Why

[Suff]

Could work.

But I'm not sure it meets the political agenda of sticking it to the corrupt west.

[Workingman]

Nord Stream 1 & 2 and Turk Stream make the Ukrainian network redundant to Russian interests. The only line, from Voronezh to Rostov-on-Don, which feeds into Turk Stream near Krasnodar, is the only one Russia cares about - it's in the Ukrainian Donbas.

Ukraine, with not unsubstantial reserves of its own, could still serve Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and beyond on its own terms, free of Gazprom and Russia.

There is a deal to be done, if it is wanted. Yes, Ukraine loses Donbas and some other areas, but it has little control over them anyway.

Putin wants ethnic Russians back in the welcoming arms of Mother Russia. It plays well at home - 'We are looking after our own' - sod the West.

All out war is not inevitable, despite what the hawks want.

[Suff]

All out war is not inevitable, despite what the hawks want.

Agreed, but, also, there is the issue of creeping border transition. If you don't make a stand on Every land grab, every other potential land grab seems more possible.

Where do you take the first step? After the USSR rolled back again, there was little appetite for the type of land grab that happened after the end of WW2. Hence the sabre rattling. What I do know is that with the EU focusing mostly on the economy and the US being regularly isolated within Nato, outright war is unlikely.

The upshot for me is more damage to Nato rather than outright war.

[saundra]

I don't mean to be treating this light hearted
Because it's very serious
But according to the DM
Spain arnt sending 2jets till April ??
So they will have to wait ?

[Suff]

The EU only has one offensive force now, it's France. Planes from Spain? Not going to do much.

[Workingman]

Also war is not imminent, despite what the media says.

Ukraine's borders have been fluid since about the 12th century. The bit I am talking about, the area from the right bank of the Dnieper river, was actually sold to Russia in about 1690. It was at the start of WW2 that Ukraine SSR expanded to todays borders. Khrushchev, as leader of the USSR, then allowed the transfer of the Crimea from Russia to Ukraine.

This land-grab thing is a lot more complicated than it first looks.

[Suff]

It is. I've said this often over the years about how climate change is going to cause havoc because our borders are now totally fixed and nothing but war or treaties can change them. So in Africa when climate forces migration borders get in the way.

That being said, what Khrushchev did was to sign an international treaty. No point in beating up the UK about our treaty obligations then letting others just ignore them. Tends to rile people up and riled people cause fights and fights between countries are wars.

[Workingman]

Khrushchev was Ukrainian by birth and head of the Soviet Union, he simply handed Crimea over from the Russian SSR to the Ukraine SSR - no treaty needed. They were both in the USSR.

I do hope that we have historians in our war meetings to explain these things to our politicians.

[Suff]

I do hope that we have historians in our war meetings to explain these things to our politicians.

Explanations are one thing. Listening? Entirely another art.

[Workingman]

It really bugs me.

Anyone would think that Ukraine as we knew it prior to the annexation of Crimea in 2014 always existed.

It's a myth. It was Ukrania, an area of land in the ancient Kievan Rus empire. It was fought over by the Poland - Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Ottoman Empires. Under the Ottomans its region stretched from its western border with Poland into present day Russia - it was a vassal state. When the Ottoman Empire started to disintegrate Tsar Nicholas fought back - Ukraine then became a vassal state of Russia.

From my reading Ukraine has never been and independent country in the sense most of us understand

That's not to say we should let it go, but we should also understand where it sits in the grand scheme of things, from an historical perspective..