BBC News - Russia-Ukraine: US warns of 'false-flag' operation
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59998988
Looks like this is really going to happen
I couldn't find it! What's it called?
It's called 'Lies and propaganda'
Or it could be
'Doing things the American way'
I still can't find it!
Singletrackworld barely makes a dent on Google these days...
Poopscoop isn’t getting confused with Kazakhstan by any chance?
Fair enough.
I never thought Putin would have the balls to invade but I guess the US's stature on the world stage has diminished to the point that he feels confidant enough to get away with it now. And, to be fair, I think he will!
It'll prob be more of an annex of the Donbas region, like he did with Crimea, rather than a full invasion but you never know...
I never thought Putin would have the balls to invade but I guess the US’s stature on the world stage has diminished to the point that he feels confidant enough to get away with it now.
And/ or Putin/ Russia is convinced the US is so heavily focussed on China they aren’t properly prepared (won’t notice?) for a sneaky peak over Ukraines borders.
Edit to add: Russia are unlikely to mount a full on invasion. There’s no longer popular support for that and risks a Vietnam situation for Russia. They are highly likely to take strategic chunks.
That is still an invasion no matter how much you cut it up. It should still carry just as much international condemnation as a "full invasion" whatever that is. There is no "annexation not invasion".
An invasion is a military offensive in which large numbers of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory owned by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering; liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof
Nobody should really have any illusions that Russia or China or anyone for that matter would prefer to see themselves as top dog. But I think that should also and more so apply to the US/NATO. They dont give a flying for the trouble they cause by warmongering constantly and siding right up to Russia's borders.
There’s no longer popular support for that and risks a Vietnam situation for Russia.
Afghanistan may be a better comparison.
.
Should the West stand up to Russia militarily? I don't know, it could get nasty. But not standing up to Germany over the Sudetenland (sp?) didn't prove successful in the long run, had we done something earlier things may have turned out better. Or the Rhineland or Austria. The longer we left it the stronger they became and the harder the inevitable fight became.
When do we stand up to Russia? We didn't over Crimea. Donbas? The rest of Ukraine? Lithuania? Poland? Germany?
When do we stand up to Russia?
We already have; economic sanctions have decimated the Russian economy over the last 8 years and they would not be able to fund a war against NATO (probably couldn't have before that either) so no further action is needed.
Really? Yes, the sanctions have undoubtedly hurt them a bit, but they have not got them to return Crimea or to back down now, and I can't see more sanctions doing it either. Much, much tougher ones have failed to stop North Korea pursuing nuclear weapons for example or to change the regime in Iran and how long were sanctions in place against Cuba without causing a change in direction?
Sanctions just make the country imposing them feel like they have done something without actually taking any hard decisions or risks.
And we can't cut Russia off completely because Europe need their oil and Germany especially need their gas.
A lot of state of the art air defence systems being given to Ukraine would be a much bigger deterrent than a travel ban for a few politicians.
Ukraine may not be a member of NATO but the UK and US (and indeed Russia!) have an obligation to them under the Budapest Memorandum. If giving up nuclear weapons gets them bugger all help when under a real threat why should any other country ever consider giving them up, or indeed not acquiring them in the first place? Whether or not they would ever use them is something of a moot point, having the ability to wipe out most of the massed troops with half a dozen missiles would probably mean that this situation would never have arisen in the first place.
Nobody is going to start WW3 over Ukraine; the West defending them militarily was never on the table. The sanctions imposed weren't to stop them annexing more of Ukraine they were to stop their ability to fund a military capable of taking on the West. Hence it was a response to your comment on "the longer we left it the stronger they became".
The point is we don't need to involve ourselves in fighting because the economic sanctions have stopped them arming themselves to anywhere near the level required to threaten a NATO member state.
You mentioned Lithuania, Poland, Germany, they are NATO members so very different to Ukraine. Completely different.
So to summarise, yes the sanctions have worked. And we don't have a legal obligation to Ukraine under the BP, it's not a legally binding treaty and Ukraine know that.
Btw the sanctions are a lot more than "a few travel bans for politicians". To quote the Associated Press, "The sanctions contributed to the collapse of the Russian ruble and the Russian financial crisis.[5]".
That is still an invasion no matter how much you cut it up.
