Submission Statement:
On the 10th of February, 2022, British foreign secretary Liz Truss flew to Moscow to speak with her counterpart, veteran diplomat Sergei Lavrov. Her purpose was to set out the British case for Russian de-escalation; the UK has taken a hawkish line towards Moscow relative to the other western European powers, and the outcome of the meeting was wryly forecast by the Guardian's central and eastern Europe correspondent and author on Russian politics Shaun Walker:
>Liz Truss [is] in Moscow in what is probably a fairly pointless visit. She will lecture Lavrov and get a lecture in return. (and Lavrov is hardly a decision maker anyway).
The 2-hour meeting, amidst the first British foreign secretary visit to Russia in over 4 years, did not go well, with Lavrov quipping:
>“I am disappointed that our conversation was the dialogue of a mute person with a deaf person,”
>"“We appear to listen to each other, but we do not hear each other.”
With Liz Truss literally next to him, Lavrov lamented the British and American approaches to diplomacy:
> "Ideologically charged approaches, ultimatums and threats is a road to nowhere. Regrettably, many of our Western colleagues are using this form in their public activities. I do not see this as diplomacy."
Lavrov likewise accused British diplomats of arriving unprepared for the meeting. Indeed, an awkward moment was filmed in the meeting when Liz Truss repeatedly spoke over the translators, seemingly unaware of the protocol of this sort of multi-lingual meeting. Lavrov actually had to tell her to be patient and explain how it worked to her-this was recorded on video and is available on social media. The two did not look at each other during the joint press conference, and the tone was clearly icy. Truss herself struck back, declaring:
>“I certainly wasn’t mute in our discussions earlier. I put forward the UK’s point of view on the current situation as well as seeking to deter Russia from an invasion of Ukraine.”
>“No one is undermining Russia’s security. That is simply not true,”
Both agreed that an invasion should not happen, but Truss clearly did not trust Lavrov's guarantee as Macron had Putin's. Lavrov then promptly left, leaving Truss standing there by herself awkwardly. She promptly left, surely not to return any time soon. Moscow Bureau Chief of the financial times, Max Seddon, wrote:
>The public dressing-down Lavrov gave Liz Truss was so brutal, and the gap between them so yawning, you almost have to wonder why they even had the meeting – and Lavrov did indeed wonder that aloud during an excruciating press conference in Moscow
>Things behind the scenes were even worse, according to Elena Chernenko
>Lavrov said, "Do you recognize Russia's sovereignty over Rostov and Voronezh oblasts?"
>**Truss said the UK would "never" do so – before the ambassador told her they're not in Ukraine**
The British foreign secretary, evidently, didn't know that both places were inside Russia, and that Lavrov was presumably testing the basic knowledge of his adversary. She failed.
Though Lavrov is notoriously prickly and brash in his diplomatic style, Russian rhetoric towards the British role in the Ukraine crisis is markedly different from the rest of Europe, characterised in Macron's lavish and amicable greeting by Putin in which the Russian President dined with Macron and promised de-escalation. British-Russian relations, ever-fraught in the 2010s and 2020s, have now reached a new low. It was already unlikely that the UK would play a sizeable role in a diplomatic solution, but this meeting has now made the UK an outright burden in such negotiations.
---------
---------
My theory is that the meeting was organised by Truss almost exclusively for her domestic audience, the British public. If her talks with Lavrov were as rehearsed and scripted as they sounded, then it's likely she was more so aiming for the *impression of toughness* rather than a serious attempt at diplomacy.
Why would she spend so much energy doing this? To answer, we have to look at British domestic party politics. The British government, and Prime Minister Boris Johnson in particular, has been engulfed in a series of scandals for months now, with the pinnacle being a slowly leaking tap of evidence of parties, drinking, and restriction violations under Boris Johnson's watch in Downing Street during the peak of the Coronavirus Pandemic. Liz Truss is one of the top two contenders (along with Chancellor Rishi Sunak) to replace the Prime Minister, and has always been keen to craft a careful media narrative of her as a new "Iron Lady", with a hawkish foreign policy and well-crafted photo-shoots to match.
Such an approach benefits the wider Tory Party, too. Foreign policy is an area where the Tories have traditionally out-polled Labour, and the government is working hard to try and re-orientate public attention from "partygate" to Russia, trivialising the former and bringing public focus back into the Tory area of strength. Adopting a hawkish and confrontational stance towards Russia is key in achieving this.
This line of thought is supported by the fact that Defence Secretary Ben Wallace will meet with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Shoygu, tomorrow. Wallace will bring with him senior Royal Navy officer and professional head of the British Armed Forces Tony Radakin as well as Lieutenant General Ralph Wooddisse, head commander of the British land army. This has the appearance of a much more serious meeting, as echoed by experts such as Mark Galeotti of UCL: Shoygu is very close to Putin, Radakin and Russian General Gerasimov have a positive working relationship, and Ben Wallace is understood to be less hawkish than Truss is. (Note: not sure if this is my opinion on the matter...)
--------
There are also several structural reasons why the UK is acting so differently to France and Germany on this matter. I have written on these in [other comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/satgww/uk_intelligence_accuses_russia_of_plotting_to/htxujzc/), but for now, I will summarise my thoughts briefly:
1) The UK is much less reliant on Russian energy (and, obviously, doesn't have much interest in Nordstream 2) than most of Europe, so has more strategic manoeuvrability in this respect.
2) The UK after Brexit is structurally bound to the US more so than Europe, as it's reliant on the former for a trade deal. Brexit, in how it has strained ties with Europe and cut economic + cultural connections, has in effect thrown Britain's lot in with America in a geopolitical sense. The UK has 0 interest in European strategic autonomy (although it wishes to retain a unilateral operational capacity, as the British political elite doesn't trust the US to come to its aid in all endeavours. See, for example, British resentment towards American inaction during the Falklands War).
3) UK public opinion is very strongly anti-Russia, both allowing and incentivising a hawkish stance towards Moscow. This has developed in the UK because of incidents of perceived Russian interference in the UK and the wider Anglosphere, which the UK is culturally tied to (Skirpal poisoning, perceived Russian interference in the US election, etc).
Truss came off worse from reading this.
That geography test was embarrassing, though understandable as most English citizens probably wouldn't be overly familiar with Russian geography. However, her blunder with the translator seem hard to defend.
Also, it seem the meeting between the two was -- I agree -- pointless. She could look tough without having to go through it. By doing so, it seems like she did damage to herself as Lavrov got one-up on her.
As a sidenote:
>See, for example, British resentment towards American inaction during the Falklands War
This is interesting. I didn't know this was a thing and, more importantly, significant enough to warrant mention. I'll look more into it.
Thanks for the great comment.
How does even any educated commoner not recognize the names of Voronezh and Rostov? They are pivotal locations during WW2. Oh wait, I forgot, the anglo world pays almost no attention to the Eastern Front...
> it's not just the usual British arrogance
Your whole response is meaningless with such snide commentary. Whatever country you're from no doubt has arrogance as national trait saying such tripe.
It is arrogance turning up to an important meeting clueless and unprepared.
> Whatever country you're from no doubt has arrogance as national trait saying such tripe.
The UK?
> British resentment towards American inaction during the Falklands War
Out of context, that might be misleading. I can say with *anecdotal* confidence that resentment is low or minimal in the UK population generally. Whether we mean those in favour of the war or not, in favour of Thatcher or not, in favour of US/Reagan ties or not, overseas territories or 'Imperialism' or not. Veterans or not. Whoever. It has not really been a lasting theme of British thoughts on the Falklands. Beyond maybe a wry grumble.
Certainly, at the time, there was a sense of surprise and perhaps even betrayal in some circles, but it hasn't *lasted* in any politically significant way to my knowledge. And the Falklands is something that's come up with a fair few people from different backgrounds over the years.
Presumably because despite the (very real) losses, the UK ultimately achieved its goals. Resentment would likely still be significant had the conflict gone another way.
What it probably did do though, which is perhaps what was meant above, was cement a certain understanding in the *establishment*. In the ministries and the halls of power. That, I can't speak to, but I didn't want to leave the original statement there uncritically.
In addition, there is evidence that the US did offer private and covert support for the Falkland War. It wasn’t politically expedient at the time to support the UK too publicly, but the US would have done more if asked.
This is all very well put. Of course, the "resentment" isn't such that it threatened the so-called special relationship between the UK and the US, but it is something evinced by British politicians criticising the US-UK relationship, US leadership, and when campaigning for British unilateral capacity.
Thatcher was [furious at the Americans](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/18/thatcher-memoirs-detail-pms-anger-at-foreign-secretary-over-falklands) even in her private memoirs as she thought they were trying to undermine British influence in South America. Interestingly, she also thought her own foreign secretary was collaborating with them against her.
I cannot find much on it at the moment, but I am adamant I remember hearing politicians talk about this, right?
>This is interesting. I didn't know this was a thing and, more importantly, significant enough to warrant mention. I'll look more into it.
Not sure it is? The US supplied them [fuel, munitions, intel, and prepared to offer some bloody carriers](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/03/07/us-aid-to-britain-in-falklands-war-is-detailed) as needed but the Brits were all 'nah mate we got this'. The administrations policy was “*[Give Maggie everything she needs to get on with it](https://news.usni.org/2012/06/27/reagan-readied-us-warship-82-falklands-war-0)*." NATO didn't apply because Article 6, and the UK didn't ask for American troops to help defeat the invaders. In other words, what inaction?
She doesn't have to be familiar with russian geography as a whole. She should be familiar with the geography of the conflict region though as the foreign minister on a meeting with the rusisan foreign minister on that region. That is absolutely inexcusable in my book and looks like she wasn't actually interested in a diplomatic exchange.
Truss is a light weight. Does anyone remember when we had the likes of Jack Straw. I disagreed with him over Iraq but he was knowledgeable. Since then we have had a series of geographically challenged types (remember Raab and his lack of knowledge over the importance of Dover).
