Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war

[horsefly 4,287]

20 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Whilst there is clear propaganda from all sources for the current conflict. Everyone is focussing on their own talking points and we will have a much clearer picture in 10-20 years when documents start getting declassified on what really happened and what is being said behind closed doors.

Are you seriously suggesting it will take you 10-20 years to work out that Russia has illegally invaded a sovereign country and is engaged in the slaughter of innocent people?

[TheGunnShow 5,933]

So, the West "gave" the Sudetenland to the Nazis in error. In other words, they are being more proactive in helping Ukraine this time and this is therefore learning from past mistakes, namely do not appease those who simply want to land-grab. You could say similar about the Crimea.

After all, the likes of Konrad Henlein in the Sudetenland and his cronies basically followed a similar template - make more and more outrageous demands of the Czechoslovakian government at the time, buttressed by the Nazis, and kick a stink when such demands are sensibly and correctly rejected. Henlein looked to get autonomy for all Sudetenland Germans, needless to say the Czechs weren't having it...and then we had the Munich Agreement.

And all of that ignores the fact that Russia illegally invaded a sovereign state. Again. Putin did this with Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia back in 2008, he did it with the Crimea in Ukraine, and he's now doing it with the Donbas region in Ukraine.

Edited July 3, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[Baracouda 47]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

So, the West "gave" the Sudetenland to the Nazis in error. In other words, they are being more proactive in helping Ukraine this time and this is therefore learning from past mistakes, namely do not appease those who simply want to land-grab. You could say similar about the Crimea.

After all, the likes of Konrad Henlein in the Sudetenland and his cronies basically followed a similar template - make more and more outrageous demands of the Czechoslovakian government at the time, buttressed by the Nazis, and kick a stink when such demands are sensibly and correctly rejected. Henlein looked to get autonomy for all Sudetenland Germans, needless to say the Czechs weren't having it...and then we had the Munich Agreement.
 

Hungary and Poland also took a 'chunk' from Czechoslovakia. 

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

And all of that ignores the fact that Russia illegally invaded a sovereign state. Again. Putin did this with Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia back in 2008, he did it with the Crimea in Ukraine, and he's now doing it with the Donbas region in Ukraine.

Not sure I ignored that fact or have disputed that fact. But equally, I don't dispute the fact the West also invades 'Sovereign' nations under false pretext like Iraq. I was clearly making a point there is far more going on than just Ukraine, China are supporting the conflict increasing their trade with Russia as is India. Whilst China and America are on a collusion course, the American hegemony is clearly being challenged and will continue to be challenged over the coming years. The Ukraine conflict is the first of many dominoes. 

 

[TheGunnShow 5,933]

1 minute ago, Baracouda said:

Hungary and Poland also took a 'chunk' from Czechoslovakia. 

Not sure I ignored that fact or have disputed that fact. But equally, I don't dispute the fact the West also invades 'Sovereign' nations under false pretext like Iraq. I was clearly making a point there is far more going on than just Ukraine, China are supporting the conflict increasing their trade with Russia as is India. Whilst China and America are on a collusion course, the American hegemony is clearly being challenged and will continue to be challenged over the coming years. The Ukraine conflict is the first of many dominoes. 

 

Did the Hungarians or Poles have a Henlein-like figure in their ranks?

You'll also find the Western leaders who invaded Iraq under false pretences have names that are largely mud around here. There's not a lot of fondness for Bush junior or Blair at all for that so you'll find there's a consistent degree of disdain for it. We didn't like Blair for invading Iraq for no reason, we despise Putin for the same.

[Baracouda 47]

13 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Did the Hungarians or Poles have a Henlein-like figure in their ranks?

You'll also find the Western leaders who invaded Iraq under false pretences have names that are largely mud around here. There's not a lot of fondness for Bush junior or Blair at all for that so you'll find there's a consistent degree of disdain for it. We didn't like Blair for invading Iraq for no reason, we despise Putin for the same.

No, I don't believe the Hungarians or Poles did, but nevertheless they took land that was seen as important for various reasons, improving defence lines etc. All clear context, that the world knew what was going on and preparation for it. 

Unlike Iraq, Ukraine does have significant benefits to Putin/Russia in terms of national defence. That doesn't make it morally correct, but when you consider national security concerns they rarely care about moral concerns. Like America with Cuba. It would have been a huge mistake to let the Soviets put nukes there. When you see the declassified documents and the plans the Americans where thinking about (including bombing Miami), to blame on Cuba to justify starting a war they have no moral justification but equally from a US national security stand point, removing them at any cost was justified.

