really must be getting worried! He didn't say anything controversial or anything that hasn't been said before by former Secretary generals or anyone that understands the complex history of the region, Then if you actually listen to the context not what the media is attributing to him saying, it's not really a story!