On Monday, Europe crossed yet another red line in its ever-escalating, no-longer-so-proxy war against Russia. In a hastily arranged meeting of European leaders in Paris — a response to significant Russian breakthroughs on the Ukrainian frontline over the past few weeks — Emmanuel Macron shattered one of the few taboos left in Western circles by saying that sending Nato troops to Ukraine should not be ruled out. “We must do everything necessary to prevent Russia from winning the war,” he declared, adding that France could even take such action without the consent of other EU members because “each country is sovereign and its armed forces are sovereign”.
Unsurprisingly, this didn’t go down well with Nato allies, whom the French president hadn’t even bothered to warn beforehand. This was probably designed to maximise the statement’s impact: Macron is prone to attention-grabbing pronouncements that are never actually acted upon, often as a way of deflecting attention away from domestic problems.
This time, though, Macron overplayed his hand. His statement was so obviously unhinged that it fuelled a sizeable backlash in France, where half of the population opposes providing more aid to Ukraine. Marine Le Pen accused Macron of playing with the lives of French children, while radical leftist Jean-Luc Mélenchon called it “madness”. Outside of France, meanwhile, practically all Nato members rebutted Macron’s suggestion and ruled out sending ground troops to Ukraine, while Putin himself yesterday warned such a move could spark a major escalation.
But how long will Nato leaders maintain this stance? After all, Macron is right about one thing: Nato countries have crossed virtually all the red lines they had given themselves at the start of the conflict. “Many people who say ‘Never, never’ today were the same people who said ‘Never tanks, never planes, never long-range missiles’ two years ago,” he said. In this sense, the whole troops-on-the-ground debate is little more than a distraction from the fact that we are, of course, already engaged in a de facto war against Russia — troops on the ground or not. Besides, it’s an open secret that Western special forces are already present in Ukraine — including British troops.
Indeed, there is hardly any disagreement among European leaders about the fact that their countries should continue to wage this so-called proxy war; the question is whether the aim should be that of supporting Ukraine’s official strategy of retaking every inch of Russian-controlled territory — a proposition that is now increasingly recognised as impossible even in Western quarters — or if it should rather be that of bolstering Ukraine’s defences with the goal of arresting the Russian advance. European countries seem to be increasingly leaning towards the latter, with Germany currently leading the way.
Even though Germany has emerged as Ukraine’s biggest supporter in the West (as the US Congress continues to block a new aid package), Scholz has hitherto resisted pressure from the opposition, as well as from members of his own coalition, to send German-made Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine. His argument is twofold: first, that the missiles have a range of 500 kilometres and could be used to strike Moscow; second, that their delivery would require specially trained German troops to be on the ground in Ukraine. This would effectively draw Germany into a direct war with Russia.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“Putin has made it clear that he does not intend to conquer all of Ukraine”.
Why would anybody ever believe Putin? Neville Chamberlain might, but he is no longer with us.
The Russians will leave some for Poland and Hungry
Thanks Martin M for supplying a useful measure of the infestation of Unherd by Russian bots and trolls. The minus score will highlight those who actually purport to believe Putin in respect of his future intentions.
I hesitate to believe ANY politician, but if I were minded to believe one, it wouldn’t be Putin.
> “Russian bots and trolls”
It is personally concerning to me that there are actual people that believe in these unironically.
“Stooges” & “useful idiots” are far better terms.
martin logan. Do you mean in the sense that they mean nothing ?
I watched a BBC documentary “Putin’s War”.
I was expecting a hatchet job but the only person who spoke sense in the entire documentary was Putin.
In relation to the war in Syria, all the western leaders were indignant about his failure to fall into line and support the overthrow of Assad.
Putin’s response was along the lines are you mad, look at what you have done in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. He also pointed out the lies told by the West about the intentions for regime change in Libya.
At one point Cameron proudly boasted about challenging Putin on the subject of LBGTQ+ rights; dear God. Putin’s response was in effect what you do in your country is your own business.
It seems clear that Putin was right about Syria. The people of that country look to be far better off with Assad.
Also the redline which emboldened the West to press for regime change, the use of chemical weapons, that now looks very much like a false flag operation.
What were are leaders thinking?
Accurate, if unpopular. But as Winston Smith said, “Sanity is not statistical.”
Putin – the one man fake history factory. He even claims that Poland started WWII !!!
I am not sure. I checked and this is what he actually said
“So before World War 2, Poland collaborated with Hitler,’ Putin stated. ‘And although it did not yield to Hitler’s demands, it still participated in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler, as the Poles had not given the Danzig corridor to Germany, and went too far, pushing Hitler to start World War 2 by attacking them.”
Does not unreasonable to me. You always need to be vigilant where you get your news from.
Interestingly one of the reasons why Britain, France, Poland and the USSR were unable to agree a defence pact prior to WW2 was that the USSR wanted the right to send its troops into Poland.
You could also say that the guarantees given to Poland by Britain and France played their part in encouraging Poland to stand up against Germany, guarantees that were ultimately worse than useless.
The Unnecessary War (P Buchannan) is an interesting read
Russia started WWII in alliance with Germany. When they own up to that, perhaps I’ll start listening to them about history.
This “victim blaming” of the West for WWII is pathetic. Germany – and also Russia – are the guilty parties.
That is just feeble
And so are the people who upvoted him
The war in Ukraine is about the West pursuing its own economic and strategic aims, rather than helping Ukraine?
Really? Well who would ever have thunk that?
More specifically it is about the USA pursuing its own economic and strategic aims; trying to damage Russia whilst putting Germany back in its box. The second aim has succeeded…the first, not so much…
The war in Ukraine is about the West pursuing its own economic and strategic aims, rather than helping Ukraine?
