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
Thinking long term and strategically no rational country should depend on the goodwill of its neighbours for its own defence
So it’s a good idea for Ukraine to join NATO?
Operation Barbarossa and the Great Patriotic War is seared into the national consciousness.
Nether of which have anything to do with Putin's personal gamble to "reclaim" Ukraine.
So it’s a good idea for Ukraine to join NATO?
If you're willing to use all our military, including nukes, to defend Ukraine then yes.
But if you are Ukrainian, then it makes sense surely.
Russian tank column getting ambushed near Kyiv
I saw this earlier and by no means did it 'Destroy' the column. A couple of hits and the rest backed off.
Related to that video, anyone know what proportion of the Ukrainian army is involved in defending the cities and what they have out and about in the countryside to carry out these ambushes, or even sneak up behind and attack artillery positions once a seige starts?
Their border becomes narrower and consequently becomes more defensible the further East it is pushed.
Is it not the physical geography that makes the Western border of Ukraine more easily defensible due to mountains funneling western forces through, rather than the flatlands on the east.
But regardless, it's based on an assumption that the West would, for some reason, want to invade Russia which makes a farce of the whole principle (unless you're an unhinged nutjob).
If you’re willing to use all our military, including nukes, to defend Ukraine then yes.
We won't have to do any of that, because:
Nato Article 5 is an absolute red line. Russia (and the Soviets before) have never dared to test it.
Russian tank column getting ambushed near Kyiv
Saw this earlier, and genuinely have no idea what they think they're doing rumbling up a road like a Sunday afternoon drive. Don't they know they're in a war zone
Really hope is like schitt's creek for a lot of the oligarchs now.
But regardless, it’s based on an assumption that the West would, for some reason, want to invade Russia which makes a farce of the whole principle (unless you’re an unhinged nutjob).
From what I read, the mindset is to judge the enemy by what they could do, rather than what they would do. I suppose it makes sense, as you're making decisions based on solid facts, and not making assumptions that could be wrong, or discounting an unexpected turn of events happening.
A RAF C17 is very close to Ukraine airspace right about now (2045). Dropping what I wonder ?
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)
Last I checked taking the piss out of foreign people's accents wasn't black humour. There's another word for that.
We won’t have to do any of that, because:
Firstly, I didn't say we would have to defend (with nukes) Ukraine as a NATO member but that we should be prepared to. Why would we think of risking everything for a dodgy kleptocracy well outside the traditional western sphere of influence and very much inside Russia's historical sphere of influence? Secondly, all bets may be off regarding Russia traditionally being contained by Nato with an aggressive expansion east into its traditional sphere.
Russia’s historical sphere of influence?
Empire
They should’ve joined NATO.
The application is currently ongoing. Clearly Putin thought it was a good idea to get in there before it was completed.
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
Though there is a particular strategic advantage to taking Ukraine - or at least the Black Sea coast. Now if only Turkey can be persuaded to maintain its Bosphorus blockade indefinitely.
Firstly, I didn’t say we would have to defend (with nukes)
You literally said
If you’re willing to use all our military, including nukes to defend Ukraine
make your mind up.
and very much inside Russia’s historical sphere of influence?
This is certainly what the Russians want, is it what the Ukrainians want?
well outside the traditional western sphere of influence
Ukraine shares a border with 4 current EU states, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Hungry. How is that "outside"?
Though there is a particular strategic advantage to taking Ukraine – or at least the Black Sea coast.
For all intents and purposes they have had that with the seizure of Crimea for several years now.
Who would've guessed that mtb could produce such military and aviation experts. Quite incredible really.
I can see you want to split hairs over meanings to 'win' a trivial point. I would ask why you're sure that historical norms apply to an ever-expanding NATO especially when the likes of Ukraine are democracies in name only. We could just solve all the world's conflict problems by giving everyone NATO membership perhaps?
is it what the Ukrainians want
Which ones? The ethnic Russians?
Good job you’d never resort to splitting hairs
is it what the Ukrainians want
Which ones? The ethnic Russians?
Perhaps the ones that voted to leave the USSR. (92% of the vote wanted to leave)
slowoldman
They should’ve joined NATO.
The application is currently ongoing. Clearly Putin thought it was a good idea to get in there before it was completed.
Slight misunderstanding. My comment was if Russia was so scared by its neighbours as alluded to it should’ve joined NATO rather than invade Ukraine
Anyone else see anything wrong with that tank buster video?
Looks like a rogue tank shoots another
All the turrets are pointing one way, then the all go in the same direction as the turrets, ie not returning to where they came from.
As for the solo one, think he tried to get it tucked in next to a house, lager it in as a protected position but the driver failed
I can see you want to split hairs over meanings to ‘win’ a trivial point.
It isn't me that contradicted myself. It shouldn't really be that hard to keep a track of your own opinion.
Which ones? The ethnic Russians?
Now that they've realised that the rest of the ethnic Russians from across the border are prepared to bomb their children's hospitals into rubble, I'll bet that they're more keen than they were before to join the EU, don't you think? And I'll bet that they wouldn't mind joining a mutually defensive union to have their backs to prevent that lot from across the border from doing it again in the future.
Hitler wanted to wipe out the jews. Which ethnic group does Putin want to erase from the planet?
Hitler started annexing ethnic German areas, then invading neighbouring countries under flimsy pretexts to rebuild what he thought was a lost empire.
There's definitely similarities
Bill - still sneering from the sidelines.
