Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

Is the title of a very good article that is trying to point out, once again, that history has returned to haunt us and that we, the public, are not hearing what should be heard.

I is a long but detailed article, the like you will not find anywhere else in the media and by someone who once was on the inside of a currently very cagey foreign office.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/04/each-of-us-is-striving-to-process-the-truth-of-the-disaster-in-ukraine/

[horsefly 4,300]

I'm surprised you find anything remotely persuasive in this account. Frankly I'm astonished that he is so naïve in his analysis. You have to be remarkably gullible to believe that Putin is remotely interested in combatting Naz*ism as opposed to re-establishing a Russian empire led by himself as dictator. Of course there are minorities of right-wing extremists existing in every part of Europe, not least in Russia itself, but the idea that the existence of any of these groups justify the invasion of Ukraine is patently absurd. Indeed, Murray himself notes that the invasion was a "catastrophic diplomatic move". So given the length of the article I'll concentrate on this one (of many) non-sequitur(s) . Murray makes much of the US and Ukraine's decision to vote against the Russian sponsored UN resolution on combatting Naz*ism:

" On 16 December 2021 Ukraine and its US sponsor were not just diplomatically isolated, but diplomatically humiliated. At a vote at the UN General Assembly, the United States and Ukraine were the only two countries to vote against a resolution on “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo‑Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”. They lost by 130 votes to 2, on a motion sponsored by Russia."

He notes as a casual aside that the EU abstained. It doesn't seem to occur to Murray that the main reason why Ukraine, the US, and the EU didn't vote in favour of the Russian sponsored motion is that they knew it would be used as a pretext for the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Thus to express surprise that Putin could have blown his diplomatic "win" by invading the Ukraine shows either, a disingenuous description of the resolution, or a stunning naivety about it's real aims. Either way it is crass analysis at best. Just 2 months later Russia invaded the Ukraine on the pretext of "de-Naz*ification".

[king canary 7,606]

48 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I'm surprised you find anything remotely persuasive in this account. Frankly I'm astonished that he is so naïve in his analysis. You have to be remarkably gullible to believe that Putin is remotely interested in combatting Naz*ism as opposed to re-establishing a Russian empire led by himself as dictator. Of course there are minorities of right-wing extremists existing in every part of Europe, not least in Russia itself, but the idea that the existence of any of these groups justify the invasion of Ukraine is patently absurd. Indeed, Murray himself notes that the invasion was a "catastrophic diplomatic move". So given the length of the article I'll concentrate on this one (of many) non-sequitur(s) . Murray makes much of the US and Ukraine's decision to vote against the Russian sponsored UN resolution on combatting Naz*ism:

" On 16 December 2021 Ukraine and its US sponsor were not just diplomatically isolated, but diplomatically humiliated. At a vote at the UN General Assembly, the United States and Ukraine were the only two countries to vote against a resolution on “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo‑Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”. They lost by 130 votes to 2, on a motion sponsored by Russia."

He notes as a casual aside that the EU abstained. It doesn't seem to occur to Murray that the main reason why Ukraine, the US, and the EU didn't vote in favour of the Russian sponsored motion is that they knew it would be used as a pretext for the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Thus to express surprise that Putin could have blown his diplomatic "win" by invading the Ukraine shows either, a disingenuous description of the resolution, or a stunning naivety about it's real aims. Either way it is crass analysis at best. Just 2 months later Russia invaded the Ukraine on the pretext of "de-Naz*ification".

Just a reminder, Craig Murray looked at the evidence of the Sailsbury poisonings and came to this conclusion...

 

I know this one particular poster has the mother of all man crushes on him but he's an absolute crank. 

[horsefly 4,300]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Just a reminder, Craig Murray looked at the evidence of the Sailsbury poisonings and came to this conclusion...

 

I know this one particular poster has the mother of all man crushes on him but he's an absolute crank. 

Hadn't seen that before. That is genuinely hilarious.

[king canary 7,606]

35 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Hadn't seen that before. That is genuinely hilarious.

Brilliant isn't it. Takes some serious brain worms to look at what happened and come up with 'gay bodybuilders trying to get away from a homophobic country.'

[1902 1,167]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

Just a reminder, Craig Murray looked at the evidence of the Sailsbury poisonings and came to this conclusion...

 

I know this one particular poster has the mother of all man crushes on him but he's an absolute crank. 

"most likely interpretation" is doing some seriously heavy lifting here.

[Sheva 123]

It’s absolute bollox to make out Ukraine is overrun with Nazis or has any more far right or left than any other country.

Ukrainians just want to get on with their lives in peace, ‘grow their potatoes’, play sport, and have a party.

 

They most certainly do not want to be invaded by the army of a bully and have their children killed and driven from their homes in fear.

Ukrainians are a brave nation, they don’t want to be a part of Russia before and much less so now.

