Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)



The Wizard

Well-known member
Jul 2, 2009
18,401
If you dont learn the lessons from history you are bound to repeat them.

So what is your suggesion, Sack off the destruction, death of civilians, and the blood shed by Putins venture and just hand it over?

If you suggest Ukrainian should or will back off you dont have the first clue about these people.

They're not like us western liberals, much tougher stock, very proud and patriotic people. They will never accept Putinism or hand over their chance of freedom nor should they.

Putin isnt going to use Nuclear bomb imho, hes paranoid of death. He sits 15 metres from others, he spends much of his time in a bunker.

If the Ukrainians capitualted, or if this was not fought now, it will 100% be fought later with all the exact same threats, destruction with an emboldened Putin.

Even if he signs a peace deal, he wont truly commit to it, he'll go away pissed off and work out how he can come back and have another go another time.

Any neutrality, if Ukraine agrees, must be on the basis that if Ukraine is ever attacked again, NATO will be allowed to come to their defence, or they have a special status of none article 5 NATO member, with no NATO bases or troops.

They have every right to arm and so they absolutely should arm. They can sign a new non agression pact, but they need the arbiter of that to be Ukraines Military with extra fall back if Russia renege

I’m not saying they are doing the wrong thing, there are only two options, one appeases a madman and gratifies his actions and the other only further deludes the mad man, both are bad options.

We can’t compare this to any other historic events really, this is the first time nuclear weapons have been readily available all over the globe.

I’m not saying Ukraine are wrong for fighting back, merely suggesting that Putins already frazzled brain is likely to become even more so given Russias comparative power to Ukraine army wise.
 






Baker lite

Banned
Mar 16, 2017
6,309
in my house
We could covertly give a load of SAS and marines a couple of weeks off paid leave, and suggest Ukraine might be a nice place to visit as a tourist!

I agree, upto a point, unfortunately next time a Labour Government comes to power ( I pray it is not for a long, long time) they would be hauled before the beak sharpish.
 


WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
27,957
Anyone tempted to go and fight? Foreign Secretary has given her backing to those who want to.

If anyone has really been waiting for her backing before going, do you have any confidence they would end up fighting for the right side :shrug:

I suspect (and hope) that now the West have taken it seriously and started to apply proper sanctions this can be bought to a peaceful solution.
 


peterward

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 11, 2009
12,378
I’m not saying they are doing the wrong thing, there are only two options, one appeases a madman and gratifies his actions and the other only further deludes the mad man, both are bad options.

We can’t compare this to any other historic events really, this is the first time nuclear weapons have been readily available all over the globe.

I’m not saying Ukraine are wrong for fighting back, merely suggesting that Putins already frazzled brain is likely to become even more so given Russias comparative power to Ukraine army wise.

They are 2 simple linear points, its a lot more complex.

Many Russian soldiers have died. Putin may actual believe the Soviet propaganda that Ukraine is a Vassal of Moscow and not a real state, he may have really belived from advisors it was neo nazis (as mad as tha seems) and the people would welcome the Russians. His generals and their advisors at least will know now, that isnt the case, they are meeting resistance everywhere and that the Ukrainians are willing to fight to the last, are armed and will resist any puppet you try and put in and hold in power. Statistically they say you only need about 3% of a peaceful population to protest and overthrow a government.

Ukraine now has a population where possibly over 95% despise Putin, will fight and many are armed. He would need over a million military police with shoot to kill to have even the slightest chance of beating them into submission, and still many would stand up. If he tried, even China would abandon him as the worlds biggest Pariah.

If not that, go for full on destruction of Kyiv?, the bithplace of Kyivan Rus and the Orthodox church?......he is one main state TV news anchor revealing the truth away from being strung up by his own people. Many arent seeing the reality rather than the lies narrative of state TV, if they did, they would rise up. It would not be accepted against Ukrainians many of whose grandfathers fought side by side in the red army.

Even if he tries to fabricate a pretext like kill Russians wit a terror act and try and blame Ukraine. This is already slipping out of his control with many internet savvy Russian celebrities etc who see the truth.

So what are his options? none are good
 




Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
They are 2 simple linear points, its a lot more complex.

Many Russian soldiers have died. Putin may actual believe the Soviet propaganda that Ukraine is a Vassal of Moscow and not a real state, he may have really belived from advisors it was neo nazis (as mad as tha seems) and the people would welcome the Russians. His generals and their advisors at least will know now, that isnt the case, they are meeting resistance everywhere and that the Ukrainians are willing to fight to the last, are armed and will resist any puppet you try and put in and hold in power. Statistically they say you only need about 3% of a peaceful population to protest and overthrow a government.

Ukraine now has a population where possibly over 95% despise Putin, will fight and many are armed. He would need over a million military police with shoot to kill to have even the slightest chance of beating them into submission, and still many would stand up. If he tried, even China would abandon him as the worlds biggest Pariah.

