Russia/Ukraine tensions - Any concern?

Davesax1965 wrote: Thanks, Steve. ;-) As Woon Deadn is best placed to tell you, it's really complicated stuff. We thought we had a mess with Northern Ireland and what we did in the Balkans, this is a real can of worms.  We tend to think of Europe as one homologous mass, don't forget it's been the scene of warfare and land grabs since time immemorial. The Age of Empires meant that wars were fought by proxy in other countries as the great Empires seized land and resources from each other. Once Africa was effectively partitioned, the Germans essentially losing out, this leads eventually to WW1. A good primer to understanding Europe (including Russia) is perhaps Eric Hobsbawm's "The Age of Empire", which I read nearly 30 years ago at University whilst doing a History degree. Anything by Hobsbawm is recommended, though he does get very left wing at times, rather than a neutral observer.

^ 
Due to Industrialisation, Europe expands territory in Africa rather than fight expensive wars in Europe. "War by proxy". 

UK industrialises first, 1760's. Germany is way behind. Of course, Germany doesn't actually exist as a unified nation until 1871. Before Napoleon makes his way through it, Germany was a collection of small states, confederations.... even Prussia is split in two. Napoleon goes into a country with 365 states, when he leaves, there's 36. Takes another 60 years to meld the country into one nation.

So. Germany misses out on these "wars of Empire" in Africa. It comes in the game too late, ends up with a few territorial acquisitions across central Africa. The French do rather well in North Africa, the British do well in South Africa.

After Africa is partitioned, there is no room for territorial expansion overseas for Germany. So it resorts to invading Belgium and France in 1914. "Old way of thinking". 

Same with Ukraine / Russia. The only way to go for Russia is west, really. 

I did a whole load of research at University during a history degree. ;-)

German Equatorial Africa didn't produce anything like the economic success compared to British and French gains. Even the Belgians did quite well in the Belgian Congo. ;-) 

What does bother me is the headlines in western media, proclaiming that Russia has amassed troops etc 'On the border with Ukraine' when in fact the troop build up is actually over 100 miles from the border, in an area where Russia holds annual drills anyway (albeit smaller in scale)

Is there even the slightest possibility that western media is just sh*t stirring, and it's this which has angered Putin, leading to his ridiculous list of demands?

Hi Lewian, delighted you've ordered "The Age of Empire", it's a really good read. His "Age of Revolutions" is worth a look as well. 

Yep, sorry to bring it up, but the German Empire doesn't really compare to, say, the British Empire (in and outside of Africa.) German industrialisation was pretty slow - for example, the first locomotive in Germany was an English one, ran on English built tracks and had an English driver. The Germans were catching up with Britain after unification in 1871, but - just look at their comparative navies - they were well behind by the turn of the century. 

Plus. The UK is an island on the edge of Europe, protected by a strong navy. Germany is a relatively new country in the centre of Europe, with historical enemies all around. Different mindset. 

On the subject of navies..... the Russian navy sails half way around the world in 1905 to Japan. The Japanese (thought to be a backward nation at the time) kick the tar out of the Russian fleet. This sets the Russians off on a "perhaps we're not as good as we should be" mindset which perpetuates for decades. I digress, but it's only of late that the Russians have been making big noises about technological advancement. 

Back to Lewian's very good point about Europe always being a melting point, it's true, but then again, modern politics really don't involve Visigoths or Celts or Saxons. ;-) 

Edited by Davesax1965 - January 10 2022 at 05:28

Gordy wrote: Blacksword wrote: What does bother me is the headlines in western media, proclaiming that Russia has amassed troops etc 'On the border with Ukraine' when in fact the troop build up is actually over 100 miles from the border, in an area where Russia holds annual drills anyway (albeit smaller in scale) Is there even the slightest possibility that western media is just sh*t stirring, and it's this which has angered Putin, leading to his ridiculous list of demands? You nailed it. But as unsavoury as Putin is, his demands are not terribly ridiculous considering how unbelievably aggressive and duplicitous NATO has been the past thirty years (if any country were conducting affairs this close to the United States' doorstep they'd be throwing an utter fit): https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/01/17/pers-j17.html "Even if it were true that Russia is about to invade Ukraine, how can it be claimed with a straight face that such a military action would have 'nothing to do with expansion by NATO,' which has extended its boundaries 800 miles to the east since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991? How could Russia not be concerned by NATO’s obvious intention to bring Ukraine into its military alliance? And, if the issue of Ukraine is a mere pretext used by Putin to disguise his megalomania, why are the United States and NATO insisting that they will not rule out Ukraine’s future incorporation?"

