So is Putin going to invade Ukraine anytime soon or..?

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

40 minutes ago, horsefly said:

The idea that these were the only demands of Putin you were "referring to" in your previous posts suggests you haven't re-read them.  You seem to have forgotten you said the following: 

"Zelensky has got it wrong. His stance costs thousands and may be millions of his fellow countrymen's lives, the eventual destruction of his country and the risk of WW3. He should give way to Russian demands" (12/03/22) ( Feel free to remind us what the full list of Russian demands were at that time).

"The only victory in all this will result from appeasement and not dying bravely in the streets." (12/03)

"My view is that the majority of Russians do not want to return to the days of the USSR.. Putin is a relic. A dangerous relic that can only be dealt with by appeasement because he has managed to assume ultimate power of a country with undeniable powers." (12/03)

 

" 

 

I cannot in any way see in what that lengthy and clearly time-consuming reply contradicts any point I made.

"Give way to Russian demands" ie: NATO, Donbas. The only other demand I am aware of was interpreted as the demilitarisation of the Ukraine, but this was clearly out of the question and made before talks in any case.   

That there was 'previous' between the two countries that led to the build up of forces at the moment it happened is undeniable. We can no more have access to that 'previous' than we can understand the Russian mentality that leads to this extreme suspicion of what they perceive as Western expansion on their borders.

If, therefore, the movement of his troops crossing the border was considered by Putin to be his "crossing of the Rubicon" moment then outright conquest could well have become his intention.

That the Ukrainian resistance has thwarted this intention is something to be pleased about, despite the cost.

The  information coming out now is that there are "positive moves" in the latest peace talks.

I hopefully suggest that the outcome of these talks means that Donbas situation is resolved, and that some of the sanctions are lifted  in such a way  that Putin can claim some face-saving success and that the carnage, which involves the destruction of towns and the slaughter of thousands, finally ends.

There will have been no winners.  Putin can lick his wounds and address the growing discontent within his own country, and Zelensky can be thankful that is country is no longer occupied.

I am not quite sure what the intention of your stance is. Are you suggesting that the Ukrainians should fight to the death, or are you underestimating the potential of the Russian war machine by believing that Putin will just cut and run sooner rather than later?

   

  

Edited March 30, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[Yellow Fever 3,785]

52 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

I cannot in any way see in what that lengthy and clearly time-consuming reply contradicts any point I made.

"Give way to Russian demands" ie: NATO, Donbas. The only other demand I am aware of was interpreted as the demilitarisation of the Ukraine, but this was clearly out of the question and made before talks in any case.   

That there was 'previous' between the two countries that led to the build up of forces at the moment it happened is undeniable. We can no more have access to that 'previous' than we can understand the Russian mentality that leads to this extreme suspicion of what they perceive as Western expansion on their borders.

If, therefore, the movement of his troops crossing the border was considered by Putin to be his "crossing of the Rubicon" moment then outright conquest could well have become his intention.

That the Ukrainian resistance has thwarted this intention is something to be pleased about, despite the cost.

The  information coming out now is that there are "positive moves" in the latest peace talks.

I hopefully suggest that the outcome of these talks means that Donbas situation is resolved, and that some of the sanctions are lifted  in such a way  that Putin can claim some face-saving success and that the carnage, which involves the destruction of towns and the slaughter of thousands, finally ends.

There will have been no winners.  Putin can lick his wounds and address the growing discontent within his own country, and Zelensky can be thankful that is country is no longer occupied.

I am not quite sure what the intention of your stance is. Are you suggesting that the Ukrainians should fight to the death, or are you underestimating the potential of the Russian war machine by believing that Putin will just cut and run sooner rather than later?

   

  

Guys - I see two camps or trains of thought out there.

1. 'Might is Right'  that basically concedes at the onset that what Russia wants it gets and then better for everybody not to fight about it. Its a rational position providing its not you that are being occupied or otherwise enslaved. Then again it also assumes that Putin would be satisfied with his latest gains and not try again elsewhere. Slippery slope is appeasement.

2. 'Draw the Line'. Basically we need to uphold the rule on international law & order. Putin's invasion and war against Ukraine is illegal & unjustifiable and needs to be confronted. He can not be allowed to gain territory by these actions.

Neither of these positions preclude the Ukrainians coming to some arrangement with Russia - I can see historically (or at least in the near history) that Crimea when it wasn't Ottoman or Tatar might be Russian but not really Ukrainian. Donbass and Luhansk are however historically part of Ukraine despite the relatively recent Soviet population movement.