They are prepared to defend everything they cherish, until the end, They won’t except any ‘ deals’, which mean the aggressor and occupiers steal any part of their country. 

 

 

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

The guy is funnier than Chic Murray

[The Real Buh 3,432]

I mean, there’s a few things at play, sure. However, it’s not as complex as some people are making out.

The main thing at play here is Putin and the Russian government. They are mental, especially Putin who is probably sick and has been for some time. Something was always going to happen with this guy. Some sort of “Reckoning” and this is probably it.

Its no different with China. Do we think their human rights record and massive expansion and them moving to being a worldwide superpower isn’t going to end up somewhere? We just kick that one down the road and keep buying their cheap electronics and who knows. 
 

so much of big geo-political stuff is shrugging your shoulders and saying “I dunno, guess we’ll see” it’s always a problem from the future, until it’s a problem for right now. 
 

It’s pretty fascinating that since the creation of nuclear weapons and crucially advanced delivery systems that we haven’t managed to destroy ourselves or at least severely f”&k up a large part of the earth/living underground/the TV movie “threads” scenario.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 04/04/2022 at 12:39, horsefly said:

I'm surprised you find anything remotely persuasive in this account. Frankly I'm astonished that he is so naïve in his analysis. You have to be remarkably gullible to believe that Putin is remotely interested in combatting Naz*ism as opposed to re-establishing a Russian empire led by himself as dictator. Of course there are minorities of right-wing extremists existing in every part of Europe, not least in Russia itself, but the idea that the existence of any of these groups justify the invasion of Ukraine is patently absurd. Indeed, Murray himself notes that the invasion was a "catastrophic diplomatic move". So given the length of the article I'll concentrate on this one (of many) non-sequitur(s) . Murray makes much of the US and Ukraine's decision to vote against the Russian sponsored UN resolution on combatting Naz*ism:

" On 16 December 2021 Ukraine and its US sponsor were not just diplomatically isolated, but diplomatically humiliated. At a vote at the UN General Assembly, the United States and Ukraine were the only two countries to vote against a resolution on “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo‑Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”. They lost by 130 votes to 2, on a motion sponsored by Russia."

He notes as a casual aside that the EU abstained. It doesn't seem to occur to Murray that the main reason why Ukraine, the US, and the EU didn't vote in favour of the Russian sponsored motion is that they knew it would be used as a pretext for the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Thus to express surprise that Putin could have blown his diplomatic "win" by invading the Ukraine shows either, a disingenuous description of the resolution, or a stunning naivety about it's real aims. Either way it is crass analysis at best. Just 2 months later Russia invaded the Ukraine on the pretext of "de-Naz*ification".

Attacking the messenger in your first 3 sentences, here on a lesser known public forum is cheap, why don't you go to his free from subscription and tracking blog and make your point directly?

Are you denying that Europe's Naz.'s are supporting Ukraine with arms, 'presents' as Klitschko called them? At best, we are fed one sided propaganda  and the historic content you call 'naivety' are facts of history. Why are our institutions and our help all in a sudden preferring Ukrainian refugees before those from Afghanistan, Syria or Libya, all three attacked by western sponsored NATO attacks of aggression? surely a refugee from one war of aggression is just like another refugee fleeing a war of aggression?

[horsefly 4,300]

1 hour ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Attacking the messenger in your first 3 sentences, here on a lesser known public forum is cheap, why don't you go to his free from subscription and tracking blog and make your point directly?

Are you denying that Europe's Naz.'s are supporting Ukraine with arms, 'presents' as Klitschko called them? At best, we are fed one sided propaganda  and the historic content you call 'naivety' are facts of history. Why are our institutions and our help all in a sudden preferring Ukrainian refugees before those from Afghanistan, Syria or Libya, all three attacked by western sponsored NATO attacks of aggression? surely a refugee from one war of aggression is just like another refugee fleeing a war of aggression?

I'm afraid this is utter hypocritical piffle. It was YOU who lauded Murray's article on this "lesser known forum" and now you want to describe me as being "cheap" for responding to your post.  I maintain that the Murray article is full of inaccuracies and appallingly bad non sequiturs, and I note you have said not a word in response to the one I focussed upon. 

[Worthy Nigelton 1,045]

3 hours ago, horsefly said:

I'm afraid this is utter hypocritical piffle. It was YOU who lauded Murray's article on this "lesser known forum" and now you want to describe me as being "cheap" for responding to your post.  I maintain that the Murray article is full of inaccuracies and appallingly bad non sequiturs, and I note you have said not a word in response to the one I focussed upon. 

I think the term for this is 'owned' 🤣

[Worthy Nigelton 1,045]

On 04/04/2022 at 14:29, king canary said:

Just a reminder, Craig Murray looked at the evidence of the Sailsbury poisonings and came to this conclusion...

 

I know this one particular poster has the mother of all man crushes on him but he's an absolute crank. 

