Why are companies, and individuals in professional settings, avoiding calling this a war? I'm seeing it on their PR, internal emails, talking to people.
Events in Ukraine
News from Ukraine
What's happening in Ukraine
Situation in Ukraine
The mess in Ukraine
Due to Ukraine
This is transparently aimed at reminding Russia that NATO is watching and passing intel onto Ukraine without saying it out loud.
One question the airmen decidedly refused to answer was whether the intelligence they gather, which is ostensibly for use only by members of the NATO alliance, is being provided to Kyiv.
"I cannot answer that question," Guillaume said firmly.
"The only thing I can tell you right now is that we, as NATO allies, are sharing the data with NATO countries," the NATO technical director echoed.
What the NATO member countries do with that intelligence, however, is at their discretion, the NATO technical director hinted.
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1502072709785792520
@dyna-ti - did you read this yet? An interview with someone who knows a fair bit about the Russian/NATO history and Putin.
https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/russias-ex-foreign-minister-on-his-totalitarian-country/
“This is not about Putin himself,” Kozryev corrects me. “It’s not one figure because the personality can be changed. The problem is the character of the regime and that character must be changed.”
“This war is a disaster. If they continue, it will be a total and complete disaster. A hundred years ago, there was the tsar, the embodiment of God himself in the Russian mentality. Yet when he pushed his country into a disastrous war, exactly like today, he found it impossible to win. Then he signed his resignation as the tsar and became Citizen Romanov. That even someone appointed by God himself could resign peacefully and transfer power should tell you that Vladimir Putin is not invulnerable.”
Ukraine on Fire Oliver Stone
Haven’t watched yet. Too late now will try and watch tomorrow night!
I wouldn’t bother
If you want to watch something that is based in reality and far more informative then watch Winter on Fire. It’s a brilliant documentary about the 2014 revolution and the reasons it happened, filmed by a Ukrainian director rather than a Kremlin apologist living in a mansion in LA
Afineevsky was born in Kazan, Tatar ASSR, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union on October 21, 1972 to a Russian-Jewish family.[2] In the early 1990s, Afineevsky became an Israeli citizen and served in the Israeli Defence Forces.[1] As he became involved in the film industry, he relocated to Los Angeles in the United States through connections to Menahem Golan, living there since 1999.[1] Afineevsky is openly homosexual.[3]
I will watch them both
@ kelvin
Which NATO countries shouldn’t have been allowed to join?
Those countries that Russia considers to be too close for comfort (buffer) especially the former Warsaw pack.
One of the argument is that NATO is perceived to be the trojan horse for liberal democracy (with America as their leader and their universalistic views that democracy is good for everyone and therefore must be applied to the world) and when Ukraine shows the intention to join, Putin/Russia (like the action taken against Georgia just before their expressed interest in joining NATO) will stop them from joining.
Bear in mind there are superpowers with different systems in this world but America has somewhat forgotten that. Those liberal democratic view has influenced EU and when more former Warsaw pack countries joined or consider joining that is the time when Russia considers them as NATO expansion (even when they have not formally joined). The view from other superpowers (yes, they are not as super yet) is that the agreement (I think somewhere there was an agreement but cannot remember) for no further new NATO state(s) joining "near Russia" has somehow been brushed aside, thus leaving Russia vulnerable.
Russia knows that it would be foolish to attack a NATO member (I think they never) but since Ukraine is not yet a NATO member (don't think they will but the current situation might change), like Georgia, Russia moves in first to prevent them from joining at all cost.
Therefore, NATO expansion can be considered as a valid point but perhaps in the form of trojan horse.
The other argument is America with their idealistic liberal democractic views has actually created a monster in China CCP. America thinks that by converting China with liberal democratic views (turn CCP into capitalist and by investing in them) they could be turned around by abandoning their CCP views ... big mistake the world will regret this in future.
Which NATO countries shouldn’t have been allowed to join?
Those countries that Russia considers to be too close for comfort (buffer) especially the former Warsaw pack.
The whole point of the post-WW2 order and the UN is that nations are sovereign and disputes should be settled peacefully. If Ukraine, Poland, Finland, etc. are sovereign, then they can join any international organization they choose and they do not have to ask Russia for permission to do so. The argument that Russia has a valid concern over NATO membership rests on the assumption that the former Warsaw Pact countries are not sovereign and that Russia is justified in using violence to impose its wishes on them. Unlike the Warsaw Pact, NATO membership is voluntary. Countries can only join by requesting membership. They can leave anytime they choose. NATO membership is no business of Russia's, neither is whether its neighbors prefer to become liberal democracies and join the EU.
