..deleted. wrong film.
but an interesting analysis of Oliver Stones 'Ukraine on Fire" from the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection group, which provides a counter argument to that film calling it 'undistllled Kremlin Propaganda':
“Ukraine on Fire/ Winter on Fire” is far from an unbiased account and controversial in itself
Are they not different things though?
The one on Netflix "Winter on Fire" made in 2015 is literally a start to finish filmed account of the Maidan riots/revolution AKA revolution of Dignity that took place in 2014. There's no talking heads and no discussion of Ukraine's history.
"Ukraine on Fire" is a 2016 film by Oliver Stone which is a bunch of people talking about the history of Ukraine.
Ah, you amended you post, yes, different films confusingly mentioning fire both about Ukraine
Are they not different things though?
Yes, confused and corrected, read the title in the trailer wrong. The Oliver Stone film 'Ukraine on Fire' was widely panned and now highly controversial... 'Winter on Fire' in contrast is well worth watching.
’ve just found out that Putin is referred to as Poutine in France, presumably because ‘putin’ is a very common general purpose medium grade swear word along the lines of ‘bollocks’ and it actually means whore.
Putain
Just saw an interview in English with Zelensky on sky news. He talks exactly like Borat. He should stick to Ukrainian from now on I think.
Seriously? What sort of accent were you expecting him to have? FFS...
When you can speak Ukrainian more competently than he can speak English let us know, until then keep your ignorant opinions to yourself.
Putain
Ah yes, but it'd be pronounced pretty similarly no?
Ah yes, but it’d be pronounced pretty similarly no?
I like to think so 😀
What sort of accent were you expecting him to have? FFS…
Unfortunately, talking about Ukraine as if it’s a comical backwater of no importance has been a theme.
That hospital that was hit… I’ve seen lots of claims is wasn’t a hospital, and that the pregnant women were played by an actor… someone’s been digging to debunk the debunking…
https://twitter.com/shayan86/status/1501965468587986948?s=21
https://twitter.com/shayan86/status/1501965488087252992?s=21
The army is very good at paperwork, they have an entire unit for paperwork
Nearly one of those things is true.
Chap I used to sail with was a commander RN at Faslane, running the supply depot. He often boasted his units were "Completely Computer free"
The debunking news and false information is both interesting and depressing. If this is being fed to the masses back in Russia where broadcast media is restricted, how can this be countered ?
Its so easy to construct a negative or fake reason and very hard to prove things are true especially in a highly controlled news environment.
Ah yes, but it’d be pronounced pretty similarly no?
I like to think so
That's exactly how I pronounce it but I thought it meant ****. I need to check my dictionary
There's a group of contractors providing some of the more specialist tasks for the government of Ukraine. The Forward Observation Group, comprising of gentlemen who have served in former NATO nations SOF have been quite busy it seems.
One of the chaps IG accounts should satisfy some of you fanboys Raoul Duke
My assumption was that NATO would be providing intelligence to Ukraine but it would be stuff gathered electronically. NATO will be training Ukrainians as well but that can be done outside of combat zones. There’s no reason for NATO to have troops in the combat zones, the Ukrainian troops seem to be very capable and their intelligence gathering can be passed back to NATO for analysis. One of the big advantages that Ukraine seems to have is that NATO supplied encrypted communications equipment (and night vision gear, etc.) That will allow Ukraine and NATO to cooperate on intelligence gathering and targeting information.
Thinking about how the war seems to be progressing, I'm beginning to wonder whether applying sanctions and delivering weapons and supplies is the correct approach.
Wouldn't there be far less suffering if the West had embargoed Ukraine, perhaps only letting regugees out across the border. Surely that would have been the humanitarian approach? The way things are, we are demonstrating to Putin that there aren't really any red lines at the moment, while supplying equipment that is prolonging the war, and increasing death and suffering, while not being willing to make sufficient effort to change the outcome.
And if there is to be a red line, then why the **** wasn't it set somewhere behind us. I'm at a total loss as to what the plan is.
embargoed Ukraine
What do you mean?