Russia has no moral justification and if you focus on the excuses governments make when they do something then you will never understand why. I still believe... that Russia believes (for whatever reason) that is was the only choice for their national security reasons and hence the wider context of the America/China collusion course and potentially Russia sees or knows that a larger military conflict is likely. Moscow is close to Ukraine.

Edited July 3, 2022 by Baracouda

[TheGunnShow 5,933]

They didn't. So their taking of Czech land is moot in this part of the discussion. The crux here is the agitation of fifth columns within a region, making unreasonable demands of the country they live in, using a much larger country's military power as a buttress for their demands, and their unreasonable demands as a pretext for invasion.

Clear enough, after all, the Benes decrees afterwards saw for Germans being driven out (and to some extent Hungarians).

As for security concerns, what does Putin think invading a sovereign country illegally is likely to achieve? He's pretty much driven Sweden AND Finland into NATO. He's almost certainly made Ukraine look west in political terms, Moldova has also got candidate status for the EU (both countries may well be a long way off satisfying all criteria for membership, after all Turkey under Erdogan had no chance whatsoever).

It almost looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy due to misplaced aggression.

[horsefly 4,287]

1 hour ago, Baracouda said:

Unlike Iraq, Ukraine does have significant benefits to Putin/Russia in terms of national defence.

How absurd. By your logic Ukraine had as much right to claim it should invade Russian territory to protect itself. However, Ukraine was no threat to Russia, indeed it gave up the world's 3rd largest nuclear stockpile precisely to show it had no intention of threatening Russian territory. The fact that Russia signed a legal agreement not to invade Ukraine in response, seems to be something that has passed you by.

I suggest you take a look at your statement and contemplate just how madly irresponsible such a view is. You talk elsewhere that we should be negotiating to prevent an escalation into a world war, then you come up with a principle which says that a country who might gain "significant benefits" from invading another country "in terms of national defence" is in some way justified by "security concerns" for their actions. Utterly reckless!

[littleyellowbirdie 2,514]

I see Russia has now started killing it's own people in false flag attacks to try and fabricate some semblance of legitimacy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62025541

[Baracouda 47]

21 minutes ago, horsefly said:

The fact that Russia signed a legal agreement not to invade Ukraine in response, seems to be something that has passed you by.

It was not a legal document, it was merely a memorandum. If it was a legal document i.e a Treaty both the United Kingdom and United States as joint signatures were duty bound to declare war on Russia. 

21 minutes ago, horsefly said:

 then you come up with a principle which says that a country who might gain "significant benefits" from invading another country "in terms of national defence" is in some way justified by "security concerns" for their actions. Utterly reckless!

As a political realist, it is a well held view; is an approach to the study and practice of international politics. It emphasizes the role of the nation-state and makes a broad assumption that all nation-states are motivated by national interests, or, at best, national interests disguised as moral concerns.

I/You might not like what Russia considers to be their 'national interests' but it doesn't mean they are not acting in what they perceive to be their national interests. 

Edited July 3, 2022 by Baracouda

[littleyellowbirdie 2,514]

8 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

It was not a legal document, it was merely a memorandum. If it was a legal document i.e a Treaty both the United Kingdom and United States as joint signatures were duty bound to declare war on Russia. 

As a political realist, it is a well held view; is an approach to the study and practice of international politics. It emphasizes the role of the nation-state and makes a broad assumption that all nation-states are motivated by national interests, or, at best, national interests disguised as moral concerns.

I/You might not like what Russia considers to be their 'national interests' but it doesn't mean they are not acting in what they perceive to be their national interests. 

That memorandum was supposed to be a commitment to Ukraine as part of Ukraine surrendering the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world to Russia; regardless of weaselly arguments about legal weight of the memorandum, Russia's actions are an indefensible betrayal of trust, even ignoring that Russia's intent isn't just invasion and conquest, but genocide.

Edited July 3, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Baracouda 47]

20 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I see Russia has now started killing it's own people in false flag attacks to try and fabricate some semblance of legitimacy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62025541

This whole concept is laughable. Not sure, how anyone can state by doing a 'false flag' 4 months into a war, justifies your action 4 months earlier... secondly, if you are at war. Then Ukraine is morally and militarily justified in targeting any part of Russia it sees fit. 