This is absolutely brilliant. Gay bodybuilders! Literally made me LOL.

[Herman 9,764]

 

[KernowCanary 214]

These “Take to Twitter” planks who live on the stupid thing, simply get worse and worse these days.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 07/04/2022 at 11:03, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Attacking the messenger in your first 3 sentences, here on a lesser known public forum is cheap, why don't you go to his free from subscription and tracking blog and make your point directly?

Are you denying that Europe's Naz.'s are supporting Ukraine with arms, 'presents' as Klitschko called them? At best, we are fed one sided propaganda  and the historic content you call 'naivety' are facts of history. Why are our institutions and our help all in a sudden preferring Ukrainian refugees before those from Afghanistan, Syria or Libya, all three attacked by western sponsored NATO attacks of aggression? surely a refugee from one war of aggression is just like another refugee fleeing a war of aggression?

Unfortunately, they are not the same. All of Afghanistan, Syria and Libya are states hostile to the UK and supportive of terrorists who are hostile to the UK. Therefore to let them in without very careful vetting presents a grave security risk to the nation. And since most of the immigrants from these countries arrive undocumented it is very difficult to recognise who does and does not prevent a risk to us. For this reason it is much better to keep these people in safe places close to their countries of origin, and the UK does contribute resources to doing just that.

On the other hand, I know of no security issues presented by Ukraine refugees as I think we have maintained good relations with the Ukraine government, so that it is much safer to allow Ukrainians into the country than it is to the three countries that you mention.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 09/04/2022 at 19:30, Rock The Boat said:

Unfortunately, they are not the same. All of Afghanistan, Syria and Libya are states hostile to the UK and supportive of terrorists who are hostile to the UK. Therefore to let them in without very careful vetting presents a grave security risk to the nation. And since most of the immigrants from these countries arrive undocumented it is very difficult to recognise who does and does not prevent a risk to us. For this reason it is much better to keep these people in safe places close to their countries of origin, and the UK does contribute resources to doing just that.

On the other hand, I know of no security issues presented by Ukraine refugees as I think we have maintained good relations with the Ukraine government, so that it is much safer to allow Ukrainians into the country than it is to the three countries that you mention.

You are either deluded by the media you frequent or did not realise that Blair lied to Parliament and that we killed hundreds of thousands Iraqi's with no sanctions applied.

please link to what you think was our responsibility in Libya, here is the Parliamentary report from Wikipedia about ther false allegations that made us jump to conclusions. What  part of the North Atlantic needed defending in Libya, after Gaddafi rejected US petro dollars and asked to be paid in a basket of currency for his crude, just as Saddam Hussain did.

Libyan terrorists rescued by the Royal navy and under observation by MI5 later committed the Manchester bombing during the election. I recommend Mark Curtis book 'Secret Affairs', it deals with decades of collaboration by UK Governments with Islamic terrorists.

"

United Kingdom Parliament Investigation

An in depth investigation into the Libyan intervention and its aftermath was conducted by the U.K. Parliament's House of Commons' cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee, the final conclusions of which were released on 14 September 2016 in a report titled Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK's future policy options.^[231] The report was strongly critical of the British government's role in the intervention.^[232][233] The report concluded that the government "failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element."^[234] In particular, the committee concluded that Gaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians, and that reports to the contrary were propagated by rebels and Western governments. Western leaders trumpeted the threat of the massacre of civilians without factual basis, according to the parliamentary report, for example, it had been reported to Western leaders that on 17 March 2011 Gaddafi had given Benghazi rebels the offer of peaceful surrender and also that when Gaddafi had earlier retaken other rebel cities there were no massacres of non-combatants.^{[235][236][237]}

No evidence of civilian massacres by Gaddafi

Alison Pargeter, a freelance Middle East and North Africa (MENA) analyst, told the Committee that when Gaddafi's forces re-took Ajdabiya they did not attack civilians, and this had taken place in February 2011, shortly before the NATO intervention.^[238] She also said that Gaddafi's approach towards the rebels had been one of "appeasement", with the release of Islamist prisoners and promises of significant development assistance for Benghazi.^[238]

 

Syria did not want a Saudi/Quatari pipeline to the Mediterranian after which the first uprising in Deera, many month before supported by our special forces training his opposition near the border in Jordan, started the Syrian occupation. We were not invited by any faction to come into Syria, we invaded it.

Enjoy your days whilst you can.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

1 hour ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

You are either deluded by the media you frequent or did not realise that Blair lied to Parliament and that we killed hundreds of thousands Iraqi's with no sanctions applied.

please link to what you think was our responsibility in Libya, here is the Parliamentary report from Wikipedia about ther false allegations that made us jump to conclusions. What  part of the North Atlantic needed defending in Libya, after Gaddafi rejected US petro dollars and asked to be paid in a basket of currency for his crude, just as Saddam Hussain did.

