[playingpossum]

Originally Posted by yashg

West did not think Putin would actually invade. He did.

Western Intelligence sources kept warning that Russia was planning an invasion since atleast start of this year.

Jan 14 https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/14/p...lag/index.html

Feb 04 https://www.reuters.com/business/aer...us-2022-02-03/

Feb 18 https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/18/p...ssment-russia/

Feb 20 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...curity-council

Feb 21 https://www.cbsnews.com/video/us-int...nvade-ukraine/

In addition regd some comments making comparison to Iraq and Vietnam, please remember that there were loads of people protesting those wars of aggression as well. The wrongness of the US Military Industrial Complex does not reduce the wrongness of Russia's invasion.

I remember seeing some tweet from Chelsea Manning about Ukraine and some smart-ass reply asking if she spoke up during Iraq/Afghanistan, apparently not realizing that she had gone to prison over leaking documents exposing war crimes. There were loads of anti-war protests in the US during the Vietnam War (also see Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers leak from that time).

[vishnurp99]

Originally Posted by yashg

Ukraine will be decimated. So will be Russia's economy. China will be the winner.

Agree that Ukraine will be decimated.

I really don't think Russia's economy will be decimated. The world - especially India & china & even Europe need their technology and commodities too much. The world has changed over time.

As a matter of fact, this may be a signal for some large powers like India, China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia to move to a non-dollar non-swift paradigm. Nobody will be stupid to say they are doing it but they will want to reduce their dependency on USD. USA may lose out and it's difficult to predict what may happen. It's difficult to predict how the Germans and French may look at the result of the Ukraine invasion too.

China will gain. They have got more insights into how USA & partners can weaponize economics and global media. Counter measures will be taken. China and USA will continue to cooperate across many spheres as USA is cooperating with Russia even today.

[RadixLecti]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

If NATO had been in Ukraine; if NATO did have those Putin-made-famous missiles in Ukraine, Putin could not have done what he is doing now. And that is what he has against the alliance of Ukraine/Europe/NATO. Not some myth that he would have a knife at his throat: that's just an excuse that he has made people believe. He really is a master manipulator.

Thank you for this. I was trying to avoid commenting on this thread, but I had to jump in here.

Do I think the West has a lot to answer for, particularly in the Middle East? Yes.
Do I think the West has behaved shamefully towards refugees from wars started by the West? Yes.
Do I think there is a lot of hypocrisy on this issue from Western politicians and media? Yes.

But my own anecdotal two cents is this:

My significant other is from a former Warsaw Pact, now NATO country. While she and her family certainly don't speak for her whole nation, it is well known that there is broad support for both EU and NATO membership across their political spectrum.

After talking politics with her at great length, well before this war started as well as in the last ten days, I can say that she has always distrusted the Russian state and its intentions towards Eastern Europe. From her point of view, those fears are being proven well-founded as we speak. So she is glad her country is in NATO. She is glad that NATO now seems to have a greater sense of purpose, and that the larger NATO nations are bolstering Eastern Europe.

What she hates is not just communism, but authoritarianism. Her parents grew up in a world where you feared the knock on the door in the middle of the night, where you were afraid that your neighbours might be informants, where food and daily goods shortages could occur overnight, and where Russian commissars and 'advisors' were a fact of life, no matter how far away your country was from Moscow.

From her POV, the Russian sphere of influence represents everything her parents' generation struggled against.
From her POV, hers is a small and nearly defenceless country a short drive away from enormous Russian bases.

So for all of you asking "What else can one expect Russia to do when NATO is at its border?", I respectfully suggest that you also ask "What else would a small country bordering Russia or its client state do, other than join NATO?".

If you say "What about Finland?", to that I would point out that Finland has its own complicated history in WWII, in three very separate chapters. It is not the same as the history of my SO's country, which was steamrolled by both the Nazis and the Soviets. It was devastated and brutalised by the Nazis for half a decade, but was a Soviet puppet state for 45 years. Just like a person, a nation's history informs its current worldview. India is no exception to this rule, so I believe it only fair to try and see what motivates former Soviet republics and satellite states to gravitate towards NATO and the West.