If not that, go for full on destruction of Kyiv?, the bithplace of Kyivan Rus and the Orthodox church?......he is one main state TV news anchor revealing the truth away from being strung up by his own people. Many arent seeing the reality rather than the lies narrative of state TV, if they did, they would rise up. It would not be accepted against Ukrainians many of whose grandfathers fought side by side in the red army.

Even if he tries to fabricate a pretext like kill Russians wit a terror act and try and blame Ukraine. This is already slipping out of his control with many internet savvy Russian celebrities etc who see the truth.

So what are his options? none are good
None of his options are good.

But he will still be offered a face saving "off ramp".

His best option is to take that ramp.
 


Deportivo Seagull

I should coco
Jul 22, 2003
5,524
Mid Sussex
None of his options are good.

But he will still be offered a face saving "off ramp".

His best option is to take that ramp.

He won’t but those around him will. I wouldn’t be surprised if overtures haven’t already be made.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 






vegster

Sanity Clause
May 5, 2008
28,290
The location is still utter madness.

What is wrong with eg. Geneva ?

Zelenskiy is not a mug, he's not going to leave the country, he has pledged to stay and fight, leaving for Geneva would be a betrayal of those beliefs.
 


Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,451
Oxton, Birkenhead
Regrettably, I agree with this. As horrific as it would be for Ukraine, Russia gaining control of the country with minimal humiliation is probably in the world’s best interests. Anything which frustrates Putin cranks up the ire and increases the chances of serious wider conflict.

I also wonder how helpful protestations from the Russian people might be in the long run. The more they píss him off, the less concerned he may become about their own well-being in any western retaliation.

Make no mistake; a week ago Russia ‘definitely weren’t about to invade Ukraine’. Now their leader is specifically referencing nuclear weapons. We shouldn’t underestimate the significance of that.

That is a bit of a surprising read. Putin’s entire approach to foreign relations is dependent upon encountering/generating this reaction. Do you think he will stop if he gets what he currently wants ? He won’t, it would further embolden him to take more. The only thing saving other Eastern European states at the moment is their membership of NATO and our nuclear weapons.
 


raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
7,669
Wiltshire
Do you think Putin will set foot outside of Russia?


In the meantime, this gob smacking video has been released. The problem is, do we believe this or the earlier video where he called Putin smart and our leaders dumb? Take your pick.

[tweet]1497741379891564544[/tweet]

[tweet]1497733342086647809[/tweet]
Thanks, but I'm afraid I'll vomit if I watch any Trump video 🇺🇦
 




Raleigh Chopper

New member
Sep 1, 2011
12,054
Plymouth
I agree, upto a point, unfortunately next time a Labour Government comes to power ( I pray it is not for a long, long time) they would be hauled before the beak sharpish.

People are trying to have a sensible and adult discussion on here in what is a serious and dangerous situation and you come up with that childish rant.
You are a low life but seeing as you think you were in the Navy and have military experience, why don't you go out there and help out or are you the total coward that I have always suspected.
My advice, stop drinking.
 


raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
7,669
Wiltshire
Im afraid its a ploy.

He's bleeding money, his dispirate campaign has huge logistial issues, he knows the Ukrainians will resist until the last and each day thisnt resolved it get harder for Putin. Right now he can claim he's trying to broker peace (as the reason for the pause) all the while he will be dealing with his logitics, moving troops towards Kyiv positions, sorting out supply chains for the big push. And he hopes the talks will prop up his soon to be tanking stock markets

Another ultimatum awaits as he buys time to prepare. The Russians dont neogitiate, they dictate and bully
I'm a little surprised Ukraine have agreed to it, especially the location. They know they are going to be lied to.
 


Swansman

Pro-peace
May 13, 2019
22,320
Sweden
They are 2 simple linear points, its a lot more complex.

Many Russian soldiers have died. Putin may actual believe the Soviet propaganda that Ukraine is a Vassal of Moscow and not a real state, he may have really belived from advisors it was neo nazis (as mad as tha seems) and the people would welcome the Russians. His generals and their advisors at least will know now, that isnt the case, they are meeting resistance everywhere and that the Ukrainians are willing to fight to the last, are armed and will resist any puppet you try and put in and hold in power. Statistically they say you only need about 3% of a peaceful population to protest and overthrow a government.

Ukraine now has a population where possibly over 95% despise Putin, will fight and many are armed. He would need over a million military police with shoot to kill to have even the slightest chance of beating them into submission, and still many would stand up. If he tried, even China would abandon him as the worlds biggest Pariah.

If not that, go for full on destruction of Kyiv?, the bithplace of Kyivan Rus and the Orthodox church?......he is one main state TV news anchor revealing the truth away from being strung up by his own people. Many arent seeing the reality rather than the lies narrative of state TV, if they did, they would rise up. It would not be accepted against Ukrainians many of whose grandfathers fought side by side in the red army.