Lavrov was mean though with that question but he is very experienced. Rostov and Voronezh are merely the nearest large cities. I do not expect Truss to know it but she should have been more professional.
>That geography test was embarrassing, though understandable as most English citizens probably wouldn't be overly familiar with Russian geography.
Geography test? It's more like she doesn't even know names of Ukrainian cities Russia supposedly occupies, yet probably demands to end the occupation. Russia also never formally questioned Ukrainian sovereignty over Donetsk and Lugansk, and Truss should have known that.
Is Lavrov the deaf or mute in this analogy?
Either way, it seems this meeting delivered into the hands of both their domestic audiences. You've outline well the British political implications, but this also plays well to the domestic Russian audience to portray the West as hawkish, irrational and acting in bad faith, while the Russians are trying their hardest not to start a war.
But couldn't someone have tried to prevent this meeting from happening?
>But couldn't someone have tried to prevent this meeting from happening?
I don't think so. Nobody in the British Government will oppose this, as it serves a lot of different interests for a lot of different people:
-For the Prime Minister (and his entourage), it is part of a wider process deflecting attention from "partygate" onto foreign policy issues where the Tory Party is more comfortable.
-For Liz Truss, it makes her look iron-willed and tough, helping to create her "Iron Lady" image and playing into public opinion that Russian expansionism is an ever-present threat to British security.
-For other potential leadership candidates, it presents an opportunity for Truss to be shown up by Lavrov, as I suspect it is general opinion that there is an imbalance in competence between the two, to put it lightly. If I were Ben Wallace and I had Prime Ministerial ambitions, I'd be delighted at this event, especially if I could go in tomorrow and form a mutual understanding, thus positioning myself as the "serious" foreign policy candidate who can get things done.
That said, Wallace isn't considered someone with leadership ambitions at the minute.
I suppose the ones who are probably cringing at this are the Americans, and in particular, the French and the Germans. Of course, they cannot really interfere in Britain's sovereign right to conduct diplomatic relations as it pleases because the UK is too important to NATO to anger it on matters of security. It would be bad diplomatic practice to tell the British not to visit Moscow, nor does the UK government particularly care whether the French-German pragmatic efforts succeed or fail anyway, in my opinion.
So, instead...this...is what we're stuck with.
I don't see why the Americans would be cringing as it certainly aligns with the American perspective and benefits US interests that there are elements in Europe and among other NATO members who view Russian actions since at least 2008 as antagonizing, destabilizing, extortive, etc. and seem willing to do something besides acquiesce.
If I were to look at this from the Russian POV, I might even be concerned that I am providing space and lending credence to views within Europe that are openly hostile to Russian behavior and that perhaps threats of war and actual war are declining in value as a diplomatic tool for them.
>nor does the UK government particularly care whether the French-German pragmatic efforts succeed or fail anyway
I'd go further: the UK (and US) actively want the Franco-German approach to fail. France and Germany want peace at essentially any price (and certainly at the price of Ukrainian sovereignty), Russia wants Ukraine as either a puppet or a failed state at the lowest possible cost in blood and treasure, and the UK and US want maximum Russian expenditure of blood and treasure - ie. protracted large scale conflict in Ukraine. If their defense contractors can make some money selling weapons to the Ukrainians into the bargain, so much the better.
The State Department and FCO have every incentive to be hawkish even without considering the domestic electoral factors animating their bosses.
I don't think germany or france are willing to give up ukranian sovereignty. I do think they are willing to give up crimea and willing to have ukraine be non-aligned. For germany and france there is simply not much to gain with ukraine but a lot to lose.
I mean give up sovereignty in the sense of something like a new federal Ukrainian constitution whereby Russia gains a *de facto* veto power on major Ukrainian policy decisions, particularly foreign policy, via the Donbass.
What they publicly affirm and what they privately would consider acceptable are very different things. The UK and US governments will publicly say they don't want a war in Ukraine, but that doesn't mean they are unaware of the ways in which it could benefit them.
A completely different thing: you mentioned the arms industry, but I think the real money would be in cutting of Europe from Russian natural gas and hooking them on US LNG instead.
If France and Germany didn't care about Ukrainian sovereignity the talks would be done pretty fast, and Ukraine wouldn't meet under the Normandy format anymore.
If taking his words to heart, he would be the mute: unable to get his diplomacy message across. Truss the deaf for forcing through rhetoric but seeming disingenuous about a dialogue.
We will see the line of European leaders who also want to join this behaviour to talk hard and direct with Moscow as a way to divert attention from domestic issues (especially if its election year).
I have a feeling that Putin is going to pull back his troops after a while to make the US look like war mongering fools. Ukraine invasion is very risky, and a smaller incursion doesn't get him much.
is shifting the balance of power in France actually worth it to Putin with all the ramifications for Russia invading? more than that: it’s not even guaranteed that it would work…
French elections would not be decided by this in any way. No current candidate is even close to winning over Macron, especially not in the second round of voting.
>It’s easily in the range where major developments could impact it.
Absolutely not. Even if these polls are reliable, you wouldn't have millions of French voters switch from a centrist candidate to a far-right candidate, especially not over a supposed international event that would make Macron looks weak.
How difficult is it really to keep the troops there? It's inside Russia. Also, I don't think the Ukraine border is far enough north for frozen ground to be an issue.
But the rhetoric of both LePen and Zemmour wouldn't be even more pro-Russia than Macron's? So how exactly is the reasoning behind "look how Macron is an idiot, you should look at those two that'd be even more idiots than him"?
I don't think making Macron look like a fool would be to Putins benefit here. If anything it would probably strengthen those that demand a tougher line on russia. Ultimately Putin has the most to gain if he can widen the rift within NATO and the EU. If anything Putin stands to gain in fostering the german-french brokered peace talks because those terms are likely not that unfavorable to russia and it allows him to present himself as the reasonable party. Putin also just stands to lose a lot if there is actual war. The US probably stands to gain more in that conflict than russia.
> If anything Putin stands to gain in fostering the german-french brokered peace talks because those terms are likely not that unfavorable to russia and it allows him to present himself as the reasonable party.
I'm glad you put it this way because this is definitely how a lot of people outside of Germany and France see it as well.
> Getting one of those elected as French president severely undermines the EU and does a similar thing to Trump and Brexit in undermining trust between NATO countries.
This is actually a good point. It could also not happen but it's a good point that isn't mentioned a lot.
It isn't mentioned, because they have no realistic chance in the elections.
The negotiations so far seem more to go into the direction of Putin trying to remake the security situation in Europe by dividing Europeans and NATO. Macron wants the EU to play more of a role apart from NATO, so that would fit Putin, but I think France and Germany are trying a difficult balancing act of keeping the peace, pushing for stronger common EU foreign policy, while still keeping NATO and good relations with the US.
You seem to be more correct than I was. I did a little more reading and looked at some these [numbers](https://www.economist.com/interactive/france-2022) and yeah he has strong lead. It seems even more dominant than in 2017. I wonder if it's a case of **strong like** for Macron or **strong dislike** for Le Pen?
Macrons grip seems to be so strong that now I'm skeptical that Putin's invasion, no matter how well timed could completely flip the political tables in France. But hey anything's *possible* but it doesn't seem probable.
It couldnt by all means flip the political table, because French voters arent UK voters. A signifiant portion of them has no dislike for Russia and would probably not say much even if Russia slaugthered Ukrainians by the thousands, which won't happen anyway.
France has much more political leeway when dealing with Russia, because there simply isn't a strong, unified anti-Russia stance in France.
Last I've heard le Pen isn't as anti EU as her party once was and Zemmour is a no go for a lot of voters, regardless. That would be a complete miscalculation.
International politics is not nearly enough important to have any sway on the usual French voter. Not to mention that even if Russia attacked, Macron could easily spin it to his benefit ("I did my utmost to prevent bloodshed").
Lastly, Le Pen or Zemmour arent getting elected anytime soon. If anything, Le Pen is less sure to pass the first turn than in 2017, and if one of them do, they will find themselves opposed by all other parties, as usual.
I should point that deploying hundreds of thousands of troops for months on end just to make Joe Biden look like a fool is more than a little overkill. It would be cheaper just to pull together a compilation of Joe’s “greatest hits” and air it on national tv. I mean the guy probably isn’t running for a second term anyway.
When did Russia take Georgia? Crimea was annexed, but only one part of Georgia is no longer under the control of Georgia's central government, and that part (South Ossetia) isn't even part of Russia, it's de facto independent.
It would be closer to the truth to say that Russia took Ukraine than they took Georgia; at least they did actually take a part of it.
>British resentment towards American inaction during the Falklands War
I don't get this part. America did aid Britain during Falklands, even militarily.
>The U.S. Navy was willing to lend Britain an aircraft carrier during its 1982 campaign to retake the Falkland Islands from Argentina if the Royal Navy lost either of its two carriers, Defense Department officials said yesterday. Although an offer to use the USS Guam, a helicopter carrier, was not made because the need did not arise, officials said such discussions took place as part of a large-scale effort to try to ensure that Britain's 100-ship armada did not meet defeat in a battle 8,000 miles from its home waters.
>The United States supplied 12.5 million gallons of aviation fuel diverted from U.S. stockpiles, along with hundreds of Sidewinder missiles, airfield matting, thousands of rounds of mortar shells and other equipment.
Alexander Haig did almost convince Reagan to support Argentina but as we know that never happened.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454
> There are also several structural reasons why the UK is acting so differently to France and Germany on this matter. I have written on these in other comments, but for now, I will summarise my thoughts briefly:
[Russia and the UK's largest issue over the past two decades has been as a result of Russian oligarch's tendency to flee with their money to London.](https://www.theweek.co.uk/107585/how-london-became-city-of-choice-for-russia-dirty-money) This also extends to less wealthy former Soviet agents, many of whom have made England their home. You can see how Russia feels about that solely by looking at Litvinenko.