For the record I'm in the 'draw the line' camp.

    

Edited March 30, 2022 by Yellow Fever
Forgot to add the 'Out of this World' camp of the extreme left and right that basically agree with Putin.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Guys - I see two camps or trains of thought out there.

1. 'Might is Right'  that basically concedes at the onset that what Russia wants it gets and then better for everybody not to fight about it. Its a rational position providing its not you that are being occupied or otherwise enslaved. Then again it also assumes that Putin would be satisfied with his latest gains and not try again elsewhere. Slippery slope is appeasement.

2. 'Draw the Line'. Basically we need to uphold the rule on international law & order. Putin's invasion and war against Ukraine is illegal & unjustifiable and needs to be confronted. He can not be allowed to gain territory by these actions.

Neither of these positions preclude the Ukrainians coming to some arrangement with Russia - I can see historically (or at least in the near history) that Crimea when it wasn't Ottoman or Tatar might be Russian but not really Ukrainian. Donbass and Luhansk are however historically part of Ukraine despite the relatively recent Soviet population movement.

For the record I'm in the 'draw the line' camp.

    

A good summary, and I'm with you in number 2 in principle simply as the precedent it sets could encourage any powerful regional despot to feast on smaller adjoining states. Can see number 1 or something similar prevailing as realpolitik though in a solution that's enough to get a peace, but leaves both parties a bit disgruntled.

Will point out that the Åland crisis could have some intriguing parallels and is indeed seen as an example where a peace treaty did have a positive, long-lasting effect. Ålanders wanted to go back to Sweden after WW1 (so I strongly suspect the Russian-speaking inhabitants of the Donbas region will be agitated by Putin and cronies to this effect to provide a theoretical justification).

However, despite this wish by the Ålanders to go back to Sweden, they were told Finland would maintain rule over them but maintain a brand of semi-autonomy that seems about the same as the Faroe Islands with Denmark. Except Åland has been demilitarised for over 150 years.

Åland Islands dispute - Wikipedia

Edited March 30, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

"2. 'Draw the Line'. Basically we need to uphold the rule on international law & order. Putin's invasion and war against Ukraine is illegal & unjustifiable and needs to be confronted. He can not be allowed to gain territory by these actions."

The only realistic confrontation  needs to be by the West, and this could involve the unspeakable.  Ukraine stands alone because the West, whilst feeding Zelensky with weapons and emotions and waffle about the illegal invasion of a sovereign country, makes it clear that it has no intention of getting involved. Even the imposition of a no-fly zone is seen as too risky. 

I suppose this in itself can be interpreted as 'appeasement,' but this is not 1939 and the aggressor has a sizeable nuclear arsenal. Might is proving to be right and being unpredictable and ruthless is a sinsister ace that Putin has up his sleeve.  

I genuinely believe that the only way Putin can be defeated is by forces within his own country. How much that would result from an appeal to ordinary Russians and a growing reality of what is actually going on in Ukraine, or how much that would  result from the effects of sanctions we can only guess. 

With 900, 000 regulars, 3, 000, 000 conscripts and mercenaries fully equipped with 21st century weaponry I cannot see him being defeated by Ukraine if it becomes his intention to pursue this to the end even if it means a costly war of attrition.

The fact that he is being financed by China and India and by the continued sale of gas to certain European countries refutes the prediction that he will run out of funds, and the capability of efficient weapon replacement by the Russian war machine is well known. 

Concessions, appeasement, 'might is right,' call it what you want. The only way to stop this carnage is to give ground so that Putin can save sufficient face and convince himself and his supporters that he has been the victor.

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[Yellow Fever 3,785]

But this is where you are wrong - 

The only realistic confrontation  needs to be by the West, and this could involve the unspeakable.  Ukraine stands alone because the West, whilst feeding Zelensky with weapons and emotions and waffle about the illegal invasion of a sovereign country, makes it clear that it has no intention of getting involved. Even the imposition of a no-fly zone is seen as too risky. 

We don't wish to escalate the situation (which is not of our making) but the Ukrainians have already proved (yes with some limited defensive weapons) that they are more than capable already of confronting Putin (no quick walkover) whereas our sanctions on Russia are already destroying its economy.

[kirku 1,332]

12 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

1) With 900, 000 regulars, 3, 000, 000 conscripts and mercenaries fully equipped with 21st century weaponry I cannot see him being defeated by Ukraine if it becomes his intention to pursue this to the end even if it means a costly war of attrition.

2) The capability of efficient weapon replacement by the Russian war machine is well known. 