Nothing about the Russian military readiness seems to add up. They just seem to have been gutted by corruption and ineptitude.
https://twitter.com/WarintheFuture/status/1502130457948786690
did you read this yet? An interview with someone who knows a fair bit about the Russian/NATO history and Putin.
I will do, though its a bit short.
What I do understand about Putin, from other historical analysis is Putin probably doesn't recognize Europe, or even Britain, and maybe not the Asia countries either. He sees Russia as being the same as the US, and that there should only be 2 superpowers in the world, each of equal standing.
Given this understanding its clear that currently Putin is far more dangerous than even the most rampant republican.
The Telegraph reporting 2 incidents on popular shows broadcast on State owned TV in Russia of guests stating their disapproval of the war.
One was a Russian Officer...
It's getting too big to stop the truth seeping home to the Russian population.
@ctk you'd think he'd address the far right in his own capital before sending troops into a war.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05r844j/reggie-yates-extreme-russia-1-far-right-proud
Some global perspective (which will go down like a lead balloon here no doubt).
Those countries that Russia considers to be too close for comfort (buffer) especially the former Warsaw pack.
Like Poland?
What about German Unification? That brought a former Warsaw Pact country into NATO.
(which will go down like a lead balloon here no doubt)
China and Venezuela reporting on this war in an, er, “alternative” way. Not sure many people will be surprised at that.
A sovereign country should be allowed to join NATO but that doesn't mean Russia will like it.
NATO to Russia means US influence and US bases.
China and Venezuela reporting on this war in an, er, “alternative” way. Not sure many people will be surprised at that
Just China and Venezuela mentioned in that article Kelvin?
China and Venezuela reporting on this war in an, er, “alternative” way.
Should have known someone would cherry pick those bits to discredit the entire thing.
But criticism of western double standards has not been limited to state media outlets in Russian allies.
An opinion article in the South African daily the Mail & Guardian called the conflict “soaked in contradictions”, criticising western media coverage and government responses that appeared to frame the war in Ukraine as worse than other conflicts outside Europe.
“Even as we deplore the violence and the loss of life in Ukraine resulting from the Russian intervention … it is valuable to step back and look at how the rest of the world may perceive this conflict,” it said.
“Fear of domination, potential enemies spur Russia’s invasion,” read a headline in the Guardian in Nigeria, reflecting widely held beliefs about perceived Nato expansionist aims in Europe being partially to blame.
Yan Boechat, a Brazilian journalist who is reporting on the humanitarian crisis from Kyiv, scoffed at the “cynical, hypocritical” tears being shed by the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, over victims of the Ukraine conflict, given the carnage his country’s military had caused in Iraq.
But yes, let's dismiss anyone who questions any aspect of the western narrative as a lackey of Putin. 🙄
ctk you’d think he’d address the far right in his own capital before sending troops into a war.
Are we sending arms to the Russian far right?
I'm sure it will be fine though. I can only think of a few times it's gone wrong and caused untold deaths and misery.
let’s dismiss anyone who questions any aspect of the western narrative
It’s the same old stuff. Putin claims that other countries forming alliances to prevent Russia taking them by force means it’s necessary for him to take a country by force. Whether that’s echoed in the South Africa Guardian or on Fox News, or RT, it’s the same excuse. Blaming resistance to Russian military aggression for Russian military aggression.
You’ll need to give me and all the reason why you think NATO hasn’t caused problems by expanding right up to the Russian border
Given the destruction that's been waged on southern Ukraine by Russian troops that are there to "rescue" Ukrainians from a "Nazi and Drug riddled fascist government", Given that only yesterday Lavrov even said that "Russia doesn't invade other countries", and that Russian definitely hadn't "Invaded Ukraine"
And you're still banging the ant-NATO drum? You still think that Western Imperialism is to blame for what's going on right now?
That Guardian article writes about "Russian intervention" rather that "Russian invasion". That tells me all I need to know about the author and their agenda.
Blaming resistance to Russian military aggression for Russian military aggression.
It's the geopolitical equivalent of the "slut was asking for it" defence.
Why are some people unable to cope with the slightest element of nuance or seeing things from any other perspective? It's rather bizarre.