I’d broadly agree. There is a difference though between an invasion of Ukraine where the intent is to take over the whole country, and an annexation of a part of the country. Arguably Russia would like the entire country to be in its power but only has resources to grab a portion.
Russia has a long history of destabilising neighbour states as a way of protecting it's borders (see Georgia) so maybe this is just that, but Russia has just spent a huge chunk of GDP upgrading their military and I suspect they plan to use it. A lot.
There is a difference though between an invasion of Ukraine where the intent is to take over the whole country, and an annexation of a part of the countr
I wonder what Poland would think of that.
<\goodwinslaw>
How much of a fight can Ukraine put up?
Are there any other interested parties who want to have a pop at the bear?
1) Not much
2) No-one
Transdinistra is mentioned in that article which if it kicked off there would probably drag in Moldova.
It could be that the Russians want to force the Ukrainians to defend on two fronts, thereby reducing the capacity to defend, or it could be that the Russians initial gambit is to seize the Black Sea coast.
That would make sense. No real reason to pass up on a strategic advantage like that
Actually, having looked at a map I'm not sure they will unless they are going for a total invasion on Ukraine. I'm currently guessing it will be Donbas only, plus aa far as I know there's no Russian troops amassing in Transninistria. However, if there was, that would be a pretty clear indicator!!
I reckon all the former Warsaw pact counties might feel a little uneasy, pity they don't club together and tell the Russian bully to do one.
It could be a case of "Careful what you wish for" given how Zelensky ended up where he is now:
"Ukrainians are waking up this morning and discovering that the last few months were not a dream.
They really have elected a man who currently stars in a TV series as the president - as the country's next real president. And it wasn't even close.
The pressure will now be on Mr Zelensky to demonstrate that he knows what he is doing.
Throughout the election campaign, he avoided serious interviews and discussions about policy - preferring instead to post light-hearted videos to social media.
He's got about a month before the inauguration. Then the comedian-turned-president will be faced with a complex in-tray that includes a simmering war with Russian-backed rebels in the east."
Oh man! I had forgotten about that. Imagine electing omeone to lead your country because he was funny on TV! So glad that would never happen here. Oh wait, hang on, this is awkward...
“The sanctions contributed to the collapse of the Russian ruble and the Russian financial crisis.[5]”.
that might well be true but they don’t send to have made any difference to the oligarchs and ruling elite
Ummmm....has anybody else never heard of Ben Wallace before?!
Isn't he Dave Gormans mate?
Haha!
How much of a fight can Ukraine put up?
More then we think. They have been investing in air defence systems. Equally Russia are effectively compelled to use Wagner group mercenaries to wage their wars. Russia is anxious about it’s borders. It’s interest is in destabilising those countries that get too close to the US and in getting access to a warm water port.
piemonster
Free Member
Poopscoop isn’t getting confused with Kazakhstan by any chance?
I can neither confirm or deny that is entirely correct.😁
Looks like this is really going to happen
Quite possibly, Putin has a lot to lose if Ukraine becomes a functioning democratic state
But I think that should also and more so apply to the US/NATO. They dont give a flying for the trouble they cause by warmongering constantly and siding right up to Russia’s borders.
I worry about your Facebook feed.
Other than Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia, a no fly zone here and there what has NATO done? Independent US actions aren't NATO.
Remind me which state has just taken down half the Ukrainian state IT?
How much of a fight can Ukraine put up?
A significant portion of the Ukrainian population have done time fighting and are willing to fight. The joke that was Ukrainian military has changed as has the willingness to fight. Any invasion will see an intolerable number of body bags going back to mother Russia
Watch these
The big thing to note is the comments about ideological volunteers, people who are prepared to fight, sadly prepared to die. Ukraine will be Russia's Iraq/Afghanistan on steroids, the big issue is that Putin may think they have no option.
Ukraine will be Russia’s Iraq/Afghanistan on steroids
That would be nice, I just can't see a reason why it would be that way
, I just can’t see a reason why it would be that way
Population similar, prepared, ideological volunteers, real combat experience fighting the nutters and russian regulars and irregulars in the Donbas, expectation that it would see operations in Russia (I wouldn't use the Moscow underground after h hour)
Population similar,
Ukraine has 1/4 thw population and 1/8 the GDP. It doesn't really compare tbh
Sorry Airvent, I went up a mountain and never repied.