Surely it can be about both?
More specifically it is about the USA pursuing its own economic and strategic aims; trying to damage Russia whilst putting Germany back in its box.
You say that as if its a bad thing.
It can indeed be about both…but it isn’t. Ukraine hasn’t been “helped” (major loss of territory, huge casualties, wrecked economy…).
And Russia hasn’t been damaged while Germany, the economic motor of Europe has been hugely damaged. Historically, an impoverished Germany tends to be a very “bad thing” indeed…for its neighbours…
And Russia hasn’t been damaged.
If true, that is in deed a bad thing. Damaging Russia must be at the forefront of of everyone’s mind.
Don’t worry. It has. And it’s all self-inflicted by Putin. See my earlier comment.
What has happened to you Peter? You used to make intelligent comments, has your ID been stolen or have you just started reading the Daily Mail?
Since February, 2022, Ukraine has regained a lot of territory from Russian occupation. Russian casualties have been horrendous, far greater than in their Afghan War. Remember that the original Russian goal was to take Kiev in under a week. They failed.
Casualties and equipment losses in Russias professional army have been high. Russia invaded with 160,000-180,000 of their most elite soldiers. At least 80,000-90,000 are dead or seriously wounded. Ukrainian estimates of Russian casualties are double that. Also, proportional amounts of their equipment have been destroyed or captured by Ukraine. The trained soldiers are irreplaceable.
Russia scrapped its large training establishment after the fall of the USSR. At the start of the war, Russia stripped instructors from training units to fill out combat units. Most became casualties. There aren’t many training people left. Russia doesn’t have the capacity to train a large, Soviet style army.
You might think equipment can be replaced from reserve stocks. However, old Soviet tanks are stored in open fields subject to Russian winter weather. After 30-60 years, they need a lot of maintenance, almost complete reassembly to replace engine seals and hoses, to work. Further, many of their valuable parts have been stolen and sold.
It did happen once that an impoverished Germany was a bad thing. Why should it happen again?
More specifically it is about the USA pursuing its own economic and strategic aims; trying to damage Russia whilst putting Germany back in its box.
You say that as if it’s a bad thing.
🙂
If you don’t believe Russia has been seriously damaged – and this is all self-inflicted due to Putin’s stupidity and not initiatated by the USA – you really haven’t been paying attention. It’s once vaunted defence industry is ruined. There’s been a massive brain drain of talented young people who don’t want to live in Putin’s Russia.
All of these autocrats – Putin, Stalin, the North Korean Kim family, Adolf, Mao – has this in common: they hardly left their own country and were stuck in a bubble, surrounded by yes men. They didn’t really understand the wider world and made collosal blunders, largely as a result of their lack of perspective and rigid thinking. With massive and needless loss of life. Doubtless, they all thought they were geniuses. The results say otherwise.
“stuck in a bubble surrounded by yes men” applies rather more to the West…
Putin won’t realize this until he totally fails.
The fate of every messianic leader in the past.
How long can Russia fund its war for? Perhaps people with more financial nous than me could help, but it must be hurting Russia economically.
High oil and gas prices originally lessened the extent of the sanctions, but they’ve dropped since the highs of last year. Taking hundreds of thousand of young men away from paid employment into being paid by state to serve in the army cant be cheap, the rouble has lost around a third of its value, and while building tanks and rockets temporarily boosts GDP, it’s not the same as investing in infrastructure that creates long term growth. Borrowing billions simply use that money to flatten Ukrainian tower blocks isn’t much of a long term financial strategy surely?
Taking hundreds of thousand of young men away from paid employment into being paid by state to serve in the army cant be cheap.
My guess is that a Private in the Russian Army doesn’t get paid much though.
True, but it’s the double whammy of not just losing the tax money from that job but also having to feed and pay them, however little they do so
Russia has a healthy current account surplus. This means at an aggregate level the country is self-financing.
The Russian government budget deficit is less than 2%. This means the government can rely on domestic savings and its banks to fund itself.
The IMF forecasts real GDP growth of 2.6%. This follows healthy growth of more than 4% last year. Per capita growth is higher still because of a shrinking population.
In common with the West, Russia experienced double digit inflation in 2021/22 but this is back in single digits. Thanks to real GDP growth and real earnings growth, living standards have continued to grow. As a crude measure of poverty, for example, it now has more homes with indoor toilets than EU member Romania.
In dollar terms the Russian economy is small, but in terms of purchasing power parity – what it can buy for a dollar – it is far less so. It is a country with huge natural resources and a large manufacturing economy that means thd domestic economy is far more independent of the international economy than say the UK.
While Russia has several deep seated economic problems, its economic situation is more stable than most of Western Europe. It has survived severe economic sanctions that would have collapsed the UK’s ability to finance itself, for example.
By every stated objective, sanctions have failed. In some important respects they have been very counterproductive. The creation of a non-Western controlled international settlements system is a huge own goal by the West. We should have looked at our own history to predict what the response might be of a determined, nationalistic, resource rich country. Napoleon’s Continental System similarly applied banking and trade sanctions against the UK in the late 1700s. All it did was to further spur on domestic industrial production and a greater independence of its banking system, creating the foundations of the UK’s 19th century hegemon. What those sanctions didn’t do was impoverish the UK and bring it to heel.
There is no comparison between Britain around 1800 and Russia now.
Britain in 1800 was a world mercantile power and inudstrial and technological leader with the world’s strongest financial sector and a government base on the rule of law. We had quality, high value manufactured goods that the world needed to buy. The Continental System failed largely because the French could not keep other countries in line to follow the sanctions. Plus we were more effective at blocking French and continental trade than they were against us (stronger navy).