Even if he tries to fabricate a pretext like kill Russians wit a terror act and try and blame Ukraine. This is already slipping out of his control with many internet savvy Russian celebrities etc who see the truth.

So what are his options? none are good

As for "Ukraine being a vassal of Moscow", yes he believes this (or similarly at least) and has always been open about it. This is what he said when asked if he thought Russia and Ukraine was "one country":

Of course. Look, when these lands that are now the core of Ukraine, joined Russia, there were just three regions – Kiev, the Kiev region, northern and southern regions – nobody thought themselves to be anything but Russians, because it was all based on religious affiliation. They were all Orthodox and they considered themselves Russians. They did not want to be part of the Catholic world, where Poland was dragging them.

I understand very well that over the time the identity of this part of Russia crystallized, and people have the right to determine their identity. But later this factor was used to throw into imbalance the Russian Empire. But in fact, this is the same world sharing the same history, same religion, traditions, and a wide range of ties, close family ties among them.

At the same time, if a significant part of people who live in Ukraine today believe that they should emphasise their identity and fight for it, no one in Russia would be against this, including me. But, bearing in mind that we have many things in common, we can use this as our competitive advantage during some form of integration; it is obvious. However, the current government clearly doesn’t want this. I believe that in the end common sense will prevail, and we will finally arrive at the conclusion I have mentioned: rapprochement is inevitable.


As for the Nazi thing, the West-supported coup d'etat in Ukraine back in 2014 was indeed carried out through the West arming and training neo-nazis.
 




Poojah

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2010
1,881
Leeds
That is a bit of a surprising read. Putin’s entire approach to foreign relations is dependent upon encountering/generating this reaction. Do you think he will stop if he gets what he currently wants ? He won’t, it would further embolden him to take more. The only thing saving other Eastern European states at the moment is their membership of NATO and our nuclear weapons.

Well, that all depends on what it is that he wants, which we don’t ultimately know. If he gains control of Ukraine, the only places he can realistically go to the west are NATO countries. If that’s his intention then he’s going to trigger WW3 and subsequently the launch of nuclear weapons anyway.

The best hope the world has is that he gets something close to his wish with regard to Ukraine (either through military force or negotiation) and he leaves it there. As I’ve hinted before, if he is ultimately bent on more than that, or worse, actually wants to incite a war with the west, then there’s relatively little we can do about it. When it comes to war, you don’t need two to tango.
 


British Bulldog

The great escape
Feb 6, 2006
10,980
Well, that all depends on what it is that he wants, which we don’t ultimately know. If he gains control of Ukraine, the only places he can realistically go to the west are NATO countries. If that’s his intention then he’s going to trigger WW3 and subsequently the launch of nuclear weapons anyway.

The best hope the world has is that he gets something close to his wish with regard to Ukraine (either through military force or negotiation) and he leaves it there. As I’ve hinted before, if he is ultimately bent on more than that, or worse, actually wants to incite a war with the west, then there’s relatively little we can do about it. When it comes to war, you don’t need two to tango.

We can't just let Putin have Ukraine to pacify him? That's how Hitler got started?
 


Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,451
Oxton, Birkenhead
Well, that all depends on what it is that he wants, which we don’t ultimately know. If he gains control of Ukraine, the only places he can realistically go to the west are NATO countries. If that’s his intention then he’s going to trigger WW3 and subsequently the launch of nuclear weapons anyway.

The best hope the world has is that he gets something close to his wish with regard to Ukraine (either through military force or negotiation) and he leaves it there. As I’ve hinted before, if he is ultimately bent on more than that, or worse, actually wants to incite a war with the west, then there’s relatively little we can do about it. When it comes to war, you don’t need two to tango.

The best hope for who ? Why should Ukrainians give up their hopes and dreams so that you can live comfortably in Leeds and I on Merseyside ? The world has to stand up to him and it is doing so.
 


Swansman

Pro-peace
May 13, 2019
22,320
Sweden
Well, that all depends on what it is that he wants, which we don’t ultimately know. If he gains control of Ukraine, the only places he can realistically go to the west are NATO countries. If that’s his intention then he’s going to trigger WW3 and subsequently the launch of nuclear weapons anyway.

The best hope the world has is that he gets something close to his wish with regard to Ukraine (either through military force or negotiation) and he leaves it there. As I’ve hinted before, if he is ultimately bent on more than that, or worse, actually wants to incite a war with the west, then there’s relatively little we can do about it. When it comes to war, you don’t need two to tango.

I hope and think he will settle for Ukraine and not go beyond that. Eg the Baltic states are economically and geopolitcally of limited importance compared to Ukraine.