The demands were ridiculous in the sense that he must have known the west was not going to budge - at least not so far. I do, however think Putin has a legitimate grievance with NATO's expansion. As he himself has said, what would be the US reaction to Russia striking a military alliance with Mexico, and putting Russian troops on the border with Texas, claiming it was merely 'defensive'

We've effectively been here before over Cuba. Kennedy didn't stand for that, so why should Russia stand for NATO positioning medium range nuclear weapons in former Soviet territories on Russia's borders?

In any case, this is hotting up dangerously, with thousands of troops positioned on the Belarus/Ukraine border, nearer to Kiev. An invasion on some scale looks more likely, although by no means inevitable. If Putin launches a major invasion of Ukraine, I hope Poland is ready to manage the huge refugee crisis it will have on it's border. The Russians fighting a war next door to numerous NATO member states is a precarious situation to say the least.

SteveG wrote: Blacksword wrote: Gordy wrote: Blacksword wrote: What does bother me is the headlines in western media, proclaiming that Russia has amassed troops etc 'On the border with Ukraine' when in fact the troop build up is actually over 100 miles from the border, in an area where Russia holds annual drills anyway (albeit smaller in scale) Is there even the slightest possibility that western media is just sh*t stirring, and it's this which has angered Putin, leading to his ridiculous list of demands? You nailed it. But as unsavoury as Putin is, his demands are not terribly ridiculous considering how unbelievably aggressive and duplicitous NATO has been the past thirty years (if any country were conducting affairs this close to the United States' doorstep they'd be throwing an utter fit): https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/01/17/pers-j17.html "Even if it were true that Russia is about to invade Ukraine, how can it be claimed with a straight face that such a military action would have 'nothing to do with expansion by NATO,' which has extended its boundaries 800 miles to the east since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991? How could Russia not be concerned by NATO’s obvious intention to bring Ukraine into its military alliance? And, if the issue of Ukraine is a mere pretext used by Putin to disguise his megalomania, why are the United States and NATO insisting that they will not rule out Ukraine’s future incorporation?" The demands were ridiculous in the sense that he must have known the west was not going to budge - at least not so far. I do, however think Putin has a legitimate grievance with NATO's expansion. As he himself has said, what would be the US reaction to Russia striking a military alliance with Mexico, and putting Russian troops on the border with Texas, claiming it was merely 'defensive' We've effectively been here before over Cuba. Kennedy didn't stand for that, so why should Russia stand for NATO positioning medium range nuclear weapons in former Soviet territories on Russia's borders? In any case, this is hotting up dangerously, with thousands of troops positioned on the Belarus/Ukraine border, nearer to Kiev. An invasion on some scale looks more likely, although by no means inevitable. If Putin launches a major invasion of Ukraine, I hope Poland is ready to manage the huge refugee crisis it will have on it's border. The Russians fighting a war next door to numerous NATO member states is a precarious situation to say the least. The thing with the "NATO expansion" is that it's Ukraine that wants that alliance. What are the NATO members to say? No. It's a very difficult situation.

It's the expansion into former Soviet states by NATO, since the 90's that's at te heart of this. Ukraines potential membership is Putin's red line. He's not going to let that happen. Clearly he thinks he can intimidate Ukraine and the west into giving way to him, ad if he can't then there he will fight for it on the battlefield.

Blacksword wrote: It's the expansion into former Soviet states by NATO, since the 90's that's at te heart of this. Ukraines potential membership is Putin's red line. He's not going to let that happen. Clearly he thinks he can intimidate Ukraine and the west into giving way to him, ad if he can't then there he will fight for it on the battlefield.

Lewian wrote: Blacksword wrote: It's the expansion into former Soviet states by NATO, since the 90's that's at te heart of this. Ukraines potential membership is Putin's red line. He's not going to let that happen. Clearly he thinks he can intimidate Ukraine and the west into giving way to him, ad if he can't then there he will fight for it on the battlefield. What about the idea that these states belong to their people, and if these people want to join NATO, is this "aggressive NATO expansion"?

It is odd to me that they are okay with having the same person leading their government until he dies. I'm sure trump is very jealous as he tried to pull the same stunt in the US, but was refuted, barely.