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

[Thunder Bolt]

View attachment 145656

Very true. When Britain decided belatedly to award the Arctic Star to RN veterans who had done convoys to Russia, I applied for my late Dad.
I was told by another veteran that Russia was also issuing medals to our sailors, but knowing my Dad's opinion on the Russians during the Cold War, I decided he wouldn't have been happy with me applying to the Russian Embassy.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It's really affecting me today too.

The loss of life - on both sides - is utterly horrific, but the images of towns and citiies being utterly destroyed, already in ruins, is just so unfathomable to understand. What benefit, for anyone, can be served by this?

Whatever the intended end-game, sticking in a Putin-puppet leader or whatever, large parts of the country's infrastructure is going to be utterly trashed.

It is evil no matter what the cause or reason. Lives are being totally wrecked on both sides.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

What I have been trying to get across is how I think Russians view this.

When we went into Iraq and Afghanistan we were shown the humanitarian/security need to intervene, and the less horrific side of the consequences. I imagine Russians were shown the oil reserves and messages about U.S./Western world domination and the more horrific side of the consequences.

Now, Russians are being shown the humanitarian/security need to intervene in Ukraine, and the less horrific side of the consequences. We are being shown messages about Russian world domination and the more horrific side of the consequences.

For Russians the West is a malign influence in the world, and they are a benign influence in the world.

For us, Russia is a malign influence in the world, and we are a benign influence in the world.

The truth is probably we, and Russia, are probably neither one nor the other. The truth is that probably there is a geopolitical struggle going on between the West and Russia, and other smaller weaker nations are the ones who pay the price of that. I think that is the sad reality.

Russians view this entirely through the prism of state controlled TV. Most social media has been shot down and repression has reached such extremes that kids are being arrested for laying flowers. Many are unaware that there is even a war going on.

We can't fail to unite with Ukraine because of how Russians view this.

And we are failing to unite. At least to the degree needed. All the time there are people (and i'll let you reflect yourself about whether you're amongst this number) who are taking this as an opportunity to bring up old grievances against NATO (which are not all unreasonable grievances, it's just not the time for it) are weakening the wall of pressure on Putin which will need to be applied for months

There will be a time to debate NATO and it's future. Today is about a momentous struggle in Ukraine. Today Putin is the enemy.

 

[AmexRuislip]

It's really affecting me today too.

The loss of life - on both sides - is utterly horrific, but the images of towns and citiies being utterly destroyed, already in ruins, is just so unfathomable to understand. What benefit, for anyone, can be served by this?

Whatever the intended end-game, sticking in a Putin-puppet leader or whatever, large parts of the country's infrastructure is going to be utterly trashed.

It's like going back to latter stages of WW2 where you had massive migration of people, when the plans were being drawn up as to who would get what country.
The West are in a no win situation (military wise), as what tye next steps are.

You cannot blame people for complaining for help, but I'd be slightly dubious if I'd seen Bidens latest speech in getting the Iranians and Ukranians mixed up.
FFS

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ka...hing-words-biden-mixes-up-ukrainians-iranians

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Civilian resistance.

[tweet]1498971747143634944[/tweet]

 

[Billy in Bristol]

One of my projects scheduled sports charity event I am running in Bristol on the 28th April is getting a lot of enquiries about raising funds for humanitarian aid in Eastern Europe. Sent a mail out to opted in companies in Bristol and Bath updating on how they can support such efforts...only person who deleted the email turns out to be Russian. Obviously not taking it up with her employers but did send a warm invite to them via Twitter to support their choice of good cause in the area.

 

[Audax]

For me, the whole NATO angle as Putin puts it forward is a smokescreen. For the same reason why NATO is not putting troops on the ground, or enforcing a no-fly zone, Putin really shouldn't care if Ukraine joins NATO or not: he has either the biggest, or second biggest, nuclear arsenal on the planet. He also has a massive landmass on which to spread that arsenal out, plus a large nuclear enabled navy.

No one in their right mind is going to attack Russia: it's mutually assured nuclear destruction. Whether Ukraine joins NATO or not is never going to change that in the slightest. Beyond that, he's already got NATO countries on the Russian borders in that area. Strategically, Ukraine adds nothing that NATO doesn't already have. Ukraine being in, or out, of NATO has literally zero impact on the security of Russia.

And even *if* keeping Ukraine out of NATO was the genuine goal, he'd *already achieved it* when he took Crimea and created the separatist regimes in Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukraine could not, by NATO rules, join NATO while it did not have complete control of its own borders.

So that NATO argument put forward by Putin is an absolute non-starter.

So what might his real reasons be? Just have to look at everything he's said since launching the invasion: that Ukraine should never have been granted independence, that previous Soviet regimes made mistakes in relation to Ukraine. It's a land grab, pure and simple. He wants Ukraine and its resources.

 

[Here'sWally]

Russians view this entirely through the prism of state controlled TV. Most social media has been shot down and repression has reached such extremes that kids are being arrested for laying flowers. Many are unaware that there is even a war going on.

We can't fail to unite with Ukraine because of how Russians view this.