3) The only way to stop this carnage is to give ground so that Putin can save sufficient face and convince himself and his supporters that he has been the victor.

 

1) I'm not sure where you got these numbers from, but they're incorrect. The 900,000 often quoted (but in reality false) number of Russian troops includes conscripts (which number just over a third of the total) and is the total of their entire military.

It has been assessed that Russia assembled 75% of its military force in Ukraine, and the number of men (as much as that's a relevant proxy for power, which it isn't) was around 190,000.

 

2) Is it? Based on what? This war had demonstrated quite the opposite

 

3) This is verifiable nonsense:

Did Russian actions in Grozny or Aleppo stop what happened at Mariupol?

Did the annexation of Crimea and parts of Georgia stop the 2022 invasion of Ukraine?

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by kirku

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

36 minutes ago, kirku said:

1) I'm not sure where you got these numbers from, but they're incorrect. The 900,000 often quoted (but in reality false) number of Russian troops includes conscripts (which number just over a third of the total).

It has been assessed that Russia assembled 75% of its military force in Ukraine, and the number of men (as much as that's a relevant proxy for power, which it isn't) was around 190,000.

 

2) Is it? Based on what? This war had demonstrated quite the opposite

 

3) This is verifiable nonsense:

Did Russian actions in Grozny or Aleppo stop what happened at Mariupol?

Did the annexation of Crimea and parts of Georgia stop the 2022 invasion of Ukraine?

 

No 1. Your figures and deductions are as disputable as you claim mine to be.  I got mine from the internet, having no access to the sensitive military secrets of the Russian state:

"Russia's military vastly outguns that of Ukraine, with a budget of between $40bn to $65bn and 900,000 active military personnel across land, sea and air. The country also boasts around two million reservists. Russia's active military includes 280,000 soldiers, 165,000 air personnel and 150,000 naval troops."

No. 2. Do you then dispute Russia's ability to re-arm with efficiency? I don't as they have certainly proven that they can in the past. The only problem there would be funding. 

 

Number 3 concerns. If you are suggesting that Putin will take his aggression further when this war is over because he has can claim victory in the Ukraine, then what are your suggested means of preventing him?  Full scale military confrontation? If so, should that be by the West? NATO?

 

Are you that certain of Putin's own survival?

 

I personally find it difficult to surmise the future when innocents are being slaughtered in the present. What will be the next Mariupol if this war continues? Odessa? Kyiv?

 

Iam quite sure that the beleaguered people of Mariupol are more concerned with survival for the now than Vladimir Putin's perceived future intentions and that they certainly do not see a route to salvation as "verifiable nonsense," whatever it involves.

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[ricardo 7,395]

2 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

.

I hopefully suggest that the outcome of these talks means that Donbas situation is resolved, and that some of the sanctions are lifted  in such a way  that Putin can claim some face-saving success and that the carnage, which involves the destruction of towns and the slaughter of thousands, finally ends.

 

   

  

Wishful thinking. Putin is not interested in anything short of a victory that results in the elimination of an independant Ukraine. He knows that anything less than this means his own demise so any cease fire will be temporary and although best for the Ukrainian people in the short term, it merely extends the conflict and allows Russia a rest between rounds.

If he is successful it won't be the end, because Ukraine on its own does not solve his problem of securing his western flank. Moldova has to be next, then the Baltic states and maybe even a grab of half of eastern Poland. This obviously triggers a NATO response and risk of WW3.

To counter this Putin has to somehow split NATO and it would seem to me if he thinks he could detatch Germany or Turkey by using the threat of turning off the gas then his prospects improve. Whether this is possible is hard to forecast but our best bet at the present time is feeding weapons into Ukraine while it still exists as a sovereign nation and to support any insurgency if it doesn't. A brutal solution indeed but bleeding Putin of men and material seems to be the obvious way to go to prevent a full on European war.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by ricardo

[ricardo 7,395]

46 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

 

 

Iam quite sure that the beleaguered people of Mariupol are more concerned with survival for the now than Vladimir Putin's perceived future intentions and that they certainly not see a route to salvation as "verifiable nonsense," whatever it involves.

 

 

 

In the smaller picture nobody would disagree with that. Unfortunately there is a much bigger picture.

[horsefly 4,300]

3 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

cannot in any way see in what that lengthy and clearly time-consuming reply contradicts any point I made.