What do you mean?
I guess prevented the importing of weapons. Left them to it with their existing stockpile of armaments.
vinnyeh
Full Member
What do you mean?I guess prevented the importing of weapons. Left them to it with their existing stockpile of armaments.
The Ukrainians have clearly chosen, as a whole, to resist Russia.
I don't think facilitating a brutal occupation would have been the humanitarian option.
Plus Ukrainian training and improving their military didn't just start at the end of February.
I don’t think facilitating a brutal occupation would have been the humanitarian option.
I'm really not trolling, and this thought is probably borne out of despondency, but I'm no longer sure of that.
How are the deaths to come, followed by what will almost certainly be a more brutal occupation, and the probable denial of aid to rebuild the country, a better result than a swift end to the war.
Letting russia "win" (as in occupy) doesn't mean an end to the war. I don't know which is "better" I. Terms of life's lost and claiming to know is fantasy
The French "putain" is pronounced pootan(g) - imagine you were going to say the g but chose not to at the end.
Sah-lop doesn't go down well over there either lol
One of the chaps IG accounts should satisfy some of you fanboys Raoul Duke
Good to see Hunter S Thomson is alive and well,
I haven't posted much on Ukraine, but now I'm very much alarmed by the escalating and hysterical language on the part of Western media and politicians. Just like after the death of George Floyd and the during the covid pandemic, public and political discourse have become governed by hysteria, moral panics and general emotional incontinence. This 'we must do something' and 'think of the children' rhetoric is pushing us more and more into a hawkish position which could easily lead to what was once unthinkable to cooler minds, namely, open warfare with Russia and the attendant and very real risk of a nuclear exchange.
I would ask why Ukraine matters so much to us in the anglosphere? If Ukraine was so important why were they not given full Nato membership? If Ukraine doesn't matter then why get involved now? Russia has been open for years about not wanting Nato to push further up against their western border. It's not an unreasonable stance from their point of view.
And if there is to be a red line, then why the **** wasn’t it set somewhere behind us
I don't understand this bit.
The way things are, we are demonstrating to Putin that there aren’t really any red lines at the momen
Nato Article 5 is an absolute red line. Russia (and the Soviets before) have never dared to test it.
Let's not start this utter nonsense that in not intervening militarily in Ukraine we're greenlighting Putin to roll tanks in Germany.
Calm down mate. It may not happen.
I don’t understand this bit.
That if there was ever a sensible point at which we'd intervene, then that point has surely been passed by now. Probably it was in the first few hours of the invasion.
Now, there's no other option but to sit it out and hope things are (largely) over as quickly as possible.
Curious as to what Russia's response would be if a non-Nato country decided to intervene on Ukraines behalf
Let’s not start this utter nonsense that in not intervening militarily in Ukraine we’re greenlighting Putin to roll tanks in Germany.
No, I'm not saying that, probably didn't make that clear.
And if there is to be a red line, then why the **** wasn’t it set somewhere behind us
I don’t understand this bit
I think he means why are we taking a stand now, rather than, say, Crimea, or the contested election in Belarus or the war in Chechnya or.....
The parallel with the 1930s is obvious, why did we take a stand over Poland and not the Rhineland or Sudetenland or Chezchoslovakia....
Curious as to what Russia’s response would be if a non-Nato country decided to intervene on Ukraines behalf
Realistically only China would be capable. Someone like India or maybe Isreal might be able to tip the balance but they wouldn't go in alone.
.
Letting russia “win” (as in occupy) doesn’t mean an end to the war.
In mucn the same way as we 'won' in Iraq or Afghanistan. If the people don't want to be occupied it won't end
When you can speak Ukrainian more competently than he can speak English let us know, until then keep your ignorant opinions to yourself.
It was a joke. You know, black humour, a bit of levity. Try it some time, it may lower your stress levels. 🙄
(Honestly though it really was exactly the same as Borat. I was half expecting his daughter to appear in a bloodied evening dress)
The parallel with the 1930s is obvious, why did we take a stand over Poland and not the Rhineland or Sudetenland or Chezchoslovakia….