Do I agree with my SO's politics? Mostly, but not 100%.
Do I understand where she, her family, and large numbers of her countrymen are coming from on this issue? Absolutely.

Just as India has the right to pursue its own interests, so too do the nations of Europe, both West and East.

[sierrabravo98]

Originally Posted by yashg

India will mostly be a bystander in this whole affair. We will be lucky if we are allowed to continue to get spare parts for our MiGs and Sukhois from Russia. Remember, we had to stop buying oil from Iran under US pressure. We are very much intertwined with the global economy and western civilization. Our population is huge but our buying power is comparatively less. China can get away with trade relations with Russia because its domestic market and production capabilities are huge. We don't have that luxury.

I won't comment on the merits of the rest of your post as some conclusions are too early and based on incomplete data whereas the rest is based on the Western commentary.

However, as far as our weapon supplies are concerned, the US will find itself quite helpless in this regard. The weapon sales (and the accompanying spares) with Russia will continue unabated. Sanctioning us will only make things worse for the US. IMHO, the government will gladly sacrifice the economy for the sake of strategic autonomy. The Iran situation was completely different. We could afford to cut back on oil purchases (as other sources made up for it). We simply cannot maintain our sovereignty without Russian weapons for now.

Originally Posted by vibbs

The analogy of "How will India feel if China has military bases in Sri Lanka, nepal, Bangladesh etc" which has been put forward a few times is interesting.

I wonder in that case have we also given thought to the question " How would India feel if China invaded us because we became US allies?" Precisely what Ukrainians would be feeling now (despite the fact that the power equation is not the same).

Comparing a puny non-entity like Ukraine to a country with a nuclear triad and 1.5 million strong armed force is surely not a very wise argument. China would certainly invade if they were capable of doing so (they already have once if you have forgotten). Right now, the costs that India would impose on China in such an invasion is not something the Chinese leadership is prepared to pay (despite all the bluster). India neither has the capability nor the appetite to fight an offensive war with China but we will take them down in a defensive one. This is the only reason why the Chinese are engaging in salami-slicing tactics. All that being said, a Chinese invasion from the Arunachal front is a very real possibility right now (and that is why the Army is holding a show of force right now in that area).

Irrespective of Russian insecurity, don't Ukrainians have the right to shape their alliances?

Quite frankly, NO. Reasons have been discussed threadbare in the 42 pages of this thread. (Hint: Something to do with sphere of influence).

[praveenp]

This is for those who have an interest in looking at the current situation from an Astrological perspective. The first 15 minutes in the below video gives an insight about what could eventually happen, at a very high level, till the next decade.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x245g00LVbo

[Poitive]

Originally Posted by yashg

One thing is clear, things are not going according to plan for Putin. Actually things are not going according to plan for anyone.

West did not think Putin would actually invade. He did.
Putin did not think west would respond in any meaningful way. They did.
Putin thought Ukraine will be a pushover. It hasn't been so far.
...
Ukraine will be decimated. So will be Russia's economy. China will be the winner.

Mate, we would need to assume a lot to make such conclusions in such a short time. Let us not base what leaders and countries wanted and calculated based on media reports.

Media has to sell it's product to do business/survive. Countries have think tanks working on possible next moves of the opponents. (partly talked about here). Way to simplistic to say what they expected or didn't expect. Expectations of outcomes are not singular. Plans are complex with multiple courses charted on various what-ifs. There is a long game ahead.

Media reports would have us believe that it was a blitzkrieg expected with Ukraine to be razed to the ground, like US has done in the past; however Russia's plans could well be different. Reasons and some details partly talked about here.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Putin will never be able to convince the Ukrainian people that he is a better alternative, not after this!