And it is Ukraine he has been pissed off about the entire time. This is his view of what went down in Ukraine a couple of years ago (perhaps interesting to those who have only heard the Western side of the story and would like both sides of the coin):

If you don't mind I'm going to begin from the starting point.

After Ukraine became independent, the wild privatization and an open robbery of state property began, and the standard of living went down immediatly. And while the governments were replacing each other, nothing changed for the common Ukrainians. People were fed up with all those arbitrary actions and all the crazy corruption, the impoverishment, and the illegal enrichment of other people.

Certainly the people thought that moving in any way toward the European Union would liberate them from the terrible conditions they had found themselves in starting from the 1990s. That was the driving force behind the developments in Ukraine.

The economies of Russia and Ukraine were emerging as a united economy and had unique economic relations. The markets of Russia were completely open to imports from Ukraine, we had - and still have - a zero tariff barrier.

For 17 years we had been in negotiations with the European Union on the conditions of Russias accession to the World Trade Organization... and all of a sudden, it was announced to us that Ukraine and the EU were signing an association agreement. And that meant the opening up of the Ukrainian markets. The EU would be able to enter our territory [as there was zero tariff, my remark] with all of their goods without any negotiations, despite the agreements - principled agreements - which we had reached with them before, during those 17 year talks on our accession to the WTO.

Certainly we had to respond to that, and we said that if Ukraine had decided to act like that, it was their choice. And we respected that choice. But this didn't mean we had to pay for that choice: why do people living in Russia today have to pay for this choice the Ukrainian leadership has made?

We proposed that we hold talks with our European partners in a trilateral format, but there was a flat refusal. They told us that we had better stay out of it.
As you know, the crisis was sparked when president Yanukovych announced he had to postpone the signing of the Association agreement with the EU. He said Ukraine would sign that agreement but he said he needed more time to sort out the details.

That was the starting point.

Our European and American partners managed to mount this horse of discontent of the people and instead of trying to find out what was really happening, they decided to support the coup d'état.
The CIA was paying a great deal of attention to Ukraine. You need to just simply look at the developments after Yanukovych announced that he had to postpone the signing of the Association agreement with EU. No one cared to listen to the reasons why, or to the terms of that agreement, and mass riots erupted right away.

Yanukovych didn't give an order to use weapons against civilians and incidentally, our western partners, including the United States, asked us to influence him so that he did not give any orders to use weapons.

They told us 'we ask you to prevent president Yanukovych from using the armed forces", and they promised in their term they were going to do everything for the opposition to clear the squares and the administrative buildings. We said "very well, that is a good proposal. We are going to work on it." And as you know, president Yanukovych didn't resort to using the Armed Forces, and he said he couldn't imagine any other way of dealing with this situation. He couldn't sign an order on the use of weapons. Interested parties, parties who wanted to escalate the situations, deployed snipers. I do not have any data on who precisely those snipers were, but elementary logic tells me.

We have information available to us that armed groups were trained in the western parts of Ukraine itself, in Poland and in a number of other places.
Let me remind you that before that, on February 21st, three foreign ministers from European countries arrived in Kiev. They took part in the meeting between Yanukovych and the opposition, and they agreed that early elections were to be held. They agreed on the future of relations between the president and the opposition.

It was characterised in the Western press as Yanukovich abandoning Kyiv, and that version was used in to justify the support granted to the coup. Once the president left for Kharkov, the second largest city in the country, to attend an internal political event, armed men seized the Presidential Residence. Imagine something like that in the US, if the White House was seized, what would you call that? A coup d'etat? Or say that they just came to sweep the floors?

The Prosecutor General was shot at and one of the security officers was wounded, and the motorcade of President Yanukovych himself was shot at. So it's nothing short of an armed seizure of power.
Moreover, one day afterwards, he used our support and relocated to Crimea. Back then Crimea was still part of Ukraine and Yanukovych stayed more than a week in the Crimea, thinking there was still a chance that those who put the signatures on the agreement with the opposition would make an attempt to settle this conflict by civilized democratic legal means. But that never happened and it became clear that if he were taken he would be killed.

Everything can be perverted and distorted, millions of people can be deceived if you use the monopoly on the media. But in the end, I believe that for an impartial spectator it is clear what has happened - a coup d'etat had taken place.


Obviously he feels ****ed over and has spoken at great length about the situation in Ukraine and that he believes what went down there was illegal and wrong. He has not spoken a lot about for instance the Baltic countries, I dont get the impression that he really gives a **** about them.

My hope and belief is that this conflict stays in Ukraine. For obvious reasons; any spread outside Ukraine/Belarus and the smell of World War would grow stronger.
 






British Bulldog

The great escape
Feb 6, 2006
10,980
If the alternative is the likelihood of a catastrophic and probable world-ending nuclear war, which would you choose?

I do take your point on board, but seriously, what other options are available?

The rest of the world stands up against him and lets him know he where he stands.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here