Russia has nothing to sell other than basic raw materials. They produce nothing of quality or high value or unique. Name me one thing you really want or need that only Russia supplies ? At one time, you might have argued that for their defence kit. I think the illusion that that’s top quality has been shattered by their p*** poor performance in Ukraine.
You completely ignore the fact that Russia had spent two or three decades free-riding off Western technology and technical support for all the really difficult stuff. Things like oilfield services. That’s all gone now. Let’s see how they get on maintaining their oil and gas fields now they’re “off support”. They are like the Saudis – they relied on buying in the advanced stuff. Rather than the Japanese and Koreans who put in the hard yards and learned how to do it for themselves.
Forgot to mention 16% interest rates and 7% inflation.
Every western nation would revolt with those numbers.
Giving Putin far too much credit.
The “grandad in the bunker” is barely aware of what the average Russian feels. Or what the Russian economy is experiencing.
Indeed, since he knows Russia suffered far more in WW2, he knows Russians should e able to bear far more punishment.
When you’re both Peter the Great and Stalin, you are above all petty concerns. of mortals.
A mother of sovereign debt crises, combined with a desire for full European Union (eurobonds being floated) are also potential precursors.to open war. History is suggestive.
America has been here before. It is a country where domestic enthusiasm for long wars tends to wane rapidly after two or so years yet finds it hard to negotiate ends to limited wars. Opponents know that if they can remain in the field long enough, patience will be rewarded.
There are no doubt many strands to why this is but one key difference between Korea – where a deal was struck – and Vietnam – where it took years to get an agreement that was merely a fig leaf for defeat – was that Eisenhower credibly threatened massive escalation unless there was a ceasefire while neither Johnson nor Nixon, despite his “Madman theory of bombing”, were able to do so and instead got sucked into ineffective incremental moves.
To convert stalemate into a long lasting ceasefire or permanent peace, Putin must perceive that the risks of continuing the struggle are too great to justify extending the war. Otherwise, the temptation to persist until the Americans give up will be irresistible.
This logic may be fairly obvious but one doubts Biden will do better than Johnson or Nixon. US strategists and politicians understand deterrence, total victory and abject withdrawal but it seems they have yet to get their heads around limited war.
I don’t see a stalemate yet. Russian supplies for Western occupied Ukraine and the Crimea depend on rail lines through Tokmak and over the Kerch Strait Bridge. The Ukrainian Summer Offensive gained enough ground to put Tokmak in artillery range. New cruise missiles from Great Britain and France and more long range drones have put the Kerch Bridge in range of Ukrainian attacks. The result is that Russia can’t supply their units in western occupied Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula very well. Several Russian Landing Ships carrying ammunition supplies have blown up after Ukrainian attacks on or near the Crimean Peninsula. The Russian Black Sea Fleet has abandoned Sevastopol due to incessant Ukrainian drone attacks. Supply by sea is impossible. Just like Russia was forced to abandon Kherson in 2022 without a fight, because they couldn’t supply it, they will be forced to abandon western occupied Ukraine and the Crimea, because they can’t supply them. Russians are already building fortifications around Mariupol to defend it after their retreat.
What Fazi always gets wrong is that the mere presence of decent liberal democracies adjacent or nearby a Totalitarian regime represents an existential threat to them. Even more so in an age of the internet. Even the existence of such thriving democracies on the other side of the World are a threat to them. And this is why – their people see it and inevitably want some of it, despite the relentless propaganda to convince them otherwise.
So Fazi’s central notion that we just leave a Totalitarian alone and he’ll leave us alone is utter misguided claptrap. They can’t afford to do that. They have to continue to undermine, disrupt, sow division outside their own borders and suppress their own people at the same time.
Once you grasp this you realise Ukraine’s struggle is our struggle. Just like it is in the Middle East against the Autocrats. You don’t need much of a schooling in History either to grasp the folly of appeasement.
Nonetheless a 38th parallel type armistice is inevitable in Ukraine, and even they should ponder – do they really want Crimea and 2m Russians who would become a 5th column within their borders? No I think we provide security guarantees via NATO or Bi-lateral treaties (not all NATO has to be ‘in’), EU membership, and we help turn them into S Korea mark II success story.
Fazi’s World gradually has the Totalitarians and Autocrats decay the West.
I would go further and say “What remains of Ukraine in NATO, and NATO troops (preferably with NATO nukes) in Ukraine”.
Which ‘decent liberal democracies’ were you referring to?
If only Rochdale could be turned into a South Korea success story.
Are the people with disabilities in Ukraine still being treated as they were in the Soviet Union?
‘Fazi’s World gradually has the Totalitarians and Autocrats decay the West.’
Your world, where we would keep trying to hammer these ‘totalitarian and autocratic’ states into submission constantly would lead to an isolationist, bankrupt, missile attacked nightmare.
The West is decaying itself, it’s living on an enormous sum of borrowed money, if you want to pay that kind of debt off it would require maintaining global trade. Also the fact that armies cost a fortune, as utopian and lovely as it would be to see the world as you do, we simply can’t afford it. And it would require the US borrowing more money from China and the like.
You argue from a completely false premise:
We are not trying to hammer these ‘totalitarian and autocratic’ states into submission”.
We are trying to contain the damage they will cause to us, our interests and our allies if unchecked.
They can do what they like within their own borders.