I guess it speaks volumes for your lack of research skills that you think a response that took a couple of minutes was "clearly time consuming".  The simple fact is you were, and have remained, critical of Zelensky for resisting the Russian invasion which very clearly aimed at achieving outcomes way beyond those you are now conveniently claiming to be the case. I repeat again, these are your exact words, "Zelensky has got it wrong. His stance costs thousands and may be millions of his fellow countrymen's lives, the eventual destruction of his country and the risk of WW3. He should give way to Russian demands". Those Russian demands were far more extensive than the ones you are now claiming to be what you wanted Zelensky to appease. We would not be anywhere near the current negotiations and a much reduced Russian set of demands, had Zelensky followed your advice and not resisted the Russian invasion. Try being honest for a change.

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

In the smaller picture nobody would disagree with that. Unfortunately there is a much bigger picture.

I just do not see it in such extreme terms as that and the scenario painted in your prior to posting, and hope that you are wrong about Putin's ultimate intentions. 

That is a somewhat bleak scenario that can likely only lead to wider conflict that could involve us all.

I feel that it somewhat underestimates the power of NATO and Putin's wariness of this. 

The intensity of the sanctions, growing discontent with his aggression within Russia and the intensity of the Ukrainian resistance have probably caught him by surprise, to a greater or lesser extent. The effects of all these will not have gone unnoticed within the Kremlin. 

I remain convinced that a compromise solution which hands some sort of way out for Putin is possible, even though I may risk being seen as some sort of Neville Chamberlain type figure content with "appeasement."

I repeat, this is not 1939, we are in the nuclear age and whilst Putin's ruthlessness and unpredictability are cause for concern he will only take his own form of brinkmanship so far.

Edited March 30, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[horsefly 4,300]

3 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Ukraine stands alone because the West, whilst feeding Zelensky with weapons and emotions and waffle about the illegal invasion of a sovereign country,

"...waffle about the illegal invasion of a sovereign country". Yet another phrase that gives away your appalling grasp of the current situation.

[ricardo 7,395]

10 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

I just do not see it in such extreme terms as that and the scenario painted in your prior to posting, and hope that you are wrong about Putin's ultimate intentions. 

That is a somewhat bleak scenario that can likely only lead to wider conflict that could involve us all.

I feel that it somewhat underestimates the power of NATO and Putin's wariness of this. 

The intensity of the sanctions, growing discontent with his aggression within Russia and the intensity of the Ukrainian resistance have probably caught him by surprise, to a greater or lesser extent. The effects of all these will not have gone unnoticed within the Kremlin. 

I remain convinced that a compromise solution which hands some sort of way out for Putin is possible, even though I may risk being seen as some sort of Neville Chamberlain type figure content with "appeasement."

I repeat, this is not 1939, we are in the nuclear age and whilst Putin's ruthlessness and unpredictability are cause for concern he will only take his own form of brinkmanship so far.

I also hope I am wrong and yes, it is a very bleak scenario but there's much more to it unfortunately because there are massive knock on effects. Ukraine is the worlds 5th largest wheat exporter and another two weeks of this turmoil means they have missed the planting season. Russia and Ukraine export millions of tons to the Middle East and China through the Black Sea ports which are largely out of action. Gas prices are so high that many of the nitrogen fertiliser producers are going offline so next years yields will be spectacularly down. What happens when poor people in the developing world can't afford to feed their families?

You don't need a clairvoyant to tell you that much of the world is going to go cold and hungry in the next few years. Yes, I do hope that I am going to be wrong because relegation to the Championship and increased season ticket prices are going to be the least of our worries.

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

47 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I guess it speaks volumes for your lack of research skills that you think a response that took a couple of minutes was "clearly time consuming".  The simple fact is you were, and have remained, critical of Zelensky for resisting the Russian invasion which very clearly aimed at achieving outcomes way beyond those you are now conveniently claiming to be the case. I repeat again, these are your exact words, "Zelensky has got it wrong. His stance costs thousands and may be millions of his fellow countrymen's lives, the eventual destruction of his country and the risk of WW3. He should give way to Russian demands". Those Russian demands were far more extensive than the ones you are now claiming to be what you wanted Zelensky to appease. We would not be anywhere near the current negotiations and a much reduced Russian set of demands, had Zelensky followed your advice and not resisted the Russian invasion. Try being honest for a change.

".... speaks volumes for your lack of research." Oh yeah! That from the broken record, who seems incapable of seeing this conflict as little more than a fight to the death.

I'll ignore the personal slant for the moment and, even though you have a habit of not answering questions put to you in debate (I have previously asked you, without reply,  how you envisage the outcome for the Dunbas once this conflict is finalised, for example) please now expand upon the statement that I have emphasised by stating those demands that were "far more extensive" than those I claimed.

