Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war

[horsefly 4,310]

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

Advocating genocide? your choice of words is just like the western cabal likes it best, when they claim to uphold democracy in Ukraine.

Comedian Zelenski is not in charge, its Victoria Nuland who is determined to work for the US military industrial corps. via their Rand Association. But just as Harold Pinter said, 'it never happened, even when it was happening'. Musk twitter will now be given 'free speech' something we might want to try, whence our dear liar and his misogynist chums are not talking about someone daring to cross and uncross their legs.

And this is the kind of democratic behaviour that marks Ukraine. Once it was jewish propriators of businesses and newspapers that got killed. today its the opposition and those who dare to want to make peace, negotiate for their citizens or disagree with this one way war in which NATO countries are clearly implemented.

https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/17/traitor-zelensky-assassination-kidnapping-arrest-political-opposition/

 

Utterly bizarre to claim that the ones who want peace are the ones lead by a dictator who ordered the illegal invasion of a democratic sovereign nation, and continues to order the destruction of its cities, towns, and villages, and the indiscriminate murder of its civilians. Are you really so gullible that you believe Putin's facile propaganda? or do you simply have a pro-Putin agenda irrespective of the war crimes he has ordered?

[kirku 1,334]

5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Utterly bizarre to claim that the ones who want peace are the ones lead by a dictator who ordered the illegal invasion of a democratic sovereign nation, and continues to order the destruction of its cities, towns, and villages, and the indiscriminate murder of its civilians. Are you really so gullible that you believe Putin's facile propaganda? or do you simply have a pro-Putin agenda irrespective of the war crimes he has ordered?

That Lira he quoted from Twitter is an absolute lunatic.

He became an RT/Galloway mouthpiece after moving to Ukraine as a sex tourist and then pivoting to pro-Kremlin political commentary. Obviously.

[Badger 2,407]

1 hour ago, kirku said:

The UK really isn't. The systems and schemes in place are designed to fail and are utterly shambolic. 

I agree that the response has been better but it's still a system that doesn't reflect the genuine desire for the British people (at large) to help and support. It's hard to come to the conclusion that it's anything other than deliberate.

You are entirely right! 

What I was clumsily trying to say that the govt (and some of the public) has a totally different attitude to Ukrainian refugees to those others countries whose need is just as great.

[kirku 1,334]

19 minutes ago, Badger said:

You are entirely right! 

What I was clumsily trying to say that the govt (and some of the public) has a totally different attitude to Ukrainian refugees to those others countries whose need is just as great.

Agreed.

Partly human nature, partly a rabid right-wing press who've spent decades demonising people who "look foreign".

[1902 1,167]

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

Advocating genocide? your choice of words is just like the western cabal likes it best, when they claim to uphold democracy in Ukraine.

Comedian Zelenski is not in charge, its Victoria Nuland who is determined to work for the US military industrial corps. via their Rand Association. But just as Harold Pinter said, 'it never happened, even when it was happening'. Musk twitter will now be given 'free speech' something we might want to try, whence our dear liar and his misogynist chums are not talking about someone daring to cross and uncross their legs.

And this is the kind of democratic behaviour that marks Ukraine. Once it was jewish propriators of businesses and newspapers that got killed. today its the opposition and those who dare to want to make peace, negotiate for their citizens or disagree with this one way war in which NATO countries are clearly implemented.

https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/17/traitor-zelensky-assassination-kidnapping-arrest-political-opposition/

 

Didn't really engage with the fact that you wished death on all Ukrainians did you?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

On 25/04/2022 at 15:50, Badger said:

Correct me if I am wrong but Ukraine was also part of the Russian empire from the 18th Century, I think, although as you say, also a Soviet Republic. 

TBH, I don't feel my knowledge of the Ukraine is secure enough to debate any point strongly: I have to admit to being largely ignorant of its history and politics. I am also very aware that some posters originate from the area and have connections there so wouldn't want to offend anyone.

However, the little I do suggests to me that response to Russia by the West since the break up has been incoherent and largely thoughtless. I find the ideas put forwards by the Geoffrey Roberts article that I linked quite persuasive but I am aware that I am partly responding to Robert's name and reputation. It feels to me that neither carrot nor stick has been applied and that there has been little attention or care, let alone understanding applied to the whole situation for 30+ years. In this, I am as guilty as most people but am not a foreign policy maker. Naively, perhaps, I like to think that successive governments might have evolved some form of policy on this, but there is nothing to suggest that there was.

Finally, I am enraged that we are quite rightly doing all we can to help Ukrainian refugees but at the same time sending away refugees from other wars and describing them as "illegals." 

Chechnya's independence was never recognised either by Russia or the UN; Ukraine is a UN-recognised state whose borders and security were formally acknowledged by Russia, and co-signed by the US and UK, in the 1994 memorandum on the subjsct as part of Ukraine's accession to the Convention on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. 
 

In terms of realpolitik Chechnya didn't represent any direct threat to any western/NATO nations, whereas the invasion of Ukraine does. 