The point is we don’t need to involve ourselves in fighting because the economic sanctions have stopped them arming themselves to anywhere near the level required to threaten a NATO member state.
You mentioned Lithuania, Poland, Germany, they are NATO members so very different to Ukraine. Completely different.
I disagree with this. Russia are very well armed, and are developing some pretty fancy new weapons systems (hypersonic missiles, Su-35, Borei-A submarines for example) As we have seen with North korea, even much tougher sanctions do not limit military spending, that is the last thing to get cut (which actually makes sense if you perceive your country to be under threat from those imposing sanctions). The sanctions may have damaged the Russian economy, but they have neither substantially weakened Russia militarily, nor undermined Putin's position to an extent that it is under threat, and one or both of these things needs to happen to prevent them invading Ukraine.
.
Russia are more than capable of taking on, and beating, a number of NATO members fairly easily, any of the Baltic states for example. If we do nothing in Ukraine why would they think we would do anything there? Would the US, UK or France go to war to protect Lithuania? I doubt it. Would Putin try? He might if we don't stand up to him now
And we don’t have a legal obligation to Ukraine under the BP, it’s not a legally binding treaty and Ukraine know that.
The legal status is disputed (mainly by Russia) By not acting over Crimea we have given them carte blanche to ignore it and carry on, and Donbas will be next.
.
I am not advocating a nuclear strike on Moscow the instant that the first Russian soldier crosses the border but at this stage giving Ukraine everything it may need or ask for in terms of air defenses, including maybe stationing USAF and RAF aircraft there, and a substantial combined fleet being sent to the Black Sea - all with the clear message going out that they will under no circumstances cross the border first, but will place themselves between the parties and any attack on them including crossfire will result in military action being taken against those repsonsible from either side will have far more of an effect on Russia's actions than the threat of more sanctions ever will - as long as Putin takes this threat seriously. Which brings me back to my main point, if we do nothing now, why would he take a NATO threat seriously if he decided to attack the Baltic states? Or Poland? Or Germany? Where do we draw the line? If the 1930s taught us anything appeasement does not work in the long term
My understanding is that the NATO states have been deliberately not allowing Ukraine to join because the risk of Russia invading is so high and that they do not want to out themselves in a position where they have to send in their troops as a result. I'm hoping (hoping!) that this means they will send in their troops if another NATO state was attacked, but the West has been so successfully undermined in the last decade it is hard to know if this would happen or not
Ukraine has 1/4 thw population and 1/8 the GDP. It doesn’t really compare tbh
Does to Afghanistan and Iraq which is what I was referring to
Occupation is an expensive experience in blood and treasure
Putin may still decide to do something, but his success has mainly come from asymmetric warfare, occupation is completely different
If we do nothing in Ukraine why would they think we would do anything there? Would the US, UK or France go to war to protect Lithuania? I doubt it.
Yes we would, that's why there are tripwire deployments of NATO troops in the Baltic States. They aren't there to run to the coast or be captured by russia
If we do nothing in Ukraine why would they think we would do anything there? Would the US, UK or France go to war to protect Lithuania? I doubt it.
NATO presence in Baltic States
It'll be very interesting to see if any NATO countries get involved if Russia invades Donbas. Looking at the media output I'd say the UK is making some noises while sitting firmly on the fence
I don't think any NATO countries are intending to send troops. What is very likely is that the U.S. and other countries will supply weapons and other support (intel, especially), plus freeze Russia out of the international economic system.
an interesting (probably not the best turn of phrase), vid from Vice News from back in June of last year
That video is a really interesting insight, thanks for posting!
But I think that should also and more so apply to the US/NATO. They dont give a flying for the trouble they cause by warmongering constantly and siding right up to Russia’s borders.
Or, its just possible, that those countries bordering Russia want the protection of NATO? Considering what the Russian Embassy in the UK tweeted earlier this week about those countries such as the Baltic states being *Russian orphans", is it any wonder they have joined the alliance?
Or, its just possible, that those countries bordering Russia want the protection of NATO?
It's probably no coincidence that they are the only countries that border Russia haven't either sworn their allegiance to Russia or has been destabilised by a 'breakaway state'. Or is China, obviously
Other than Finland?