Libyan terrorists rescued by the Royal navy and under observation by MI5 later committed the Manchester bombing during the election. I recommend Mark Curtis book 'Secret Affairs', it deals with decades of collaboration by UK Governments with Islamic terrorists.

"

United Kingdom Parliament Investigation

An in depth investigation into the Libyan intervention and its aftermath was conducted by the U.K. Parliament's House of Commons' cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee, the final conclusions of which were released on 14 September 2016 in a report titled Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK's future policy options.^[231] The report was strongly critical of the British government's role in the intervention.^[232][233] The report concluded that the government "failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element."^[234] In particular, the committee concluded that Gaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians, and that reports to the contrary were propagated by rebels and Western governments. Western leaders trumpeted the threat of the massacre of civilians without factual basis, according to the parliamentary report, for example, it had been reported to Western leaders that on 17 March 2011 Gaddafi had given Benghazi rebels the offer of peaceful surrender and also that when Gaddafi had earlier retaken other rebel cities there were no massacres of non-combatants.^{[235][236][237]}

No evidence of civilian massacres by Gaddafi

Alison Pargeter, a freelance Middle East and North Africa (MENA) analyst, told the Committee that when Gaddafi's forces re-took Ajdabiya they did not attack civilians, and this had taken place in February 2011, shortly before the NATO intervention.^[238] She also said that Gaddafi's approach towards the rebels had been one of "appeasement", with the release of Islamist prisoners and promises of significant development assistance for Benghazi.^[238]

 

Syria did not want a Saudi/Quatari pipeline to the Mediterranian after which the first uprising in Deera, many month before supported by our special forces training his opposition near the border in Jordan, started the Syrian occupation. We were not invited by any faction to come into Syria, we invaded it.

Enjoy your days whilst you can.

Well you make the point I was making but you make it much better than me.  As you indicate there are a lot of people and/or states who would like to bring terrorism to our shores and/or have some grudge against us, and therefore we need to vet very carefully who we let in. As far as I can see, and I may be wrong, we don't have the same issues to the same degree with the Ukrainians and therefore all refugees are not the same, which was the original point. I'm enjoying my days very much knowing that security checks are carried out on those who wish to enter the country, thank you. Do you think there should be no checks given what you have written?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,549]

21 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

You are either deluded by the media you frequent or did not realise that Blair lied to Parliament and that we killed hundreds of thousands Iraqi's with no sanctions applied.

please link to what you think was our responsibility in Libya, here is the Parliamentary report from Wikipedia about ther false allegations that made us jump to conclusions. What  part of the North Atlantic needed defending in Libya, after Gaddafi rejected US petro dollars and asked to be paid in a basket of currency for his crude, just as Saddam Hussain did.

Libyan terrorists rescued by the Royal navy and under observation by MI5 later committed the Manchester bombing during the election. I recommend Mark Curtis book 'Secret Affairs', it deals with decades of collaboration by UK Governments with Islamic terrorists.

"

United Kingdom Parliament Investigation

An in depth investigation into the Libyan intervention and its aftermath was conducted by the U.K. Parliament's House of Commons' cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee, the final conclusions of which were released on 14 September 2016 in a report titled Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK's future policy options.^[231] The report was strongly critical of the British government's role in the intervention.^[232][233] The report concluded that the government "failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element."^[234] In particular, the committee concluded that Gaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians, and that reports to the contrary were propagated by rebels and Western governments. Western leaders trumpeted the threat of the massacre of civilians without factual basis, according to the parliamentary report, for example, it had been reported to Western leaders that on 17 March 2011 Gaddafi had given Benghazi rebels the offer of peaceful surrender and also that when Gaddafi had earlier retaken other rebel cities there were no massacres of non-combatants.^{[235][236][237]}

No evidence of civilian massacres by Gaddafi

Alison Pargeter, a freelance Middle East and North Africa (MENA) analyst, told the Committee that when Gaddafi's forces re-took Ajdabiya they did not attack civilians, and this had taken place in February 2011, shortly before the NATO intervention.^[238] She also said that Gaddafi's approach towards the rebels had been one of "appeasement", with the release of Islamist prisoners and promises of significant development assistance for Benghazi.^[238]

 

Syria did not want a Saudi/Quatari pipeline to the Mediterranian after which the first uprising in Deera, many month before supported by our special forces training his opposition near the border in Jordan, started the Syrian occupation. We were not invited by any faction to come into Syria, we invaded it.

Enjoy your days whilst you can.

 

21 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

You are either deluded by the media you frequent or did not realise that Blair lied to Parliament and that we killed hundreds of thousands Iraqi's with no sanctions applied.

please link to what you think was our responsibility in Libya, here is the Parliamentary report from Wikipedia about ther false allegations that made us jump to conclusions. What  part of the North Atlantic needed defending in Libya, after Gaddafi rejected US petro dollars and asked to be paid in a basket of currency for his crude, just as Saddam Hussain did.