[Baracouda 47]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That memorandum was supposed to be a commitment to Ukraine as part of it surrendering the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world to Russia; regardless of weaselly arguments about legal weight of the memorandum, Russia's actions are an indefensible betrayal of trust, even ignoring that Russia's intent isn't just invasion and conquest, but genocide.

Yes, I agree that was its purpose. But if we cared so much about a document we signed. Then the United Kingdom and United States, should have gone to war with Russia. Or put our armies in Ukraine stating we have guaranteed the survival of the Ukraine state. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,514]

3 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

This whole concept is laughable. Not sure, how anyone can state by doing a 'false flag' 4 months into a war, justifies your action 4 months earlier... secondly, if you are at war. Then Ukraine is morally and militarily justified in targeting any part of Russia it sees fit. 

It's laughable from an international context, but completely reasonable in the context of generating more propaganda to throw at the Russian people.

Edited July 3, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,514]

9 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Yes, I agree that was its purpose. But if we cared so much about a document we signed. Then the United Kingdom and United States, should have gone to war with Russia. Or put our armies in Ukraine stating we have guaranteed the survival of the Ukraine state. 

What you're suggesting would be World War 3.If Russia initiates conventional conflict with any NATO country then we have no choice but to go to war, but seeing as the Ukrainian people are completely motivated to defend their country, simply arming Ukraine with weapons and intelligence seems the best way forward.

In the meantime, the existence of the memorandum strips Russia of any pretense of any good faith engagement on the international stage.

Edited July 3, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Baracouda 47]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What you're suggesting would be World War 3.If Russia initiates conventional conflict with any NATO country then we have no choice but to go to war, but seeing as the Ukrainian people are completely motivated to defend their country, simply arming Ukraine with weapons and intelligence seems the best way forward.

Yes absolutely, but that's the consequences of signing a 'security guarantee' with Ukraine. If we were not willing to go to war then we should have found a peaceful comprise before Russia invaded and avoided the war.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,514]

1 hour ago, Baracouda said:

Yes absolutely, but that's the consequences of signing a 'security guarantee' with Ukraine. If we were not willing to go to war then we should have found a peaceful comprise before Russia invaded and avoided the war.

The onus isn't on us to appease Russia; it's on Russia to honour it's commitments.

Edited July 3, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

15 hours ago, horsefly said:

Really? If you're more interested in repeating the utter boring tripe that I am Billy rather than discussing the issues relating to this terrible war then that's a bit sad of you don't you think? But if you and others are so obsessed, I state again that I give full permission for anyone who wishes to contact the moderator(s) and ask them to confirm that I am not Billy. The moderator in turn has my full permission to confirm that I am not Billy (although obviously not reveal my real name). I liked Billy's posts, shared most of his views, wish he was still posting, but I don't have the slightest clue who he is. I only post under the name Horsefly. Now can we get on with discussing the actual issues?

What I said, correctly quoted by you, was indeed::

 I confess I had I had an ulterior motive, in that I thought it might tease out the answer to a question of identity that has exercised some posters, although not particularly me, over the last several months.

A moment's calm reflection on that sentence would have made it clear that far from repeating the claim that you are City1st, I was saying I was agnostic on the subject, not being sure either way, which is why I took the opportunity to look for a clue to the answer, while still not being particularly bothered either way.

I really do not care whether you're City1st or not, which is why I have never started or contributed to any of the threads on the subject.

I was only exercised about City1st because he (if it was a he) lied about what others had posted and even lied about what he had posted. Odd but true.

Edited July 4, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[horsefly 4,287]

6 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

What I said, correctly quoted by you, was indeed::

 I confess I had I had an ulterior motive, in that I thought it might tease out the answer to a question of identity that has exercised some posters, although not particularly me, over the last several months.

A moment's calm reflection on that sentence would have made it clear that far from repeating the claim that you are City1st, I was saying I was agnostic on the subject, not being sure either way, which is why I took the opportunity to look for a clue to the answer, while still not being particularly bothered either way.

I really do not care whether you're City1st or not, which is why I have never started or contributed to any of the threads on the subject.

I was only exercised about City1st because he (if it was a he) lied about what others had posted and even lied about what he had posted. Odd but true.