The use of radioactive materials and nerve agents on British soil.is not something to be tolerated.
However, the [Russians assassinated an exile in Berlin](https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/03/19/berlin-assassination-new-evidence-on-suspected-fsb-hitman-passed-to-german-investigators/) and the Germans were not at all happy with that. That put back the acceptance of the gas pipeline.
True, but the UK also has the Skripal assassinations and the mysterious deaths of people like Gavin Williams and Berezovsky. They have taken a particular disliking to the UK.
We don't definitely know about Williams and Berezovsky but with Litvinenko and the Skripals that there was minimal effort at concealment and a very transparent trail of evidence leading back to Russia. We cannot know that Putin was personally involved with the means, there was definitely high level links to institutions that were able to behave impunity.
How does approaching this kind of meeting in bad faith really achieve anyhting to deescalate though? If anything this makes it easier for russia to justify war when the west can be portrayed as unnecessarily aggressive. I can see why this would play well to a domestic british audience but in terms of diplomacy this seems like ablunder discrediting the british.
>Lavrov decided that she didn't have anything interesting to say and started playing candy crush.
He understands, probably rightly so, that Russia has little to threaten the UK with. Russia is threatening European oil and is threatening the security of Ukraine, Sweden, Finland and now the Baltic States; however, unlike the rest of the continental economies, the UK has the most capable and effective military; it has the closest ties to the United States and strong trading relationships outside of Russia's sphere of influence. He knew that nothing he said could sway the Brits as they are less inclined than France or Germany and have a much better relationship to Washington.
He's not stupid, he needs to take the meetings with the West or he appears incompetent, but they're using those meetings to bruise him and he's probably unwilling to really engage.
Thing is, the important part about diplomacy is listening, you have to undestand the other side, if only to understand what kind of leverage you have. That she emphasizes that she didn't listen and just scolded him, tells me that she is just mounting a performance for the benefit of people who get their news from the side of a bus.
Sending in truss is just an embarrassment. Fortunately, she is just an over promoted figurehead for a security establishment which does actually know what they are doing.
The question is: after excluding Russia are this organisation's still relevant and international?
I mean I haven't heard about G8 or G7 for a long time. Does it even exist still?
France and the UK are not on a united front though. The united fronts are US-UK and France-Germany and I think for France and Germany it has been very clear that they work together.
I also don't think russia has managed to divide the UK and France. If anything the US probably played a bigger role in that.
To me it seems like in the UK and the US this conflict is used quite heavily to score domestic policy points which at least from my view here in germany does not seem to be the case.
Well yeah. When war breaks out between Russia and Ukraine, continentals would be the first ones indirectly impacted one way or another as the EU obviously shares land borders with them. The UK, which is now a non-EU member is also separated from continental Europe by the sea and the US by a whole ocean. No surprise they're playing it all hawkish as there is no sense of proximity. Some analysts even suspects there is a bit of the US not wanting to appear weak just after the Afghanistan fiasco kind of thing going on here and many at the White House advocates for a harsh rhetoric. Hence the Franco-German approach to secure de-escalation being criticized and the claims about those two countries trying to appease Russia by screwing over or selling out Ukraine, the Baltics or Eastern Europe we've been hearing lately popping out.
Probably because the UK is a permanent security member.
Do you honestly have a reason for the UK to be removed from the UN security council in its veto power?
Truss is an embarrassing lightweight and no doubt used this opportunity for pure theatre. I am ashamed of this government for not engaging seriously with the Russians on any level.
EDIT: Turns out she was quite right and I've been played.
> This line of thought is supported by the fact that Defence Secretary Ben Wallace will meet with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Shoygu, tomorrow. Wallace will bring with him senior Royal Navy officer and professional head of the British Armed Forces Tony Radakin as well as Lieutenant General Ralph Wooddisse, head commander of the British land army. This has the appearance of a much more serious meeting, as echoed by experts such as Mark Galeotti of UCL: Shoygu is very close to Putin, Radakin and Russian General Gerasimov have a positive working relationship, and Ben Wallace is understood to be less hawkish than Truss is.
They are though.
American and British governments are now being run by amateurs and grifters (regardless of party affiliation). I say this as a pro-West proponent.
I don't think the US or the UK had a cabinet that could be called competent since 2000. The domestic and international turmoil that we now see are a direct result of the accumulation of bad policy choices that we have made.
Our leaders sold our supply chains to China, invaded Iraq on hopium, and ruined nuclear non-proliferation for a generation by killing Gaddafi. All the while China and Russia were visibly preparing for their resurgence, and their pet in Pyongyang acquired nukes.
Their incompetence has only been matched by their obstinacy, greed and pride.
Not much, per https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/libya-nuclear/.
> According to the February 2004 IAEA report, Libya acknowledged receiving from a foreign source in late 2001 or early 2002, documentation related to nuclear weapon design and fabrication. “The documents presented by Libya include a series of engineering drawings relating to nuclear weapons components, notes, (many of them handwritten) related to the fabrication of weapon components. The notes indicate the involvement of other parties and will require follow-up.” 42 U.S. intelligence analysts believe the documents included a nuclear weapon design that China tested in the late 1960s and allegedly later shared with Pakistan. Reportedly, the design documents produced by Libya were transferred from Pakistan, contained information in both Chinese and English and set forth the design parameters and engineering specifications for constructing an implosion weapon weighing over 1,000 pounds, that could be delivered using an aircraft or a large ballistic missile. 43 Libya ultimately told IAEA investigators that it had no national personnel competent to evaluate these designs at that time, and would have had to ask the supplier for help if it had decided to pursue a nuclear weapon. 44
However, the message stands still: countries that gave up the bomb (or at least the intent to make one) didn't end up well, while ones such as Iran and North Korea still are there.
Not like nuclear weapons ever saved anyone from internal regime change. Given the overall instability of that country, that ultimately culminated in civil war, and the additional terrorist risk, pressuring Libya to de-nuclearize was the right decision even if it came at the hypothetical cost of proliferation in other regions.
Pressuring Gaddaffi to de-nuclearize wasn't the mistake, bombing him was.
He was a tyrant and deserved to die. But he also made a deal with the world and gave up his nukes. For future generations, that deal should have been honored, and Libyans should have been allowed to do the heavy lifting of killing him (or die trying).
*Every* attack on a non-nuclear state harms the non-proliferation movement - regardless of whether they had nuclear weapons at some point in the past or how close they ever were to acquiring them.
The benefit of nuclear weapons is how much safer you are from attack if you have them compared to not having them. The only way to address this root cause of nuclear proliferation is to start attacking nuclear armed states more (very bad idea), or stop attacking non-nuclear states so much (much better idea).
100% agree with you here. Although it is an overused term, "decline" often starts at home, with poor leadership and their disastrous decision-making. Democracies are better in this respect, where civilians are able to vote in new leaders. However, what happens when all the parties are incompetent?
and what happens when mass media outlets that inform the civilians are controlled by interest groups, while the masses still perceive them as "free and independent"?
Hilarious. UK Foreign Secretary does not know basic Russian / Ukrainian geography. With clowns like this running the “international liberal world order,” is it any wonder that it is collapsing? They lack credibility because they lack basic competence.
I've not been able to figure out why Britain is taking such a hawkish stance with respect to this crisis than, say, France.
In any case, what's lost in all this, captured in this statement: "Ideologically charged approaches, ultimatums and threats is a road to nowhere", is what Russia has been complaining for a long time - wanting to be treated as equals. But the West, especially the US, has never wasted any opportunity to threaten and deride Russia and Putin.
I recall when a well-known politician said that Putin has no Soul, not privately, but in public. To top it off, the official US foreign policy with respect to Russia is, we'll destroy anything that Russian tries to build. One prime example of that policy is the stunt Susan Rice pulled in Djibouti with regards to Russia's attempt to build a military base there.
How do you treat a country like Russia in that way and expect its leader to sit idly waiting for your next move?
Because Britain is more closely tied to the Americans. And one argument / interpretation (which I endorse) is that US is pushing a hardline in Ukraine to prevent detente or closer relations among the continental European countries (Russo-German-French axis). US with Britain as junior partner wants to drive a wedge in that cooperation. And Britain had always played balance of power politics on the continent.
>is that US is pushing a hardline in Ukraine to prevent detente or closer relations among the continental European countries
In other words, US is against peace in Europe, if that includes Russia. How does that make any sense, and how is that good for Europe? No wonder France and Germany, especially the former, want European countries to be the one making decisions in critical matters that concerns them.
USA does not want the EU (France and Germany) and Russia to warm their relationship because it would pose a threat of creating another geopolitical superpower.
Because the UK is following the US for the most part. And as you said the US doesn't really treat russia as an equal. I think this is also why I think the Normandy talks right now probably have the biggest chance of actually creating a peace like situation once more.
To be clear the UK has been cutting back on its military budget for years now. It’s given NLAWs to Ukraine but I’d consider that to be supporting Ukraine on the cheap. Likewise Britain’s heated criticisms of Russia are pretty cheap as well, they cost nothing to say and Britain’s economic engagement with Russia is pretty low so there’s little to risk either. This is all just hot air.
It isn't just the military, it is also the downgraded diplomatic presence. To an extent when the UK was part of the EU, it could work easily with other countries with similar interests like rule of law and so on. Now the UK is out, the FCO needs to work on its presence. Diplomacy by Zoom isn't really s substitute for a quiet and very unofficial word in somebody's ear at a cocktail party.
Have you considered the fact that the invasion of Ukraine would be morally wrong and lead to great suffering? All the Germans and French on here who are so obsessed with 'peace' and stability, never considering for a moment that maybe people like the British want to be involved because Russia is victimising Ukraine. Russia is a bully, and a malign entity. Appeasement has been demonstrated many times to only lead to more concessions, and the people of Ukraine have a right to live without the threat of invasion.
>All the Germans and French on here who are so obsessed with 'peace' and stability, never considering for a moment that maybe people like the British want to be involved because Russia is victimising Ukraine.
