True, which is why cooler and more sensible heads in the West should have pushed for peace as soon as the Russian initial attack had been neutralised. Instead Russia dug in and developed its defences and Ukraine focussed on their mythical spring/summer push.
Nothing has been achieved by the futile attempt to retake Donbas except to escalate the whole bloody mess and kill loads and loads of people. Now we are looking at Ukraine using Western weapons to hit Russia. Next we know there will be a Russia NATO conflict.
Why do I think I’m living through Volume 2 of Barbara Tuchman’s, The Guns of August?
Putin won’t live for ever, the retaking of Donbas (and maybe even Crimea) could have waited for another day. In the meantime as part of the negotiations the rest of Ukraine could, with skilful negotiations, perhaps become affiliated with NATO and thus secure.
I’ve no idea whether that would have worked or not, but I am firmly convinced that the West’s gung ho actions stoked the fire and didn’t attempt to calm the situation down, whicg would have been the right approach.
Remember, Boris Johnson was one of the first to get stuck in and offer Ukraine support to “beat” Russia. Now when the Hell has he ever got anything right
I’m not in total agreement with your anti-US position. Although the US is far from perfect, we also need to consider the other players in a global game.
As in the article
If the U.S. and its allies were to stop supporting Ukraine and it lost the war, China’s biggest partner (Russia) would come out on top. The West would not look as strong or united as it once was. Knowing this, China might become more aggressive in its territorial claims in Taiwan, the South China Sea and elsewhere.
But if the West remained united and Ukraine won, the opposite would be true. Russia would be weakened and embarrassed. The U.S. and its allies would have proved that they remained formidable. And China might reconsider if it could afford to take aggressive action to expand its borders.
The war in Ukraine is tragic but a small part on a big chessboard. The future holds further threats to the dominance of western powers and democracy defended by America. If, and possibly when that falls, we will find ourselves in a very different world.
I’m not anti-US Susannah, quite the opposite, some of my best friends are American But, US foreign policy has been a disaster since the Wall came down.
What does “won” look like. Pushed back to pre war borders or recover Crimea as well? Putin deposed perhaps? Look at what the war criminal Netanyahu has done to keep power. Who knows what Putin would do? I don’t want to find out.
The problem with US foreign policy is it creates chaos, but not on home ground, were it to do so they wouldn’t be so cavalier. Most US voters couldn’t point out Ukraine on a schoolroom globe, nor Iraq, nor Afghanistan, If a US city ended up like Bagdad after the Halliburton war then voters might discourage future adventures.
Biden has screwed up the Ukraine situation and is allowing a genocide in Gaza. He could well screw up the election and allow Trump and the rabid bunch of self serving political dross that support him into power.
I certainly take your points. No country is really perfect (not even France!) but we can only wonder because most of us will not be here to see what will happen this century when the balance of power shifts into hands of countries that do not follow or even like things we consider essential, like democracy, human rights and freedom of speech. Will people in the west fight to preserve our way of life or just knuckle under in order to survive?
True. I had long decided that Israel, despite all the goodwill and support it enjoyed in the US and Europe would eventually overreach, but I thought I would be long gone before it happened. Now look where we are.
The US too has overreached. Having vanquished the Soviet Union monster (and well done there) it created the China one. Russia wasn’t a major threat until Bush prodded it, The Middle East was ticking over until Bush (Dick Cheney) screwed it too (and us on its periphery).
The balance of power will change and that’s why I agree with Tusk, Europe needs to develop its own defence capability.
No, I agree, but Bush floated it way back and the threat was there, which caused the “reacquisition” of Crimea . It’s a bit like Canada being encouraged to join the Warsaw Pact back in the day. Or even the Cuban missile crises. The Yanks didn’t take too kindly on having barbarians at the gate, why would Russia?
The whole expansion of NATO, a good thing, was handled with scant thought on how it was viewed in the Kremlin. It’s been a total failure of Western diplomacy. Of course, none of the people responsible for that disaster are willing to admit it. So it’s left to a renegade loony to speak the truth. Rather those people now wind us up on unsubstantiated expansionist aspiration by Putin. Which, because of their failures and now actually credible. Catch 22 in reverse?
But Russia already had its Babarians at the gate, in a continuous line almost from Estonia to the Iranian border, so there is no reason to believe that Ukraine made it any worse. The Yanks were secure in their borders till Castro took over Cuba.
No Porridge, not NATO which is trying to prevent conflict, it’s the lazy, shortsighted or worse, agenda driven politicians using it. Predominantly the US. Remember Oil man Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. Think of the misery those two bastards have caused manipulating the clown Bush. Just one of their screwups was baiting Russia.
Just watching Newsnight, the Groupthink is shocking. In their efforts to disparage Farage nobody has the balls to admit that NATO expansion has been a factor in the Ukraine situation. This is thrash TV. Shame BBC.
IMO the role that NATO expansion (driven by venal politicians) has had in the current disaster is irrefutable.
Farage also ‘quoted’ Robertson, former NATO head saying much the same, the latter was interviewed yesterday and completely refuted what Farage had said, saying he had said nothing of the sort.
Sorry John, I simply do not accept your premise. Russia is semi encircled by NATO simply because of Russian belligerence, not the other way round. If Finland and Sweden are not proof of that I don’t know what is.
Ahh David, one could say that the fact that Finland and Sweden didn’t join until now shows there wasn’t a threat
I believe that the countries that wanted to join NATO should have been able to join NATO. What I am complaining about is that is that nobody thought “em, maybe this will piss off Russia, why don’t we proceed in a diplomatic way to avoid that happening”.
If Robertson didn’t say it at the time, at least in private, he bloody well should have.
I don’t think humanity changes. We build different structures and use technology more effectively, but people’s needs haven’t changed in millennia and humanity is as diverse in its kindness/cruelty as it ever was. We also see cycles of permissiveness/diversity and then suppression/normality again.
But, US foreign policy has been a disaster since the Wall came down.