Is Finland not in NATO?
Is Finland not in NATO?
No. They were once part of Russia, and during the Cold War had quite close ties to them.
I don’t think Finland is a NATO member, nor is Sweden. But they do have close ties to NATO, and since they were not previously Soviet satellite states, I suspect any moves by Russia against them would bring a much more military response than an invasion of Ukraine.
plus freeze Russia out of the international economic system.
And there goes Europe's gas, so i don't think they'll be freezing alone.
Every bit of whatever happens yet again engineered by America. We'd be better allying ourselves to Russia,(A European state) and telling the US to go F itself. Plus Russia has more resources than anyone else. Be a win win for us.
If we do nothing in Ukraine why would they think we would do anything there? Would the US, UK or France go to war to protect Lithuania? I doubt it.
NATO presence in Baltic States
NATO Artical 5
That's kind of my point really. What is Article 5 worth if the Budapest Memorandum isn't worth anything? Why would Russia think we would actually go to war for them if the chips were down? Unless Russia truly believes that we would Article 5 isn't going to deter them, and our current response in Ukraine isn't giving an indication that we would either.
The troops there may well be having an effect, I don't doubt that. But isn't that an argument for a significant NATO presence in Ukraine? If it works in the Baltic states why not in Ukraine? I suspectbthat the reason we don't is that we don't want to be seen as provocative, which I will admit ia a fine line to tread
Russia claimed that the annexation of Crimea was in fact a revolution from within the country/region. The troops had no insignia or markings on their uniforms so the Russian Army could not be blamed. That is if it was regular Russian Army troops or state backed mercenaries.
interesting website
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all being NATO member states have the reassurance that they won't be invaded. It doesn't stop the Russian Army amassing plenty of troops at their borders at the moment though. Unfortunately Ukraine not being a member of NATO have been left to sort themselves out in the main, I would imagine there is some support from other nations happening somewhere though.
Good book written by an ex General who was NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe
Every bit of whatever happens yet again engineered by America. We’d be better allying ourselves to Russia,(A European state) and telling the US to go F itself. Plus Russia has more resources than anyone else. Be a win win for us
Even from a purely economic perspective that's laughable, we export less than 5% to Russia than what we do to the US and that wouldn't change any time soon. Oh and then there's Putin, you're not buying the benevolent dictator act are you?
Even from a purely economic perspective that’s laughable, we export less than 5% to Russia
Yup, we get ours from Europe.
Now where do you think they get it from 😉
Some interesing perspective here
BBC News - Russia-Ukraine crisis: Why Brussels fears Europe is 'closest to war' in decades
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60030615
Anti tank and surface to air being sent over.
It's not looking good is it
It’s not looking good is it
It's really interesting to know if Putin genuinely wants to invade or if this is just a really expensive (and unpleasant) negotiating tactic
It’s really interesting to know if Putin genuinely wants to invade or if this is just a really expensive (and unpleasant) negotiating tactic
There's an old saying, "All politics is local." Russia isn't a functioning democracy but Putin has to maintain support or his regime will collapse. There seems to be a real sense of grievance in Russia about how the last 35 years unfolded - Russia used to be a superpower and has been reduced to a regional power. In my opinion, that is mostly because of Russia's own mistakes, if they'd played their cards right, they would have been the dominant country in Europe. That would have required accepting EU and international norms though and Putin rejects that. His goal seems to be to undermine liberal democracies and reestablish the old Russian empire. He has bet everything on Crimea and Ukraine so he can't be seen to back down now in the eyes of the Russian public. Negotiating time is over, he just gave a list of demands that he knew would not be accepted so he had no intention of negotiating, he just wanted a pretext for military action.
I don't think there's any doubt that he will escalate the conflict, but whether that means a full-scale invasion or just a limited invasion to "protect" Russian speaking people in the border areas is another question. I don't think there's any chance that the U.S. or NATO would send troops to fight in Ukraine, but I don't think Biden has any political choice other than to provide weapons and other support. I think Putin probably assumes that invading Ukraine will bring economic sanctions and isolation, but not a full-scale war. His major trump card is the supply of gas to Europe, I think he's hoping that he can use that to create divisions in NATO and the EU that he can exploit.
