Ukraine and NATO v Russia

Thanks so much for these thoughts from Bob and Robert.

I don't think Bob's views are a minority in Left Unity.  Surely not.  There is, certainly, nothing there that I can disagree with.  It is so good to hear and to be reminded of Russian aggression.  I love to point out our own aggression, violence and lawlessness down the centuries, simply because we all in the West have a duty, first and foremost, to hold our own politicians and people to the very highest standards of conduct, starting with ourselves.  I can influence my own local and regional people in power but not in other countries, like Russia (unless I drop in on their London Embassy that Bob is challenging me to do).

I am trying to bend over backwards to understand the Russian/Putin point of view.  On yesterday's 'World at One', (interview starts at 15:42)Johnny Dymond interviewed Vyacheslav Nikonov (I think was the name) the First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs and a grandson of Molotov, the Russian Foreign Minister in 1939, Dymond said.  He began with "Russia's intentions are the great mystery behind the military build-up around Ukraine."

Nikonov thought, "NATO is building up on our Russian borders ... British, American troops have come there" (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia). ... In the documents of that Alliance (NATO), Russia is enemy no 1 ... And for us, NATO pushing up against our borders is the same sort of challenge (as the West invading Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries). ... We do not want World War 2 to repeat."

Self-reflection and change is more desirable, I think, than pointing out the wickedness of the Russian Evil Empire (Reagan in 1983), as our politicians so love to provocatively denounce.  One friend told me the other day, "Putin looks evil".  In contrast to Lavrov, from what I have seen of him on TV, who looks more like a great huggable Russian bear!  Calling people evil is not great diplomacy for harmonious, peaceful co-existence!

It seems extraordinary that making any slight concession to Russia, even over suggesting to Ukraine that, for the benefit of avoiding war they might, just, possibly, drop their insistence that they join NATO, is called appeasement - like 1938.

Thanks again, Bob and Robert for your reflections.  By the way, Bob what are your reasons for being less than enamoured with Stop the War?

FROM BOB WHITEHEAD:

Stop the War began in opposition to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and played a very important role, I went to most of their demos and local meetings.
I cooled off after they failed to oppose the Russian backing of Assad during the Syrian revolution, but I am still close to them when it comes to Palestine, Nato etc.
The question to ask Stop the War today, is which war are you talking about? If it is all wars that makes it a pacifist outfit. So as I presume it is not a pacifist organisation, which war are we talking about?
Bob