Can someone explain how NATO is meant to be the aggressor here? Didn't people just apply to join?
The more plausible angle would be to argue that Ukraine didn't honour the Minsk terms from a quick skim of the wiki page.
martinhutch - see my link to Politico on pg59.
Of course he can threaten, I’m asking what he can realistically do?
How about missile strikes on European cities outside Ukraine?
Or do you believe Putin could never do something as terrible as that?
Can someone explain how NATO is meant to be the aggressor here?
'The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears etc.'
It's just a narrative for the population at home, and more credulous types abroad.
It doesn't matter, it's just Putin's narrative. One of distraction, confusion, lies, etc
martinhutch – see my link to Politico on pg59.
Ah, yes, didn't think it would escape the attention of other Putin-watchers. He just looks rough.
Hill: It’s old for Russians. And Putin’s not looking so great, he’s been rather puffy-faced. We know that he has complained about having back issues. Even if it’s not something worse than that, it could be that he’s taking high doses of steroids, or there may be something else. There seems to be an urgency for this that may be also driven by personal factors.
I'm not sure how many operational TB-2 drones the Ukranian's have but they're not ideal for wiping out a large convoy and I'd expect it's extremely well protected by AA so a jet likely wouldn't fair too well either.
If Poland really is allowing Ukrainian jets (at least the couple donated by Bulgaria) to operate from one of it's air bases that's going to escalate things pretty quickly...
And strategy-wise although the quick decapitation Putin had hoped for thankfully hasn't happened it does sadly mean he'll likely switch to a much more attritional strategy, which is why the heavy artillery etc. is moving in. Even if Kyiv falls though I can't see the Ukranian government surrendering.
Just ban them, it's our forum, not a political show on the BBC, we don't require a 'balanced' viewpoint.
Can someone explain how NATO is meant to be the aggressor here?
They're capitalist imperialists who destroyed the workers paradise that was the USSR. Resurrecting the Russian Empire is the only way to defeat the imperialists.
Russia has been claiming that there was an agreement that NATO would not expand, even though no formal agreement was ever made or signed. Russia just assumed that the former Soviet and Warsaw pact countries would stick together in a Russian dominated eastern bloc. Those countries all hated Russia, having been invaded and occupied for decades (or centuries, or whatever) and immediately set about joining the EU and NATO to protect them from any further Russian dominance. Russia took this very badly, blamed NATO, and has been nursing grievances ever since. Strangely, the current "liberation" of Ukraine seems to have convinced all of Russia's neighbors that chancing their luck with the EU and NATO was a good call.
I agree with the banning of obvious trolls, we don’t need propaganda, but I do think it’s important we do keep some balance. And we do have some good alternative viewpoints from regular posters on here which is good.
More weasel words from raab in various media interviews this morning.
Nothing to offer in terms of what is being done to bring immediate relief to Ukraine.
No coherent response re Ukrainian refugees but criticism of Yvette Cooper.
Words of praise for Ukrainian people and gov have little value; more action is needed now.
We'll push for war crimes prosecutions; yeah right - that's after the event, getting putin and others into the dock is fantasy; trial and sentence in absentia so that's for show.
How about missile strikes on European cities outside Ukraine? Or do you believe Putin could never do something as terrible as that?
Given that even he surely can't be blind to effect he's had on world opinion and the isolation of Russia by the rest of the world over the last few days, to even conceive that this would be a winning bet he could pull off. He would (by launching a strike onto a European capital or target) lay Russia open to far more devastating retaliatory attacks.
binners Full Member
It might be Dianne Abbott or Jeremy Corbyn? They’re about the only people still banging this ‘NATO aggression’ drum, aren’t they?
With your total and relentless obsession with Corbyn it's trolling nonsense like that that makes it so difficult to have a sensible discussion about a serious issue binners.
Any opportunity to score a cheap point against the left can't be missed, you do it with the same glee and hypocrisy as a Tory minister.
Whilst you ignore the fact that Putin has enjoyed widespread support from right-wing politicians across the world. From Donald Trump to the current Brazilian president, from the Hungarian Prime Minister to the politicians of the Italian Northern League and French presidential candidates. And that his oligarch stooges bankroll the Tories in the UK.
@ernielynch - you're often equally as guilty
Let's stick to Ukraine and you two can have a squabble elsewhere
https://twitter.com/financialtimes/status/1498314627540738051?s=21
FT reporting that Putins propaganda channels are struggling to control the message
Can someone explain how NATO is meant to be the aggressor here?
Don't think anyone other than Putin has claimed NATO are the aggressor but plenty of highly qualified and informed people believe NATO expansion has been a mistake. Which would seem quite obvious given where we are at right now.
But in the strange binary world of the internet/war nuance is forbidden apparently.
I really hope I am wrong and would welcome alternative views because this is really depressing but...
I'm not sure what choice Putin feels he has but to keep ramping up until the attacks until he takes the cities. He's not going to back down so unless there is a coup in Russia I can only see this going one way.