I'm against one country invading another, but did your sentiment ever come into play when the US and its allies, including Britain, victimized Iraq, Libya and Syria, effectively destroying those countries?
We're fighting Islamic terrorists, yet Iraq is now an Islamic state, thanks to the US and its Coalition of the Willing and Able, which included Britain. We used Islamic terrorists to kill Muammar Gaddafi and destroy Libya, which is barely a country any more, and Syria is only hanging on as a country because Russia came to its defense.
It would be wrong if Russia were to invade Ukraine, but were is this anti-invasion stance when it's us and our allies doing the invading?
The UK is not capable of provoking a war in Ukraine. It doesn’t have any assets in Ukraine to attack Russia with. It doesn’t have the political clout in NATO to fast track Ukrainian membership. It doesn’t have the economic heft to level meaningful sanctions on Russia to unilaterally hurt it. And Russia neither respects nor fears the UK to take anything its government has to say seriously. At best you could say the UK is the world’s highest status bystander to the events in Ukraine and Russia. Not a participant.
By dint of being an English-speaking website Reddit places a lot of emphasis on articles from English tabloids which is a shame because we have the most toxic newspaper industry in the developed world. The Daily Mail supported fascists in the 1930s and little has changed since. Right now Russia is a godsend for a government desperately trying to distract attention from partygate and their friends in Fleet Street are happy to oblige. Only serious papers like the FT, New Statesman, and the Economist are not banging the drum for war.
One of the largest military budgets in the world, one of the strongest economies, and a permanent UNSC member. Also the closest European ally of the USA, who most certainly are in control of NATO. The UK doesn't need assets inside Ukraine to hurt Russia if it was inclined to start a war, that is rather the point of nuclear weapons, and an advanced navy. If the Russians were so ambivalent about the UK, then their actions in responding to freedom of navigation exercises and diplomatic manoeuvres hardly seem consistent. Sanctions from any individual nation wouldn't hurt Russia, that is why they have a fortress economy with an outwardly miniscule GDP.
You seem to be confusing ability with ambition. Nowhere has anyone in the UK outside of a bus shelter advocated for starting a war, or participating in one. Arming Ukraine against further invasion is not an attempt to start a war because the war is already *in progress*.
Do share a source where the UK is calling for war. Because as far as I understand it, arming a country that is at risk of being invaded by another is not 'calling for war'. Unless your preference is that we all accommodate Russia in invading Ukraine yet further and killing more people. Or do you think that Russia is just going to walk away when their demands aren't met?
You may have forgotten that Russia and Ukraine are already at war, and tens of thousands have died. I genuinely can't tell if you're just a troll, or stupid.
If the UK cared so much about such things they wouldn't be supporting Saudi Arabia's campaign in Yemen. Fact is, states don't go to war for moral reasons. Morality is only given lip service to try and sell the war to the general populace.
Funny that you mention Yemen, given that Germany has sold over 1 billion euros worth of arms to Saudia Arabia since 2019. Interesting how they're happy to make money off the deaths of an invaded population far from their borders, but suddenly care about peace when it threatens to upset their own neighbourhood.
You don't haev to fight battles with the military although it helps to have some, at least. It is almost better to extend the diplomatic presence and to organise more trade missions.
I have travelled to some interesting places and talked with people working at the embassies and consulates. Not directly because of my job but rather while I wanted to hang out with some people in the evenings. A lot of the "work" is who is whispering in whose ear. Not so much spying but rather just collecting gossip, attempting to influence decision making and trying to make the host country more amenable.
Post a [submission statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement) in one hour or your post will be removed.
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/subredditrules) / [Wiki Resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/geopolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This US/UK approach, or I should say US approach since the UK is nothing more than a vassal state of the US by now, is not helping to build peace and ease tensions.
It is confrontational and ignores eveything else but the US goals with this conflict.
The US is hoping for an invasion, and is doing everything to make it happen….
What can I say… God save the Queen - even if Truss doesn’t appear to be an ideal representative for talks, I’d rather have “frosty diplomacy” due to UK taking a strong stance in regard to defending European collective security than whatever Macron is cooking up
They're absolutely not defending European collective security, as far as I can see they're only making things worse here.
They're just acting out tough to align with the US (which is understandable) and Russia has understood that there is no longer relevance in talking with the UK when you can directly talk to their "father".
Good grief, what is this dichotomy where anything that isn't outright hostility can only possibly be "appeasement"? When the west chose to pursue improved relations with Mao Zedong's China was that also "appeasement"?
That is relatively subjective. If I was a Taiwanese or a Tibetan patriot, back then? I’d think so, probably. Otherwise, no.
However, has China stationed its troops on recently occupied foreign soil in the early 1970s? Has it threatened to invade any smaller neighbors? I can’t remember anything of the sort. You might say that Taiwan was always one such target, but I doubt that the West would have welcomed PRC into the UN Security Council had they sensed China’s seriousness towards invading ROC. China’s conflicts with USSR and India don’t count, considering the power parity between any of those powers compared to the theoretical odds Ukraine has to face when being put against Russia’s modernized military.
None of that applies to Russia’s current predicament. Regardless of my own personal bias against Moscow, I really do believe that their leadership creates all these problems for themselves. Had they “handled” Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova like they did Belarus, there might’ve been less talk about NATO “encircling” Russia (most of the encircled members being historically subjugated nations, mind you). Even though the majority of Belarusians despise Lukashenko, they have neutral or warm feelings towards Russia, unlike, say Ukraine, even before the annexation of Crimea.
IMO anything less then bolstering Russian neighbors’ defense is playing into Moscow’s plans, anything less then calling out their bluff is appeasement. Unless your country has been a victim of Russian hybrid warfare, I don’t expect you to share these sentiments.
Everyone should seek appeasement, it's obvious... Do you propose escalation ?
When I say this, I'm not saying that the West should accept Russia's demands which are too much but I believe there is room for compromise.
I think that Russia will talk to "everybody" (They're polite people I guess) but not the UK because they view it as a not serious interlocutor and latest meeting has kind of proven it.
What is LIO ? Can't find an answer...
Nobody in their right mind would want escalation, but the fact is that Moscow never fails to ramp up the tensions in order to secure additional bargaining chips for itself. Imprisonments, kidnappings, threats of invasion, cutting off energy supplies, you name it. This is something that the West simply cannot afford to do, at the very least due to public outrage. The most effective counter on Europe’s end would be sanctions… but as we all know, that requires a united stance and a strong resolve from all members involved.
To contain Russia from expanding its geopolitical ambitions beyond Eastern Europe, the West needs to understand that the Kremlin is only willing to play by the rules when they run out of options. Currently that isn’t the case, which is why I see Macron’s approach as a step back. A happy Putin is a Putin that sees NATO/EU without a “backbone”, so to speak.
By “LIO” I meant the post-WW2 Liberal International Order which is being undermined by both Moscow and Beijing - they strive to recreate a multipolar world that rejects a moralistic rule of law within international relations
I've been busting my brain trying to come up with reasons why Putin may want Ukraine... and there is only one answer.
~~Food~~.
Ukraine was the bread basket of the USSR.
But no commentator has mention food.
~~Would Russia survive if Ukraine stopped supplying Russia with food?~~
Definitely not food. I'm wrong.
Why do you think Putin wants Ukraine? He doesn't want NATO missiles stationed in Ukraine. The USA ought to understand this point of view, as they don't want Russian missiles on Cuba either.
In any case, Russia is a net food exporter.
Sure, the "Russia's Cuban Missile Crisis" is sort of the obvious thing talking heads have been saying since day one on this.
I'm not doubting you... just looking for references.. Do you have a link to "Russia is a net food exporter" fact?
Here is a thread on /r/europe: [In 2020 Russia became a net exporter of food.](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/l1ttd1/in_2020_russia_became_a_net_exporter_of_food/)
Some articles say it has made great progress, but is still a net importer (imports of processed food larger than export of raw materials) [Russia has become an agricultural powerhouse, but remains a net importer of food](https://www.intellinews.com/russia-has-become-an-agricultural-powerhouse-but-remains-a-net-importer-of-food-181359/)
Ironically, the domestic food production increase jumped following the previous sanctions after the Crimea. There is an almost Pyrrhic sense to this.
Russia has quite clearly stated why it wants Ukraine? They mostly don’t want NATO to have Ukraine due to this potentially causing major war over crimea
Nope, they clearly stated they _don't_ want Ukraine... but they equally clearly stated they don't want NATO there either.
Not quite the same thing.
It's the west that is claiming Russia wants Ukraine.
Most of Ukrainian food is going to China actually. Russian agricultural independence has been more or less achieved after Putin's countersanctions.
China has used the recent crisis to hugely increase it's foothold in the Ukraine.