JW’s point that free, democratic countries flourishing on the border of autocratic states like Russia is seen as an existential threat by the autocrats running those states (which is not the same as the people of Russia) is absolutely correct. But that’s their problem, not ours. We won’t be changing our ways to accomodate them – and nor should we. We must maintain and defend our own standards and freedoms. If that means supporting Poland, Estonia or Ukraine, so be it.
. If that means supporting Poland, Estonia or Ukraine, so be it.
At all costs? Even if we go bankrupt and have to borrow money from China?
‘We are trying to contain the damage they will cause to us, our interests and our allies if unchecked.’
Russias problem was that hillary Clinton dangled nato membership and stronger ties with the west in front of its nose then America back tracked and decided to expand NATO instead, which Russia found very annoying. It also has a problem with the amount of money, five billion I believe, nutters like Nuland poured in there, part of which went towards funding actual n*zis that really didn’t like Russians. So you can’t blame them for feeling a bit threatened by all this. N*zi groups are also synonymous with totalitarianism too you know. Think we might have fallen off the moral high horse at this point.
Might have been better to go with a Mises free trade approach rather than alienating them, it would have served our interests better. I’m not sure if you noticed the inflation in the energy markets as a result of the sanctions, we are hardly containing any damage the russians could have caused us at this point and instead have committed economic suicide.
Nevermind.
We’re not going bankrupt. We have not commited “economic suicide”. Energy prices are also way too high due to the absurd Net Zero policies. That’s the self-inflicted unforced error here.
Ridiculous scaremongering and consipract theory nonsense.
Number of US business leaders sound the alarm on unsustainable US debt.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fedex-founder-issues-dire-warning-about-unsustainable-government-debt
I’m not scaremongering. I’m laying out the facts. Which fact is false?
On the economic suicide front:
‘The total number of company insolvencies registered in 2022 was 22,109 (seasonally adjusted), which was the highest number since 2009 and 57% higher than 2021. The number of CVLs in 2022 was the highest annual number in the time series since records began in 1960.31’
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/company-insolvency-statistics-october-to-december-2022/commentary-company-insolvency-statistics-october-to-december-2022#:~:text=insolvencies – annual summary-,The total number of company insolvencies registered in 2022 was,since records began in 1960.
No we have undergone a massive shift in the energy markets due to sanctions:
Right now, Western Europe is importing expensive gas from all over the world. It’s even gone back to dirty coal in its quest to shed Russia’s weaponized energy.
Europe requires a safe, domestic source of energy, and since we are in the midst of an energy transition, it will have to be cleaner than coal. Natural gas is the obvious bridge fuel. Renewables alone are up to capacity, which Europe learned when Russia invaded Ukraine and Western sanctions sent the continent’s energy supply into a state of crisis.
The fallout from that crisis had cost the European Union an estimated $1 trillion as of December 2022, according to Bloomberg.
The only medium-term answer for Europe is domestic natural gas, with the gaps filled in with LNG.
Source: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/This-Could-Be-A-Gamechanger-For-Natural-Gas-In-Europe.html
Not bankrupt yet, the UK might be OK, not sure about the US though.
My reply is in moderation in case it blows your mind. Moderation is very annoying.
Kind of underlining my point here BE. You’re ‘buying’ this they’ll leave us alone fallacy. And of course they want you to ‘buy it’.
An example – what weakens Kim Wrong-Un and N Korea is what has happened to S Korea last 30-40yrs and the stark comparison. Hasn’t involved any invasion but has involved security guarantee. So we have clear historical examples.
On ‘bankrupt us’ claim – re: China – you know the old adage about if you owe the Bank £1k you’re in trouble but if you owe £1B they are the one in trouble – well much the same applies with China. You’ll also note fuel prices less this winter than in y1 of Russian conflict. Still a pressure but the lights are still on aren’t they and the fuel tanks are full – in fact our strategic reserves have been topped up. And here’s the thing about the current tussle in Congress about arms for Ukraine – all the contracts are with US companies to make the munitions – jobs, investment ripple into those communities and the classic multiplier effect where likely more generate more tax revenue than it costs. All Ukraine asks is we help them fight by passing them a stick. History is looking.
See above for our financial situation, it’s awaiting moderation I believe. Those US companies are not making enough munitions though are they. It’s no good later the war is on now. They are falling very short of their targets.
Russias rate of artillery fire has also reduced dramatically in recent weeks as they’ve burned through the lot they bought from Iran and North Korea and haven’t been able to replace them quickly enough. Neither side was going to be able to burn through ammunition at the rate they had been forever
Fair point, seems nobody is very good at counting bullets these days, can’t have a war without them so perhaps diplomacy is a good idea?
Oh, Russia’s doing just fine.
Russia’s interest rates are 16%.
Inflation rate 7%.
Hi Mr Logan, that’s very interesting, I am unable to share the economic situation in the west – it’s been swallowed by the censorship bot.
Two serious questions for you:
Do you think it’s a good time to negotiate yet, would russia even consider it?
Does ukraine need the aid package from the us or will it be OK with the aid from Europe?
First capitalism against socialism, now democracies against autocracies.
Maybe stop dividing the world into black and white and admit that there are simply countries with their own interests in the field of economics and security and learn to respect each other’s interests? Regardless of the political and economic structure.
The US has actually borrowed very little from China. Less than $1Trillion in total. The vast majority is borrowed from the American public.
Again, see above for my reply that is still awaiting moderation because either:
A: It is too mind blowing for your average citizen to cope with. It contains facts that are difficult to swallow.
B: Is somehow considered dangerous to your average citizen.
The words could jump off the page and rip your face off.
C: Some kind of moderating AI bot is having a mental breakdown trying to decide if the information requires censorship.