In that interview on American television, Zelensky himself only mentioned the three I claimed. Were there then more?  Were you privileged to previous discussions sufficient to claim that the Russian demands are now 'much reduced?'  

The real substance of your postings suggests a need for personal attacks, hardly agreeable debate. 

Edited March 30, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

I also hope I am wrong and yes, it is a very bleak scenario but there's much more to it unfortunately because there are massive knock on effects. Ukraine is the worlds 5th largest wheat exporter and another two weeks of this turmoil means they have missed the planting season. Russia and Ukraine export millions of tons to the Middle East and China through the Black Sea ports which are largely out of action. Gas prices are so high that many of the nitrogen fertiliser producers are going offline so next years yields will be spectacularly down. What happens when poor people in the developing world can't afford to feed their families?

You don't need a clairvoyant to tell you that much of the world is going to go cold and hungry in the next few years. Yes, I do hope that I am going to be wrong because relegation to the Championship and increased season ticket prices are going to be the least of our worries.

Jesus Ricardo. Do you sleep at night? 

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

"...waffle about the illegal invasion of a sovereign country". Yet another phrase that gives away your appalling grasp of the current situation.

 ".... the illegal invasion of a sovereign country."

These words came from Johnson's mouth today, and probably yesterday and the day before. Emotive words indeed, and he's not the only one. As if we were unaware of  this stark fact, as if we needed reminding of it constantly.

Waffle? Call it what you like, but they become emptier by the day as the death toll rises and with the West unable to engage in direct military involvement.

"Appalling grasp of the current situation?" Are you actually being serious, or is it just that you are incapable of posting more than a few lines without including some form of personal attack?   

I find all this need you have to constantly pull out the personal stuff in debate disagreeable, out of tune with the general tone of this thread and this forum in general, and really quite pathetic. 

You alone seem to have a reputation for this kind of thing. Insults seem to be your trademark, whatever name you choose to post under. 

Is it some affliction akin to Tourette's Syndrome? Something you have no control over?

  

Edited March 30, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[Indy 3,300]

This phrase “ illegal invasion of a sovereign country" when is it legal? Isn’t invading any country illegal? Who decides when it’s not illegal? Who are the world police to say so? Was invading Afghanistan or Iraq legal? Why?

I hate this phrase, it bugs me.

Right now Brodstairs, I have exactly the same view as you and unlike Ricardo who I fully respect, think is over dramatic with Putins end game, I don’t think he’s going to invade any other country certainly not a NATO, he’s more focused on not losing any further territory the NATO, especially one with close ties to Russia with a strategic port in Crimea. To me it’s like Hawaii being adopted by US as a state! Can you see the US ever relinquishing Hawaii to neutrality? Not on your Nelly it’s of strategic importance.

At the moment we’re at a crossroads which every country is at fault with, we’ve allowed nationalism to rise in every country and most are in the middle to older age groups, this has been massively divisive and now we find ourselves at this point with leaders who are all ready to push each other rather than find a solution. Massive changes needed by all countries, instead of ramping up defences we should be spending the billions on clean renewable energy, next generation sustainable food science and countering global emissions! It’s utter madness. 

Edited March 30, 2022 by Indy

[ricardo 7,395]

12 minutes ago, Indy said:

. Massive changes needed by all countries, instead of ramping up defences we should be spending the billions on clean renewable energy, next generation sustainable food science and countering global emissions! It’s utter madness. 

The world is full of idealists but none of them can tell you how to keep the lights on when the power runs out or the invader from your door when you've ignored your defences. Wishing human nature and the world were different doesn't make it so.

We live in an uncomfortable and messy reality, we deal with it the best way we can.

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by ricardo

[Indy 3,300]

1 minute ago, ricardo said:

The world is full of idealists but none of them can tell you how to keep the lights on when the power runs out or the invader from your door when you've ignored your defences. Wishing human nature and the world were different doesn't make it so.

We live in an uncomfortable and messy reality, we deal with it the best we can.

 

Only because of old outdated ideology! Old leaders with old baggage! If we don’t change our focus you might as well hit nuclear button as it’s a better future for our grandchildren than what they will have! Not idealism but realism unless you believe global warming is just a conspiracy!

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,187]

19 minutes ago, ricardo said:

The world is full of idealists but none of them can tell you how to keep the lights on when the power runs out or the invader from your door when you've ignored your defences. Wishing human nature and the world were different doesn't make it so.

We live in an uncomfortable and messy reality, we deal with it the best way we can.