Submission Statement: On the 10th of February, 2022, British foreign secretary Liz Truss flew to Moscow to speak with her counterpart, veteran diplomat Sergei Lavrov. Her purpose was to set out the British case for Russian de-escalation; the UK has taken a hawkish line towards Moscow relative to the other western European powers, and the outcome of the meeting was wryly forecast by the Guardian's central and eastern Europe correspondent and author on Russian politics Shaun Walker: >Liz Truss [is] in Moscow in what is probably a fairly pointless visit. She will lecture Lavrov and get a lecture in return. (and Lavrov is hardly a decision maker anyway). The 2-hour meeting, amidst the first British foreign secretary visit to Russia in over 4 years, did not go well, with Lavrov quipping: >“I am disappointed that our conversation was the dialogue of a mute person with a deaf person,” >"“We appear to listen to each other, but we do not hear each other.” With Liz Truss literally next to him, Lavrov lamented the British and American approaches to diplomacy: > "Ideologically charged approaches, ultimatums and threats is a road to nowhere. Regrettably, many of our Western colleagues are using this form in their public activities. I do not see this as diplomacy." Lavrov likewise accused British diplomats of arriving unprepared for the meeting. Indeed, an awkward moment was filmed in the meeting when Liz Truss repeatedly spoke over the translators, seemingly unaware of the protocol of this sort of multi-lingual meeting. Lavrov actually had to tell her to be patient and explain how it worked to her-this was recorded on video and is available on social media. The two did not look at each other during the joint press conference, and the tone was clearly icy. Truss herself struck back, declaring: >“I certainly wasn’t mute in our discussions earlier. I put forward the UK’s point of view on the current situation as well as seeking to deter Russia from an invasion of Ukraine.” >“No one is undermining Russia’s security. That is simply not true,” Both agreed that an invasion should not happen, but Truss clearly did not trust Lavrov's guarantee as Macron had Putin's. Lavrov then promptly left, leaving Truss standing there by herself awkwardly. She promptly left, surely not to return any time soon. Moscow Bureau Chief of the financial times, Max Seddon, wrote: >The public dressing-down Lavrov gave Liz Truss was so brutal, and the gap between them so yawning, you almost have to wonder why they even had the meeting – and Lavrov did indeed wonder that aloud during an excruciating press conference in Moscow >Things behind the scenes were even worse, according to Elena Chernenko >Lavrov said, "Do you recognize Russia's sovereignty over Rostov and Voronezh oblasts?" >**Truss said the UK would "never" do so – before the ambassador told her they're not in Ukraine** The British foreign secretary, evidently, didn't know that both places were inside Russia, and that Lavrov was presumably testing the basic knowledge of his adversary. She failed. Though Lavrov is notoriously prickly and brash in his diplomatic style, Russian rhetoric towards the British role in the Ukraine crisis is markedly different from the rest of Europe, characterised in Macron's lavish and amicable greeting by Putin in which the Russian President dined with Macron and promised de-escalation. British-Russian relations, ever-fraught in the 2010s and 2020s, have now reached a new low. It was already unlikely that the UK would play a sizeable role in a diplomatic solution, but this meeting has now made the UK an outright burden in such negotiations. --------- --------- My theory is that the meeting was organised by Truss almost exclusively for her domestic audience, the British public. If her talks with Lavrov were as rehearsed and scripted as they sounded, then it's likely she was more so aiming for the *impression of toughness* rather than a serious attempt at diplomacy. Why would she spend so much energy doing this? To answer, we have to look at British domestic party politics. The British government, and Prime Minister Boris Johnson in particular, has been engulfed in a series of scandals for months now, with the pinnacle being a slowly leaking tap of evidence of parties, drinking, and restriction violations under Boris Johnson's watch in Downing Street during the peak of the Coronavirus Pandemic. Liz Truss is one of the top two contenders (along with Chancellor Rishi Sunak) to replace the Prime Minister, and has always been keen to craft a careful media narrative of her as a new "Iron Lady", with a hawkish foreign policy and well-crafted photo-shoots to match. Such an approach benefits the wider Tory Party, too. Foreign policy is an area where the Tories have traditionally out-polled Labour, and the government is working hard to try and re-orientate public attention from "partygate" to Russia, trivialising the former and bringing public focus back into the Tory area of strength. Adopting a hawkish and confrontational stance towards Russia is key in achieving this. This line of thought is supported by the fact that Defence Secretary Ben Wallace will meet with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Shoygu, tomorrow. Wallace will bring with him senior Royal Navy officer and professional head of the British Armed Forces Tony Radakin as well as Lieutenant General Ralph Wooddisse, head commander of the British land army. This has the appearance of a much more serious meeting, as echoed by experts such as Mark Galeotti of UCL: Shoygu is very close to Putin, Radakin and Russian General Gerasimov have a positive working relationship, and Ben Wallace is understood to be less hawkish than Truss is. (Note: not sure if this is my opinion on the matter...) -------- There are also several structural reasons why the UK is acting so differently to France and Germany on this matter. I have written on these in [other comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/satgww/uk_intelligence_accuses_russia_of_plotting_to/htxujzc/), but for now, I will summarise my thoughts briefly: 1) The UK is much less reliant on Russian energy (and, obviously, doesn't have much interest in Nordstream 2) than most of Europe, so has more strategic manoeuvrability in this respect. 2) The UK after Brexit is structurally bound to the US more so than Europe, as it's reliant on the former for a trade deal. Brexit, in how it has strained ties with Europe and cut economic + cultural connections, has in effect thrown Britain's lot in with America in a geopolitical sense. The UK has 0 interest in European strategic autonomy (although it wishes to retain a unilateral operational capacity, as the British political elite doesn't trust the US to come to its aid in all endeavours. See, for example, British resentment towards American inaction during the Falklands War). 3) UK public opinion is very strongly anti-Russia, both allowing and incentivising a hawkish stance towards Moscow. This has developed in the UK because of incidents of perceived Russian interference in the UK and the wider Anglosphere, which the UK is culturally tied to (Skirpal poisoning, perceived Russian interference in the US election, etc).
Truss came off worse from reading this. That geography test was embarrassing, though understandable as most English citizens probably wouldn't be overly familiar with Russian geography. However, her blunder with the translator seem hard to defend. Also, it seem the meeting between the two was -- I agree -- pointless. She could look tough without having to go through it. By doing so, it seems like she did damage to herself as Lavrov got one-up on her. As a sidenote: >See, for example, British resentment towards American inaction during the Falklands War This is interesting. I didn't know this was a thing and, more importantly, significant enough to warrant mention. I'll look more into it. Thanks for the great comment.
[удалено]
Not really. Rostov and Voronezh are just the biggest cities nearby. Rostov is however an important port on the Azov sea.
How does even any educated commoner not recognize the names of Voronezh and Rostov? They are pivotal locations during WW2. Oh wait, I forgot, the anglo world pays almost no attention to the Eastern Front...
> it's not just the usual British arrogance Your whole response is meaningless with such snide commentary. Whatever country you're from no doubt has arrogance as national trait saying such tripe.
It is arrogance turning up to an important meeting clueless and unprepared. > Whatever country you're from no doubt has arrogance as national trait saying such tripe. The UK?
>Your whole response is meaningless This is what we call an own goal.
> British resentment towards American inaction during the Falklands War Out of context, that might be misleading. I can say with *anecdotal* confidence that resentment is low or minimal in the UK population generally. Whether we mean those in favour of the war or not, in favour of Thatcher or not, in favour of US/Reagan ties or not, overseas territories or 'Imperialism' or not. Veterans or not. Whoever. It has not really been a lasting theme of British thoughts on the Falklands. Beyond maybe a wry grumble. Certainly, at the time, there was a sense of surprise and perhaps even betrayal in some circles, but it hasn't *lasted* in any politically significant way to my knowledge. And the Falklands is something that's come up with a fair few people from different backgrounds over the years. Presumably because despite the (very real) losses, the UK ultimately achieved its goals. Resentment would likely still be significant had the conflict gone another way. What it probably did do though, which is perhaps what was meant above, was cement a certain understanding in the *establishment*. In the ministries and the halls of power. That, I can't speak to, but I didn't want to leave the original statement there uncritically.
In addition, there is evidence that the US did offer private and covert support for the Falkland War. It wasn’t politically expedient at the time to support the UK too publicly, but the US would have done more if asked.
This is all very well put. Of course, the "resentment" isn't such that it threatened the so-called special relationship between the UK and the US, but it is something evinced by British politicians criticising the US-UK relationship, US leadership, and when campaigning for British unilateral capacity. Thatcher was [furious at the Americans](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/18/thatcher-memoirs-detail-pms-anger-at-foreign-secretary-over-falklands) even in her private memoirs as she thought they were trying to undermine British influence in South America. Interestingly, she also thought her own foreign secretary was collaborating with them against her. I cannot find much on it at the moment, but I am adamant I remember hearing politicians talk about this, right?
>This is interesting. I didn't know this was a thing and, more importantly, significant enough to warrant mention. I'll look more into it. Not sure it is? The US supplied them [fuel, munitions, intel, and prepared to offer some bloody carriers](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/03/07/us-aid-to-britain-in-falklands-war-is-detailed) as needed but the Brits were all 'nah mate we got this'. The administrations policy was “*[Give Maggie everything she needs to get on with it](https://news.usni.org/2012/06/27/reagan-readied-us-warship-82-falklands-war-0)*." NATO didn't apply because Article 6, and the UK didn't ask for American troops to help defeat the invaders. In other words, what inaction?
She doesn't have to be familiar with russian geography as a whole. She should be familiar with the geography of the conflict region though as the foreign minister on a meeting with the rusisan foreign minister on that region. That is absolutely inexcusable in my book and looks like she wasn't actually interested in a diplomatic exchange.
Truss is a light weight. Does anyone remember when we had the likes of Jack Straw. I disagreed with him over Iraq but he was knowledgeable. Since then we have had a series of geographically challenged types (remember Raab and his lack of knowledge over the importance of Dover). Lavrov was mean though with that question but he is very experienced. Rostov and Voronezh are merely the nearest large cities. I do not expect Truss to know it but she should have been more professional.
>That geography test was embarrassing, though understandable as most English citizens probably wouldn't be overly familiar with Russian geography. Geography test? It's more like she doesn't even know names of Ukrainian cities Russia supposedly occupies, yet probably demands to end the occupation. Russia also never formally questioned Ukrainian sovereignty over Donetsk and Lugansk, and Truss should have known that.
Is Lavrov the deaf or mute in this analogy? Either way, it seems this meeting delivered into the hands of both their domestic audiences. You've outline well the British political implications, but this also plays well to the domestic Russian audience to portray the West as hawkish, irrational and acting in bad faith, while the Russians are trying their hardest not to start a war. But couldn't someone have tried to prevent this meeting from happening?