So, yes, he does want to invade. Whether that will be a full-scale invasion or something more limited is the big question.
Now it the time to speedily charter every bulk gas carrier to set up an cross-Atlantic supply of American frack-gas so we can call his bluff. I actually don't think there is the capacity to do this, and Putin knows this.
It might on this tread where I typed Putin is one page away in the history books of being a dictator he is almost on his last paragraph now. I don't think they have the cash for a prolonged war with a well trained and armed gorilla army in Ukraine.
My guess is they will go in to form a "buffer zone" from the NATO alliance and use it to cause more stress into Europe.
Russian people getting stuffed by corrupt leaders over and over again.
Putin really believes in the Greater Russia fairy story, and would like to have a legacy of restoring the empire... that's why he likes the idea of rescuing 'russians' in Ukraine from wicked western influence. But he also has the issue that at the same time as he's doing this places like Beloruss, Kazakhstan keep blowing up so he doesn't want a full blow insurrection on his southern border. How does he plan to manage that plus a war on his western flank? Would he invade via the Russian army, or would he be supporting the 'patriots' in Wagner, and how does he think that he'll deal with a long war with a guerilla element. Ukraine are a bit more motivated and competent than a lot of people seem to realise.
Plus he's got 35 years of paranoia since the USSSR fell apart. It's a messy situation.
Odd that despite all the natural resources Russia is such an abject dump, and for most people a miserable existence in a very visibly corrupt society. I wouldn't underestimate how much damage western economic measures can have
It looks pretty inevitable that Russia will invade the Donbas region (possibly on the pre-text of some event on the border or region occurring). Ukraine will obviously put up a fight but there's not much realistically they can do to prevent it so would like end up similar to the Crimea. Russia going further than the Donbas would be problematic for both sides - I'm not sure Russia would stomach the additional losses from a complete invasion of Ukraine (and the costs of the on-going man power required to effectively supress it). I wonder if Ukraine's gold reserves etc. are still in-country or if they've moved them to a safe haven.
I wouldn’t underestimate how much damage western economic measures can have
+1 I don't think it was the West's military might that won the Cold War. Russia was on its knees economically and was up to all sorts of weird and wonderful schemes to earn US$ to keep the lights on.
Russian life expectancy is already way below Western numbers, COVID is putting even greater pressure on Russian health services and there's a huge imbalance in the distribution of age within the population.
Young Russians are leaving in their droves and few are being born, so there's little way back to economic growth in the medium term.
And who'd want to migrate to work in Russia with heavy sanctions, an appalling standard of living and a rampant dictator?
Gas is finite, and Western focus on neutralising carbon is going to make it less valuable anyway in the long run.
So I think this is Putin's last hurrah. Before his health goes and before economic catastrophe catches up with him.
I think he'll cross the border, not out of any calculating master-plan, but to give him something he considers worthwhile against his name in the history books, because currently, for all his guile and strategic nous, he has nothing to show for his 20 years in power. Russia's in the same place it was under Yeltsin.
Odd that despite all the natural resources Russia is such an abject dump,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
I wouldn’t underestimate how much damage western economic measures can have
Don't underestimate what people will tolerate if they think their country is facing an existential threat. North Korea is a great example of that. Russians put up with unfathomable suffering during WW2 - the Blitz was kindergarten stuff by comparison. Suffering seems to be part of their national identity.
@andrewreay - I have watched (too many) Bald and Bankrupt films - and often come away thinking how depressing much of Russia and the ex-Soviet republics are, properly challenging places to live. Developing nation levels of poverty and daily grind. His last film has a lady in Kyrgyzstan searching bins to feed her child, in a previous film he meet forest / ruined factory living tramps on the north Russian coast (etc). The suffering so many put up with - and continue to do so..
When a country's chaos and economic policies scare off foreign investors and send local entrepreneurs abroad to look for better opportunities, the economy becomes skewed. Factories may close and businesses may flee, but petroleum and precious metals remain for the taking. Resource extraction becomes the "default sector" that still functions after other industries have come to a halt
To me, that quote from the Resource Curse link above pretty much nails Russia. Just needs a line about the default sector falling into corrupt hands. The question is what happens when key resources like oil and gas diminish in value?
