Russian invasion of Ukraine

UN diplomats walk out during Lavrov's speech apparently according to BBC.

I might be wide of the mark here, but when we're hoping to negotiate peace treaties, is walking out a professional move? Aren't they paid diplomats to be diplomatic and engage, even if only in UN sessions.

WAC. Growing up as a child in the 70s and 80s I always swore I'd never vote Tory. Selfish Gammons like that make it so easy to stick to that childish resolution.

No. Listening to lies and bullshit isn't diplomacy.

Reddit r/conspiracy has been totally AstroTurfed by Russian trolls by the looks of it. Either that or it’s somehow been spun into the culture war narrative they’re addicted to over there.

I'm pretty sure it's actually quite a big bit of diplomacy, but I agree inasmuch as this wasn't a situation where you have to patiently wait out the bullshit to find things you agree on, this was just propaganda and trying to justify an illegal invasion.

I didn’t expect the Russian troops to turn around because I posted a comment on a Moscow cafe’s review page. (although the convoy heading to Kiev did suffer a series of breakdowns at about the same time)
But here’s an article about it.

I agree largely, but listening to a carefully nuanced and selective version of the truth may well be diplomacy. Listening to blatant lies and having someone take you for a total idiot isn't, I would hope.

https://twitter.com/chapora007/status/1498698457929986050

Yeah it's a fair point and I get it. Even in the face of lies, I'd still want my diplomat to be professional. We're not talking Village Parish Council here.

The ramifications of war in a breadbasket
https://twitter.com/TRF_Stories/status/1498643249560530945

Apologies for the ramble and no doubt half baked thoughts below - I am no expert on geopolitics, but...
Is there not something morally ambiguous, or even dishonest about the west's posture in this war in Ukraine.
Cutting through the wishful thinking and propaganda, there doesn't seem to be any serious credence given to the idea that Ukraine will secure a military victory - rather, the grim reality that Russia will simply escalate the violence to such an extent as is required to win is predicted and expected across the board.
If that is our expectation, then why are we arming the Ukrainians and in turn provoking the Russian escalation, when all we believe it can lead to is the destruction of Ukrainians cities and the blood loss of it's military and civilian populations? To say nothing of the refugee misery.
The west is resolved not to enter the conflict militarily and secure a victory for Ukraine, so why do we not accept what we believe to be inevitable and not prolong and intensify the suffering of Ukrainians?
There seems an obvious, and terrible cynical answer...because it suits the West for Ukraine to suffer - the more grotesque and public the better. The more the Ukrainians are obliterated, the more the West can pursue a bloodless (western) and morally certain campaign against Putin. The Ukrainian's blood is fueling our PR / Russia's negative PR - it justifies our sanctions and weakens Russia internally.
Apart from the violation of the principal of national sovereignty, does the West really care about the fate of Ukraine? We clap for an independent Ukraine, but having Russia bogged down in a ghastly, messy war of occupation is perhaps of far more practical use to us, isn't it?
Did the west arm and train the Mujahideen in Afghanistan because we gave a shit about that country's fate?
I don't doubt that there is very much genuine outrage and sympathy - and that many if not most are genuinely conflicted by the motivation of wanting to do all they can without risking the terrible fate of nuclear war. But surely there must be those who know how this ends - and know that there is much to be gained if it doesn't end too quickly, or too cleanly. And the cynicism of those people, posturing with Ukraine flags and chanting solidarity is sickening.

1). If the Ukrainians want to lay down their arms and surrender they can do that. If they want to fight, we should assist them as we best we can within the confines of avoiding a direct conflict with Russia.

2). Yes, the Ukrainians are fighting for all of us. They are fighting for a future as a sovereign nation, and as a market-based democracy, because they know that is the best way of life.

3). What is the alternative? Looking the other way as Putin destroys and enslaves them?

4). How can you be certain that Putin wins? People point to Chechnya or Syria, but this is a very different war on a far larger scale. Putin bet the house, but he doesn't have an endless supply of resources.

5). How far are Ukraine from pushing Russia to the negotiating table? Maybe they manage to score some major reverses in the field. Maybe public opinion in Russia decisively turns against Putin as losses mount and sanctions bite. Maybe there is a palace coup. Maybe Russian forces desert en masse as morale already seems to be low. Maybe China turns against Russia.

I don't think there is anything cynical in hoping the Ukrainians can resist total subjugation.

There's a school of thought that the more Ukrainians Putin kills, the more his popularity suffers. Dead children have a lot of value in isolating him and possibly provoking a no fly zone. As General Barrons said on Newsnight "if you think back to Bosnia in the 1990s, it wasn't the governments that decided something had to be done, it was public opinion asserting they couldn't put up with this on their television screens every night." So the no fly zone starts, then Russian planes fight British/French/American planes, pilots die, and it's all seen by the Russian public. Maybe then they take to the streets in sufficient numbers to get Putin replaced.