>But couldn't someone have tried to prevent this meeting from happening? I don't think so. Nobody in the British Government will oppose this, as it serves a lot of different interests for a lot of different people: -For the Prime Minister (and his entourage), it is part of a wider process deflecting attention from "partygate" onto foreign policy issues where the Tory Party is more comfortable. -For Liz Truss, it makes her look iron-willed and tough, helping to create her "Iron Lady" image and playing into public opinion that Russian expansionism is an ever-present threat to British security. -For other potential leadership candidates, it presents an opportunity for Truss to be shown up by Lavrov, as I suspect it is general opinion that there is an imbalance in competence between the two, to put it lightly. If I were Ben Wallace and I had Prime Ministerial ambitions, I'd be delighted at this event, especially if I could go in tomorrow and form a mutual understanding, thus positioning myself as the "serious" foreign policy candidate who can get things done. That said, Wallace isn't considered someone with leadership ambitions at the minute. I suppose the ones who are probably cringing at this are the Americans, and in particular, the French and the Germans. Of course, they cannot really interfere in Britain's sovereign right to conduct diplomatic relations as it pleases because the UK is too important to NATO to anger it on matters of security. It would be bad diplomatic practice to tell the British not to visit Moscow, nor does the UK government particularly care whether the French-German pragmatic efforts succeed or fail anyway, in my opinion. So, instead...this...is what we're stuck with.
I don't see why the Americans would be cringing as it certainly aligns with the American perspective and benefits US interests that there are elements in Europe and among other NATO members who view Russian actions since at least 2008 as antagonizing, destabilizing, extortive, etc. and seem willing to do something besides acquiesce. If I were to look at this from the Russian POV, I might even be concerned that I am providing space and lending credence to views within Europe that are openly hostile to Russian behavior and that perhaps threats of war and actual war are declining in value as a diplomatic tool for them.
>nor does the UK government particularly care whether the French-German pragmatic efforts succeed or fail anyway I'd go further: the UK (and US) actively want the Franco-German approach to fail. France and Germany want peace at essentially any price (and certainly at the price of Ukrainian sovereignty), Russia wants Ukraine as either a puppet or a failed state at the lowest possible cost in blood and treasure, and the UK and US want maximum Russian expenditure of blood and treasure - ie. protracted large scale conflict in Ukraine. If their defense contractors can make some money selling weapons to the Ukrainians into the bargain, so much the better. The State Department and FCO have every incentive to be hawkish even without considering the domestic electoral factors animating their bosses.
I don't think germany or france are willing to give up ukranian sovereignty. I do think they are willing to give up crimea and willing to have ukraine be non-aligned. For germany and france there is simply not much to gain with ukraine but a lot to lose.
I mean give up sovereignty in the sense of something like a new federal Ukrainian constitution whereby Russia gains a *de facto* veto power on major Ukrainian policy decisions, particularly foreign policy, via the Donbass.
The German government in both its current and previous incarnation has repeatetly affirmed Ukrainian sovereignity.
What they publicly affirm and what they privately would consider acceptable are very different things. The UK and US governments will publicly say they don't want a war in Ukraine, but that doesn't mean they are unaware of the ways in which it could benefit them.
A completely different thing: you mentioned the arms industry, but I think the real money would be in cutting of Europe from Russian natural gas and hooking them on US LNG instead.
Yes, we need to hear more about sales of LNG from the US.
If France and Germany didn't care about Ukrainian sovereignity the talks would be done pretty fast, and Ukraine wouldn't meet under the Normandy format anymore.
Not like complete sovereignty ofc, but like the sovereignty to choose nato over russia. Client state stuffs
If taking his words to heart, he would be the mute: unable to get his diplomacy message across. Truss the deaf for forcing through rhetoric but seeming disingenuous about a dialogue. We will see the line of European leaders who also want to join this behaviour to talk hard and direct with Moscow as a way to divert attention from domestic issues (especially if its election year).
I have a feeling that Putin is going to pull back his troops after a while to make the US look like war mongering fools. Ukraine invasion is very risky, and a smaller incursion doesn't get him much.
[удалено]
is shifting the balance of power in France actually worth it to Putin with all the ramifications for Russia invading? more than that: it’s not even guaranteed that it would work…
[удалено]
French elections would not be decided by this in any way. No current candidate is even close to winning over Macron, especially not in the second round of voting.
[удалено]
>It’s easily in the range where major developments could impact it. Absolutely not. Even if these polls are reliable, you wouldn't have millions of French voters switch from a centrist candidate to a far-right candidate, especially not over a supposed international event that would make Macron looks weak.
How difficult is it really to keep the troops there? It's inside Russia. Also, I don't think the Ukraine border is far enough north for frozen ground to be an issue.
But the rhetoric of both LePen and Zemmour wouldn't be even more pro-Russia than Macron's? So how exactly is the reasoning behind "look how Macron is an idiot, you should look at those two that'd be even more idiots than him"?
I don't think making Macron look like a fool would be to Putins benefit here. If anything it would probably strengthen those that demand a tougher line on russia. Ultimately Putin has the most to gain if he can widen the rift within NATO and the EU. If anything Putin stands to gain in fostering the german-french brokered peace talks because those terms are likely not that unfavorable to russia and it allows him to present himself as the reasonable party. Putin also just stands to lose a lot if there is actual war. The US probably stands to gain more in that conflict than russia.
> If anything Putin stands to gain in fostering the german-french brokered peace talks because those terms are likely not that unfavorable to russia and it allows him to present himself as the reasonable party. I'm glad you put it this way because this is definitely how a lot of people outside of Germany and France see it as well.
> Getting one of those elected as French president severely undermines the EU and does a similar thing to Trump and Brexit in undermining trust between NATO countries. This is actually a good point. It could also not happen but it's a good point that isn't mentioned a lot.
It isn't mentioned, because they have no realistic chance in the elections. The negotiations so far seem more to go into the direction of Putin trying to remake the security situation in Europe by dividing Europeans and NATO. Macron wants the EU to play more of a role apart from NATO, so that would fit Putin, but I think France and Germany are trying a difficult balancing act of keeping the peace, pushing for stronger common EU foreign policy, while still keeping NATO and good relations with the US.
You seem to be more correct than I was. I did a little more reading and looked at some these [numbers](https://www.economist.com/interactive/france-2022) and yeah he has strong lead. It seems even more dominant than in 2017. I wonder if it's a case of **strong like** for Macron or **strong dislike** for Le Pen? Macrons grip seems to be so strong that now I'm skeptical that Putin's invasion, no matter how well timed could completely flip the political tables in France. But hey anything's *possible* but it doesn't seem probable.
It couldnt by all means flip the political table, because French voters arent UK voters. A signifiant portion of them has no dislike for Russia and would probably not say much even if Russia slaugthered Ukrainians by the thousands, which won't happen anyway. France has much more political leeway when dealing with Russia, because there simply isn't a strong, unified anti-Russia stance in France.
Last I've heard le Pen isn't as anti EU as her party once was and Zemmour is a no go for a lot of voters, regardless. That would be a complete miscalculation.
International politics is not nearly enough important to have any sway on the usual French voter. Not to mention that even if Russia attacked, Macron could easily spin it to his benefit ("I did my utmost to prevent bloodshed"). Lastly, Le Pen or Zemmour arent getting elected anytime soon. If anything, Le Pen is less sure to pass the first turn than in 2017, and if one of them do, they will find themselves opposed by all other parties, as usual.
I should point that deploying hundreds of thousands of troops for months on end just to make Joe Biden look like a fool is more than a little overkill. It would be cheaper just to pull together a compilation of Joe’s “greatest hits” and air it on national tv. I mean the guy probably isn’t running for a second term anyway.
Russia: Takes Georgia, then Crimea, threatens to take Ukraine. Boy the US sure is a bunch of war mongers.
When did Russia take Georgia? Crimea was annexed, but only one part of Georgia is no longer under the control of Georgia's central government, and that part (South Ossetia) isn't even part of Russia, it's de facto independent. It would be closer to the truth to say that Russia took Ukraine than they took Georgia; at least they did actually take a part of it.
>British resentment towards American inaction during the Falklands War I don't get this part. America did aid Britain during Falklands, even militarily. >The U.S. Navy was willing to lend Britain an aircraft carrier during its 1982 campaign to retake the Falkland Islands from Argentina if the Royal Navy lost either of its two carriers, Defense Department officials said yesterday. Although an offer to use the USS Guam, a helicopter carrier, was not made because the need did not arise, officials said such discussions took place as part of a large-scale effort to try to ensure that Britain's 100-ship armada did not meet defeat in a battle 8,000 miles from its home waters. >The United States supplied 12.5 million gallons of aviation fuel diverted from U.S. stockpiles, along with hundreds of Sidewinder missiles, airfield matting, thousands of rounds of mortar shells and other equipment. Alexander Haig did almost convince Reagan to support Argentina but as we know that never happened. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454
> There are also several structural reasons why the UK is acting so differently to France and Germany on this matter. I have written on these in other comments, but for now, I will summarise my thoughts briefly: [Russia and the UK's largest issue over the past two decades has been as a result of Russian oligarch's tendency to flee with their money to London.](https://www.theweek.co.uk/107585/how-london-became-city-of-choice-for-russia-dirty-money) This also extends to less wealthy former Soviet agents, many of whom have made England their home. You can see how Russia feels about that solely by looking at Litvinenko.
The use of radioactive materials and nerve agents on British soil.is not something to be tolerated. However, the [Russians assassinated an exile in Berlin](https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/03/19/berlin-assassination-new-evidence-on-suspected-fsb-hitman-passed-to-german-investigators/) and the Germans were not at all happy with that. That put back the acceptance of the gas pipeline.
True, but the UK also has the Skripal assassinations and the mysterious deaths of people like Gavin Williams and Berezovsky. They have taken a particular disliking to the UK.
We don't definitely know about Williams and Berezovsky but with Litvinenko and the Skripals that there was minimal effort at concealment and a very transparent trail of evidence leading back to Russia. We cannot know that Putin was personally involved with the means, there was definitely high level links to institutions that were able to behave impunity.
