Russia shoots down US drone over international airspace?

[mynamehere]

4 hours ago, gp_ said:

 

What exactly is "Europe" going to do? We can keep supporting Ukraine, but will we do so to a sufficient extent to allow Ukraine to win? If we do, might China react by increasing support for Russia? The latter would be a disaster because it would give the biggest threat to us greater access to Russian natural resources.
 

Not sure exactly what Europe is going to do/acheive. 

However it's clearer what Europe is not going to do. It's not going to behave like Russia isn't run by a genocidal maniac, and trade with Russia as if it is isn't stealing 10s of thousands of children and trying to wipe a nation of the map.  

Whether Europe's support of Ukraine, military and economic, is enough to help fend off Russia, is another question. But Russia have gone way past the line where Europe can do anything but support Ukraine to the extent politics will allow.

Edited March 20, 2023 by mynamehere

[Staffsknot]

17 hours ago, Grayphil said:

I wonder at what point Larry would actually consider that he may have got this whole situation very very wrong?

I think even if Putin nuked every capital city in the west, and rained down an obscene amount of nukes just for fun, Larry would still bang on saying it was justified because  potato famines and the fact that we don't speak muck Gaelic anymore.

I don't think ever - you can pick apart everyone of his factoids with evidence its ****** and he'll repeat it again two days later. Facts don't matter only the belief that criticising Putin is hypocrisy unless you also first 'debate' the wrongs of the Holy Roman Empire or siege of Troy as acts of Western Imperialism...

If nuclear weapons dropped it would be 'but Hiroshima'.

Its a bit like all the 'the drone was spying the Russians were right' types - what do they think those frequent Bear bomber and naval exercises off Europe / Ireland are in intl waters by Russia? But they aren't downed or sunk because Intl waters are free to use by anything and anyone.

[Staffsknot]

7 hours ago, mynamehere said:

Not sure exactly what Europe is going to do/acheive. 

However it's clearer what Europe is not going to do. It's not going to behave like Russia isn't run by a genocidal maniac, and trade with Russia as if it is isn't stealing 10s of thousands of children and trying to wipe a nation of the map.  

Whether Europe's support of Ukraine, military and economic, is enough to help fend off Russia, is another question. But Russia have gone way past the line where Europe can do anything but support Ukraine to the extent politics will allow.

Effectively Europe, barring a couple of countries that might backslide, is at a point politicians thought would take decades to do in a short space of time.

By eliminating Russian gas a whole load of policies they wanted to do but were unpallatable with voters became doable - such as energy reform, renewable investment at scale and military spend without being at war.

The ICC Warrant is an albatross around Putin's neck meaning its near impossible to do business with Europe. That also puts a fair few rich Russians on notice that 'normality' will not quickly resume in a year or two.

No point being ridiculously wealthy in Russia as Putin can destroy it all at a pen stroke, which is why they all stashed themselves in the West. Now forced home their money doesn't matter as they've gone from rockstar lifestyle to pub band doing Putin's requests or else.

[gp_]

On 20/03/2023 at 00:24, mynamehere said:

However it's clearer what Europe is not going to do. It's not going to behave like Russia isn't run by a genocidal maniac, and trade with Russia as if it is isn't stealing 10s of thousands of children and trying to wipe a nation of the map.  

So all that achieves is push them into dependence on China: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-21/china-s-russian-energy-imports-balloon-to-88-billion-since-war

[Staffsknot]

12 hours ago, gp_ said:

So all that achieves is push them into dependence on China: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-21/china-s-russian-energy-imports-balloon-to-88-billion-since-war

Who will exploit them but that is Russia's problem.

Your other option is give in and be exploited... and Russia still trade with China anyway.

Not sure what your logic is?

[gp_]

4 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

Who will exploit them but that is Russia's problem.

Anything that strengthens China will be our problem. China is a far greater threat.
 

4 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

Your other option is give in and be exploited... and Russia still trade with China anyway.

But will not become drawn into China's sphere of influence. A strong Russia that will be a rival to, rather than a dependent of, China might be the best option (for everyone other than the Ukrainians, that is).

We had good choices 20 years ago. We decided not to take them, through complacency and incompetence, so now all we have left are bad choices.