Frankly, it's a bit absurd how some seem to suggest that Russia, a nuclear power and permanent member of the UN security council, doesn't bear any responsibility for its own foreign policy, the consequences of it, or the suffering caused by it while apparently the West is somehow responsible. 

Edited April 26, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[kirku 1,334]

51 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Frankly, it's a bit absurd how some seem to suggest that Russia, a nuclear power and permanent member of the UN security council, doesn't bear any responsibility for its own foreign policy, the consequences of it, or the suffering caused by it while apparently the West is somehow responsible. 

It's verbatim Russian propaganda - they never have agency in any situation, they're always forced to do things by external parties.

[Badger 2,407]

16 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Frankly, it's a bit absurd how some seem to suggest that Russia, a nuclear power and permanent member of the UN security council, doesn't bear any responsibility for its own foreign policy, the consequences of it, or the suffering caused by it while apparently the West is somehow responsible. 

Of course Russia is entirely responsible for its own foreign policy and Putin is clearly an abhorrent man: I'm not sure how you inferred otherwise from what I posted.

However, that does not mean that western foreign policy was thought-through and coherent. All the political parties in Britain and national response from other leading parts of the West have stumbled in their response to the collapse of the Soviet Union in general and the handling of Putin in particular. 

It is to my mind, a little dismissive just to say that,

16 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Chechnya's independence was never recognised either by Russia or the UN

as if this makes it "normal" and does not give a good indication of the nature of Putin's regime. It was a very bloody war and there were terrible atrocities committed. Our response - our then PM, Tony Blair said, Putin " a focused view of what he wants to achieve in Russia."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/674480.stm

This was weeks after between 5-8000 civilians were killed in the Battle of Grozny. A few weeks later Blair invited Putin to Britain to meet the Queen. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-to-meet-blair-and-queen-on-first-official-visit-to-west-279866.html

The response by Britain to further aggression has been similarly timid whilst at the same time we have bent over backwards to accommodate Russian money in Britain. Johnson's links to an ex-KGB leader are well known and other associates of Putin have been embraced until recently.

Britain, of course, is not alone in this: German dependence on Russian oil is well-known as are trumps close links with Russia and praise of Putin. Up until Ukraine the West has at best turned a blind eye to the nature of Putin's regime and has at worst worked closely with associates of Putin and palled-up with Russian money and resources. IMO, the truth is that it suited us to do so. Can you really say that our hands are completely clean in the current crisis and that we could have done noting earlier?

[Indy 3,307]

44 minutes ago, Badger said:

Of course Russia is entirely responsible for its own foreign policy and Putin is clearly an abhorrent man: I'm not sure how you inferred otherwise from what I posted.

However, that does not mean that western foreign policy was thought-through and coherent. All the political parties in Britain and national response from other leading parts of the West have stumbled in their response to the collapse of the Soviet Union in general and the handling of Putin in particular. 

It is to my mind, a little dismissive just to say that,

as if this makes it "normal" and does not give a good indication of the nature of Putin's regime. It was a very bloody war and there were terrible atrocities committed. Our response - our then PM, Tony Blair said, Putin " a focused view of what he wants to achieve in Russia."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/674480.stm

This was weeks after between 5-8000 civilians were killed in the Battle of Grozny. A few weeks later Blair invited Putin to Britain to meet the Queen. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-to-meet-blair-and-queen-on-first-official-visit-to-west-279866.html

The response by Britain to further aggression has been similarly timid whilst at the same time we have bent over backwards to accommodate Russian money in Britain. Johnson's links to an ex-KGB leader are well known and other associates of Putin have been embraced until recently.

Britain, of course, is not alone in this: German dependence on Russian oil is well-known as are trumps close links with Russia and praise of Putin. Up until Ukraine the West has at best turned a blind eye to the nature of Putin's regime and has at worst worked closely with associates of Putin and palled-up with Russian money and resources. IMO, the truth is that it suited us to do so. Can you really say that our hands are completely clean in the current crisis and that we could have done noting earlier?

Very balanced and fair view, the problem is Ukraine war is highly covered by the media and very much everything which would have been discussed behind closed quarters is being aired directly to media, meaning lots of backtracking from the US and others. It does nothing to defuse the situation and the way things are reported can be inflamed by the media who’s reporting it, sensationalising headlines!

I’m not going to engage so many who are decent posters on here and appear be outraged and happily to go full war with Putin!

For me I fully appreciate that this Ukraine war has had 8 years building up to this and at no point has the west intervened in a positive discussion between Russia & Ukraine instead we’ve happily been blind to the war which was already going on in southern Ukraine! Happy to take Russian money and turn the other way!

Add to this my question which not one person has had the courage to respond to, why are you not outraged the same with Israel? They’re killing and moving innocent people in land grabs! Funny how the west isn’t supplying the Palestinians with arms!

