Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[Tayls]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

Interesting threat from Lavrov. Any Russian strike into NATO territory triggers Article 5 and a very strong military response. We need to get serious about arming Ukraine properly now, the fascists in Moscow need to be stopped. 

 

Won’t they just destroy it once it is in Ukrainian territory? 

[trekka]

 

[magnkarl]

Putin thought he had the second best army in the world. I’m not sure he’s even top10. Off the top of my head. NATO, USA, China, South Korea, Israel, France, Turkey, India, then a whole bunch of smaller NATO nations and the rest. Then Russia.

Russia has lost more troops in 3 weeks than 9 years in Afghanistan. Their equipment is scrap and the airforce is about as effective as a lame duck. If Putin had small rooster syndrome before this he’ll need to get to therapy quickly.

Edited March 18, 2022 by magnkarl

[avfc1982am]

11 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Putin thought he had the second best army in the world. I’m not sure he’s even top10. Off the top of my head. NATO, USA, China, South Korea, Israel, France, Turkey, India, then a whole bunch of smaller NATO nations and the rest. Then Russia.

Russia has lost more troops in 3 weeks than 9 years in Afghanistan. Their equipment is scrap and the airforce is about as effective as a lame duck. If Putin had small rooster syndrome before this he’ll need to get to therapy quickly.

I don't understand this post? Whilst many of your posts are quite insightful, posts like this are what I see on platforms like youtube. Who gives a shit who has the best army when people are dying because of dickheads wanting to prove a point. 

And another thing, you missed the UK off your list.  

[Awol]

40 minutes ago, Tayls said:

Won’t they just destroy it once it is in Ukrainian territory? 

In Ukraine yes, but then it’s already been delivered. Attacking the supply chain implies action outside Ukraine, or at least that’s certainly how it’s being read in many places. 

[magnkarl]

6 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

I don't understand this post? Whilst many of your posts are quite insightful, posts like this are what I see on platforms like youtube. Who gives a shit who has the best army when people are dying because of dickheads wanting to prove a point. 

And another thing, you missed the UK off your list.  

Sorry, I like making fun of dictators. I’m like Canada in the UN.

[magnkarl]

That Putin speech today was nothing short of classic fascism. For some reason it got cut halfway through his speech. I wonder if the sound tech had heard enough Hitler-esque drivel. 

Russia saying it was a ‘technical error’.

[Ingram85]

The Earth needs a good purging anyway. Launch all the nukes at the Kremlin! 

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, Chindie said:

Which sets a precedent that to get what you want you muscle in and take it. Which is a path the world can't take a step back in to.

If Russia wants any part of Ukraine, and insists on taking it by force, it's imperative that they are made to pay for every single metre they get. It will mean many will die, but it's important to set the standard that this cannot be allowed, that all aggressor can't just take territory it wants from sovereign states. Otherwise we go back to the basest level of might is right, and we can't do that.

I'm not comfortable with writing cheques that will be cashed in Ukrainian blood like this. If they want a peace deal, it absolutely should not be up to 'us' to stop them from having one.

[Tayls]

48 minutes ago, Awol said:

In Ukraine yes, but then it’s already been delivered. Attacking the supply chain implies action outside Ukraine, or at least that’s certainly how it’s being read in many places. 

But if it’s the logistics element of the supply chain that is destroyed en route, whilst inside Ukrainian territory, would that count towards attacking another nation? Would NATO be expected to retaliate? 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Tayls

[Tayls]

39 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

That Putin speech today was nothing short of classic fascism. For some reason it got cut halfway through his speech. I wonder if the sound tech had heard enough Hitler-esque drivel. 

Russia saying it was a ‘technical error’.

I’ve only seen tiny snippets from the BBC reports, but the whole thing looks…just, weird? It almost looks completely fake…

Assuming it is genuine, I’m amazed at the people in attendance waving those flags and seemingly supporting the invasion. Frightening really. 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Tayls

[Chindie]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm not comfortable with writing cheques that will be cashed in Ukrainian blood like this. If they want a peace deal, it absolutely should not be up to 'us' to stop them from having one.

Obviously if Ukraine wants to agree a peace, that's their call. I'm not advocating forcing a state to keep fighting beyond their will, only that it's important that Ukraine does fight as hard and as long as they can bear.

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, Tayls said:

I’ve only seen tiny snippets from the BBC reports, but the whole thing looks…just, weird? It almost looks completely fake…

Assuming it is genuine, I’m amazed at the people in attendance waving those flags and seemingly supporting the invasion. Frightening really. 

BBC reporting that many were bussed in from work, told attendance and compliance was compulsory etc

Also some media reporting that it was cut short because Putin limped off the stage

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, Tayls said:

I’ve only seen tiny snippets from the BBC reports, but the whole thing looks…just, weird? It almost looks completely fake…

Assuming it is genuine, I’m amazed at the people in attendance waving those flags and seemingly supporting the invasion. Frightening really. 