 

Renewables, managed and operated properly, don't run out 

You just need to find the right renewables 🙂

[Yellow Fever 3,785]

1 hour ago, Indy said:

Only because of old outdated ideology! Old leaders with old baggage! If we don’t change our focus you might as well hit nuclear button as it’s a better future for our grandchildren than what they will have! Not idealism but realism unless you believe global warming is just a conspiracy!

 

48 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

Renewables, managed and operated properly, don't run out 

You just need to find the right renewables 🙂

The thing with idealists is that they let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Of course we all wish things were different with Putin but we have to act to constrain and minimise the damage to the world. At the moment that means arming and supporting our Ukrainian friends to defeat Putin's plans in Ukraine else we will eventually be having to fight a larger conflagration much closer to home.

[horsefly 4,300]

11 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

".... speaks volumes for your lack of research." Oh yeah! That from the broken record, who seems incapable of seeing this conflict as little more than a fight to the death.

I'll ignore the personal slant for the moment and, even though you have a habit of not answering questions put to you in debate (I have previously asked you, without reply,  how you envisage the outcome for the Dunbas once this conflict is finalised, for example) please now expand upon the statement that I have emphasised by stating those demands that were "far more extensive" than those I claimed.

In that interview on American television, Zelensky himself only mentioned the three I claimed. Were there then more?  Were you privileged to previous discussions sufficient to claim that the Russian demands are now 'much reduced?'  

The real substance of your postings suggests a need for personal attacks, hardly agreeable debate. 

Oh dear! your standard response is simply to ignore the evidence I have provided of your OWN words quoted exactly, and make false claims about what I have said in a pathetic attempt at distraction. It's laughable that you accuse me of not answering questions when you have not said a single word in response to the quotes I have repeated of claims that YOU made.

Feel free to quote where I have said that this conflict is a "fight to the death". I have said NOTHING of the sort in any post. Yet again you dissemble in order to cover up your appalling grasp of the conflict, and your craven calls for appeasement. You seem incapable of grasping two simple facts: first, it is Ukrainians themselves who have decided to resist the Russian invasion rather than simply give in to Russian demands (as you suggested they should); second, it is because Ukraine has resisted that it has forced the Russians to reduce their demands. I can't believe it needs pointing out to you that all wars eventually result in negotiation to bring them to an end, but conflict is typically a sad necessity to force those negotiations into the most acceptable outcome. 

As for your request, "please now expand upon the statement that I have emphasised by stating those demands that were "far more extensive" than those I claimed". So which is it? Are you admitting that you are so thick you were not aware that the original Russian objectives included the "de-Na*zification" of Ukraine, and the replacement of the Ukrainian government? That they also included the "de-militarization" of Ukraine?

You also seem blissfully ignorant that the future of Donbas (please note the spelling) as some kind of autonomous region has been a subject for negotiation between Russia and Ukraine for many years and included in various agreements (e.g. Minsk protocols I and II). However, Russian backed separatist fighting has persistently frustrated those negotiations. 

[horsefly 4,300]

12 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Jesus Ricardo. Do you sleep at night? 

 ".... the illegal invasion of a sovereign country."

These words came from Johnson's mouth today, and probably yesterday and the day before. Emotive words indeed, and he's not the only one. As if we were unaware of  this stark fact, as if we needed reminding of it constantly.

Waffle? Call it what you like, but they become emptier by the day as the death toll rises and with the West unable to engage in direct military involvement.

"Appalling grasp of the current situation?" Are you actually being serious, or is it just that you are incapable of posting more than a few lines without including some form of personal attack?   

I find all this need you have to constantly pull out the personal stuff in debate disagreeable, out of tune with the general tone of this thread and this forum in general, and really quite pathetic. 

You alone seem to have a reputation for this kind of thing. Insults seem to be your trademark, whatever name you choose to post under. 

Is it some affliction akin to Tourette's Syndrome? Something you have no control over?

  

Oh dear! The person who calls out "personal abuse" spends almost the entire post engaged in throwing about personal abuse. You really are a joke.

[horsefly 4,300]

11 hours ago, Indy said:

This phrase “ illegal invasion of a sovereign country" when is it legal? Isn’t invading any country illegal? Who decides when it’s not illegal? Who are the world police to say so? Was invading Afghanistan or Iraq legal? Why?

I hate this phrase, it bugs me.

You may not like the phrase Indy but it is of the utmost importance to international law. The UN recognises many countries as sovereign but also recognises that international law can sanction invasion of those countries under certain circumstances. For example, in cases of genocide. 