D: I have already over stepped some line I didn’t know existed and have once more been subject to censorship because my views are too dangerous and harmful for your average citizen too process.
Your government/ AI moderation bot/ Censorship n*zis are protecting you, be grateful.
Russia is a democracy.
The idea that Russia wants to destroy the entire Western world just so that its people don’t know that they can live better sounds pretty crazy. In addition, Russia has the Internet.
Does the West want to destroy China because it is totalitarian (according to the West), but is thriving?
“The first is that European leaders have started to believe their own propaganda and are truly convinced Russia is bent on attacking Europe. If this is the case, it risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy: Putin would view an increase in defence spending as a sign of a growing threat.”
I disagree. There is no reason why such an increase in defence spending cannot be combined with a diplomatic effort of the “talk soft, big stick” variety and the old maxim Si vis pacem, para bellum – If you would have peace, prepare for war.
Both the 2014 and 2022 invasions of Ukraine happened precisely because Vladimir Putin took the view that Ukraine and the West would not respond militarily. He was 100% right the first time, and mostly right the second time: the Ukaine War, whatever its costs in blood and treasure to Russia, is not going to escalate into a situation where Russian civilians are endangered in a land war on Russian soil: all the damage is happening in Ukraine, not Russia, and Putin, whatever his rhetoric about Ukraine supposedly being Russian, values that distinction very highly.
The assumption, too, that Russia would never attack existing NATO territory, too, is naive to the point of absurdity. Russia has a long track record of infiltration by quasi-military personnel, as the Baltic nations will readily attest. It has been going on for years, and while it is not in itself an act of aggression, it is a precursor tactic to aggression. The fact that the aggression may never materialise is irrelevant.
It would be great if we could find a way to draw Russia back into the Western orbit where I, for one, believe it belongs. It would take a painful recognition on the part of Western policymakers that they themselves are substantially to blame for why this must necessarily now take at least another generation, if it ever happens at all. The alternative is the prospect of some sort of China/Russia united front emerging over the next couple of decades, and that isn’t going to be fun if it happens.
It would be great if we could find a way to draw Russia back into the Western orbit where I, for one, believe it belongs.
I for my part believe Russia should remain on the outer, as it pretty much always has been.
Until the Russians show signs of being trustworthy and playing by the rules of the club, they’re going to be on the outside.
By the same token, I’m not sure what Turkey’s doing inside NATO, other than for historical reasons.
If we had been a bit cleverer, Turkey would now be policing most of Europe’s southern periphery and we might not have got ourselves into this stupid crisis of being overwhelmed with economic migrants who have all used social media to learn that European nations don’t have the guts to do anything about it.
We don’t need to be cleverer. Or pay off Turkey.
We just need to find the guts to do what we need to. Illegal migration is illegal. Asylum must be claimed in the first safe country. Just enforce the laws. The French are actually breaking the law by allowing these asylum seekers to leave for the UK. Send them straight back. With a bill for the transport cost. The French can then pass that on back down the chain. It’s not rocket science. And ditch all the past-their-sell-by-date 1950s rules on migration.
I disagree. We did need to be cleverer, and expecting democratically-elected governments to be courageous as the sole response to this problem is unrealistic: if you haven’t seen Yes Minister, Sir Humphrey Appleby often made the point that “courageous” in political terms is shorthand for “will lose you the next election”.
The immigration problem is an absolute fiasco, certainly, but it does not have any simple solutions and voting as if it does is one of the things that makes the problem simply worse.
The rules, what rules might that be, is this the rules based order people like Biden and co talk about, well the Russians and other have consistently asked for a copy of the rules so that they will be able to follow them
Are the US and NATO expected to follow these rules ? is Israel ?
Putin follows the rules ? You’ve got to be joking !
The only reason he would want the rules is to figure out where he could gain an advantage by breaking them where we would hesitate.
Hard to know if you’re just being naive or stupid here.
What “rules” is the leader of a sovereign nation supposed to follow? Really, this is very silly: there is a rules based order that the West mostly follows, but that’s because the West is a grouping of allies possessing sufficiently-aligned interests to give rise to a consensus about how they should treat each other.
It is almost clownish to suppose that any nation outside this grouping should subordinate its own interests to follow a set of rules for a bloc of which it’s not even a member!
No, this does not mean I’m on Russia’s side here. It merely means that judging an adversary for refusing to behave in a way that suits you is childish, akin to you complaining that a fight was unfair because your opponent wouldn’t stand still and let you hit him.
You need to complain to D Walsh, not me here. He’s the one fixated on the rules and who seems to imagine they will be followed if only they were known.
Actually Putin usually does what he says. He is very reliable. The Untrustworthy ones are the West. Last time Putin was betrayed by the West was when during the Istanbul peace negotiations, he withdrew the tanks outside Kiyv as a sign for his willingness to discuss a peace treaty. And look what happened! Boris Johnson comes along and tell Zelensky that he must withdraw and go on fighting .
Right.
For the first time in history, a nation voluntarily withdrew its forces from a favorable position–as a sign of good will.
The fact that Putin had lost half his force, his lightning assault on Hostomel had been a disaster, and his force was on an unsustainable supply line, had nothing to do with it.
Presumably his loss of Kherson was also “voluntary.”
I do love this theory that Boris Johnson was the man to escalate the war. They believe a man that managed to get himself ousted from a leadership position over some birthday cake was somehow simultaneously powerful enough to scupper a peace treaty between the worlds nuclear powers, for a conflict that had been rumbling on for a decade since Russias initial invasion of Donbas!
That can only happen with a complete revolution in Russia’s leadership.
That’s years away.
It’s already happened.