Glenn Greenwald makes that point but it very depressing
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1498658078232920069

I guess as long as Ukrainian's ask for support though they should receive it

So much for hoping the Oligarch's would have influence

https://www.ft.com/content/5cd2c951-6b23-4e07-a72d-4731f7a71b58

And even if Russia’s oligarchs were to demand changes from Putin, they would still be unable to change his mind, one of the people briefed on the meeting said.

“Imagine they go to complain to Putin,” said a diplomat from a European country where several Russian oligarchs own large assets. “They say, ‘Can you please revise your policy? I lost $4bn of my $5bn’. Putin says, ‘Do you want to keep the $1bn?’”

This is great:

https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1498692916511924232

Is it?

market-based
best way of life

Mark Fisher would like a word

Uff, we've got the same kind of caste system in Lithuanian jails 30 years after the collapse of soviet union. Soviet heritage is strong.

He has a point though, I'd agree that thugs shut be dealt with in their ways. It's just..
Who's the thug, the senior "cock" punisher? Boris? Biden?

i think carson is right but i also don’t know shit, so forgive me. It is awful if the reality is that we are making great tv out of ukraine’s brave but hopeless fight against Russia; that we are only increasing the extensity of the suffering with this lethal aid at an arms length; and that, as a return for ukrainian blood and our minuscule investment, we get a perfect bad guy; a rationale for charging whatever we like for shit at home and increasing austerity; a diversion from covid; an excuse to put pressure on china (or worse); a rationale for more military spending (but of a ‘sensible’ flavour); an influx of cheap, well educated labour, and so on and so on. total win 🤮

China

I see what you’re saying but as @revenant. says the Ukrainians can give up and accept Russian rule if they want. The fact is funnily enough they don’t want to be conquered, and women and children are busy making Molotov cocktails in the streets.
If we are talking about stopping bloodshed, for a Russian tank crew about to enter a Ukrainian village - the knowledge that Ukrainian villagers have an anti tank weapon gifted from the UK will be far more effective at stopping them from choosing to enter the town than a few bottles of vodka and matches..

I think what you're not factoring in is the effect on Russian public opinion of Putin failing to secure a fast victory and of thousands of young Russian men being returned ro Russia in boxes. Nobody celebrates the loss of life on either side, but Putin has seemed immovable so far because he has been seen to create stability rather than prosperity. If his judgement is shown not to be sound and it costs Russian lives (during the invasion and the occupation) then he may be ousted.

I think Carson is very wrong. Putin ordered the invasion of a neighboring country, entirely without justification. If there is something 'morally ambiguous or even dishonest' about the wests 'posture,' how does it hold that position becomes more 'morally certain' as more Ukrainians are obliterated?

'why do we not accept what we believe to be inevitable and not prolong and intensify the suffering of Ukrainians?'

There's nothing inevitable about Russia winning. Who are 'we' to tell the Ukranians to roll over for Russia and put up with another Yanukovych styled puppet? 2014 is less than a decade ago, how do you think it would go for protestors of the next regime?

'Apart from the violation of the principal of national sovereignty, does the West really care about the fate of Ukraine?'

Seriously??? Europe's entire post-war settlement, economic order, the formation and expansion of the EU is built around rules based, democratic principles. So yes, a regressive autocrat threatening nuclear war and sending a 30k long army column towards the Capital city of a fledging democratic fellow traveler is incredibly threatening to western values, both human and philosophical.

'We clap for an independent Ukraine, but having Russia bogged down in a ghastly, messy war of occupation is perhaps of far more practical use to us, isn't it?'

It's a fucking disaster for everyone. Even if you believe that there may be some eventual positives if the Russians decide to oust Putin and reform in a manner more conducive to western priorities, it's going to be a long period of desperate uncertainty, political infighting, instability and suffering. Sure, there's no doubt a cohort of western disaster capitalists that will embrace that, but for fuck's sake, you can't seriously suggest a war on the doorstep is a positive for anyone? Or indeed that the west, outside a few gobby super-hawks are embracing it or cheering it on? It seems remarkably apparent, given the overwhelming consensus for sanctions and indeed the lukewarm response from Russian allies, ex-Belarus, that no one approves of what Putin is up to.

Excuse me if the response seems grumpy but the fatalistic cynicism of that opinion is thoroughly depressing.

I'm not suggesting that the war is in anyway a positive for anyone, or that there can be any doubt that morally, Putin's actions are objectively wrong. My focus, rather, is on how our response to this might be informed by our ultimate objectives, and the idea that a Ukranian military victory might not in fact be as desirable as a Putin(ian?) political defeat. Putin can win the war and still lose big, particularly if the war is huge and messy. Therein potentially lies the conflict of interest between the west and Ukraine, and why in circumstances where a Ukrainian military victory seems unlikely, it is reasonable to question in whose interest are we really feeding lethal arms into the conflict.

I agree it is a deeply cynical and depressing outlook. Seeing western leaders (at the UN?) today give the Ukranian president a standing ovation for his noble, and ultimately lonely, sacrifice at the alter of western values was gut wrenching.