Russian Foreign Policy

Clinton regrets persuading Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons

Former US president Bill Clinton has expressed regret about his role in persuading Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994. Mr Clinton suggested that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if Kyiv still had its nuclear deterrent.
www.rte.ie

I thought Clinton's comments were revealing, in that the sense of obligation to Ukraine by the US, is probably stronger than the public commentary suggests. Notwithstanding the strategic rationale of course.
 
Yes, and I hope it is also a factor in China's reluctance to aid Russia. By the Budapest treaty they should be aiding Ukraine.
 
BBC said:
According to research carried out by Andrew Knapp, history professor at the UK's University of Reading, British, American and Canadian air raids resulted in 57,000 French civilian losses in World War Two.
Click to expand...
 
Belarus has begun taking delivery of Russian tactical nuclear weapons as an influential Kremlin adviser said that Moscow could launch nuclear strikes on Europe to “break” the West’s support for Ukraine.

“We have missiles and bombs that we have received from Russia,” Alexander Lukashenko, the Belarusian dictator, said in an interview with Russian state television. “The bombs are three times more powerful than those [dropped on) Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
........
Lukashenko said he would not hesitate to use them if required but would do so only in consultation with the Kremlin. “God forbid I have to make a decision to use those weapons today, but there would be no hesitation if we face an aggression,” he said.

Putin deploys nuclear weapons in response to Ukraine counteroffensive

Belarus received the bombs and missiles from Moscow
www.thetimes.co.uk
 
The deployment really changes very little. It does allow Russia to both deploy troops from there and to launch missile and artillery strikes with a reduced chance of retaliation from Ukraine but it's already effectively a part of Russia from an economic, military and political perspective. It does increase the chances of more internal political unrest as 80% of the urban population is against the deployment but Russia will provide whatever muscle is required to keep Lukashenko in power. That said the Russian military is very stretched and deploying in a country the same size as Britain isn't something that would be strategically desirable.
 
I think there is a growing threat of a nuclear attack from Russia though. Putin knows he's going to eventually lose otherwise and will do anything to stay in power. I hope China put pressure on him though...
 
Firefly said:
I think there is a growing threat of a nuclear attack from Russia though. Putin knows he's going to eventually lose otherwise and will do anything to stay in power. I hope China put pressure on him though...
Click to expand...
That's always been the case. That's why a quick and decisive victory over Russia was never the best option. We need time for people in Russia to think through the consequences and have a plan in place to stop him and we need some sort of a negotiated agreement that gives him a fig leaf to present as a victory in Russia.
I think the recognition of Crimea as part of Russia and a guarantee that Ukraine will not cut off their water supply will be agreed eventually.
 
Purple said:
That's always been the case. That's why a quick and decisive victory over Russia was never the best option.
Click to expand...
Putin's sole aim is to survive. It's the classic dictator's dilemma - if he loses power, he's basically dead cos the next guy has no incentive to allow him to live. He's lost the chance of victory. He can't even draw. He's in roughly the same position as Saddam Hussein after Gulf War 1. Accept an imposed peace that he will huff and puff and call a victory. That way he gets to live for a while longer. Going nuclear isn't an option - that's the one thing that ensures he won't survive.

Purple said:
We need time for people in Russia to think through the consequences and have a plan in place to stop him...
Click to expand...
Yes, a successor can blame Putin for everything and wipe the slate clean!

Purple said:
and we need some sort of a negotiated agreement that gives him a fig leaf to present as a victory in Russia.
Click to expand...
He's a dictator. He doesn't need fig leaves. He rules by coercion. We need him to be humiliated.

Purple said:
I think the recognition of Crimea as part of Russia and a guarantee that Ukraine will not cut off their water supply will be agreed eventually.
Click to expand...
I very much doubt that. After all Ukraine has been through, that won't happen.
 
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia wrapped up what was for him an extraordinary and sometimes rambling week of upbeat commentary on the Ukraine war by asserting on Friday that Russia was so assured of prevailing against the Ukrainian counteroffensive that he had ruled out using nuclear weapons.

Putin Asserts Ukraine’s Counteroffensive Has ‘No Chance’ at Economic Forum

By claiming to be in control at a pivotal moment, critics say, he can no longer pass any military failures off on others.
www.nytimes.com

Great if true, but we know the Double Speak Putin is more than capable of..
 
President Higgins has weighted in on the issue of Irish Neutrality and shown yet again that he has no respect for the office he holds. His support for murderous pseudo-left wing dictators hasn't waned with age but his willingness to walk all over the traditions and protocols of his office is stronger than ever.
He is a man bereft of humility, so much so that he thinks his opinion is more important than the integrity of the office of President. I won't go as far as saying that he's a supporter of Russia as I don't believe he is but he's certainly what Communists referred to as a useful idiot.
 

The Consultative Forum starts today and the first panel discussion was absolutely fantastic - including respectful contributions from Matt Carty, Clare Daly(?!) and Ed Horgan (a stark contrast to the anti-democratic bigots that disrupted the start).

The program is here. Streamed live here.

In relation to the thread some interesting talks:

Today: 11.30am- 12.30am: European security post-Russian invasion of Ukraine and implications for Ireland, 2.25 – 3.40pm: New and emerging threats: Cyber security
23 June: 11.15am–12.30pm: Ireland as a global actor: UN peacekeeping and the “Triple Lock”, 2.00pm - 3.15pm: Ireland as a global actor: Conflict resolution, peacebuilding, international law and accountability
26 June: All relevant
27 June: 09.10am-10.10am: Challenges to global peace and security: Considerations for the future, 3.00pm-4.00pm: Ireland’s military neutrality: a historical perspective, 4.05pm-5.20pm: Neutrality: definitions, options and implications
 
Until recently I thought I was able to follow the course of events in Ukraine easily from the mainstream press. There was a clear picture of events, which appeared coherent and carried the impression of being reasonably true.

Recently this has changed. The long heralded Ukranian counter offensive seems to have begun in early June, but since then, nothing, no indication if it succeeding or failing. Is this just reflective of real uncertainty and the parties not wanting the world to see them in action, or is there something else going on.
 

I think that the press provides a reasonable account of what's going on but generally not enough detail to answer all questions raised or implied. I find twitter great for that as you can find analysts providing top quality analysis with better background/context.
 
I've started another thread on this issue so as not to derail this one.
 
Unbelievable developments. Surely Putin is prepared for a Wagner revolt, always a risk. The thing about guns for hire, is that they are for hire. Prigozhin has nothing to lose now, hard to see a place for him in the hierarchy, other than the top of it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register