Mate, my guess is - and it is only a guess - that though winning over Ukrainians would be a big plus, it is not the focus. Focus being controlling relevant regions, directly or more likely indirectly; preventing Ukraine joining NATO; sending a message to others (message would vary depending on the country/grouping).

Chances are that he will succeed in that, though at a high cost. A cost which can be seen to be inflicted by the West on Russia's citizens (who are as innocent as the Ukrainians) in the hope of making Putin sufficiently troubled. The West would also want to be seen as 'doing something' than just being bystanders. Being bystanders would not be good optics for countries, especially towards those on edge between the West and Russia.

I agree with Yashg that China is the likely biggest gainer of this war, with Russia ending up being much dependent on them. A Russia which is militarily strong, and fills the gap which China has - sure enough military power. This also spoils the power equation between India and China and has a high chance of hurting us.

The US would gain by keeping the wedge between Russia and the rest of Europe; also selling arms while keeping their big competitor (Russia) in this all important sector as a sort-of untouchable. Arms sales go beyond profit, and become about dependence for own security, as can be seen by India's position with regards to Russia in the current scenario - can't feel secure without their arm's support.

While China and US gain more directly, Russia will gain some security though at a high cost. It is Europe too which will bear a lot of expenses - arms, possible higher cost of energy, cost of refugees (sorry for sounding as heartless, but that is a reality).

Ukraine, of course, will bear the most cost. Worth it?

Edit:

Originally Posted by RadixLecti

"What else would a small country bordering Russia or its client state do, other than join NATO?".

Thank you for your post, mate. A different perspective is helpful in thinking further on the issue. It becomes much more meaningful since it comes with pretty direct experience of life in the Soviet times and influence.

[vishnurp99]

Some views from Russia's perspective. I don't support either Russia or the USA in this power game but I believe the dynamics are changing pretty fast. For those who consume a lot of NYT & Fox, it may be a good idea to take a look at TASS too. "Ukranians or maybe the Uranians " and EU is unfortunately stuck in the middle

https://tass.com/politics/1417227

https://tass.com/politics/1417435

https://tass.com/politics/1417353

https://tass.com/politics/1417543

[vibbs]

Originally Posted by sierrabravo98

Comparing a puny non-entity like Ukraine to a country with a nuclear triad and 1.5 million strong armed force is surely not a very wise argument.

No comparison sir. I already mentioned that point. So don't know what you are alluding to. It was a counter question to "How would India feel line of thought".

But since you missed the point by a mile, I will leave it here and get back to reading rather entertaining posts here.

Originally Posted by sierrabravo98

Quite frankly, NO. Reasons have been discussed threadbare in the 42 pages of this thread. (Hint: Something to do with sphere of influence)

This part? I have no comments. ( Hint: I don't need hints. )

[V.Narayan]

How this conflict will end or what path will be taken to get there are both hard to predict right now though a negotiated end of some kind is the most likely outcome. But a few changes in the medium term are likely to emerge on the world scene as a consequence of this conflict, the provocation that preceded it, and the sanctions that succeeded the conflict.

Some of these could be {these are my thoughts and by no means complete or cast in stone} :-

Different global payments systems will emerge possibly led by China, Russia and India. Strategically there is no way major countries will let the status quo of SWIFT remain. Most likely competing systems will run in parallel and most banks will become participating partners in 2 or more.

China has already made itself independent of the US in terms of search engines, Twitter equivalents etc. India should follow suit in my view. The digitization is to the 21st century economy what oil was to the 20th – can’t be held to ransom. Very long road ahead for us but it must be started.

Through a process of step by gradual step the Yuan could become a second medium of trade. Russia & India may go back to the Rupee trade system even for a while – who knows. Like World War One was the final nail in the coffin of Britain going off the gold standard same way the sanctions of this conflict are the first nail in the coffin of making world trade less fatally dependent on the US$ as the almost sole mode of exchange. The dollar’s overarching dominance is not healthy for the world economy and is certainly a significant factor in the US pile of debt.