I absolutely hate Putin and all he stands for, he’s not only invaded Ukraine he’s caused harm and suffering in Russia too and I have no doubt as soon as we supply and weapons which strike any Russian territory it’ll be war declared on the UK, thanks to Truss we’re already Putins number 1 target outside Ukraine! Would you be happy to see a missile strike on mainland UK because of this war? That’s what will happen the more we push arms! If you are happy to escalate the war to our shores then fine, just remember your opinions are valid but those actions will have consequences!

That’s why I’m more pragmatic in giving a way out to all parties for the time being, then assess the situation once this has calmed down. I’m not going to engage in any arguments this is my thoughts and the more we don’t open up communication lines and just supply defence equipment the longer this war will continue and Ukraine pounded to the ground!

[Badger 2,407]

On 25/04/2022 at 18:03, ricardo said:

They couldn't supply the Africa Corps properly so any idea that there was a logistical possibility of supplying a larger force is wishful thinking. No railroad across the top of N. Africa and just one coastal road and no fresh water supplies for hundreds of miles. Theres an obvious flaw in the idea that you could field a million man plus army down that road and that is why they didn't do it.

Any resources you put into N. Africa you have to take away from Barbarossa, or are you now attempting to write a different scenario to the one that took place.

The supply line through Italy and North Africa was too far and vastly more vulnerable. The Italian navy could even control its own local sea and spent most of its time in port. Those that weren't sunk at Matapan and Toranto that is.

As I've already explained most of Britains war time oil came from USA and Venezuela, not the middle east. Thats why the oil tanker that supplied Malta in Operation Pedestal came from Gibralter and not Alexandria.

"or are you now attempting to write a different scenario to the one that took place."

Yes! perhaps I have not been clear enough? You have previously implied that victory was inevitable after Britain failed to pull out of the war following the battle of Britain. My posts since then have been aimed at trying to show that this was not the case and indeed that defeat was not inevitable until late 1941 or possibly 1942.

The quote I gave earlier was from Andrew Roberts who is one of the leading historians of this period - it cannot really be dismissed casually.

On 25/04/2022 at 10:43, Badger said:

Andrew Roberts,  "The Storm of War" page 149:

"With a mere fraction of the numbers released in Barbarossa, Germany could easily have obliterated the British presence in Lybia, Egypt, Gibraltar, Iraq, Palestine and Iran, cutting off Britain's il supply and her direct sea route via Suez to India. Supplying a campaign in the Middle East would have been far easier for the Axis, via Italy and Sicily, than it would have been for the defenders via the Cape of Good Hope."

He is outlining a potential scenario when Barbarossa did not take place in 1941 - there was no need at the time as the USSR was exporting oil to Germany - Barbarossa made the situation worse not better.

Secondly, Roberts points out that it would only have taken "a mere fraction" of the troops that were deployed in Barbarossa - not one million plus. It is his view that with such an adjustment "Germany could easily have obliterated the British presence in Lybia, Egypt, Gibraltar, Iraq, Palestine and Iran, cutting off Britain's il (sic - oil) supply and her direct sea route via Suez to India."

It would also have enabled a later attack on the Caucuses oil fields from the south as well as the North-West. I have also made the point that Barbarossa chose to go to Moscow etc - a better policy would have focussed on the oil supplies in the Caucuses in a two-pronged attack.

Alternatively there is the view outlined by Keller that even after Barbarossa, the German's could have taken the Caucuses oil fields with Case BLUE if he had not become obsessed with Stalingrad. My recollection, but I can't source it atm, is that Max hastings had a similar view?

 

On 23/04/2022 at 10:38, Badger said:

"At this point, Hitler made a fateful decision that many historians consider the turning point of the war... he ordered the 6th Army to proceed alone to Stalingrad, .... Case BLUE continued, but Hitler’s growing obsession with Stalingrad, namesake of his Soviet nemesis, drained the life out of an otherwise progressive campaign to take the Caucasus."

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Turning-Point%3A-A-History-of-German-Petroleum-in-War-Keller/65fffe0381dd078d3b552a756bba3f4b33494754 (Page 16)

I acknowledge that Britain got most of its oil from the US/ Venezuela but it did also get some from what was then called Persia - they would have been denied this and it would have gone instead to Germany in the alternative strategy outlined by Roberts. I also don't think that our oil supply from the US was a certain as you seem to feel. Of course, US did enter the war but there is no certainty over whether they would have if Germany had not declared war on them: there was huge opposition to it in the US and a great deal of Anglophobia. British credit was not good in the US following our default on the World War One loans in the 1930s and following the transfer of our Gold reserves to the US and a guarantee of payment, money was  running short. A war in the Far East as well as in Europe was beyond the capability of our economy (let alone our military) without American support.

I just don't think that the evidence supports your initial proposition that:- 

 

On 16/04/2022 at 14:51, ricardo said:

Long before the US or The Soviets enteredthe UK won the only battle that counted.

[Indy 3,307]

On 16/04/2022 at 14:51, ricardo said:

Nothing quite as over symplystic as that paragraph though.

Long before the US or The Soviets enteredthe UK won the only battle that counted.