 

[Staffsknot]

47 minutes ago, gp_ said:

A strong Russia that will be a rival to, rather than a dependent of, China might be the best option (for everyone other than the Ukrainians, that is).

Not really given that prior to Ukr invasion the Russians were cooperating with China and had been supportive of China generally.

I don't think your argument stacks up tbh.

[gp_]

40 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Not really given that prior to Ukr invasion the Russians were cooperating with China and had been supportive of China generally.

That was because the west has been messing up its Russia policy for decades:

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html


What the Ukraine war does it make those mistakes irretrevable.

[Staffsknot]

42 minutes ago, gp_ said:

That was because the west has been messing up its Russia policy for decades:

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html


What the Ukraine war does it make those mistakes irretrevable.

Again this has logical flaws:

Russia would always fall to nostalgia for when it was a bigger player in Europe. Traditionally they see themselves as Europe and US as the interloper, as suspicious of Western Europe and as having dominion over Eastern Europe.

The stronger Russia is the more it would exert that stance.

Russia would always pair with China against the US due to mutual interest.

Russia would always try and dominate in Europe and sees the EU / NATO as opponents to that aim, so again a stronger Russia always posed a threat there.

Whatever way you cut it the logic of strong Russia equals peace in Europe / counter to China is deeply flawed.

[gp_]

1 minute ago, Staffsknot said:

Russia would always pair with China against the US due to mutual interest.

Only because we have given them mutual interests. read the article, We failed to promote democracy in Russia when we could influence it.

China is also a threat to Russia - they are far from natural allies, they have territorial disputes, have and even came into military conflict during the cold war.  The Chinese would love to grab some of Siberia and the Russians know it.

The fallacy in your argument is that it is inevitable that Russia and China are allies. Their mutual interests are the result of idiotic western foreign policy.
 

8 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Russia would always try and dominate in Europe and sees the EU / NATO as opponents to that aim, so again a stronger Russia always posed a threat there.

Again, read the article I linked to. This is worsened by making Russia feel threatened. This quite, bearing in mind the article was written 25 years ago:

"If we are unlucky they will say, as Mr. Kennan predicts, that NATO expansion set up a situation in which NATO now has to either expand all the way to Russia's border, triggering a new cold war, or stop expanding after these three new countries and create a new dividing line through Europe."

Exactly what happened.

 

[Staffsknot]

16 minutes ago, gp_ said:

Only because we have given them mutual interests. read the article, We failed to promote democracy in Russia when we could influence it.

China is also a threat to Russia - they are far from natural allies, they have territorial disputes, have and even came into military conflict during the cold war.  The Chinese would love to grab some of Siberia and the Russians know it.

The fallacy in your argument is that it is inevitable that Russia and China are allies. Their mutual interests are the result of idiotic western foreign policy.
 

Again, read the article I linked to. This is worsened by making Russia feel threatened. This quite, bearing in mind the article was written 25 years ago:

"If we are unlucky they will say, as Mr. Kennan predicts, that NATO expansion set up a situation in which NATO now has to either expand all the way to Russia's border, triggering a new cold war, or stop expanding after these three new countries and create a new dividing line through Europe."

Exactly what happened.

 

 Think you are unfortunately taking an extremely narrow view as did the author of said article.

"The west should have done more..." fallacy is rather undone by the follow on that the West should stop moving East and 'meddling' in Russia's backyard.

Again disjointed thought.

Britain and France, France and Germany are all not natural allies as they have fought wars and had territorial disputes yet here we sit.

China and Russia always had mutual interests and would always inevitably come to those points of collaboration.

During the Cold War they argued to see who would become the leader in the pursuit of Communism - they also each had competing client states that fought each other.

Your analysis that things would not settle with Russia pressing against EU and US as a bloc, and with China pushling against US, its allies and Asian powers as another bloc - would somehow say we have nothing in common and not work together - is quite frankly a little naive.

If you think Western sponsored democracy in Russia would have made Russia ignore Europe and try and act as a bullwark against China I don't think you understand how Russia views Europe.

[gp_]

On 23/03/2023 at 16:20, Staffsknot said:

Think you are unfortunately taking an extremely narrow view as did the author of said article.

Do you mean the author or the person he is quoting? Do you realise who the latter is?
 

On 23/03/2023 at 16:20, Staffsknot said:

"The west should have done more..." fallacy is rather undone by the follow on that the West should stop moving East and 'meddling' in Russia's backyard.