Libyan terrorists rescued by the Royal navy and under observation by MI5 later committed the Manchester bombing during the election. I recommend Mark Curtis book 'Secret Affairs', it deals with decades of collaboration by UK Governments with Islamic terrorists.

"

United Kingdom Parliament Investigation

An in depth investigation into the Libyan intervention and its aftermath was conducted by the U.K. Parliament's House of Commons' cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee, the final conclusions of which were released on 14 September 2016 in a report titled Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK's future policy options.^[231] The report was strongly critical of the British government's role in the intervention.^[232][233] The report concluded that the government "failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element."^[234] In particular, the committee concluded that Gaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians, and that reports to the contrary were propagated by rebels and Western governments. Western leaders trumpeted the threat of the massacre of civilians without factual basis, according to the parliamentary report, for example, it had been reported to Western leaders that on 17 March 2011 Gaddafi had given Benghazi rebels the offer of peaceful surrender and also that when Gaddafi had earlier retaken other rebel cities there were no massacres of non-combatants.^{[235][236][237]}

No evidence of civilian massacres by Gaddafi

Alison Pargeter, a freelance Middle East and North Africa (MENA) analyst, told the Committee that when Gaddafi's forces re-took Ajdabiya they did not attack civilians, and this had taken place in February 2011, shortly before the NATO intervention.^[238] She also said that Gaddafi's approach towards the rebels had been one of "appeasement", with the release of Islamist prisoners and promises of significant development assistance for Benghazi.^[238]

 

Syria did not want a Saudi/Quatari pipeline to the Mediterranian after which the first uprising in Deera, many month before supported by our special forces training his opposition near the border in Jordan, started the Syrian occupation. We were not invited by any faction to come into Syria, we invaded it.

Enjoy your days whilst you can.

Whataboutism, half-truths and propaganda to deflect from Putin's ongoing genocidal war in Ukraine. Nice. 

Libya was a UN-mandated mission comprising both NATO and other Middle Eastern nations. Note that neither China or Russia vetoed the intervention.

And none of it remotely compares to the genocide Putin is currently conducting in Ukraine, let alone the huge number of atrocities he is responsible for in Syria. Chemical weapons, cluster bombs, targetting civilians, rape of mothers in front of their children,  all fair game in Putin's book. 

Seriously, if you hate the West so much, get out and go enjoy Putin's utopia. Maybe you can get a job polishing the deck of his superyacht bought with the proceeds of his corruption, all the while muttering to yourself about 'neoliberalism'. 

Edited April 12, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[BroadstairsR 2,164]

"Karina Yershova, 16, was found shot in the back of the head after she was allegedly raped and murdered by Russian troops"

There is no sense. Ukraine is a country which has been pulled in two directions since the break-up of the USSR. 

Large portions of the East of Ukraine have closer cultural, economic and family ties to Russia. Large numbers of these would prefer to be in Russia. Seven million? Eight million? To what extent can this situation count the country as sovereign and independent?  Totally? Somewhat? Not at all? Especially with the West of the country pushing for more ties with Europe and Nato to the total and nervous chagrin of aggressors like Putin and a large proportion of traditionalists within his country,  brainwashed or not.

Jonhson has just briefly elevated himself to the world stage, probably for personal reasons, and with Bullingdon Boy bravado, whilst blissfully incapable of appreciating the stark fact that he might just be fanning the flames before the inevitable.

The war in the Dunbas is days away. Already, Russian rockets are being targetted. Massive forces are being built up in readiness. Putin's war machine may or may not be inept, crippled or equipped with outdated weaponry as a result of the campaign so far, but I, for one,  would certainly not want to be a citizen of Luhansk at this moment in time.

This war must be ended with concessions. Otherwise, there will be more, more and more tragic, horrible fates like that of Karina Yershova and emanating from the inevitable to and fro  bloodbath. Thousands will die.

Russia cannot be allowed to win, but nor is it wise to look to inflict an humiliating defeat - a Putin pushed into the corner might do something phenomenally dangerous. What's needed are "off ramps" that allow de-escalation, and a negotiated peace with UN enforcement that all sides can live with.

 

Edited April 13, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[horsefly 4,300]

17 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Russia cannot be allowed to win, but nor is it wise to look to inflict a humiliating defeat

Any territorial gain by Russia in the Donbass region will be treated as a glorious triumph by Putin. Similarly any failure to gain territory will be seen as an humiliating defeat. So good luck with squaring that circle.

[BroadstairsR 2,164]

5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Any territorial gain by Russia in the Donbass region will be treated as a glorious triumph by Putin. Similarly any failure to gain territory will be seen as an humiliating defeat. So good luck with squaring that circle.

I, and most of the western world it seems, would surely love the same access to Vladimar Putin's  innermost thoughts and intentions that you claim to have.