I assume your referring to the Battle of Britain Ricardo, it wasn’t just the UK! I believe you might want to include, Canadian, Indian, Czech, Slovaks, US volunteers among other nations pilots and a big mention to the Poles, who were some of the best pilots!

[PurpleCanary 5,573]

41 minutes ago, Indy said:

Very balanced and fair view, the problem is Ukraine war is highly covered by the media and very much everything which would have been discussed behind closed quarters is being aired directly to media, meaning lots of backtracking from the US and others. It does nothing to defuse the situation and the way things are reported can be inflamed by the media who’s reporting it, sensationalising headlines!

I’m not going to engage so many who are decent posters on here and appear be outraged and happily to go full war with Putin!

For me I fully appreciate that this Ukraine war has had 8 years building up to this and at no point has the west intervened in a positive discussion between Russia & Ukraine instead we’ve happily been blind to the war which was already going on in southern Ukraine! Happy to take Russian money and turn the other way!

Add to this my question which not one person has had the courage to respond to, why are you not outraged the same with Israel? They’re killing and moving innocent people in land grabs! Funny how the west isn’t supplying the Palestinians with arms!

I absolutely hate Putin and all he stands for, he’s not only invaded Ukraine he’s caused harm and suffering in Russia too and I have no doubt as soon as we supply and weapons which strike any Russian territory it’ll be war declared on the UK, thanks to Truss we’re already Putins number 1 target outside Ukraine! Would you be happy to see a missile strike on mainland UK because of this war? That’s what will happen the more we push arms! If you are happy to escalate the war to our shores then fine, just remember your opinions are valid but those actions will have consequences!

That’s why I’m more pragmatic in giving a way out to all parties for the time being, then assess the situation once this has calmed down. I’m not going to engage in any arguments this is my thoughts and the more we don’t open up communication lines and just supply defence equipment the longer this war will continue and Ukraine pounded to the ground!

Indy, I am not afraid to answer it, but the answer is complicated. I have a book about the conflict entitled The 50 Years War, which as a title is 24 years out of date. So it has been going on 74 years, but has never turned into the full-scale war you have in Ukraine, with one country invading another, and with - in very broad terms - good guys and bad guys.

The story of the Middle East conflict can be easily told by looking at a maps of the region, and particularly the area of Israeli land, starting in 1948 and carrying onto now. The "invasion" - the seizing of more and more land - has been incremental. 

And you must know as well as I do there is unavoidable history - the Holocaust - behind all this which makes rational debate hard and certainly means that the continuing oppression of the Palestinian people and that seizing of land  does not result in the kind of united outrage it would do if a country other than Israel was involved.

[horsefly 4,310]

"I’m not going to engage so many who are decent posters on here and appear be outraged and happily to go full war with Putin!"

Who has said, or implied, they are prepared to "happily go full war with Putin"?

"Add to this my question which not one person has had the courage to respond to, why are you not outraged the same with Israel? They’re killing and moving innocent people in land grabs! Funny how the west isn’t supplying the Palestinians with arms!"

I suspect that I am not alone on here in having frequently criticized Israeli policy and actions against the rights of Palestinians. I would very happily support appropriate sanctions to punish Israel for its crimes. However, your comparison of (illegal) Israeli settlement land grabs with the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia is simply bewildering, and stinks horribly of whataboutery.

"I have no doubt as soon as we supply and weapons which strike any Russian territory it’ll be war declared on the UK, thanks to Truss we’re already Putins number 1 target outside Ukraine! Would you be happy to see a missile strike on mainland UK because of this war? That’s what will happen the more we push arms!"

Do you really believe this extraordinary claim? Weapons supplied by NATO countries have already inflicted massive damage against Russian forces, and some of their infrastructure. For Russia to declare war against GB would be for Russia to declare war against ALL NATO countries. Why do you think they are electing to use the feeble non-committal term "war by proxy" when talking of NATO countries supplying weaponry? And no I wouldn't be happy to see a missile strike on mainland UK, but I also don't suspect Russians would be happy to see such a strike responded to with NATO strikes on Moscow either.

"That’s why I’m more pragmatic in giving a way out to all parties for the time being, then assess the situation once this has calmed down."

I haven't a clue what you think would constitute "giving a way out to all parties for the time being". Thus i really don't understand why you would think this as "more pragmatic".

"For me I fully appreciate that this Ukraine war has had 8 years building up to this and at no point has the west intervened in a positive discussion between Russia & Ukraine instead we’ve happily been blind to the war which was already going on in southern Ukraine! Happy to take Russian money and turn the other way!"

I couldn't agree more that the West has been guilty of largely ignoring the festering situation involving Russian and Ukrainian relations. The fact that the annexation of Crimea resulted in such a paltry response, and barely affected trading relations with the Putin regime is a shameful and permanent stain. However, I don't see why that should in anyway mitigate against taking strong action to punish the Russians for their current invasion of Ukraine. If anything those past failings to act show precisely why it is so important to assist Ukraine in defending itself from Russia's illegal invasion. Or should we just sit back and allow Putin to invade wherever he wishes without fear of any sort of resistance from the democratic West?