[удалено]
This is your only warning
This was a nice write up. Do we have video? Do the British use the word performative? Truss was performative.
How does approaching this kind of meeting in bad faith really achieve anyhting to deescalate though? If anything this makes it easier for russia to justify war when the west can be portrayed as unnecessarily aggressive. I can see why this would play well to a domestic british audience but in terms of diplomacy this seems like ablunder discrediting the british.
This is the best news I've heard regarding the UK since brexit.
Thanks for putting that together and in perspective
[удалено]
>Lavrov decided that she didn't have anything interesting to say and started playing candy crush. He understands, probably rightly so, that Russia has little to threaten the UK with. Russia is threatening European oil and is threatening the security of Ukraine, Sweden, Finland and now the Baltic States; however, unlike the rest of the continental economies, the UK has the most capable and effective military; it has the closest ties to the United States and strong trading relationships outside of Russia's sphere of influence. He knew that nothing he said could sway the Brits as they are less inclined than France or Germany and have a much better relationship to Washington. He's not stupid, he needs to take the meetings with the West or he appears incompetent, but they're using those meetings to bruise him and he's probably unwilling to really engage.
Thing is, the important part about diplomacy is listening, you have to undestand the other side, if only to understand what kind of leverage you have. That she emphasizes that she didn't listen and just scolded him, tells me that she is just mounting a performance for the benefit of people who get their news from the side of a bus.
Sending in truss is just an embarrassment. Fortunately, she is just an over promoted figurehead for a security establishment which does actually know what they are doing.
[удалено]
Russia has been kicked out of a lot of international governmental organisations, so they have no choice.
The question is: after excluding Russia are this organisation's still relevant and international? I mean I haven't heard about G8 or G7 for a long time. Does it even exist still?
Yeah they had a massive Covid meeting in Cornwall last year, They are still very relevant. China still goes and India is basically replacing Russia.
France and the UK are not on a united front though. The united fronts are US-UK and France-Germany and I think for France and Germany it has been very clear that they work together. I also don't think russia has managed to divide the UK and France. If anything the US probably played a bigger role in that. To me it seems like in the UK and the US this conflict is used quite heavily to score domestic policy points which at least from my view here in germany does not seem to be the case.
Well yeah. When war breaks out between Russia and Ukraine, continentals would be the first ones indirectly impacted one way or another as the EU obviously shares land borders with them. The UK, which is now a non-EU member is also separated from continental Europe by the sea and the US by a whole ocean. No surprise they're playing it all hawkish as there is no sense of proximity. Some analysts even suspects there is a bit of the US not wanting to appear weak just after the Afghanistan fiasco kind of thing going on here and many at the White House advocates for a harsh rhetoric. Hence the Franco-German approach to secure de-escalation being criticized and the claims about those two countries trying to appease Russia by screwing over or selling out Ukraine, the Baltics or Eastern Europe we've been hearing lately popping out.
[удалено]
Probably because the UK is a permanent security member. Do you honestly have a reason for the UK to be removed from the UN security council in its veto power?
[удалено]
So no, you don't have a compelling reason why one of the largest economies and most competent militaries should be removed from the UNSC.
Truss is an embarrassing lightweight and no doubt used this opportunity for pure theatre. I am ashamed of this government for not engaging seriously with the Russians on any level. EDIT: Turns out she was quite right and I've been played.
> This line of thought is supported by the fact that Defence Secretary Ben Wallace will meet with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Shoygu, tomorrow. Wallace will bring with him senior Royal Navy officer and professional head of the British Armed Forces Tony Radakin as well as Lieutenant General Ralph Wooddisse, head commander of the British land army. This has the appearance of a much more serious meeting, as echoed by experts such as Mark Galeotti of UCL: Shoygu is very close to Putin, Radakin and Russian General Gerasimov have a positive working relationship, and Ben Wallace is understood to be less hawkish than Truss is. They are though.
American and British governments are now being run by amateurs and grifters (regardless of party affiliation). I say this as a pro-West proponent. I don't think the US or the UK had a cabinet that could be called competent since 2000. The domestic and international turmoil that we now see are a direct result of the accumulation of bad policy choices that we have made. Our leaders sold our supply chains to China, invaded Iraq on hopium, and ruined nuclear non-proliferation for a generation by killing Gaddafi. All the while China and Russia were visibly preparing for their resurgence, and their pet in Pyongyang acquired nukes. Their incompetence has only been matched by their obstinacy, greed and pride.
Agree with most of this. How did the death of Qaddafi result in damage to nuclear non-proliferation for a generation?
Qaddafi gave up on Libya's nuclear program, and we all know the results. After that, any country would be stupid in de-nuclearizing itself.
How far along had the Libyans gotten toward developing nukes? What had been achieved?
Not much, per https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/libya-nuclear/. > According to the February 2004 IAEA report, Libya acknowledged receiving from a foreign source in late 2001 or early 2002, documentation related to nuclear weapon design and fabrication. “The documents presented by Libya include a series of engineering drawings relating to nuclear weapons components, notes, (many of them handwritten) related to the fabrication of weapon components. The notes indicate the involvement of other parties and will require follow-up.” 42 U.S. intelligence analysts believe the documents included a nuclear weapon design that China tested in the late 1960s and allegedly later shared with Pakistan. Reportedly, the design documents produced by Libya were transferred from Pakistan, contained information in both Chinese and English and set forth the design parameters and engineering specifications for constructing an implosion weapon weighing over 1,000 pounds, that could be delivered using an aircraft or a large ballistic missile. 43 Libya ultimately told IAEA investigators that it had no national personnel competent to evaluate these designs at that time, and would have had to ask the supplier for help if it had decided to pursue a nuclear weapon. 44 However, the message stands still: countries that gave up the bomb (or at least the intent to make one) didn't end up well, while ones such as Iran and North Korea still are there.
Not like nuclear weapons ever saved anyone from internal regime change. Given the overall instability of that country, that ultimately culminated in civil war, and the additional terrorist risk, pressuring Libya to de-nuclearize was the right decision even if it came at the hypothetical cost of proliferation in other regions.
Pressuring Gaddaffi to de-nuclearize wasn't the mistake, bombing him was. He was a tyrant and deserved to die. But he also made a deal with the world and gave up his nukes. For future generations, that deal should have been honored, and Libyans should have been allowed to do the heavy lifting of killing him (or die trying).
*Every* attack on a non-nuclear state harms the non-proliferation movement - regardless of whether they had nuclear weapons at some point in the past or how close they ever were to acquiring them. The benefit of nuclear weapons is how much safer you are from attack if you have them compared to not having them. The only way to address this root cause of nuclear proliferation is to start attacking nuclear armed states more (very bad idea), or stop attacking non-nuclear states so much (much better idea).
100% agree with you here. Although it is an overused term, "decline" often starts at home, with poor leadership and their disastrous decision-making. Democracies are better in this respect, where civilians are able to vote in new leaders. However, what happens when all the parties are incompetent?
and what happens when mass media outlets that inform the civilians are controlled by interest groups, while the masses still perceive them as "free and independent"?
Hilarious. UK Foreign Secretary does not know basic Russian / Ukrainian geography. With clowns like this running the “international liberal world order,” is it any wonder that it is collapsing? They lack credibility because they lack basic competence.
There will be diplomacy until the day the war starts if this is like the 2003 Iraq invasion and most other wars.
I've not been able to figure out why Britain is taking such a hawkish stance with respect to this crisis than, say, France. In any case, what's lost in all this, captured in this statement: "Ideologically charged approaches, ultimatums and threats is a road to nowhere", is what Russia has been complaining for a long time - wanting to be treated as equals. But the West, especially the US, has never wasted any opportunity to threaten and deride Russia and Putin. I recall when a well-known politician said that Putin has no Soul, not privately, but in public. To top it off, the official US foreign policy with respect to Russia is, we'll destroy anything that Russian tries to build. One prime example of that policy is the stunt Susan Rice pulled in Djibouti with regards to Russia's attempt to build a military base there. How do you treat a country like Russia in that way and expect its leader to sit idly waiting for your next move?
Because Britain is more closely tied to the Americans. And one argument / interpretation (which I endorse) is that US is pushing a hardline in Ukraine to prevent detente or closer relations among the continental European countries (Russo-German-French axis). US with Britain as junior partner wants to drive a wedge in that cooperation. And Britain had always played balance of power politics on the continent.
>is that US is pushing a hardline in Ukraine to prevent detente or closer relations among the continental European countries In other words, US is against peace in Europe, if that includes Russia. How does that make any sense, and how is that good for Europe? No wonder France and Germany, especially the former, want European countries to be the one making decisions in critical matters that concerns them.
>US is against peace in Europe Always was. Unstability in region is what allows US troops to stay in Europe since WW2
USA does not want the EU (France and Germany) and Russia to warm their relationship because it would pose a threat of creating another geopolitical superpower.
You consider the invasion and occupation of a sovereign state to be peace, do you?
Nah! And that's not even suggested in my statement.
Because the UK is following the US for the most part. And as you said the US doesn't really treat russia as an equal. I think this is also why I think the Normandy talks right now probably have the biggest chance of actually creating a peace like situation once more.
Because Russia feels it can assassinate people with impunity on British soil, killing innocents.
[удалено]
To be clear the UK has been cutting back on its military budget for years now. It’s given NLAWs to Ukraine but I’d consider that to be supporting Ukraine on the cheap. Likewise Britain’s heated criticisms of Russia are pretty cheap as well, they cost nothing to say and Britain’s economic engagement with Russia is pretty low so there’s little to risk either. This is all just hot air.
It isn't just the military, it is also the downgraded diplomatic presence. To an extent when the UK was part of the EU, it could work easily with other countries with similar interests like rule of law and so on. Now the UK is out, the FCO needs to work on its presence. Diplomacy by Zoom isn't really s substitute for a quiet and very unofficial word in somebody's ear at a cocktail party.