Not at all disjointed,. The west should have done more when it could. If it was not willing to do that it should have accepted the alternative.
 

On 23/03/2023 at 16:20, Staffsknot said:

China and Russia always had mutual interests and would always inevitably come to those points of collaboration.

They have constant conflict and causes of conflict.
 

On 23/03/2023 at 16:20, Staffsknot said:

Britain and France, France and Germany are all not natural allies as they have fought wars and had territorial disputes yet here we sit.

Becase we have common enemies, and because we are all now stable, affluent, democracies.
 

On 23/03/2023 at 16:20, Staffsknot said:

During the Cold War they argued to see who would become the leader in the pursuit of Communism - they also each had competing client states that fought each other.

They have similar rivalries now, and China is by far the greatest potential threat to Russia.
 

On 23/03/2023 at 16:20, Staffsknot said:

Your analysis that things would not settle with Russia pressing against EU and US as a bloc, and with China pushling against US, its allies and Asian powers as another bloc - would somehow say we have nothing in common and not work together - is quite frankly a little naive.

That is naive itself, because you see things in black and white terms.

It would have been very easy to put Russia in a position where it had more in common with the west.

The whole "EU and US" as a bloc is part of the problem. If the EU and NATO had not made Russia feel threatened they would have a different attitude to us.
 

On 23/03/2023 at 16:20, Staffsknot said:

If you think Western sponsored democracy in Russia would have made Russia ignore Europe and try and act as a bullwark against China I don't think you understand how Russia views Europe.

I do not think you understand WHY Russia view Europe that way.

You are contradicting what everyone with expertise on Russia says, what past Russian foreign policy says, what the Russians themselves have done.

The fact is that the west has clearly signalled to Russia that it can dominate parts of Eastern Europe (e.g. its invasions of Gerogia and Ukraine) and then turned around and said it cannot (the announcement that Ukraine would be joining transatlantic instaitutions a few months before the invasion). Wavering is not good foreign policy.

[Staffsknot]

15 hours ago, gp_ said:

Do you mean the author or the person he is quoting? Do you realise who the latter is?
 

Not at all disjointed,. The west should have done more when it could. If it was not willing to do that it should have accepted the alternative.
 

They have constant conflict and causes of conflict.
 

Becase we have common enemies, and because we are all now stable, affluent, democracies.
 

They have similar rivalries now, and China is by far the greatest potential threat to Russia.
 

That is naive itself, because you see things in black and white terms.

It would have been very easy to put Russia in a position where it had more in common with the west.

The whole "EU and US" as a bloc is part of the problem. If the EU and NATO had not made Russia feel threatened they would have a different attitude to us.
 

I do not think you understand WHY Russia view Europe that way.

You are contradicting what everyone with expertise on Russia says, what past Russian foreign policy says, what the Russians themselves have done.

The fact is that the west has clearly signalled to Russia that it can dominate parts of Eastern Europe (e.g. its invasions of Gerogia and Ukraine) and then turned around and said it cannot (the announcement that Ukraine would be joining transatlantic instaitutions a few months before the invasion). Wavering is not good foreign policy.

I know exactly who is being quoted - the man who called for Soviets to be contained, then complained about the fact the Soviets were being contained... the difference between academia and reality is often that theory and practical application differ by necessity. The spheres policy is rather like the naive ideas of two great alliances each the others rival brought peace before ww1... to paraphrase Blackadder "It's complete bllocks".

No I know why Russia always look West with suspicion as that's where threats from Europe come by nature of geography - from the Romans to the Napoleonic French and the Axis powers + the European interventions in Civil War.

They look upon Eastern Europe as theirs as much of it was either theirs in Greater Russia or 'theirs' in Soviet times. Nostalgia for a 'greater' time of Empire before decline, much like daft folk go on about days of Empire in their respetive nations with rose specs affixed. It panders to dim nationalists universally.

The international community applied sanctions and condemned in cas3 of Georgia and Crimea, but as these were short and brutal they were done before any intervention could come and with forces tied up elsewhere.

Your ideas seem disjointed you want Russia contained earlier / told to stop immediately but then push Keenan's sphere approacu which means giving them free reign to take over everywhere, then complain West didn't pick a lane...