 

[Indy 3,307]

28 minutes ago, horsefly said:

"I’m not going to engage so many who are decent posters on here and appear be outraged and happily to go full war with Putin!"

Who has said, or implied, they are prepared to "happily go full war with Putin"?

"Add to this my question which not one person has had the courage to respond to, why are you not outraged the same with Israel? They’re killing and moving innocent people in land grabs! Funny how the west isn’t supplying the Palestinians with arms!"

I suspect that I am not alone on here in having frequently criticized Israeli policy and actions against the rights of Palestinians. I would very happily support appropriate sanctions to punish Israel for its crimes. However, your comparison of (illegal) Israeli settlement land grabs with the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia is simply bewildering, and stinks horribly of whataboutery.

"I have no doubt as soon as we supply and weapons which strike any Russian territory it’ll be war declared on the UK, thanks to Truss we’re already Putins number 1 target outside Ukraine! Would you be happy to see a missile strike on mainland UK because of this war? That’s what will happen the more we push arms!"

Do you really believe this extraordinary claim? Weapons supplied by NATO countries have already inflicted massive damage against Russian forces, and some of their infrastructure. For Russia to declare war against GB would be for Russia to declare war against ALL NATO countries. Why do you think they are electing to use the feeble non-committal term "war by proxy" when talking of NATO countries supplying weaponry? And no I wouldn't be happy to see a missile strike on mainland UK, but I also don't suspect Russians would be happy to see such a strike responded to with NATO strikes on Moscow either.

"That’s why I’m more pragmatic in giving a way out to all parties for the time being, then assess the situation once this has calmed down."

I haven't a clue what you think would constitute "giving a way out to all parties for the time being". Thus i really don't understand why you would think this as "more pragmatic".

"For me I fully appreciate that this Ukraine war has had 8 years building up to this and at no point has the west intervened in a positive discussion between Russia & Ukraine instead we’ve happily been blind to the war which was already going on in southern Ukraine! Happy to take Russian money and turn the other way!"

I couldn't agree more that the West has been guilty of largely ignoring the festering situation involving Russian and Ukrainian relations. The fact that the annexation of Crimea resulted in such a paltry response, and barely affected trading relations with the Putin regime is a shameful and permanent stain. However, I don't see why that should in anyway mitigate against taking strong action to punish the Russians for their current invasion of Ukraine. If anything those past failings to act show precisely why it is so important to assist Ukraine in defending itself from Russia's illegal invasion. Or should we just sit back and allow Putin to invade wherever he wishes without fear of any sort of resistance from the democratic West?

 

That’s your view and I’ve stated mine, as I said I’m not going into it anymore, your choice to pick bits it instead of the whole post is what people like to do to then support their point but the entire paragraph I posted regarding if your happy to see things escalate which is what I said with chance of bringing it to these shore than that’s fine.

I’ve aired my opinion and it’s not in line with yours we move on.

[Indy 3,307]

52 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Indy, I am not afraid to answer it, but the answer is complicated. I have a book about the conflict entitled The 50 Years War, which as a title is 24 years out of date. So it has been going on 74 years, but has never turned into the full-scale war you have in Ukraine, with one country invading another, and with - in very broad terms - good guys and bad guys.

The story of the Middle East conflict can be easily told by looking at a maps of the region, and particularly the area of Israeli land, starting in 1948 and carrying onto now. The "invasion" - the seizing of more and more land - has been incremental. 

And you must know as well as I do there is unavoidable history - the Holocaust - behind all this which makes rational debate hard and certainly means that the continuing oppression of the Palestinian people and that seizing of land  does not result in the kind of united outrage it would do if a country other than Israel was involved.

Absolutely right, but in recent years a number of tertiary incursions have been reported by a number of humanitarian organisations and yet UN still turning a blind eye! It’s certainly no different in some respects but we’re outraged by one land invasion yet it’s ok because it’s Israel!

 

[Indy 3,307]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/27/ukraine-war-end-putin-russia-talks
 

I think these points absolutely mirror my thoughts for the past week.

[kirku 1,334]

2 hours ago, Indy said:

I’ve aired my opinion and it’s not in line with yours we move on.

Indeed, but a forum would be pretty dull if it were just people laying out their positions and then "moving on". 

FWIW, I agree with Horsefly's assessment of your post/position.

There are some major logical questions around the reasoning behind some of your conclusions, which sound like they will go unanswered.

[Indy 3,307]

Just now, kirku said:

Indeed, but a forum would be pretty dull if it were just people laying out their positions and then "moving on". 

FWIW, I agree with Horsefly's assessment of your post/position.

There are some major logical questions around the reasoning behind some of your conclusions, which sound like they will go unanswered.

Instead of reading Horesy cut of my post for his angle, can I suggest you read the entire post and funny enough the link I posted. Kirk there’s some good debates but I don’t respond to posters who are rude or just obnoxious as above, that’s why I won’t engage anymore. I don’t fully agree with some people that’s all.