Given the Russians can roll a 40 mile convoy towards Kyiv I assume they have complete control of the airspace and in open ground numbers count.I really worried the Russians will just pound Kyiv and other major cities into submission with very significant civilian casualties.
This looks a bit like US propaganda. But frankly I like the idea that it could be true. A Putin tantrum.
Vladimir Putin is frustrated with the slow progress of his military in Ukraine and has been lashing out at people in his inner circle, according to the US network NBC, citing US officials.
NBC says current and former officials briefed on the matter have been told that US intelligence fears the Russian president may take out his frustration by escalating the war on his neighbour.
Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Vladimir Putin. Photograph: AP
The report claims that western intelligence have “good visibility” into Putin and although they do not believe he is mentally unstable, he has been unusually harsh on people close to him as his anger grows at the military setbacks and worldwide condemnation of his actions.
I’ve read some stupid stuff on the internet recently, but this takes the biscuit quite frankly!
Wow. You should probably re-read your post and think about how you come across.
For what it's worth I'm perfectly aware that Taiwan is an island and did consider how that line might be received, but then I decided that no one would take it literally. As you know, in WW2 the Allies actually just took their tanks with them in kit form and assembled them on the beach after landing... or are you suggesting that China doesn't have a navy?
Seriously, read your post again and consider apologising because I actually found that ad-hominin attack pretty unpleasant.
This looks a bit like US propaganda.
Thing about this war is that the US has played the intelligence releases really well. They kept leaking Russian plans despite that tipping the Russians off that their security is poor. People kept questioning the info, but it turned out to be pretty much spot on.
Is Russia still reporting zero casualties?
In terms of the convoy & Ukrainian drones, I read yesterday they can laser designate for artillery. I don’t know how accurate that report was?
As you know, in WW2 the Allies actually just took their tanks with them in kit form and assembled them on the beach after landing
No, they rolled them ashore from landing craft fully assembled.
However, it was pretty obvious that you didn't literally mean that China would drive tanks across the sea.
...NATO expansion has been a mistake. Which would seem quite obvious given where we are at right now.
Assuming "we" are not in Lithuania, or any of the other NATO members or states with close links to NATO, looking even more to other countries to help them to hold their territory against stated and observed RF aggression.
We’ve had troops in Eastern Europe for some time, most notably Estonia.
Re NATO expansion.
The countries which formed the old USSR didn't say...ooh, look an opportunity to become part of a bigger state; they were subjugated.
After dissolution they wanted a level of protection for their emerging democracies; when they had satisfied NATO's entry requirements, they applied for membership and after due consideration were accepted.
With hindsight that looks to have been a sensible decision.
Had they not succeeded in joining we would have already seen invasions of other, smaller countries; think back to Georgia.
Are you saying that NATO deliberately set out to expand and courted ex soviet countries to join?
What nuance do you think should have been considered?
Premier Icon
dantsw13
Free MemberIn terms of the convoy & Ukrainian drones, I read yesterday they can laser designate for artillery. I don’t know how accurate that report was?
Not accurate. Laser designation means you need some kind of smart weapon to home in on the laser mark. The artillery can’t see said laser dot from the point of firing (coz bloomin miles away) and the projectile is dumb. I believe there might be smart munitions in development (in the US) that might be able to do something similar but each projectile is $$$.
What they might have is fall of shot correction using whatever imagers they have.
Don’t think anyone other than Putin has claimed NATO are the aggressor but plenty of highly qualified and informed people believe NATO expansion has been a mistake. Which would seem quite obvious given where we are at right now.
See, this is where we disagree. NATO expansion happened in order to stop what we see now actually happening. & funnily enough the country it’s happening to doesn’t have the protection of NATO. Ultimately what you are arguing is that Russia has a right to an empire in order to protect itself from its perceived enemies. Which probably isn’t what you really think, but that is what it amounts to in reality.
but plenty of highly qualified and informed people believe NATO expansion has been a mistake.
I think many folks are also probably reassessing that assumption in the light of Putin's aggressive war to "reclaim" land which he - by his own admission, doesn't think is a real country, that has no rights of it's own and should be his to do with as he pleases. As now we can see Finland looking again at the options to join NATO, and the reversal and abandonment of long held neutrality and pacification policies by other states.
slowoldman
Full MemberI dont see Putin being able to retreat back into Russia and being left alone by NATO as if nothing had happened, surely?
Are you suggesting NATO attacks Russia?
Posted 14 hours ago
No no, not at all. It just thats the status quo of people being maybe being a bit suss of Russia, and debating "would they could they" in the pub from time to time, escalates to they (as a country) are "the enemy" and cant be trusted, Normal defense spending and public support for that spending will surely rise. No ones going to Moscow on holiday for a while.
Reliance on their export of fuel are cast into doubt. Spikes in fuel cost, an associated increase in spending on renewable energy perhaps?