‘The third possibility is that the continent’s leaders have simply gone bonkers and are deliberately trying to precipitate a war with Russia, for reasons unfathomable to sane-minded people.’
This made me laugh. I think this is the only logical explanation at this point.
I said the other day that Trump was being a massive d*ck head, I have changed my mind about that. Having read this:
https://unherd.com/newsroom/sumantra-maitra-china-us-never-faced-challenge/
‘Maitra’s work has gained influence in Donald Trump’s circles, and some have speculated that his calls for a “dormant NATO” could make their way into the former president’s agenda.’
Could we use disbanding/dormant NATO to push for a peace deal in Ukraine? There isn’t much point to it at the moment, all the evidence says it is run by people that have forgotten how to fight a war.
Lift the sanctions. Have free trade.
US generals have said this will have to end in negotiation, sooner rather than later sounds good.
I also came across this on zerohedge:
“As things stand, neither side has won. Neither side has lost. Neither side is anywhere near giving up. And both sides have pretty much exhausted the manpower and equipment that they started the war with,” claimed Richard Barrons, a retired British general and current co-chair for Universal Defence & Security Solutions, a military consultancy firm’
It’s a good article, it goes on to say:
‘Russia cannot conquer, let alone govern, the majority of Ukraine, nor can Russia secure itself against the ongoing threats of Ukrainian sabotage or potential NATO strikes absent a costly permanent military buildup that would undermine its civilian economy. Reducing the deep dependence on China created by the invasion will also sooner or later require Russia to seek some form of détente with the West.
As a result, the United States has significant leverage for bringing Russia to the table and forging verifiable agreements to end the fighting. But this leverage will diminish over time. The United States should therefore quickly challenge Putin to make good on his insistence that Russia is willing to negotiate by publicly supporting calls from China, Brazil, and other key Global South actors for talks to end the war.’
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/stop-weapons-start-talks-third-year-ukraine-war-begins
A disclaimer is necessary as I don’t fancy being branded a n*zi again for the weird websites I like to frequent.
DISCLAIMER: Zerohedge is sometimes referred to as far right by the wooly minded.
So, how about a peace deal then. We arent really going to achieve much by prolonging the war at this point, Mr Maitra doesn’t think a war with China is a good idea either so perhaps if we talk to them nicely they could help broker peace? Then freely trade with them aswell.
Diplomacy now? No nato war? Free trade?
A peace deal was tried two years ago. Remind me who scuttled it. Now, the West is hoping that the Russians will still accept what they were ready to accept then.
Yes exactly right that’s why there’s no time to waste with this diplomacy business. It is also why I applied the question marks, it’s one idea of many of where this should go next. I have no idea what russia would accept at this point.
Addition: I have just read the new community guidelines that did not exist when I started posting. I am sorry for swearing in all my posts. I will try not to write like I speak anymore. Or call anybody else a d*ck head. Or use the words: f*ck, f*cking or f*cked. They are my favourites.
What kind of peaceful settlement is the author talking about? Anglo-Saxons are as naive as children. We are not fools to stop halfway. We will beat the Nazis hung with swastikas and crosses until the complete denafication of Ukraine. Russia will return its lands, as well as its money, have no doubt.
You are saying russia won’t stop? Bleak. Try not to get too excited about beating n*zis, you can overstate the role of these groups. Plus they have apparently den*zified themselves now, anyway. Aren’t wagner a bit n*zi too?
‘What kind of peaceful settlement is the author talking about?’
There a few different ideas I believe, the Chinese have a peace plan, most revolve around the eastern regions of Ukraine (that previously voted for independence) and crimea becoming independent, I think Russia is pretty insistent ukraine doesn’t join nato.
So why does peace continue to be a taboo in the West? Probably because, aside from the unedifying sight of the conquest of a pro-western functioning democracy and ally by a tyrant, this “Peace” would then lead to a concerted campaign of destabilization and provocation by an emboldened Putin regime on the boarders of the Baltic states / Poland / Finland with predictable consequences.
Apparently, the answer to all this (Peace in our time!), is yet more of the same appeasement and looking the other way that allowed Mr Putin to think he’d get away with a full scale invasion of Ukraine and got us into this situation in the first place.
The domino theory.
It’s what actually happened in Eastern Europe in the 1930s. Salami slicing of countries first by Germany and then the Soviet Union (partitioning Poland, invading the Baltic republics, hacking Moldova off Romania).
It will happen again if we do nothing.
So what did we do in 1939 to stop it happening, and what were the consequences?
Read a history book if you don’t know. This is all well known.
But that’s just another deflection question, isn’t it ? It’s what we could have done before 1939 that’s the point !
I think I know what happened.
It led to a world war, didn’t it? Am I close?
Armchair generals always refight the last war, as though the next one will be the same.
It’d be the second former USSR domino to be partially annexed / invaded by the Putin regime, after Georgia, so two down, three former USSR and now democratic Baltic states to go.
Georgia attacked Ossetia and fired at Russian peacekeeping forces (let me remind you that its president was a protege of the West who came to power as a result of a US-organized color revolution). Russia sent in troops, restored order within a week, and not occupy Georgia, but just left.
Even the UN commission admitted that Russia acted legitimately.
But the myth that Russia attacked Georgia still continues to live in the Western consciousness.
Also, according to the initial peace treaty with Ukraine in the spring of 2022, even Donbass remained with Ukraine. They simply wanted her to be neutral and not be a threat to Russia.
By what evidence would peace lead to “a concerted campaign of destabilization and provocation by an emboldened Putin regime”? The man has been in power for two decades and none of what you claim will happen has come close to happening.