[Yellow Fever 3,807]

1 hour ago, kirku said:

Indeed, but a forum would be pretty dull if it were just people laying out their positions and then "moving on". 

FWIW, I agree with Horsefly's assessment of your post/position.

There are some major logical questions around the reasoning behind some of your conclusions, which sound like they will go unanswered.

 

1 hour ago, Indy said:

Instead of reading Horesy cut of my post for his angle, can I suggest you read the entire post and funny enough the link I posted. Kirk there’s some good debates but I don’t respond to posters who are rude or just obnoxious as above, that’s why I won’t engage anymore. I don’t fully agree with some people that’s all.

I'm generally with Kirku or indeed Horsey.

Everybody wants this to end peacefully but simply rolling over to the bully yet again seems unlikely to quench his thirst for yet more.

We have tried to appease, to work with, turned a blind eye, to nudge Russia towards a more open society and look where it has got us?  I seem to recall at the time of the Balkans there was even a Russian battle group present under Nato (or a similar arrangement). Discussions, no more, did indeed take place about Russia joining NATO but it neither met NATOs or indeed Russia's views at the time.

Since then we have many Russian 'extra territorial' incursions starting with Chechnya (although that was part of Russia - but we were also anyway largely engaged with Islamic terrorists ourselves at the time) through Georgia, Syria, Crimea. Donbass and now the whole of Ukraine (not forgetting now Moldova). Have I missed anywhere - probably! Each one bigger and more damaging than the last.

I leave you with one thought. We could in 1939 have taken exactly the same view you propose with Hitler - Sudetenland, Poland and so on. I'm sure he had his own self justified reasons however perverted same as Putin does now. Living space and the old German speaking regions. Any excuse will do. He would of got bored and gone away eventually if I am following your doctrine.

Just think, instead of growing up under Soviet rule you could of grown up (if at all) in the third Reich. No, people said enough was enough and put a stop to Hitler's ambitions.

Oh - two wrongs never make a right - clearly there should be a two state solution for Palestine (or indeed Israel become truly secular and the right to return honoured). My own personal experience of Israel is that there are the the older Jews who have always lived there lived peacefully pre-WW2 with no particular problems and relaxed with their Palestinian friends and neighbors - people of the book - and then the influx of 'romantic' Jews returning from the diaspora after nigh 2000 years - largely very European, Russian and American stock - self-righteous and expansionist.  However even that has to be put in terms of the cold-war proxy wars in the region. 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[horsefly 4,310]

3 hours ago, Indy said:

That’s your view and I’ve stated mine, as I said I’m not going into it anymore, your choice to pick bits it instead of the whole post is what people like to do to then support their point but the entire paragraph I posted regarding if your happy to see things escalate which is what I said with chance of bringing it to these shore than that’s fine.

I’ve aired my opinion and it’s not in line with yours we move on.

Firstly you made several points  in arriving at your opaque conclusion that, "I’m more pragmatic in giving a way out to all parties for the time being, then assess the situation once this has calmed down".  It's a bit rich to claim that it is illegitimate for someone to criticise the points that you yourself have stated. How one is supposed to address issues with the "whole post" without criticising the various points raised in that whole post simply defies logic. I quoted your points directly and offered my reasons why I think they are problematic. Obviously it is entirely up to you whether you want to respond to those criticisms but it is certainly  disingenuous to attempt to brush them off as merely "picking bits".

Secondly, you continue to describe people who disagree with you as "happy to see things escalate". Again that is a very disingenuous characterisation of the posts I have seen on here. I don't believe anyone is "happy to see things escalate". Personally the only thing that would make me happy is for Russia to withdraw its troops from this illegal invasion of Ukraine and cease committing the war crimes that it has perpetrated. However, it is more than clear that Putin will not do that, and while he fails to do that it seems absolutely right to provide Ukraine with the military resources it needs to defend its own territory from an illegal invasion. You completely fail to give any substantive content to your claim, "I’m more pragmatic in giving a way out to all parties for the time being, then assess the situation once this has calmed down". Frankly that is not at all surprising because there is no one in the world at the moment who can describe the set of circumstances in which a satisfactory "way out" for all parties is possible. Until such circumstances become possible, which must include the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory, it is crucial for the West to support Ukraine in its legal right to defend its sovereign territory. To do otherwise would simply empower Putin in his project to further grow the Russian empire with further illegal invasions of other countries (|Moldova already has good reason to fear his intentions). And that would ensure a genuine escalation of the possibility of WWIII.

 

[Yellow Fever 3,807]

Just saw this - 

Putin warns of ‘lightning fast’ retaliation if West interferes in Ukraine

In an address to lawmakers in St Petersburg earlier today, Vladimir Putin warned any countries attempting to interfere in Ukraine would be met with a “lightning-fast” response from Moscow. The Russian president said the West wanted to cut Russia up into different pieces and accused it of pushing Ukraine into conflict with Russia, adding: If someone intends to intervene into the ongoing events (in Ukraine) from the outside and creates unacceptable strategic threats for us, then they should know that our response to those strikes will be swift, lightning fast.