If you really "don't care" why even raise the issue when I have repeatedly denied I have posted under any other name, and have repeatedly said I give permission for the moderators to confirm that claim to anyone who wishes to contact them? A couple of right-wing posters on here have tried to push that tripe, I expect them to repeat that tripe, however, in your case I'm disappointed because I didn't consider you to be one who would join them. Now can we return to the issues please.

[horsefly 4,287]

9 hours ago, Baracouda said:

t was not a legal document, it was merely a memorandum. If it was a legal document i.e a Treaty both the United Kingdom and United States as joint signatures were duty bound to declare war on Russia. 

False! 

"A memorandum of understanding (MOU) falls somewhere between a written contract and a handshake deal. It is a preliminary written agreement, outlining the framework or key terms they will later include in a formal contract. An MOU is a useful tool because it helps ensure all parties are on the same page. Generally speaking, the document is not legally binding. However, if its content resembles that of a contract, it may be legally binding and therefore enforceable."  https://legalvision.com.au/memorandum-of-understanding/

Coupled with the fact that Russia's invasion of Ukrainian sovereign territory is a clear breach of international law, and the fact that Ukraine upheld its part of the understanding that it would get rid of its nuclear armaments, I think you will find that Ukraine has an excellent case in law.

As for your claim that it would commit the US and UK to war with Russia, that is simply ridiculous (feel free to point out the clause which states that as an obligation).

9 hours ago, Baracouda said:

As a political realist, it is a well held view; is an approach to the study and practice of international politics. It emphasizes the role of the nation-state and makes a broad assumption that all nation-states are motivated by national interests, or, at best, national interests disguised as moral concerns.

I/You might not like what Russia considers to be their 'national interests' but it doesn't mean they are not acting in what they perceive to be their national interests. 

What a pile of irrelevant rot. Of course every invading dictator claims they are defending their own nation's interests when they break international law and invade another sovereign country. The only relevant question is whether they have a legitimate defence in international law to make that claim. Russia very clearly doesn't. Putin in 2021 wrote an essay in which he very clearly stated that he considered Ukraine to be Russian. His only motive has been to "reclaim" that land for the Russian empire. Russia was under no threat from Ukraine , hence his pathetic justification for the invasion being the "de-Naz*ification" of Ukraine. I have no doubt that the dictator Putin has personally felt his regime threatened by the example Ukraine has set in moving from a corrupt dictatorship towards ever greater democratic rule. However, the threat that example represents to his corrupt regime in no way constitutes any kind of material threat to the Russian nation. 

[horsefly 4,287]

10 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I see Russia has now started killing it's own people in false flag attacks to try and fabricate some semblance of legitimacy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62025541

Yep! It was Putin's standard tactic in the early years of his regime to boost his popularity and justify increasingly repressive measures.

[horsefly 4,287]

9 hours ago, Baracouda said:

This whole concept is laughable. Not sure, how anyone can state by doing a 'false flag' 4 months into a war, justifies your action 4 months earlier... secondly, if you are at war. Then Ukraine is morally and militarily justified in targeting any part of Russia it sees fit. 

Best you get on the phone to Putin then, because he has persistently claimed that every hospital, school, block of flats, and shopping centre blown to pieces by Russian military are really "false flag" Ukrainian attacks on its own people.

[horsefly 4,287]

10 hours ago, Baracouda said:

Yes, I agree that was its purpose. But if we cared so much about a document we signed. Then the United Kingdom and United States, should have gone to war with Russia. Or put our armies in Ukraine stating we have guaranteed the survival of the Ukraine state. 

For someone who has bleated on and on about appeasing the Russians to avoid WWIII, perhaps you need to give your head a wobble and re-read this preposterous claim. The document we signed does not in any way shape or form commit us (or the US) to military action.

[horsefly 4,287]

18 hours ago, Baracouda said:

Yes absolutely, but that's the consequences of signing a 'security guarantee' with Ukraine. If we were not willing to go to war then we should have found a peaceful comprise before Russia invaded and avoided the war.

Now you really are taking the pi*ss. The one thing that could have avoided this war was Russia not invading. However, it has been clear for a long time that Putin has always been intent on "reclaiming" Ukraine as part of the Russian empire. The big mistake was not to respond to Russia's invasion of the Crimea, by making Russia suffer very badly for that breach of international law.