Depends what you mean by 'real'. Was there a stadium of people waving flags and lapping up nationalist claptrap? Yes. Was it all genuine, as opposed to having had people instructed to go and make a show of things? Different matter.

There's also evidence it was edited, given that Putin disappears suddenly at one point.

It's true that Putin does have a hardcore fan base, there will be significant numbers of people who would have turned up and cheered every minute quite genuinely. A stadium full, though? Maybe a decade ago. Not now.

[Awol]

23 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm not comfortable with writing cheques that will be cashed in Ukrainian blood like this. If they want a peace deal, it absolutely should not be up to 'us' to stop them from having one.

Neither is it our place to Eurosplain to 40 million people what they should or should not want, accept or aspire to. Plenty of guff in western media opining about negotiations with Putin as if the Ukrainians have no agency at all. 

The vast majority of Ukrainians clearly see their future as being within the euro-Atlantic community, both the EU and NATO. They are fighting and dying for the right to make that choice for themselves and deserve every support we can give them, unless or until they choose a different course. FWIW I find their collective courage utterly humbling.

[bannedfromHandV]

34 minutes ago, Tayls said:

I’ve only seen tiny snippets from the BBC reports, but the whole thing looks…just, weird? It almost looks completely fake…

Assuming it is genuine, I’m amazed at the people in attendance waving those flags and seemingly supporting the invasion. Frightening really. 

According to the Beeb most of the people in attendance were civil workers of varying forms who had been asked, strenuously, to attend.

[hippo]

41 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm not comfortable with writing cheques that will be cashed in Ukrainian blood like this. If they want a peace deal, it absolutely should not be up to 'us' to stop them from having one.

Agreed. Sadly we can't resolve all the issues of the world - there is an element that the stronger nations take all they want - to try and resolve that on s global scale would cause untold suffering to the very people you are trying to help.

I remember when I trained as a union rep the guy told us that if most of what you want is on the table - take the deal - we don't live in a perfect or fair world.

Not easy but I would have thought the main thing for Ukraine would be to exist as an independent state - but even that looks a way off at the moment.

[Awol]

1 minute ago, hippo said:

I remember when I trained as a union rep the guy told us that if most of what you want is on the table - take the deal - we don't live in a perfect or fair world.

“Look fellas, at least you’ve still got a job…” 

The bosses must have loved you. 

[foreveryoung]

2 hours ago, trekka said:

 

Will never beat the O.E Villa one. Savage it was.

[HanoiVillan]

22 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Obviously if Ukraine wants to agree a peace, that's their call. I'm not advocating forcing a state to keep fighting beyond their will, only that it's important that Ukraine does fight as hard and as long as they can bear.

I'm afraid that's not much better. 'Important' how? For who?

In your post you say it's so we don't endorse the principle of 'might is right'. But the whole reason we are not fighting directly in this conflict - the whole reason Ukraine has to fight 'as long and hard as they can bear' wholly alone - is because of Russia's 'might'. 

And we really need to investigate this concept further, and try to see it how people outside of *our* bubble might see it. When the UN Security Council explicitly vetoed the invasion of Iraq, and 'we' went ahead and did it anyway, deposing a leader and destabilising a region for the thick end of two decades, what part of 'might is right' did that disprove? When 'we' wanted a no-fly zone over Libya, and Russia and China grudgingly went along with it on the specific grounds that it didn't lead to regime change, and then we went ahead and happily killed Gaddafi and plunged the country into further chaos it *still* hasn't recovered from, did that show that 'might is right' doesn't apply? When 'we' took over the Chagos Islands to lump a military base on, and expelled the population, and have refused to turn over control of it *despite* an International Court of Justice ruling that we must do so, did that demonstrate something other than 'might is right'?

I'm aware that somebody or other is going to read this and then accuse me of 'whataboutism' or claim I'm justifying Russia's invasion. Of course I'm not; the point is 'might' shouldn't equal 'right', and even powerful countries should follow international rules. Two wrongs don't make a right. Wars of aggression are not right; Russia not only didn't take this conflict to the Security Council, they didn't even bother coming up with even a faintly plausible justification. What they have done is criminal and wrong. 

But they are able to do it, and we are pretty much at the limit of what we can do to stop it. Ukrainians are fighting for their land and their sovereignty, and I will want them to do as well as they can for as long as they want to fight. But not a single drop of Ukrainian blood should be spilled (from an increasingly conscripted military, let's not forget) because we think 'it's important for them to fight as long and hard as they can bear' in defence of a principle we won't even bother paying lip service to the minute it doesn't suit us.