Sounds to me like Putin is trying to write the shortest suicide note ever.

It's all bluster frankly.

[horsefly 4,310]

2 hours ago, Indy said:

Instead of reading Horesy cut of my post for his angle, can I suggest you read the entire post and funny enough the link I posted. Kirk there’s some good debates but I don’t respond to posters who are rude or just obnoxious as above, that’s why I won’t engage anymore. I don’t fully agree with some people that’s all.

Which bits were rude or obnoxious? It starts to look like you're just refusing to acknowledge flaws and inconsistencies pointed out in your own arguments. I have given you perfectly clear and understandable reasons why I find problems with your claims, if you can't, or are unwilling to, answer them that's your problem or prerogative, but less of the fabricated excuses please.

Edited April 27, 2022 by horsefly

[Indy 3,307]

39 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Which bits were rude or obnoxious? It starts to look like you're just refusing to acknowledge flaws and inconsistencies pointed out in your own arguments. I have given you perfectly clear and understandable reasons why I find problems with your claims, if you can't, or are unwilling to, answer them that's your problem or prerogative, but less of the fabricated excuses please.

Never referred to you Horsey, it’s at others who are a little obnoxious!

I stand by my opinion the longer we supply bit part defensive weapons the longer this goes on, the more we supply attacking weapons be prepared to see a reaction! If read my link you’ll see I’m not alone in my way of thinking! You might not agree but that’s your prerogative and I kindly hope you respect my views!

[It's Character Forming 1,164]

Putin now warning against “outside interference“ in Ukraine. I don’t think he has a sense of irony.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Just saw this - 

Putin warns of ‘lightning fast’ retaliation if West interferes in Ukraine

In an address to lawmakers in St Petersburg earlier today, Vladimir Putin warned any countries attempting to interfere in Ukraine would be met with a “lightning-fast” response from Moscow. The Russian president said the West wanted to cut Russia up into different pieces and accused it of pushing Ukraine into conflict with Russia, adding: If someone intends to intervene into the ongoing events (in Ukraine) from the outside and creates unacceptable strategic threats for us, then they should know that our response to those strikes will be swift, lightning fast.

Sounds to me like Putin is trying to write the shortest suicide note ever.

It's all bluster frankly.

For his supporters only. The Russian machine is known to take endless amounts of time to get moving. He will not use nuclear missiles as MAD serves no purpose whatsoever.

It seems to me he is searching for an out. An appearance of a victory without ever achieving one.

For all the bluster from the West, they would carve up Ukraine if it suited them.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

On 26/04/2022 at 17:45, Badger said:

You are entirely right! 

What I was clumsily trying to say that the govt (and some of the public) has a totally different attitude to Ukrainian refugees to those others countries whose need is just as great.

Patel actually tried to stir up fear of Ukrainian refugees with the notion that they might all be Russian spies. 

There are glaring differences between Ukrainian refugees, and African and Middle Eastern refugees in cultural similarity to the bulk of the UK's existing population that doubtless account for the difference in reception regarding the respective groups. 

[kirku 1,334]

15 hours ago, Indy said:

Instead of reading Horesy cut of my post for his angle, can I suggest you read the entire post and funny enough the link I posted. Kirk there’s some good debates but I don’t respond to posters who are rude or just obnoxious as above, that’s why I won’t engage anymore. I don’t fully agree with some people that’s all.

I'm not sure it's fair to call my post "obnoxious".

The link you shared is written by someone who used to be a PR advisor to the Kremlin, and is a perfect example of Russian propaganda for the international market (as opposed to the totally unhinged stuff they pump out domestically).

[horsefly 4,310]

12 hours ago, Indy said:

Never referred to you Horsey, it’s at others who are a little obnoxious!

I stand by my opinion the longer we supply bit part defensive weapons the longer this goes on, the more we supply attacking weapons be prepared to see a reaction! If read my link you’ll see I’m not alone in my way of thinking! You might not agree but that’s your prerogative and I kindly hope you respect my views!

It did read as if it was aimed at me, but I fully accept and respect your clarification that it wasn't.