I wonder if the reluctance to suspend visas for Ukrainians is linked to a perception that a lot of Albanian gangsters arrived in the UK claiming to be Kosovan refugees when there was a lack of manpower to check their claims.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/11912667.uk-based-mafia-gangs-a-legacy-of-intake-of-refugees/
And whoever is making policy is worried that Russian criminals or secret agents might just roll up going, "oh yes I'm totally a Ukrainian refugee, me - yeah I speak Russian, just like our president!" and because they have 40,000 cases to check, well...
BTW I'm just saying - that's what policy makers may be feeding into their considerations. Not what *I* know or think - my lack of geographical and historical expertise means I am just hoping against hope that this is stopped somehow.
I would love to shake Putin by the hand right now
Watching Putin’s somewhat unhinged ranting on the telly yesterday, first thing that struck me was that his facial appearance suggests he could be on high-dose steroids. Being seriously immuno-suppressed could explain why he is sat at one end of the longest table of the world.
I have got Covid
plenty of highly qualified and informed people believe NATO expansion has been a mistake.
Maybe they were saying that before last week?
I'm of the view that had many former Soviet states not joined NATO they would have succumbed to Russian imperialism years ago. Belarus is a great example, but look also towards the 'stans to see how things turned out when there was no alternative to Russian influence in 90's and 00's.
If, following the breakup of the USSR, no states had joined NATO I really don't think it is credible to assume that the Russians would not have aggressively expanded.
It's easy if you're in the US to assume that allowing Russia to build a buffer / 'sphere of influence' would have appeased them, and therefore NATO expansion was a 'bad' thing.
But how many Latvians, Estonians or Ukrainians want to be subjugated to Russia in that way? The resistance within Ukraine gives us a pretty good clue as to the strength of feeling on the issue.
Until last week NATO has been a provider of peace and allowed states to flourish, away from Russian influence.
And it's telling that Putin has targeted the one significant Eastern European state that's not a NATO member. Had Ukraine been allowed to join NATO 20 years ago (before Putin began his Tsarist / imperialist power trip) there's no way he would be invading now.
NATO expansion:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2658073
I haven't got time to read this fully right now, but the gist is that including former Baltic states into NATO inc. Ukraine, without Russia, was only going to end in one thing: Russian alienation. Seems fairly accurate not to mention obvious to me..
I wonder if the reluctance to suspend visas for Ukrainians is linked to a perception that a lot of Albanian gangsters arrived in the UK claiming to be Kosovan refugees
I think it's just a reaction to the perception that allowing immigration is unpopular with their "base" TBH, and not a lot more sophisticated than that
I think it's slightly more sophisticated in that it will pose the question: If Ukrainian refugees are allowed then why not Afghans or Yemenis etc
was only going to end in one thing: Russian alienation. Seems fairly accurate not to mention obvious to me..
Why? There was no reason that it necessarily automatically would be - unless of course you're a paranoid autocratic dictator who yearns for the glory days of the old CCCP, and see the breakdown of that as a catastrophe. Then watching your former satellite countries reject Russia for the EU and NATO would, I imagine, sting a bit.
The questions that never gets resolved though by the "let's not poke the bear" crowd are, to my mind: Isn't it a bit presumptuous just to treat these small nations as pawns rather than independent states that are free to make their own international alliances as they see fit, and what has Russia offered them as an alternative?
...was only going to end in one thing: Russian alienation.
But the only alternative to their alienation (and remember that Russia joining NATO was considered but rejected by both sides) is appeasement of the Russians and their malign influence over their neighbours.
Hurt Russian pride following years of their brutal oppression of Eastern European sovereign states seems like a fair price to pay.
If there was an objective to allow Russia to maintain some pride, then it seems the only alternative was to allow it to throw its weight around and bully its neighbours.
FWIW I think allowing newly democratic states to join and flourish socially, economically and democratically was a worthwhile price to pay for damaging some misplaced Russian pride in years of subjugating their neigbours to terror and incarceration.
If Ukrainian refugees are allowed then why not Afghans or Yemenis etc
I think it's pretty obvious why the Tories are keen to restrict immigration from those countries as well as Ukrainians, isn't it?
Apparently Natwest and RBS are currently down (their sites appear to still be up, and I can't try to login to check). Obviously, they're capable of doing this to themselves, but any outages like this will start ringing alarms.
Obviously, the Russians have already taken out some priority targets in the run-up to the invasion.
I haven’t got time to read this fully right now, but the gist is that including former Baltic states into NATO inc. Ukraine, without Russia, was only going to end in one thing: Russian alienation. Seems fairly accurate not to mention obvious to me..
Austria, Ireland, Finland, Sweden would seem to knock that theory on the head.
NATO expansion:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2658073
/a>I haven’t got time to read this fully right now, but the gist is that including former Baltic states into NATO inc. Ukraine, without Russia, was only going to end in one thing: Russian alienation. Seems fairly accurate not to mention obvious to me..
Which is what I tried to point out, but was shouted down and called all sorts.
Yup, can’t access RBS from here. Hopefully it is a homemade screw up!
Belarus has no plans to join Russia's military operation in Ukraine, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko was quoted as saying on Tuesday.
Allegedly......