And we are failing to unite. At least to the degree needed. All the time there are people (and i'll let you reflect yourself about whether you're amongst this number) who are taking this as an opportunity to bring up old grievances against NATO (which are not all unreasonable grievances, it's just not the time for it) are weakening the wall of pressure on Putin which will need to be applied for months

There will be a time to debate NATO and it's future. Today is about a momentous struggle in Ukraine. Today Putin is the enemy.

Well I think that is a valid point of view.

But there is another valid point of view, which would involve putting these issues on the table as part of a negotiation.

I don't know the answer to this question, but it is a question. If peace could be arrived at tomorrow, by acknowledging and acting on Russia's express concerns about NATO's expansion east, would it be worth it?

Like I said, I'm probably not qualified to answer to that question. But, I think there may be a route to peace, quickly, working off of that point of view. I don't see a route to peace, maybe at all, based on your point of view. If pressure will need to be applied for months as you say, at what cost? You think Ukraine will survive months of this? I don't.

 

[Yoda]

Well, it then goes back to the discussion of whether NATO, an organisation formed at the start of the Cold War should have been disbanded and something reformed in it's place. As a military alliance it has always seen by the West as a natural progression to peace from the end of WWII, but to those outside of NATO, it's not seen in the same light. Of course those countries wanted to join as a defence against Russia but when your defence is seen as a direct threat to the country you want to defend against, it is a poor balance for peace.

There was always one big difference in the way NATO & the Warsaw Pact operated.

With NATO, if any member was attacked, the rest would mobilise to help protect them.

With Warsaw Pact, the USSR used the rest of the Countries like Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria etc, like a buffer to protect the Soviet Union.

 

[Dr. No]

If peace could be arrived at tomorrow, by acknowledging and acting on Russia's express concerns about NATO's expansion east, would it be worth it?

No.

 

[drew]

Quite right why should you …hopefully the pm cleared things …peace

Haven't received a pm yet!

 

[The Clamp]

Well I think that is a valid point of view.

But there is another valid point of view, which would involve putting these issues on the table as part of a negotiation.

I don't know the answer to this question, but it is a question. If peace could be arrived at tomorrow, by acknowledging and acting on Russia's express concerns about NATO's expansion east, would it be worth it?

Like I said, I'm probably not qualified to answer to that question. But, I think there may be a route to peace, quickly, working off of that point of view. I don't see a route to peace, maybe at all, based on your point of view. If pressure will need to be applied for months as you say, at what cost? You think Ukraine will survive months of this? I don't.

This isn’t about NATO. And it never has been. Post 3307 explains it very well.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Well I think that is a valid point of view.

But there is another valid point of view, which would involve putting these issues on the table as part of a negotiation.

I don't know the answer to this question, but it is a question. If peace could be arrived at tomorrow, by acknowledging and acting on Russia's express concerns about NATO's expansion east, would it be worth it?

Like I said, I'm probably not qualified to answer to that question. But, I think there may be a route to peace, quickly, working off of that point of view. I don't see a route to peace, maybe at all, based on your point of view. If pressure will need to be applied for months as you say, at what cost? You think Ukraine will survive months of this? I don't.

NATO operates by consensus.

Ukraine volunteered to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 after voting for independence in 1991. Ukraine is a sovereign nation with a choice of what they want to do. Russia has no right to invade for any reason whatsover.

 

[Springal]

[tweet]1498723248183382020[/tweet]

Good thread

 

[Springal]

Also good

[tweet]1499023988701466626[/tweet]

 

[Here'sWally]

NATO operates by consensus.

Ukraine volunteered to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 after voting for independence in 1991. Ukraine is a sovereign nation with a choice of what they want to do. Russia has no right to invade for any reason whatsover.

I'm certainly not arguing that they had a right to invade. I'm asking what would be required to put an end to this peacefully, and would/should we be willing to give that a try?

 

[Albion in the north]

I’ve put what I can in, best of luck x

SB

Much appreciated.

 

[Notters]

Sorry if already mentioned, but has there been much of a movement yet to stop shops selling Russian products yet? Vodka being the obvious one.
Surely bars and supermarkets should be switching to Polish suppliers?

 

[Albion in the north]

Done.

Thanks Fella. Much appreciated.

 

[Bold Seagull]

NATO operates by consensus.

Ukraine volunteered to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 after voting for independence in 1991. Ukraine is a sovereign nation with a choice of what they want to do. Russia has no right to invade for any reason whatsover.

Mistakes of the past are not to recognise the conflicts you end up creating in the future. The Treaty of Versailles a document of supposed peace that led inevitably to another war failed so badly that Europe barely had 20 years to catch it's breathe. Russia has no right whatsoever to invade, Ukraine had a choice of what they want to do, but NATO also has a consensual choice of what to do and how to do it as an instrument of peace. I think [MENTION=42592]Here'sWally[/MENTION] has a point to ask that if Russia turns to the West and says, okay we'll stop this shit but you have to give us something in return and it involves an evaluation of the scope of NATO, then the West has to consider that not as appeasement, but as negotiation and compromise, otherwise there is an inevitability about where all this leads and it ain't pretty for anyone. You don't run scared, but then neither do you refuse not to budge. Not that Putin coming to the table seems likely, however as a hypothetical scenario, what would the West be willing to do to achieve peace in Eastern Europe, because the last time we were quite happy to just sign it all over to the Soviet Union.