It's a terrible parallel. Firstly, Unlike in 1939 the anglosphere and western Europe is well-armed and more than a match for the antagonist in a conventional war. Secondly, Putin doesn't have nearly the same motivations or intentions as Hitler. The issue with Ukraine is one of potential Nato expansion and how Russia feels threatened by this.
The issue with Ukraine is one of potential Nato expansion and how Russia feels threatened by this
Or Russian expansionism, Putin’s arrogance, a need to prop up a dictatorship, interference in countries it views as part of its natural axis etc
We were fairly well armed in 1939,the Royal Navy for example was still the largest navy in the world. We were outclassed/outnumbered in terms of land forces, until the USSR mobilized and Detroit got up to speed but we weren't totally unprepared.
I agree Putin probably doesn't have the same ambitions to irradicate certain types of people but his territorial ambitions must be similar.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that then, as now, we let a lot of things go unchallenged and eventually drew a land in the sand .
Secondly, Putin doesn’t have nearly the same motivations or intentions as Hitler.
You reckon?
If Ukraine was so important why were they not given full Nato membership?
The issue with Ukraine is one of potential Nato expansion and how Russia feels threatened by this.
You don’t see the inherent contradiction between these two statements of yours?
You reckon?
Hitler wanted to wipe out the jews. Which ethnic group does Putin want to erase from the planet?
Or Russian expansionism
I'd ask for evidence of that.
There is plenty of evidence that Russia/Putin is motivated by worries about Nato expansion.
A major difference between now and 1939 is nuclear weapons.
There is plenty of evidence that Russia/Putin is motivated by worries about Nato expansion.
How successful has rolling tanks into, and shelling parts of Ukraine been in limiting the expansion of NATO?
Who honesty buys in to the ‘putin thinks Nato is a threat to Russia’ nonsense?
He’s not stupid, he knows there’s no way nato would want a war with russia, if he needed any more evidence of this then surely the fact we are bending over backwards to not escalate things should prove that. And if nato did want to be an aggressor toward Russia, they could quite happily decimate the place without firing a shot from Ukraine (albeit with mass casualties our side as well)
Putin knows fine well that the the rest of the world would far rather be on good terms with him. The only thing that could possibly put nato on a war trajectory with Russia is exactly what he is doing…
This has nothing to do with the protection of Russian borders, and everything to do with him trying to retaking former soviet lands for his own glory/because he has a massive chip on his shoulder. And to solidify his own position in power
Or Russian expansionism
I’d ask for evidence of that.
He's expanded in to Ukraine. Is that enough?
I don't know if anyone watches Mark Felton's YouTube channel. He normally focuses on military history. Principally WW2 but he's also covered the Falklands, the cold war and many others.
This is not so much history, but a sobering assessment based on current events of what might happen if Russia attacked the UK. Not necessarily with nuclear weapons, but how vulnerable we are even to a coordinated conventional attack. Food for thought for some of the sabre rattlers and no fly advocates.
He’s not stupid, he knows there’s no way nato would want a war with russia
Thinking long term and strategically no rational country should depend on the goodwill of its neighbours for its own defence.
From Russia's point of view, there have been several major wars between western powers and themselves over the centuries. Operation Barbarossa and the Great Patriotic War is seared into the national consciousness.
This has nothing to do with the protection of Russian borders
Their border becomes narrower and consequently becomes more defensible the further West it is pushed.
Thinking long term and strategically no rational country should depend on the goodwill of its neighbours for its own defence.
They should’ve joined NATO.
From Russia’s point of view, there have been several major wars between western powers and themselves over the centuries. Operation Barbarossa and the Great Patriotic War is seared into the national conciosuness.
Maybe we should bomb Germany just to be on the safe side?
Funny how many countries, some with noisy neighbours, seem to be managing just fine without invading others.
Their border becomes narrower and consequently becomes more defensible the further [s]West[/s] East it is pushed.
FTFY