[horsefly 4,300]

12 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

".... the illegal invasion of a sovereign country."

These words came from Johnson's mouth today, and probably yesterday and the day before. Emotive words indeed, and he's not the only one. As if we were unaware of  this stark fact, as if we needed reminding of it constantly.

Another example of your persistent dissembling. The phrase YOU used said "" Waffle about the illegal invasion of a sovereign country." And that was the quote I used, quite clearly objecting to YOUR description of objecting to the illegal invasion of another  country as "WAFFLE". It's very instructive to all on this site that you purposely cut out that crucial part of the phrase when you misquote what I said in objecting to your phrase. I very much doubt that even Johnson would be so stupid as to use the expression "Waffle" when referring to the Russian invasion.

Edited March 31, 2022 by horsefly

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! The person who calls out "personal abuse" spends almost the entire post engaged in throwing about personal abuse. You really are a joke.

No flies on you then. 

Jesus H. The way you dish it out, what do you expect? It's not as if I'm the first to pick you up on it. Others have as well.

The constant stream of unedifying abuse has been well recognised, your reputation is intact, your affliction noted.

From now on, it's like for like. You'd better have the Omron machine at the ready, loser.

You seem incapable of participating in normal debate.

I've given up expecting an answer with regard to your views on the future of the Donbas once this conflict is over. 

I've also researched the history of that area, and probably before your recent intense Googling, as I once visited that part of the world as was left in no doubt about the ongoing problems that existed, seen  from the Russian point of view. The de-Nazification of Ukraine referred to the far right Asov Regiment** who had been active against the separatist movement in that area for some years. When Zelensky attempted to bring about their disarmament, he was rejected as a traitor. It was not just the separatists who thwarted attempts at a peaceful settlement.

** https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment

However, can you now clarify your statement to the effect that Putin's demands are now reduced as a consequence of Ukrainian resistance. Zelensky mentioned three demands in his ABC television interview; the NATO assurance, autonomy for the Donbas region and demilitarisation of his country. The latter clearly unreasonable but interpreted in the Guardian, and my memory serves me well, as some form of total ceasefire.

There was a fourth, actually, which was recognition of the Crimea as Russian, but this was not mentioned. Were there further demands on top of these, as you claimed? If so, what were they?

Where did Putin state the 'original Russian objectives' that you mentioned? That's just surmise. As I have said before, once he had crossed the Rubicon by sending his troops over the border his objectives may well have changed and complete conquest might well then have become his vision.

We have to hope that they have changed again due to  Ukrainian resistance and the failings of his own military. We have to hope that the Donbas issue and the NATO question are compromised to the extent that he can claim some sort of face-saving victory so that the slaughter ceases.  

 

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

39 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Another example of your persistent dissembling. The phrase YOU used said "" Waffle about the illegal invasion of a sovereign country." And that was the quote I used, quite clearly objecting to YOUR description of objecting to the illegal invasion of another  country as "WAFFLE". It's very instructive to all on this site that you purposely cut out that crucial part of the phrase when you misquote what I said in objecting to your phrase. I very much doubt that even Johnson would be so stupid as to use the expression "Waffle" when referring to the Russian invasion.

Frantic or what?

You seem to be getting a bit strung up, so much so that you seem unable to employ any level of comprehension that makes sense. 

I never said Johnson used the word "waffle." Read it again, more slowly this time. Try to keep your wits about you, for once.

 

[kirku 1,332]

17 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

No 1. Your figures and deductions are as disputable as you claim mine to be.  I got mine from the internet, having no access to the sensitive military secrets of the Russian state:

"Russia's military vastly outguns that of Ukraine, with a budget of between $40bn to $65bn and 900,000 active military personnel across land, sea and air. The country also boasts around two million reservists. Russia's active military includes 280,000 soldiers, 165,000 air personnel and 150,000 naval troops."

No. 2. Do you then dispute Russia's ability to re-arm with efficiency? I don't as they have certainly proven that they can in the past. The only problem there would be funding. 

 

Number 3 concerns. If you are suggesting that Putin will take his aggression further when this war is over because he has can claim victory in the Ukraine, then what are your suggested means of preventing him?  Full scale military confrontation? If so, should that be by the West? NATO?

 

Are you that certain of Putin's own survival?

 

I personally find it difficult to surmise the future when innocents are being slaughtered in the present. What will be the next Mariupol if this war continues? Odessa? Kyiv?