It seems you forgot Putin’s 2008 invasion of Georgia and 20014 invasion of Ukraine (Donbas & Crimea). The Russo-Ukraine war started in 2014, not 2022. Obama sent military food rations (MREs) in 2014. Also notice Putin did nothing during Trump’s term.
Putin’s 2014 invasion is no more than the US invasion of Taiwan. Just supplying weapons to the separatist republics.
Why is it normal when the United States does this, officially recognizing that Taiwan is part of China, but when Russia does this, it is an attack?
How about the deliberate dumping of third world economic migrants on the borders of Poland and Finland (assisted by Belarus’s puppet regime)?
When the radiation seems into your living room you might find your armchair warrior stance less attractive!
You’re completely missing the point.If a nuclear armed bully like the Putin regime is allowed to prevail in Ukraine, the obvious lesson for anyone else facing a similar threat in the future (and not being able to depend on enough conventional support to defend themselves) is to become nuclear armed themselves, creating a new and very dangerous nuclear arms race. It’s very difficult to imagine Ukraine being in this situation if they’d held onto their nuclear weapons in 1994, instead of being persuaded to surrender them with ultimately worthless security guarantees.
Fazi as usual:
After all, Macron is right about one thing: Nato countries have crossed virtually all the red lines they had given themselves at the start of the conflict.
Have you, Fazi, ever wondered what red lines Putin hasn’t crossed?
How many times has Putin, Medvedev and all sorts of office sprat scared the world with a huge atomic bomb, and you immediately panic and accuse the West of inciting war at any careless word from the West. Communists are always communists, I remember their screams about Reagan’s Star Wars: “We are all going to die!!!”
If life is that scary, contact Zuckerberg, maybe he’ll reserve a job as a cleaner for you in his bunker in Hawaii.
Just like sending advisors into Vietnam.
Why does Unheard allow these troll articles? Russia just can’t be allowed to win or make peace on its own terms.
The only way to stop Russia from winning involves the complete destruction of Britain. There are no other ways.
Would that be so bad?
This is one of the minority of articles that appear on UnHerd that are serious. Makes a change from the dippy right-wing garbage. Fazi is one of the few reasons to subscribe.
So, what can begone teo stop a Russian victory then? Do you know? ..or is your contribution nowt but empty rhetoric?
Answer to headline: no!
Frankly this is all ridiculous. Putin does not intend to attack the West and nor do we have any intention of attacking him. Nato algorithms show that any such move would mean annihilation to both sides. There are clear winners and losers in this terrible war. The western defence industry is an obvious winner and the Ukrainian people (as well as poor young Russians) obvious losers.
It’s hard to name Russian criminals losers. They get what they deserved.
In terms of crossing red lines, I would invite Mr Fazi to remind hmself of Alexey Navalny – the martyr, whose funeral is happening right now, with thousands attending, despite the threats and massive presence of the ‘siloviki’ and mobile networks being jammed.
Itsn t the fact that Russia is ruled by a bunch of ruthless mafiosi, recruited from the former ussr security and armes forces, a sign of an ultimate red line crossed.
Did Mr Fazi hear the brilliant response by the French PM G. Attal to Marine le Pen in the French Assembly ? Who put to her, inter alia, that the russian troops are already de facto present on the French territory, citing the reports on not-so-secret long-standing links between the RN and Putin’s administration.
Macron – who has spent years trying to speak tu Putin, often ending in Macron’s humiliation – was absolutely right to lift up his voice. Strange that the author did not get that what he said was perfectly deliberate.
The ‘Station of nation’ address, before the N.Korea-like crowd, does not deserve being dissected. The rhetoric has not changed. Incidentally, does the authour watch the Russian tv?
In fact, unlike with other, excellent, UnHerd contributors, it does not take reading Mr’s Fazi article to know exactly what he is going to say. Makes you think, doesn’t it?
NATO would have to move to a nuclear option because in almost every other respect it is now outclassed by Russia. They have more troops, more tanks, nore shells, a fully integrated air defence system and now two years experience of fighting an armed force (as opposed to insurgent militias). Their supply lines are very much shorter and they are already on a war footing. The Russians don’t rely on needlessly complex supply chains and haven’t put all their eggs in the baskets of fragile junk like the F-35. The RF’s doctrine is designed for the kind of war in Ukraine and they’ve been preparing for it by not privatising everything.
Regarding the F-16s they’re emblematic of the problems the NATO would face – they’re simply not as good as the recent RF aircraft. Worse their design with a massive air intake from below means they require completely clean runways – something that the Ukrainians simply don’t have – and won’t when a runway can be denied by a drone carrying a bag of nails or a mortar shell.
Actually it’s the exact opposite. Nato troops and resources are vastly greater.
Only a fool thinks Russia can match NATO at this point, have you been paying attention how bad Russia has been performing in Ukraine despite the advantages they have. They cant even beat a second tier underequip country with a limited number of high tech western systems they make effective use of and manages to hold on despite its disadvantages it has to work with. Corruption, incompetence and nepotism ruins armies, and Russia is a great example of this fact.
And yet, Russia, unable to defeat Ukraine, is about to attack Europe and NATO, as European leaders have been shouting in unison for several months.
There’s a contradiction lurking here somewhere
Russian jets are notoriously crude and unreliable. That’s what happens when you build aircraft along side farm equipment and household appliances.