[horsefly 4,300]

26 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

I, and most of the western world it seems, would surely love the same access to Vladimar Putin's  innermost thoughts and intentions that you claim to have.

If those claims about Putin aren't blindingly obvious all I can suggest is that you haven't paid any notice whatsoever to his political career to date.

[BroadstairsR 2,164]

56 minutes ago, horsefly said:

If those claims about Putin aren't blindingly obvious all I can suggest is that you haven't paid any notice whatsoever to his political career to date.

 

Who hasn't paid notice to Putin's "political career to late?" It's been very well documented long before this latest manifestation. Rather difficult to avoid, I would suggest.

On the one hand, though, we have those assuming his intention is to create a greater Russia, USSR style, encompassing the Baltic States and further. On the other hand we have the likes of Alexander Stubb (?) ex-prime minister of Finland emphasising on World News that such a threat is a myth and nothing to be concerned about.

The one thing Vladimar Putin can always be accredited with is his unpredictability, that is surely his biggest weapon when war or diplomacy is on the menu.

"A world without Russia is a world that ceases to exist," is a statement not to be taken lightly, I might suggest.

'Putin is a madman, a sick man, a demagogue a ruthless dictator,' all talk which constitutes current propaganda and probably plays well into his thinking as it serves to promote the assumed allusion, or otherwise, of this unpredictability. 

Some voices acclaim that the only thing Putin understands is force. If that is the case, then why are the Ukrainians being sacrificed on the front line whilst his own "force" is being funded by oil revenue  from Europe and NATO seems only intent upon providing them with so-called "defensive weaponry?" Pussyfooting, noise making, Johnsonism.

I used "might." You used "will." When discussing Putin's intentions, there can be no surety.

The only certainty of this current stance by Putin, Zelensky and NATO is the eventual defeat of Ukraine in the Donbas to a greater or lesser extent, along with thousands of deaths and horror stories in the meantime.

It would seem that the only other ways that this could be avoided is by a diplomatic breakthrough, with concessions, or by Putin being removed from within.

Nobody wins by continued warfare.

 

Edited April 13, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[horsefly 4,300]

 

3 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

I used "might." You used "will." When discussing Putin's intentions, there can be no surety.

Except I said NOTHING  at all about Putin's intentions. I merely commented that your claim, "Russia cannot be allowed to win, but nor is it wise to look to inflict an humiliating defeat" is naively ignorant of Putin's psychology. I know of no politician or strategist who thinks other than that a Russian gain of Ukrainian territory would be seen by Putin as a great victory, and that no gain of territory would be seen as a defeat. 

While we are considering points of accuracy where did you hear support for your claim,  " On the one hand, though, we have those assuming his intention is to create a greater Russia, USSR style, encompassing the Baltic States and further. On the other hand we have the likes of Alexander Stubb (?) ex-prime minister of Finland emphasising on World News that such a threat is a myth and nothing to be concerned about."  I listened to Stubb on the radio today and he said nothing of the sort. He is a long time supporter of Finland joining NATO precisely to negate potential Russian threats. His point was that Russian threats about repercussions for Finland if it were to join NATO should be ignored, not that Russian ambitions for territorial incursions in Europe were a myth. Perhaps you might like to view this interview Stubb had with CNN just before the invasion: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2022/02/15/amanpour-alexander-stubb-finland-russia-ukraine-putin-sauli-niinisto.cnn

Edited April 13, 2022 by horsefly

[BroadstairsR 2,164]

" .......... other than that a Russian gain of Ukrainian territory would be seen by Putin as a great victory, and that no gain of territory would be seen as a defeat."

What exactly does that mean? Isn't Mariupol already 'gained' by Russia? Quite soon Ukraine is likely to  be landlocked whilst a land corridor between Russia and the Black Sea seems destined to be established.

The historically very nasty Donbas war is now heading towards a climax, with the use now of phosphorous bombs already  portend of the horrors to come. Meanwhile, Zelensky states that he needs not just  more arms, but 'vital air support', and that seemingly will not be forthcoming.

How do you envisage Ukraine regaining territories already lost  to the Russians without increased involvement by the West?

In the Alexander Stubb television interview I listened to, he spoke of Putin's vision of a greater Russia which included Ukraine and Belarus, but not Finland.

That both his own country and Sweden sought economic ties towards Western Europe and the EU at the end of the Cold War was considered by him to be a natural process. That both countries are now leaning even more towards NATO membership is a comment upon Putin's unpredictability.

I don't quite get your stance. It's consistent but without realism. When I suggested that you were advocating 'a fight to the death,' you refuted this. Do you then think that Ukraine alone can defeat the Russian intentions and without irredeemable and unspeakable cost? You mention Putin's psychology and my ignorance of it. How do you think he may then react to the prospect of any military defeat in this war? Do you readily dismiss greater threats?