That Guardian article writes about “Russian intervention”
Exactly how we framed the invasion of Iraq.
You’ll need to give me and all the reason why you think NATO hasn’t caused problems by expanding right up to the Russian border
Because Russia invaded Ukraine, not NATO. NATO didn't expand, countries joined it. Ukraine didn't join NATO so the NATO expansion excuse isn't relevant there. Russia invaded Ukraine because it wanted to, NATO didn't force it to.
Exactly how we framed the invasion of Iraq.
Who is "we"?
Some global perspective (which will go down like a lead balloon here no doubt).
Strangely one of the articles, from RSA, quoted actually states
“ … Yes, the West’s response to Putin reeks of selective outrage and double standards. Simultaneously, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is an unjustifiable and illegal onslaught on a sovereign state.”
“
Media outlets like even the famously progressive Guardian have also paid far less attention to the shockingly racist treatment of African nationals stranded in Ukraine than one might expect, perhaps because it muddies the highly one-dimensional portrait of Ukraine in vogue at the moment as a country populated exclusively by noble heroes.
There is no possible justification for much of this, but there are some reasonably valid reasons for the seemingly disproportionate volume of media coverage. One is the prospect of nuclear war, which should terrify us all. Another is the fact that South Africa is already feeling the impact of the conflict in practical ways — namely, the rising prices of petrol and food. As much as South Africa might not want to get involved, we are already affected.”
“
In a statement released by the Jacob Zuma Foundation on Sunday night and attributed to Zuma himself, the former president wrote that he had always known Putin to be “a man of peace”.
This is a simply ludicrous statement from anyone who has kept even half an eye on global news over the past two decades, let alone from a former head of state.”
“ Putin’s legacy will, in fact, be one of a regime steeped in violence: whether taking the form of brutal crackdowns on protest and dissent internally or in its actions abroad. In attacks on Georgia and Crimea, the targeting of civilians has been standard for Russian troops. In Syria, the Syrian Network for Human Rights reports that Russia has killed more people than Isis, burning civilians alive in densely populated neighbourhoods and using chemical weapons against children.
Although Zuma making false claims in public is no longer remotely surprising, the brazenness of this particular position must legitimately raise questions about whether Zuma, and other ANC leaders, might owe far more to Russia than just historical gratitude. DM”
Doesn’t seem that perverse a view.
But yes, let’s dismiss anyone who questions any aspect of the western narrative as a lackey of Putin.
You can read any number of articles that condemn western hypocrisy in any UK newspaper or news channel, and you can't be massively defensive about an article that concentrates on countries like North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and China. all of which are autocratic dictatorships and have a vested interest in spinning the story to fit their own national interests.
Given also the recent reports of softening relationships between Maduro and Biden (oil), It'll be interesting to see if the Venezuelan press narrative changes over time.
Exactly how we framed the invasion of Iraq.
Who’s the “we” here? UK media/press definitely referred to the war in Iraq. And the second Iraq war.
And both those wars had vocal opposition across western media/press.
Important to remember that only the dominant western narrative counts for anything. As you were.
I see you haven't been paying any attention to the thread then? Plus also feel free to be as condescending as you please as if every one apart from you is unable to roam the internet to find other narratives and seek out other opinions, how utterly predictable of you.
Important to remember that only the dominant western narrative counts for anything.
You have a healthy and questioning distrust of our media and press. Wise. You need to apply that to the press in other countries as well, especially when they are in China, Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba etc.
How utterly predictable. Important to remember that only the dominant western narrative counts for anything. As you were.
The only narrative that counts at the moment is that thousands of Russian troops are in Ukraine shelling and bombing cities. Untold thousands of innocent Ukrainians have already died, been wounded, or displaced. This was on Putin's orders. It will not stop until the Russians have been defeated or Putin gives the order for them to withdraw.
NATO didn't invade Ukraine or Russia. Ukraine isn't shelling it's own cities or building WMDs, etc. This is what Russia did on Putin's orders.
Leaving right and wrong aside for one minute it was certainly foreseeable that Russia would have a hissy fit as former Warsaw pact countries turned westward but what should have NATOs policy? Let Russia roll into these countries and put their missiles closer to Poland?
From the South African President:
Amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine, President Cyril Ramaphosa has reaffirmed his commitment to further develop bilateral relations with Russia.
Ramaphosa called Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday.
He said in a tweet that he had wanted to "gain an understanding of the situation that was unfolding between Russia and Ukraine".