You are of course right de facto that the war will be prolonged by any military support we and others provide Ukraine in its defence against the invasion. However, we clearly differ over the circumstances under which the appalling carnage being caused by Russia's invasion should be brought to an end. My position fundamentally rests upon international law and the right for a sovereign nation to defend itself from an illegal invasion. While Ukraine wishes to fight against that invasion I believe we have a moral duty and an international legal right to supply it with the military aid required to fulfil that aim. To appease Russia by allowing it to annex territory in southern and eastern Ukraine would be a massive mistake that would only empower Putin to engage in further empire building incursions. I completely understand your humanistic instincts to seek a peaceful diplomatic resolution, but all the evidence points to that being presently impossible under Putin's leadership. Only a few hours ago he repeated his commitment to achieving ALL of the aims he proclaimed at the very outset of the invasion of Ukraine. That would include the overthrowing of the democratically elected Ukrainian government and the installation of a regime controlled by Moscow. That would be an intolerable outrage against the rights of Ukrainian people to self-determination.  It would also present the prospect of a greater threat to world stability than the current efforts to demonstrate to Russia that its rapacious attempts to build an empire from the illegal subjugation of other countries  will not be tolerated. At the outset of WWII Churchill was faced with many calls on him to appease Na*zi Germany by allowing it to retain its territorial gains rather than face the enormous costs in human life and the country's economy that engaging in conflict would incur. He was surely right in his judgement that Hitler had to be confronted if Britain was to retain its integrity as a sovereign nation upholding the rule of law and democracy. Ukraine's determination to repel the Russian invaders is compelled by a similar recognition that its existential integrity fundamentally depends on resistance and not appeasement despite the appalling costs it is having to endure.

I do indeed respect your views and your right to disagree with mine, indeed, I have always considered you to be a very thoughtful poster. I completely understand and share your horror at what is happening in the Ukraine and the desire to see it brought to an end as soon as possible. However, I hope you too respect the fact that those of us defending the military aid being provided to the Ukraine are not "happy" to see an escalation of the war, but believe it is the only way to ensure Ukraine's right to self-determination, and the prevention of an escalation of Putin's ambitions to further expand the Russian empire. 

[Indy 3,307]

49 minutes ago, horsefly said:

It did read as if it was aimed at me, but I fully accept and respect your clarification that it wasn't.

You are of course right de facto that the war will be prolonged by any military support we and others provide Ukraine in its defence against the invasion. However, we clearly differ over the circumstances under which the appalling carnage being caused by Russia's invasion should be brought to an end. My position fundamentally rests upon international law and the right for a sovereign nation to defend itself from an illegal invasion. While Ukraine wishes to fight against that invasion I believe we have a moral duty and an international legal right to supply it with the military aid required to fulfil that aim. To appease Russia by allowing it to annex territory in southern and eastern Ukraine would be a massive mistake that would only empower Putin to engage in further empire building incursions. I completely understand your humanistic instincts to seek a peaceful diplomatic resolution, but all the evidence points to that being presently impossible under Putin's leadership. Only a few hours ago he repeated his commitment to achieving ALL of the aims he proclaimed at the very outset of the invasion of Ukraine. That would include the overthrowing of the democratically elected Ukrainian government and the installation of a regime controlled by Moscow. That would be an intolerable outrage against the rights of Ukrainian people to self-determination.  It would also present the prospect of a greater threat to world stability than the current efforts to demonstrate to Russia that its rapacious attempts to build an empire from the illegal subjugation of other countries  will not be tolerated. At the outset of WWII Churchill was faced with many calls on him to appease Na*zi Germany by allowing it to retain its territorial gains rather than face the enormous costs in human life and the country's economy that engaging in conflict would incur. He was surely right in his judgement that Hitler had to be confronted if Britain was to retain its integrity as a sovereign nation upholding the rule of law and democracy. Ukraine's determination to repel the Russian invaders is compelled by a similar recognition that its existential integrity fundamentally depends on resistance and not appeasement despite the appalling costs it is having to endure.

I do indeed respect your views and your right to disagree with mine, indeed, I have always considered you to be a very thoughtful poster. I completely understand and share your horror at what is happening in the Ukraine and the desire to see it brought to an end as soon as possible. However, I hope you too respect the fact that those of us defending the military aid being provided to the Ukraine are not "happy" to see an escalation of the war, but believe it is the only way to ensure Ukraine's right to self-determination, and the prevention of an escalation of Putin's ambitions to further expand the Russian empire. 

I entirely agree in a dream scenario, Russia will pull its troops out and agree a ceasefire, but that’s just not going to happen, I’m sure we can agree on that point, as I’ve stated from the off Crimea has been pretty much Russian since 1800’s it’s a key strategic location to Russia thus it payed a rent to Ukraine once it was recognised as independent, the annexing once it looked as if Ukraine was heading towards EU inclusion, add to this the tension in the southeast it wasn’t a surprise that Putin played his hand to me, it was a total surprise that he invaded entire Ukraine! At no point have I agreed with any incursions but it’s happened and I fully see that Russia does not have the capability to go into any other country, it’s made a total mess of this war, so I’m not concerned as others that by taking an agreement to stop the decimation of Ukraine or escalation by agreement to a southern Ukraine dominated by Russia might be a way out for all parties. It’s just a point which I tend to think is the only way out! But others appear to jump up and down saying no! Russia has to be driven out, my question is how? How is that going to happen without escalation?

Edited April 28, 2022 by Indy

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 26/04/2022 at 16:34, 1902 said:

Didn't really engage with the fact that you wished death on all Ukrainians did you?

you are generalising, again, I mentioned Ukrainian fascists and their sympathizers, not legitimate oppositions and or elected mayors in that democracy we apparently support. I have no qualms about n.zis getting what they deserve.