Edited July 4, 2022 by horsefly

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 03/07/2022 at 16:15, horsefly said:

Think you had best take a look at the news and see who is killing Innocent Ukrainians. FFS do you have no shame?

Looking at your comments, you ought to stop watching the public propaganda broadcasts, FFS why don't you wake up?

 

On 03/07/2022 at 16:15, horsefly said:

More Putin propaganda bollox bearing no relation to reality.

you  either can't read official CIA documents I have posted or you are saying that Putin has made the CIA do it. Your historic knowledge is just as the media you fraternize, **** poor awful

 

On 03/07/2022 at 16:15, horsefly said:

Interesting that a number of those ex-Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO precisely because they never again wanted to be invaded and coerced into a pact with a Russian aggressor

those ex Warsaw pact countries, granted to Russia by a secret pact between Ribbentrop and Molotov, have been able and were allowed to join NATO, after NATO and its American proponents/hypocrites spoke at a meeting promising detente in 1997, saying that NATO would 'not expand into eastern Europe'. Since 2014 Putin has asked European and NATO countries to negotiate and develop a European security agreement, but the hypocrites were deaf to, as they were deaf to the Minsk agreements which they also ignored.

You are the one who is trying to browbeat me with your frequent ignorance. I am an ex soldier and I have lost any trust in the ability of NATO to speak on behalf of peaceful nations, as all they do is lie cheat and threaten others that do not conform to their ever diminishing values or their violent global strategies.

[horsefly 4,287]

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

Looking at your comments, you ought to stop watching the public propaganda broadcasts, FFS why don't you wake up?

So you're actually claiming that Russian soldiers are not killing innocent Ukrainians. Are you really that dumb? You claim to be an ex-soldier yet you are unable to recognise the existence of Russian soldiers on the ground happily waving their flags and basking in Putin's praise for their disgusting war efforts. You are a fu*cking idiot, and I can't be bothered after this to entertain your pro-Putin bollox any more. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,514]

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

Looking at your comments, you ought to stop watching the public propaganda broadcasts, FFS why don't you wake up?

 

you  either can't read official CIA documents I have posted or you are saying that Putin has made the CIA do it. Your historic knowledge is just as the media you fraternize, **** poor awful

 

those ex Warsaw pact countries, granted to Russia by a secret pact between Ribbentrop and Molotov, have been able and were allowed to join NATO, after NATO and its American proponents/hypocrites spoke at a meeting promising detente in 1997, saying that NATO would 'not expand into eastern Europe'. Since 2014 Putin has asked European and NATO countries to negotiate and develop a European security agreement, but the hypocrites were deaf to, as they were deaf to the Minsk agreements which they also ignored.

You are the one who is trying to browbeat me with your frequent ignorance. I am an ex soldier and I have lost any trust in the ability of NATO to speak on behalf of peaceful nations, as all they do is lie cheat and threaten others that do not conform to their ever diminishing values or their violent global strategies.

https://www.rferl.org/a/un-russia-ukraine-war-crimes/31816271.html

The UN has declared there is more and more evidence of war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine. New cases come up daily. It's you who needs to wake up with your stupid hero worship of the gangster in the Kremlin. 

The sentence in bold really underlines that you're essentially a Russian imperialist; utterly bizarre. Those countries joined NATO because they wanted to, and had a right to as independent sovereign nations. For them, that decision is clearly paying dividends with Putin at the helm in Russia. 

Edited July 6, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I wonder if China might fancy a go at Taiwan now that the West prevaricated over Ukraine? The US wouldn't fancy sanctioning them at the moment and certainly not a conflict.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,514]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

I wonder if China might fancy a go at Taiwan now that the West prevaricated over Ukraine? The US wouldn't fancy sanctioning them at the moment and certainly not a conflict.

From Al Jazeera. 

[Herman 9,717]

Some interesting tactics being used by the Ukrainians. They are using the new weaponry to hit targets in relatively safe parts of Russian held areas, not only destroying arms dumps, but also playing with the morale of the invader's soldiers. They can't beat them with strength so they use their nous.👍

[horsefly 4,287]

15 hours ago, Herman said:

Some interesting tactics being used by the Ukrainians. They are using the new weaponry to hit targets in relatively safe parts of Russian held areas, not only destroying arms dumps, but also playing with the morale of the invader's soldiers. They can't beat them with strength so they use their nous.👍

Yep! They should remind themselves of what happened to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.