They are not that bad as you think, but they are not that good as A D Kent thinks
I think you (and anyone else who comes across this) needs to check out the many reports from the Project for Governemnt Oversight in the US (pogo.org) who have followed the many Pentagon & other reports into many US weapons systems & the F-35 in particular. Did you know that the F-35 in all it’s many forms has a ‘full mission readiness’ availability of less that 50%? That’s in optimal peace-time conditions – that would collapse in the rigours of any conflict, especially given the extreme complexity of the aircraft with their superdupa coatings that need to be applied and removed before anything can be done. Just opening the cover for the single canon throws off the targetting and there are dozens of ‘critical’ systems still now functioning. It’s a single engine aircraft too with a lower operational ceiling than it’s RF & Chinese counterparts – so it’s effectiveness & range of it’s missiles is less too.
You cannot be serious (as someone once said) … wrong on every single count.
There are so many differing opinions amongst these comments, it looks to me that nobody really knows what is going on and the state of the russian and ukrainian military.
Although those comments are gibly stated as fact.
So why does peace continue to be a taboo in the West? —> Peace is bad for business and it’s bad for politics. More than one US leader has crowed about how the war machine signals a revival of American manufacturing, with a side order of attempting to revive the old Cold War.
It was just a few years ago that Mitt Romney was told that the 80s wanted their foreign policy back after he proclaimed Russia as our biggest geopolitical threat. Then came 2016 and it was Russia, Russia, Russia all around, a claim that was compounded over Hunter’s very real laptop.
The disconnect between the elected class and the people it is supposed to represent grows more pronounced by the day. We’re dealing with a non-existent border, persistent inflation, rampant crime, failing schools, etc., etc., and the left wants to feature abortion as a key issue. European “leaders” are evidently suffering from the same affliction.
It seems to me that you are putting the cart before the horse. First, the left, seeing the “end of history,” joyfully began to destroy the West, joyfully looking for the offended and starting the fight for their rights, and only then did the totalitarian regimes decide that it was their time to rule history.
Retreaded Marxist nonsense.
“Merchants of Death” don’t guide foreign policy. The vast majority of US and European businesses do not feed the “war machine.”
War is bad for business.
Which is why there was a western peace dividend after 1991.
Simplistic. War is good for Wall Street and bad for taxpayers.
The people at greatest risk from a nuclear war is the food insecure Middle East and Africa. For example, Food produced in North America will cease to be exported while the continent takes a couple generations to recover.
Part of any Russian decision to use tactical nuclear weapons has to be an evaluation of how likely it is that the weapons will actually work as designed, and how Russian soldiers will react.
The reliability of Russian military equipment and ammunition in Ukraine has been spotty at best. At least 10% of conventional Russian missiles misfire or fall short. Firing the nuclear versions of these weapons is not an attractive option. They could detonate in Russia or on Russian held Ukrainian territory.
The dud rate is also a problem. If Putin uses a nuke, and it fails to detonate, Putin gets huge embarrassment. The corruption rampant in the Russian military makes this outcome possible, even probable. Nuclear weapons require careful component storage and maintenance. They’re fragile. The overall Russian record on Russian military storage and maintenance is really poor. The weapons have to be assembled and readied by technical people who know what they’re doing.
If the Ukrainians pick up a Russian dud nuke, nothing will stop them from rebuilding it and using it on Belgorod, Russia. Ukraine most certainly has the knowledge to do it.
Few of the Russian troops in Ukraine have been issued any protection equipment for nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) weapons. Some barely have complete uniforms and are using bolt action rifles designed for World War I. Hardly any have been trained for NBC. They are in no condition to suvive the use of NBC on the battlefield. They would most likely flee in panic from any use of NBC.
My guess is that beyond the usual risk considerations of nuclear retaliation, Putin has to worry, a lot, about the reliability of his nuclear weapons and soldiers. Combining all these risks, in my opinion, increases the uncertainty to the point that no rational Russian Commander in Chief would order a nuclear attack on Ukraine. Even if Putin isn’t completely rational, his subordinates definitely are. They could react to an order to use nukes by overthrowing Putin.
:Ukrainians pick up a dud nuke..”..
What is actually left after a dud warhead slams into the ground at thousands of mph?
“If this is true, how can we explain the relentless peddling of this narrative?”
The same way we can explain the relentless peddling of the other absurd narratives, such as Net Zero, Islam is the religion of peace and that only Joe Biden can save “ democracy “.
“Nukyular combat, toe to toe with the Ruskies!”
Great Teaser–to introduce another unserious Fazi Discourse.
No, nuclear war is not around the corner.
But Fazi also knows zero about the man who launched this war.
Fact is, Putin has shifted his entire economy to a war footing. As the saying goes, you can do everything with a bayonet–except sit on it.
More significant, Putin continues to grossly miscalculate reality. As in 2022, he still thinks the western world order is on the brink of collapse.
So now Putin is engaged in permanent war against the West. As in Stalin’s time, war is his regime’s only justification.
And, in his current Messianic mode, any success in Ukraine will just confirm his delusion that one more meat assault will bring down all his enemies.
As with certain thinking in 1941, he knows all he has to do is “kick in the door.”
Putin made the nuclear threat in a speech to the entire Russian nation.
Just how much more on the record could he make it?
Fazi still doesn’t get it.
And the fact that he barely mentions either Russia or Putin just confirms it.
This war is about a small group of aging spies who seized power in the 2000s and want revenge against the Western economic and political order that destroyed their whole world.
They care zero about their own people or their economy. They just want to bring down the rich, rotten world that defeated them.
Most important, the poorer Russia becomes, and the more losses it suffers, only confirms to them that this is Stalingrad. They thus “know” the “Russian World” will win, because, for them, Stalingrad is the only war they know about.
That the West faces many challenges is undeniable.
But the greatest challenge is still a small group of very poorly educated rulers in the Kremlin, who now rule a nation whose only purpose is endless war…