To be fair to Putin, he's done wonders for agriculture. He's turned Russia from a huge net importer of food to a significant global exporter. He's created many economic dependencies as a consequence, increasing Russia's sphere of influence, particularly in Africa.
The agricultural sanctions imposed by Europe hardly touched the sides, plus he spins the superiority of Russian produce to his home audience.
But for all this, and the ability of the Russian people to bear hardship with a zeal that most Westerners do not comprehend, he's paranoid that his rule will come crashing down and, worse, with nothing to show for it.
@matt_outandabout Yeah - saw that very same one yesterday.
It's the ability of huge chunks of the population to live in grim conditions and not complain that I think we find staggering in the West. And there lies the disconnect. We just cannot get our heads around the stoicism / acceptance that is a huge part of Russian life and cultural identity.
Even little things like astronauts who've trained with cosmonauts saying that the Russians would 'protect' their Euro / US counterparts because they didn't think they could cope with hardship. It's a completely different mindset in Russia.
But to be slightly balanced, you'd find examples (not necessarily numerous) of people going through bins in most major Western cities. And there are many US towns out in the back of beyond where once successful industries have packed up and there is nothing left - like many of the towns in B&B's films. Key difference is that those left in the US are unlikely to be maintaining a subsistence existence. And for the most part, the towns weren't supported by government activity.
Don’t underestimate what people will tolerate if they think their country is facing an existential threat. North Korea is a great example of that. Russians put up with unfathomable suffering during WW2 – the Blitz was kindergarten stuff by comparison. Suffering seems to be part of their national identity.
Absolutely.
That completely applies to Ukraine. Huge suffering during WW2, and now facing an existential crisis. I wouldn't fancy being a Russian soldier on the front line.
<div class="bbcode-quote">
Is Finland not in NATO?
</div>
No. They were once part of Russia, and during the Cold War had quite close ties to them.
Finland has an interesting 19th and 20th century history. In the 19th century it was part of Sweden, then Russia annexed it. It had some autonomy under Russian rule. In WW I it declared independence. It had a civil war in the 1930s, and a non-aggression treaty with USSR.
The Winter War followed against the USSR, then the Continuation War against the USSR with German support. When WW II ended Finland had to pay USSR large reparations.
I think it's fair to say that the Finns are fiercely independent and had to spend the second half of the 20th century keeping both West and East happy without getting too close to either.
See also Alsace and Luxemburg - it's hard being caught between two large powers (Sweden was a major power in the 19th century)
I can't believe Finland was the one to pay reparations to Russia!!
I remember reading a bit about Russia's invasion of Finland in WW2, Russia thought they would be a pushover but they put up a surprisingly stout defense
I can’t believe Finland was the one to pay reparations to Russia!!
Yep, they were on the losing side as they'd sided with Germany (in their own right rather than as signatories of the tripartite pact) against Russia. $300 million in 1944 dollars!
Russia thought they would be a pushover but they put up a surprisingly stout defence
I suspect Ukraine may be the same if it comes to it. People fight harder to protect their homeland. And the influx of Turkish drones and US and UK anti tank missiles makes Russia's armour less of an advantage. I assume something similar is happening in ground to air missiles. An invasion without air superiority or an advantage in armour suddenly sounds rather hard.
It may be the first very modern war sadly.apprently the Turks are making drones that can swarm attack with payloads at racing drone speeds. A foot soldiers worst nightmare.
I wonder how many Russians would weep if Putin drank some hot tea and fell ill he has done them no favors.
There is no doubt the Finns were, and are, very tough, but it should be remembered that when the Soviet Union invaded (in 1940) the army was a complete shambles, due partly to Stalin purging anyone who knew anything about fighting a war. The Russian army of 1944 was a completely different beast to that of 1940 - well trained, motivated and well equipped. Rumour has it that it was the appalling performance of the Russian army against the Finns which encouraged Hitler to believe that invading Russia would be a walkover (which initially it was of course)…
My Grandpa fought against the Russians, manning an artillery gun in the Finnish forests.
He really didn’t like the Russians at all.
Ben Wallace (uk defence secretary) has released a statement on the situation and I’m surprised (shocked?) as to how well it is written.
Ben Wallace : On the situation in Ukraine