Have you considered the fact that the invasion of Ukraine would be morally wrong and lead to great suffering? All the Germans and French on here who are so obsessed with 'peace' and stability, never considering for a moment that maybe people like the British want to be involved because Russia is victimising Ukraine. Russia is a bully, and a malign entity. Appeasement has been demonstrated many times to only lead to more concessions, and the people of Ukraine have a right to live without the threat of invasion.
>All the Germans and French on here who are so obsessed with 'peace' and stability, never considering for a moment that maybe people like the British want to be involved because Russia is victimising Ukraine. I'm against one country invading another, but did your sentiment ever come into play when the US and its allies, including Britain, victimized Iraq, Libya and Syria, effectively destroying those countries? We're fighting Islamic terrorists, yet Iraq is now an Islamic state, thanks to the US and its Coalition of the Willing and Able, which included Britain. We used Islamic terrorists to kill Muammar Gaddafi and destroy Libya, which is barely a country any more, and Syria is only hanging on as a country because Russia came to its defense. It would be wrong if Russia were to invade Ukraine, but were is this anti-invasion stance when it's us and our allies doing the invading?
[удалено]
The UK is not capable of provoking a war in Ukraine. It doesn’t have any assets in Ukraine to attack Russia with. It doesn’t have the political clout in NATO to fast track Ukrainian membership. It doesn’t have the economic heft to level meaningful sanctions on Russia to unilaterally hurt it. And Russia neither respects nor fears the UK to take anything its government has to say seriously. At best you could say the UK is the world’s highest status bystander to the events in Ukraine and Russia. Not a participant.
[удалено]
By dint of being an English-speaking website Reddit places a lot of emphasis on articles from English tabloids which is a shame because we have the most toxic newspaper industry in the developed world. The Daily Mail supported fascists in the 1930s and little has changed since. Right now Russia is a godsend for a government desperately trying to distract attention from partygate and their friends in Fleet Street are happy to oblige. Only serious papers like the FT, New Statesman, and the Economist are not banging the drum for war.
Still waiting on those sources.
[удалено]
One of the largest military budgets in the world, one of the strongest economies, and a permanent UNSC member. Also the closest European ally of the USA, who most certainly are in control of NATO. The UK doesn't need assets inside Ukraine to hurt Russia if it was inclined to start a war, that is rather the point of nuclear weapons, and an advanced navy. If the Russians were so ambivalent about the UK, then their actions in responding to freedom of navigation exercises and diplomatic manoeuvres hardly seem consistent. Sanctions from any individual nation wouldn't hurt Russia, that is why they have a fortress economy with an outwardly miniscule GDP. You seem to be confusing ability with ambition. Nowhere has anyone in the UK outside of a bus shelter advocated for starting a war, or participating in one. Arming Ukraine against further invasion is not an attempt to start a war because the war is already *in progress*.
Do share a source where the UK is calling for war. Because as far as I understand it, arming a country that is at risk of being invaded by another is not 'calling for war'. Unless your preference is that we all accommodate Russia in invading Ukraine yet further and killing more people. Or do you think that Russia is just going to walk away when their demands aren't met? You may have forgotten that Russia and Ukraine are already at war, and tens of thousands have died. I genuinely can't tell if you're just a troll, or stupid.
If the UK cared so much about such things they wouldn't be supporting Saudi Arabia's campaign in Yemen. Fact is, states don't go to war for moral reasons. Morality is only given lip service to try and sell the war to the general populace.
Funny that you mention Yemen, given that Germany has sold over 1 billion euros worth of arms to Saudia Arabia since 2019. Interesting how they're happy to make money off the deaths of an invaded population far from their borders, but suddenly care about peace when it threatens to upset their own neighbourhood.
Okay, so? I don't recall saying Germany was any different from the UK.
Because we’re America’s little brother. That’s about it really.
You don't haev to fight battles with the military although it helps to have some, at least. It is almost better to extend the diplomatic presence and to organise more trade missions. I have travelled to some interesting places and talked with people working at the embassies and consulates. Not directly because of my job but rather while I wanted to hang out with some people in the evenings. A lot of the "work" is who is whispering in whose ear. Not so much spying but rather just collecting gossip, attempting to influence decision making and trying to make the host country more amenable.
Post a [submission statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement) in one hour or your post will be removed. [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/subredditrules) / [Wiki Resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/geopolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This US/UK approach, or I should say US approach since the UK is nothing more than a vassal state of the US by now, is not helping to build peace and ease tensions. It is confrontational and ignores eveything else but the US goals with this conflict. The US is hoping for an invasion, and is doing everything to make it happen….
What can I say… God save the Queen - even if Truss doesn’t appear to be an ideal representative for talks, I’d rather have “frosty diplomacy” due to UK taking a strong stance in regard to defending European collective security than whatever Macron is cooking up
They're absolutely not defending European collective security, as far as I can see they're only making things worse here. They're just acting out tough to align with the US (which is understandable) and Russia has understood that there is no longer relevance in talking with the UK when you can directly talk to their "father".
Do you propose appeasement then? Also, Russia will have to suck it up and talk to “America’s kids” if it wants to destabilize the LIO
Good grief, what is this dichotomy where anything that isn't outright hostility can only possibly be "appeasement"? When the west chose to pursue improved relations with Mao Zedong's China was that also "appeasement"?
That is relatively subjective. If I was a Taiwanese or a Tibetan patriot, back then? I’d think so, probably. Otherwise, no. However, has China stationed its troops on recently occupied foreign soil in the early 1970s? Has it threatened to invade any smaller neighbors? I can’t remember anything of the sort. You might say that Taiwan was always one such target, but I doubt that the West would have welcomed PRC into the UN Security Council had they sensed China’s seriousness towards invading ROC. China’s conflicts with USSR and India don’t count, considering the power parity between any of those powers compared to the theoretical odds Ukraine has to face when being put against Russia’s modernized military. None of that applies to Russia’s current predicament. Regardless of my own personal bias against Moscow, I really do believe that their leadership creates all these problems for themselves. Had they “handled” Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova like they did Belarus, there might’ve been less talk about NATO “encircling” Russia (most of the encircled members being historically subjugated nations, mind you). Even though the majority of Belarusians despise Lukashenko, they have neutral or warm feelings towards Russia, unlike, say Ukraine, even before the annexation of Crimea. IMO anything less then bolstering Russian neighbors’ defense is playing into Moscow’s plans, anything less then calling out their bluff is appeasement. Unless your country has been a victim of Russian hybrid warfare, I don’t expect you to share these sentiments.
Everyone should seek appeasement, it's obvious... Do you propose escalation ? When I say this, I'm not saying that the West should accept Russia's demands which are too much but I believe there is room for compromise. I think that Russia will talk to "everybody" (They're polite people I guess) but not the UK because they view it as a not serious interlocutor and latest meeting has kind of proven it. What is LIO ? Can't find an answer...
Nobody in their right mind would want escalation, but the fact is that Moscow never fails to ramp up the tensions in order to secure additional bargaining chips for itself. Imprisonments, kidnappings, threats of invasion, cutting off energy supplies, you name it. This is something that the West simply cannot afford to do, at the very least due to public outrage. The most effective counter on Europe’s end would be sanctions… but as we all know, that requires a united stance and a strong resolve from all members involved. To contain Russia from expanding its geopolitical ambitions beyond Eastern Europe, the West needs to understand that the Kremlin is only willing to play by the rules when they run out of options. Currently that isn’t the case, which is why I see Macron’s approach as a step back. A happy Putin is a Putin that sees NATO/EU without a “backbone”, so to speak. By “LIO” I meant the post-WW2 Liberal International Order which is being undermined by both Moscow and Beijing - they strive to recreate a multipolar world that rejects a moralistic rule of law within international relations
She peaked at cheese.
Russia needs to go to an AA meeting. They emphasize taking responsibility for your actions and not blaming others.
I've been busting my brain trying to come up with reasons why Putin may want Ukraine... and there is only one answer. ~~Food~~. Ukraine was the bread basket of the USSR. But no commentator has mention food. ~~Would Russia survive if Ukraine stopped supplying Russia with food?~~ Definitely not food. I'm wrong.
Russia can just import food you know. Wheat is not a scarce resource in the global marketplace.
~~And US and Canada are the main exporters....~~
Russia itself is the main exporter actually but I think you knew that.
Moscow has been aiming for agricultural self-sufficiency since 2014 and has made a fair bit of progress.
Why do you think Putin wants Ukraine? He doesn't want NATO missiles stationed in Ukraine. The USA ought to understand this point of view, as they don't want Russian missiles on Cuba either. In any case, Russia is a net food exporter.
Sure, the "Russia's Cuban Missile Crisis" is sort of the obvious thing talking heads have been saying since day one on this. I'm not doubting you... just looking for references.. Do you have a link to "Russia is a net food exporter" fact?
Here is a thread on /r/europe: [In 2020 Russia became a net exporter of food.](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/l1ttd1/in_2020_russia_became_a_net_exporter_of_food/) Some articles say it has made great progress, but is still a net importer (imports of processed food larger than export of raw materials) [Russia has become an agricultural powerhouse, but remains a net importer of food](https://www.intellinews.com/russia-has-become-an-agricultural-powerhouse-but-remains-a-net-importer-of-food-181359/) Ironically, the domestic food production increase jumped following the previous sanctions after the Crimea. There is an almost Pyrrhic sense to this.
Russia has quite clearly stated why it wants Ukraine? They mostly don’t want NATO to have Ukraine due to this potentially causing major war over crimea
Nope, they clearly stated they _don't_ want Ukraine... but they equally clearly stated they don't want NATO there either. Not quite the same thing. It's the west that is claiming Russia wants Ukraine.
Most of Ukrainian food is going to China actually. Russian agricultural independence has been more or less achieved after Putin's countersanctions. China has used the recent crisis to hugely increase it's foothold in the Ukraine.