Beneath the surface of the brinkmanship and the war machine propaganda, there are daily horrors being revealed.

I. for one, am unable to sit comfortably in my safe surrounds whilst this happens, and idealism continues to triumph over realism. 

Edited April 14, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[horsefly 4,300]

"Isn't Mariupol already 'gained' by Russia? Quite soon Ukraine is likely to  be landlocked whilst a land corridor between Russia and the Black Sea seems destined to be established.

The Donbas war is heading towards a climax, with the use now of phosphorous bombs already  portend of the horrors to come. Meanwhile, Zelensky states that he needs not just  more arms, but 'vital air support', and that seemingly will not be forthcoming.

How do you envisage Ukraine regaining territories already lost  to the Russians without increased involvement by the West?"

Oh dear! You clearly haven't been watching the news and seem blissfully unaware of Russia's retreat from the north and Ukraine's retaking of several towns previously occupied by them.

The idea that "the Donbas war is heading towards a climax" is ridiculous as well as offensive. The Donbas remains a part of Ukraine's sovereign legal territory, the battle there is a part of the war against Ukraine NOT a war in itself. Just what is your evidence that the battle in the Donbas region is reaching a "climax"? 

"In the Alexander Stubb television interview I listened to, he spoke of Putin's vision of a greater Russia which included Ukraine and Belarus, but not Finland."

Oh dear! You are now completely changing what you said originally. This is what you actually said:

"On the one hand, though, we have those assuming his intention is to create a greater Russia, USSR style, encompassing the Baltic States and further. On the other hand we have the likes of Alexander Stubb (?) ex-prime minister of Finland emphasising on World News that such a threat is a myth and nothing to be concerned about."

So now you are agreeing with me that he categorically DID NOT describe the threat of a greater Russia as a "myth". Indeed he says the very opposite. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what people actually say rather than manipulate and misrepresent their comments to suit your own purposes.

I don't quite get your stance. It's consistent but without realism. When I suggested that you were advocating 'a fight to the death,' you refuted this. Do you then think that Ukraine alone can defeat the Russian intentions and without irredeemable cost? You mention Putin's psychology and my ignorance of it. How do you think he may then react to the prospect of any military defeat in this war? Do you readily dismiss greater threats?

I'm afraid this is pure blather. I have nowhere suggested that this is a fight to the death, indeed, I said elsewhere that all wars must end in some kind of negotiated settlement. I am not foolish enough to suggest I know what the final outcome of this conflict will be, I merely pointed out that your comment, "Russia cannot be allowed to win, but nor is it wise to look to inflict an humiliating defeat" is both naïve and entirely unhelpful. 

"I. for one, am unable to sit comfortably in my safe surrounds whilst this happens, and idealism continues to triumph over realism."

A bizarre comment, just what is, "idealism continues to triumph over realism" supposed to mean? It is the Ukrainian people who are facing the reality of an invasion by a foreign country, and the overwhelming evidence is that the reality for those people is that they feel they must fight to resist that invasion. For you to dismiss that pejoratively as "the triumph of idealism over reality" is very insulting to those people. I can only assume that this is a reiteration of your early posts calling for Ukrainian appeasement to Russian demands, how that is supposed to square with your claim that "Russia cannot [sic] be allowed to win" is unfathomable (and that, of course, was the point I was making). 

[Sheva 123]

No mother should ever have to do this!

Putin you utter ****.

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

14 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

 

Who hasn't paid notice to Putin's "political career to late?" It's been very well documented long before this latest manifestation. Rather difficult to avoid, I would suggest.

On the one hand, though, we have those assuming his intention is to create a greater Russia, USSR style, encompassing the Baltic States and further. On the other hand we have the likes of Alexander Stubb (?) ex-prime minister of Finland emphasising on World News that such a threat is a myth and nothing to be concerned about.

The one thing Vladimar Putin can always be accredited with is his unpredictability, that is surely his biggest weapon when war or diplomacy is on the menu.

"A world without Russia is a world that ceases to exist," is a statement not to be taken lightly, I might suggest.

'Putin is a madman, a sick man, a demagogue a ruthless dictator,' all talk which constitutes current propaganda and probably plays well into his thinking as it serves to promote the assumed allusion, or otherwise, of this unpredictability. 

Some voices acclaim that the only thing Putin understands is force. If that is the case, then why are the Ukrainians being sacrificed on the front line whilst his own "force" is being funded by oil revenue  from Europe and NATO seems only intent upon providing them with so-called "defensive weaponry?" Pussyfooting, noise making, Johnsonism.

I used "might." You used "will." When discussing Putin's intentions, there can be no surety.

The only certainty of this current stance by Putin, Zelensky and NATO is the eventual defeat of Ukraine in the Donbas to a greater or lesser extent, along with thousands of deaths and horror stories in the meantime.