"I outlined our position on the conflict that has unfolded as well as our belief that the conflict should be resolved through mediation and negotiation between the parties and - if need be - with the help of agencies that can help bring a solution to the conflict," Ramaphosa said on his Twitter account.
"President Putin appreciated our balanced approach. We believe this position enables both parties to subject the conflict to mediation and negotiation. Based on our relations with the Russian Federation and as member of BRICS, South Africa has been approached to play a mediation role."
There does seem to be a problem with accepting that two things can be true. I think many of us would accept there is a stench of hypocrisy about Western attitudes to the current situation, but the idea that Putin invaded because of NATO doesn't stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
There's some good information on this thread, some speculation by a few people who know what they are talking and a lot of armchair generals, along with a bit of humour (mostly supplied by the Ukrainians) and its generally a good place to discuss things.
.
It has been closed at least twice and the usual suspects seem intent on getting it closed again. It's getting tedious wading through the batching and point scoring to find the useful comments.
I am not a mod, but please don't spoil it for the rest of us. You all know who you are.
Well said andrewh, I haven't commented much but it's generally been an informative thread. If the usual suspects could stop their bun fight it would be nice...
Of course you’ll need to look at it from the Russian perspective. Do you feel Russia was nervous about having NATO military directly on their border, with missiles pointed their way.
I agree that we also need to look at this from a Russian perspective as if we don't understand them we will struggle to limit the damage done to Ukraine. Whether those Russian concerns are realistic or warranted is another thing.
What I can't see (from the Russian perspective) is why they didn't go down the sanctions route first. The Russians could have put NATO countries under tremendous pressure by limiting gas supply and other exports (wheat, metals etc.) but instead decided to invade Ukraine. The same question could be asked about Russia's annexation of Crimea and continued support for the separatists in Donbass & Luhansk. And lets not forget Georgia and Transnistria.
I think NATO have been prodding Russia but Russia have been constantly prodding NATO, it's what both sides do unfortunately. Let's not forget though that Russia have invaded Georgia, launched a chemical attack on British soil, supported Transnistria separatists, propped up Lukashenko, supplied a missile system that shot down a passenger airline and lots of other nefarious actions without NATO invading a smaller neighbour.
Because Russia invaded Ukraine
The bit many including yourself seem to be missing here is that as far as many in Russia (and Ukraine) are concerned - and certainly Putin - Ukraine is part of Russia and not independent. You can argue about the pros and cons of whether Ukraine should be a independent sovereign state free to do as it wants (I would argue it should BTW) but it's silly to talk about the Russian position without recognising this simple fact.
This is not much different to when Catalonia wanted to leave Spain. In that case the Catalan leaders were rounded up and locked up by the Spanish govt and thankfully it never escalated to the point where it required military involvement. But what would have happened if Catalonia were armed by third party states and encouraged to join alliances with countries opposed to Spain?
The war in Ukraine is the inevitable result of a massive strategic failure on the part of Russia, NATO and the wider international community. They hubristically allowed Ukraine to separate itself from Russia and ally itself with the west when it never should have been given that opportunity in such a short time frame. The separation should have been managed over the long term instead of causing a geopolitical earthquake.
what I got back was ‘why should we care what they think in China and Venezuela
I don't think you should trust the press in China and Venezuela. Why did I mention them, when you posted a link to an article without telling us which bit you thought was of interest... well... let's look at it...
‘A necessary war’: reporting on the Ukraine ‘disagreement’ outside the west
Venezuela says Putin is a victim, China blames the US, and a South African pundit calls out western hypocrisy
launched a chemical attack on British soil,
2 chemical attacks. or radiological.
I posted an article with a range of global perspectives
You found an article on the Guardian, and you thought "I know, this'll ruffle some feathers on that giant thread" and stood back and admired your handiwork. It's as close to trolling without crossing the line. Either contribute and discuss or don't. Your choice.
This is not much different to when Catalonia wanted to leave Spain.
Well, it is, because Catalonia was seeking independence. Ukraine is an independent country being invaded.
They hubristically allowed Ukraine to separate itself from Russia and ally itself with the west when it never should have been given that opportunity in such a short time frame.
Separate itself from Russia? Ukraine is a founder member of the UN as a state in its own right. Do you mean that former USSR and Warsaw Pact states shouldn't be allowed to be autonomous from Russia and form their own relationships with countries other than Russia?