Europe will possibly come closer together and strengthen their respective Armed Forces and at least talk about reducing their dependency on the Americans. A strong and healthy Europe with its level headedness is much needed in a world dominated by two giants like USA and China. NATO will now live for another 3 generations.

The China-Russia axis will only get stronger and not just as a Russia is a client state angle but on a more equal status as a power bloc counter to USA. How India negotiates that will have to be seen. The power vacuum that has existed since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 could get redressed here. Unlike most Western media I do not expect Russia to be weaker in 2023. Quite the reverse. The world could discover the limits of sanctions.

This war reminds me of the 1956 Suez invasion by France and the UK where both lost support from USA and earned the ire of the then powerful USSR and had to withdraw with humiliation. It served as a watershed moment where the curtains came down on pretensions of Empire {for both France & the UK} and both realized the new limitations of their place around the table of big powers. I wonder if this crises has any parallels for Russia {quite probably} or USA {maybe} or both {likely} where both get a better understanding of the limits of their reach. In my view, and I may be wrong, both USA and Russia will discover they have overplayed their hand and their reduced reach will be there for all to see once the bluster of the media has settled down.

One winner from this will be China in terms of influence. So far, they have played their cards well. So has India, thus far.

Every so many years along comes a world event that forever changes the dynamics of the balance of power in a region or in the world. This is one of them. You can decide when to start a war. Rarely can you also control when and how it will end.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by DIY410

Then why didn't US allow Russia to join Nato, Putin himself asked both Clinton and Bush...

Good point. I'd suggest that, since WW2, America was not going to be an adversary of Russia, but Russia could have been an adversary of America (or Europe) at any time.

I'm really not much good at history. In school, my reaction, was "nice stories!" but I didn't remember them. There is, now, a lot I wish I had learned! Although just how useful British 1950s/60s schoolboy history was, with its biases and baggage of the time, I don't know. But back to subject... Correct me if I'm wrong...

post-WW2, NATO was allies v Russia. But, at least as far as Russia was concerned, it was only meant to be defensive. Despite USA's obsessive paranoia re communism, I don't think it wanted to attack Russia. And European countries simply followed their capitalist paths without bothering with the paranoia. There was never an intention to attack, but there was a perception of a need to defend. In relation to Russia, at least.

Strange, that Russia fought on the same side in WW2; giving more lives than any of the allies. At that time it has to defend itself against Germany, but surely Putin can't think the Germans want another go?

[sierrabravo98]

Originally Posted by vibbs

No comparison sir. I already mentioned that point. So don't know what you are alluding to. It was a counter question to "How would India feel line of thought".

But since you missed the point by a mile, I will leave it here and get back to reading rather entertaining posts here.



This part? I have no comments. ( Hint: I don't need hints. )

Oh no please. I got what you were trying to say. What I meant to convey with my poorly worded and mis-aimed post is that "feeling" doesn't have a place in realpolitik. The "What would India feel" line of questioning is a bit naive IMHO as people with interest in this field are already watching the same shadow game unfolding in our neighbourhood (Nepal/Bangladesh/Maldives) and thus know "What India is doing".

P.S: Won't give any hints since you don't need any.

[thanixravindran]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Is it really so much all about America? Is NATO all about America? Does America have more than one vote in NATO?

Seems to me there has never been such a huge and vast excluded middle in a conversation. Literally, a huge and vast physical excluded middle: Mainland Europe and that no-longer-significant island off its shores. It's their piece of earth this is happening on: USA is a continent and an ocean away.

It is strange, isn't it? Is it because Europeans outsourced their security to their Trans Atlantic neighbor? Or is it because European powers could not agree to a collective security themselves notwithstanding the sunset of nineteenth century hegemonic imperialism? Or is it simply because the 'kind hearted friend' who came to help during the burning of house, stayed on after helping to rebuild?

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Again, I could very well be talking through my hat, but isn't the America adversary of Russia thing rather mid-20th-century?