It would seem that the only other ways that this could be avoided is by a diplomatic breakthrough, with concessions, or by Putin being removed from within.

Nobody wins by continued warfare.

 

I read this but I question your countenance of despair.

We (and the Ukrainians) could of simply accepted at the outset the the Russians would quickly, within 48 hours,  overrun Ukraine and of done nothing. Simply let Ukraine become a client state (again) and accept whatever demographic changes Putin envisages before he moved on to yet newer conquests.

Equally the USA in 1940 could of accepted the same logic as to the fate of the UK - there were numerous UK voices at the time that sort a compromise / peace deal with Hitler. Perhaps he would have left George VI on the throne but more likely reinstated Edward plus a puppet government of sorts. Would of saved a lot of lives! You, even today might still of been a citizen of the German Reich.

No. Sovereign states have a right to defend themselves and nothing is a given - certainly not that Russia will prevail in Donbas. Yes it may well be bloody but if the Ukrainians are up for the fight (and more so successful) then this is likely to be the best way to stymie Putin's ambitions and ultimately bring about change in Russia itself.  

Roll over without a fight and it may well be another country, your country, next.

[BroadstairsR 2,164]

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

"Isn't Mariupol already 'gained' by Russia? Quite soon Ukraine is likely to  be landlocked whilst a land corridor between Russia and the Black Sea seems destined to be established.

The Donbas war is heading towards a climax, with the use now of phosphorous bombs already  portend of the horrors to come. Meanwhile, Zelensky states that he needs not just  more arms, but 'vital air support', and that seemingly will not be forthcoming.

How do you envisage Ukraine regaining territories already lost  to the Russians without increased involvement by the West?"

Oh dear! You clearly haven't been watching the news and seem blissfully unaware of Russia's retreat from the north and Ukraine's retaking of several towns previously occupied by them.

The idea that "the Donbas war is heading towards a climax" is ridiculous as well as offensive. The Donbas remains a part of Ukraine's sovereign legal territory, the battle there is a part of the war against Ukraine NOT a war in itself. Just what is your evidence that the battle in the Donbas region is reaching a "climax"? 

"In the Alexander Stubb television interview I listened to, he spoke of Putin's vision of a greater Russia which included Ukraine and Belarus, but not Finland."

Oh dear! You are now completely changing what you said originally. This is what you actually said:

"On the one hand, though, we have those assuming his intention is to create a greater Russia, USSR style, encompassing the Baltic States and further. On the other hand we have the likes of Alexander Stubb (?) ex-prime minister of Finland emphasising on World News that such a threat is a myth and nothing to be concerned about."

So now you are agreeing with me that he categorically DID NOT describe the threat of a greater Russia as a "myth". Indeed he says the very opposite. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what people actually say rather than manipulate and misrepresent their comments to suit your own purposes.

I don't quite get your stance. It's consistent but without realism. When I suggested that you were advocating 'a fight to the death,' you refuted this. Do you then think that Ukraine alone can defeat the Russian intentions and without irredeemable cost? You mention Putin's psychology and my ignorance of it. How do you think he may then react to the prospect of any military defeat in this war? Do you readily dismiss greater threats?

I'm afraid this is pure blather. I have nowhere suggested that this is a fight to the death, indeed, I said elsewhere that all wars must end in some kind of negotiated settlement. I am not foolish enough to suggest I know what the final outcome of this conflict will be, I merely pointed out that your comment, "Russia cannot be allowed to win, but nor is it wise to look to inflict an humiliating defeat" is both naïve and entirely unhelpful. 

"I. for one, am unable to sit comfortably in my safe surrounds whilst this happens, and idealism continues to triumph over realism."

A bizarre comment, just what is, "idealism continues to triumph over realism" supposed to mean? It is the Ukrainian people who are facing the reality of an invasion by a foreign country, and the overwhelming evidence is that the reality for those people is that they feel they must fight to resist that invasion. For you to dismiss that pejoratively as "the triumph of idealism over reality" is very insulting to those people. I can only assume that this is a reiteration of your early posts calling for Ukrainian appeasement to Russian demands, how that is supposed to square with your claim that "Russia cannot [sic] be allowed to win" is unfathomable (and that, of course, was the point I was making). 

 "...... indeed, I said elsewhere that all wars must end in some kind of negotiated settlement."

Ah! I must have missed something. Feel free to show where you said that and how do you suppose that this settlement might differ from Putin's previous demands, which were outlined by Zelensky some four weeks ago on American television? Remember the four points.

In the meantime ..............!

As for the rest of your frantic and selective to the point of being the usual hyperbolic rant,  am I correct in thinking that you believe Mariupol will eventually be retrieved by the Ukrainian forces without serious NATO involvement?

As for the Donbas War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas

May be, just may be, it is fuller consideration of this long-standing issue that will be the key to your 'negotiated settlement.'