 

Iam quite sure that the beleaguered people of Mariupol are more concerned with survival for the now than Vladimir Putin's perceived future intentions and that they certainly do not see a route to salvation as "verifiable nonsense," whatever it involves.

 

 

 

1) You just posted a source which agreed with me - not your initial assertion that they had 900,000 "regulars" and 3m "conscripts". You conflated "conscripts" and "reservists" and overinflated the number of reservists by 1m.

2) Yes, I absolutely doubt Russia's ability to "re-arm with efficiency".

They have spent decades attempting to modernise their forces yet have been sending in antiquated equipment in their largest military engagement to date. The 2014 sanctions limited their access to technology which they largely import. Russian military supply chains rely heavily on foreign industry.

As for "they have certainly proven they can in the past", when?

Please don't reference WW2 and the USSR because that would be laughable.

3) Of course people in Mariupol are more concerned with their immediate survival, what a ridiculous strawman to try to construct. The fact is that wars necessitate absolutely awful decisions to be made. The Ukrainian armed forces had to prioritise the defence of their nation over attempting to break the siege of Mariupol. 

However, as I demonstrated in the last post, accepting the annexation of territory by force and appeasing Putin has clearly shown it emboldens him further. Each successive war has been larger in scale and more ambitious; Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea & Donbass, Syria, Ukraine. 

Let's look at a plausible scenario if the Ukrainians immediately waved the white flag, as you have suggested:

• Ukraine is occupied by Russia
• Russian forces join up with those in Transnistria and take Moldova
• Belarus is subsumed into Russia and Lukashenko becomes a figure like Kadyrov
• Russia, bolstered by the Belarussian military, becomes more aggressive towards the Baltic states and starts talking about protecting ethnic Russians in those areas
• Finland and Sweden see slow build-up of Russian forces postured towards them

Just this week suspected nuclear armed SU24s entered Swedish airspace.  As for how to stop this, NATO should increase arms deliveries to Ukraine and help it defend itself and Article 5 should be invoked if Russian forces step one inch onto NATO territory.

Edited March 31, 2022 by kirku

[Worthy Nigelton 1,048]

13 hours ago, Indy said:

This phrase “ illegal invasion of a sovereign country" when is it legal? Isn’t invading any country illegal? Who decides when it’s not illegal? Who are the world police to say so? Was invading Afghanistan or Iraq legal? Why?

I hate this phrase, it bugs me.

Right now Brodstairs, I have exactly the same view as you and unlike Ricardo who I fully respect, think is over dramatic with Putins end game, I don’t think he’s going to invade any other country certainly not a NATO, he’s more focused on not losing any further territory the NATO, especially one with close ties to Russia with a strategic port in Crimea. To me it’s like Hawaii being adopted by US as a state! Can you see the US ever relinquishing Hawaii to neutrality? Not on your Nelly it’s of strategic importance.

At the moment we’re at a crossroads which every country is at fault with, we’ve allowed nationalism to rise in every country and most are in the middle to older age groups, this has been massively divisive and now we find ourselves at this point with leaders who are all ready to push each other rather than find a solution. Massive changes needed by all countries, instead of ramping up defences we should be spending the billions on clean renewable energy, next generation sustainable food science and countering global emissions! It’s utter madness. 

100% agree with this but it'll never happen. Since capitalism was put on steroids by Thatcher and Reagan in the 80s we've just arched from crisis to crisis and that will continue. Climate change when it properly starts to bite is going to make the 2008 crash, Covid and this war look like the good times. Its coming, and it's going to be the biggest disruptor humanity has ever seen. The boomers have a lot to answer for.

[kirku 1,332]

13 hours ago, Indy said:

Right now Brodstairs, I have exactly the same view as you and unlike Ricardo who I fully respect, think is over dramatic with Putins end game, I don’t think he’s going to invade any other country certainly not a NATO

Given that Ukraine is the 2nd nation in the last 14 years that Russia has invaded and annexed territory from, what makes you think this?

Apologies, but this viewpoint reminds me significantly of those who vehemently declared that Putin was "just posturing and wouldn't invade Ukraine", despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Yellow Fever 3,785]

2 minutes ago, kirku said:

Given that Ukraine is the 2nd nation in the last 14 years that Russia has invaded and annexed territory from, what makes you think this?

Apologies, but this viewpoint reminds me significantly of those who vehemently declared that Putin was "just posturing and wouldn't invade Ukraine", despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Frankly Kirku I'm of the opinion as with all bullies that he will continue until somebody punches him on the nose and lays him out cold.

Currently the Ukrainians are giving it a bloody good go!