I believe Yes, America was Russia's adversary before 1990.

Interestingly, Russia is still America's adversary along with additions like Iran, North Korea and soon to be designated Peoples Republic of China.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

post-WW2, NATO was allies v Russia. But, at least as far as Russia was concerned, it was only meant to be defensive. Despite USA's obsessive paranoia re communism, I don't think it wanted to attack Russia. And European countries simply followed their capitalist paths without bothering with the paranoia. There was never an intention to attack, but there was a perception of a need to defend. In relation to Russia, at least.

Strange, that Russia fought on the same side in WW2; giving more lives than any of the allies. At that time it has to defend itself against Germany, but surely Putin can't think the Germans want another go?

To quote Lord Hastings Ismay, first NATO secretary general “The purpose of the NATO alliance is "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

[Poitive]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Like World War One was the final nail in the coffin of Britain going off the gold standard same way the sanctions of this conflict are the first nail in the coffin of making world trade less fatally dependent on the US$ as the almost sole mode of exchange.

This is what might turn this into a wide-scale conflict. The US is unlikely to give up it's dollar advantage easily, and has the might to impose it, based on the scale of challenge. Reasons to impose costs on the offender could always be found - exporting democracy, a better democracy, 'revolutions', threats to the 'civilized world' or whatever. The US would be around to 'help'.

China-Russia axis might take them on depending on their assessment and sense of it being an opportunity to overthrow the hegemony.

That truly would be globally scary.

[yashg]

Originally Posted by vishnurp99

The world - especially India & china & even Europe need their technology and commodities too much.

Apart from weapons, India doesn't import much from Russia. Numbers are really small compared other nations. As for technology, Russia relies on western technology even to extract its oil. The old Soviet joke that I had heard in Chernobyl still holds true.

"What's as big as a house, burns 20 liters of fuel every hour, puts out a load of smoke and noise, and cuts an apple into three pieces?

A Soviet machine made to cut apples into four pieces!"

Not buying Russia's oil and gas will be painful for Europe initially. But they will manage.

As a matter of fact, this may be a signal for some large powers like India, China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia to move to a non-dollar non-swift paradigm.

Since the advent of globalisation, the world has always been divided in two blocs. Earlier it was the capitalist west led by the US and the communist bloc led by the USSR (which India was loosely part of). USSR is history and the new bloc is led by China. India and China cannot be in the same military-economic league against the west. Simply because China sees India as rival and has its own plans with regards to India's borders and sphere of influence. India is closer to west in terms of political value system and very much at home with the western civilisation. Don't know about Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia et al but India will choose to side with the west. It has to.

Say tomorrow China invades Taiwan and there is another vote in the UNSC. What are the chances that India will abstain? India will firmly vote against China.

China and India together forming an anti west parallel economic system is just a romantic notion devoid of any merit.

Originally Posted by sierrabravo98

IMHO, the government will gladly sacrifice the economy for the sake of strategic autonomy.

Nope. Our politicians, our business leaders, or the top 1% of the population who comprise the membership of this forum would not like that.

The Iran situation was completely different. We could afford to cut back on oil purchases (as other sources made up for it).

Bottom line is, we had to stop buying their oil because US forced us to.

We simply cannot maintain our sovereignty without Russian weapons for now.

Ironic isn't it? An emerging super power can't maintain it's sovereignty without foreign weapons. In fact that is the argument our diplomats will use to convince the US and its allies to let us continue buying Russians weapons because that's how we can counter China. And we will have to assure them that we will gradually shift to non Russian weapons. In fact that shift has already started.

The long term goal is to be self sufficient in our defense requirements but till then we have to play along with whoever is willing to sell us weapons.

Anyway, that's all from me.

[Poitive]

2020 Presidential candidate of the US,
former Congresswoman and soldier, Tulsi Gabbard on Feb 19, 2022:

Link to tweet with a 44 second video: https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/sta...81580468621313