No-one on the thread is claiming expertise; some have knowledge based on past/present military experience.
Why not see the thread for what it is - a place where people can comment, ask questions, express concerns, share information they think might be of interest.
It's possible there are some military strategists on here but unlikely they would admit to it.
Anyone else see anything wrong with that tank buster video?
Yes, I have some doubts about it. When the column moves off at the end, the vehicles ‘hit’ seemed to move off with all rest. There don’t appear to be any wrecks.
Hitler started annexing ethnic German areas, then invading neighbouring countries under flimsy pretexts to rebuild what he thought was a lost empire.
Crazy, when all he needed to do was pick a big country with lots of resources, find the warring factions, build a relationship with one, and arm train them to take over.
Then it's a simple matter of moving your own army in and incorporating theirs with yours. At least to a lesser role like serving the oysters on the lawn.
Sticking with your Putin apologism then?
It’s all still NATO’s fault, right?
#usefulidiots
It isn’t me that contradicted myself. It shouldn’t really be that hard to keep a track of your own opinion.
Don't start this again. You should learn the difference between actually and potentially.
Moreover, the known inviolability of NATO's Article 5 applies only to NATO in its present and past state, NOT a further expanded NATO necessarily.
To put it simply, you're comparing apples with oranges.
I’ll bet that they’re more keen than they were before to join the EU, don’t you think? And I’ll bet that they wouldn’t mind joining a mutually defensive union to have their backs to prevent that lot from across the border from doing it again in the future.
The EU doesn't want them because Ukraine is so corrupt. NATO only wants them as a perma-potential member.
The EU doesn’t want them because Ukraine
iswas so corrupt. NATO only wants them as a perma-potential member.
Ukraine was many things but whatever happens now it will be a very different Ukraine by the end of this. A lot of that corruption was also due to the influence of its rather bolshy neighbour. It's one of the many reasons their eyes turned to the West. I suspect the world, NATO and the EU will view the country in a very different light once this conflict is over.
The EU doesn’t want them because Ukraine is so corrupt
That was the case pre-2014, but not since the revolution, which is the main reason what’s happening now is happening now. The Russians aren’t happy that their corrupt satellite state is no more
Do try and keep up dear. You’ve had 8 years to bring yourself up to speed
I’m also horrified at the idea of a NATO country invading Russia, whichever NATO country it is. If it ever happens, Russia would be right to defend itself. It’s the one act that would split NATO, as member states would leave.
One day i expect to hear a sonic boom as your head leaves your backside
Nice.
Seems to be an awful lot more, even on this thread have agreed the NATO expansionism was a bad idea
All the usual suspects?
Any democratic independent nation state is free to do what is in the best interests of its citizens
The citizens of Ukraine were overwhelmingly in favour of being part of both NATO and the EU.
That’s what they voted for.
And who can blame them?
I know that offends you and your mates in Moscow and Islington North but it is what it is. Democracy, eh? Pfft!
You carry on with being an apologist for genocide if you like
Do you, by any chance, have in your hand a piece of paper?
which is the main reason what’s happening now is happening now. The Russians aren’t happy that their corrupt satellite state is no more
I had no idea you were such an expert on Eastern European geopolitics. My, certainly a dark horse there for sure.
I only picked up on that recently, from a posted vid. I'm glad you're here to keep us all up to date on the military and geopolitical history of Russia and eastern Europe. Are you a professor or something ?. Genuine question.
Not sure what you're going on about Kelvin. I'm pretty sure NATO hasn't invaded Russia at any time. Are you sure you're following the correct conflict 😕
Exactly. They haven’t attacked Russia. They have let former Warsaw Pact countries join. Which one(s) shouldn’t they have let join, and how exactly would that have dissuaded Putin from expanding the RF through force?
Shouldn't that be something you address to NATO, as to why they postponed the Ukraine from joining. ?
I think this is the correct email address. mailbox.tribunal@hq.nato.int
Although you could just ask binners, he's got his finger on the pulse.
I had no idea you were such an expert on Eastern European geopolitics. My, certainly a dark horse there for sure.
I only picked up on that recently, from a posted vid. I’m glad you’re here to keep us all up to date on the military and geopolitical history of Russia and eastern Europe. Are you a professor or something ?. Genuine question.</blockquote
Look in your mirror.
You're a current (or ex) butcher, now a geo-political expert; good to know that transition is possible.
I shouldn't waste time posting about dim comments.
Shouldn’t that be something you address to NATO
My point is your use of “expansionism”… when referring to NATO, by which I assume you mean accepting new members. But it sounds so much more aggressive when you put it your way. If NATO accepting states was a provocation that can be connected to the invasion of Ukraine, which countries shouldn’t have been accepted? Where is the line you would draw? Which side is Lithuania? Or Poland? Was German unification part of the provocation leading up to this invasion?
as to why they postponed the Ukraine from joining. ?
You can’t really talk about the countries they haven’t accepted as members as evidence of “expansionism” that provoked this war.
I had no idea you were such an expert on Eastern European geopolitics
Do you need to be? If you watch the documentary’ Winter on Fire’ it gives you a pretty good idea of what the Ukrainian people wanted after the end of the soviet era, which they were denied by their pro-Moscow corrupt regime
But you carry on with your Kremlin apologism if you like. Are you enjoying the genocide? It certainly seems that way
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 Kelvin. To stay on topic and not engage in personal attacks on forum members.
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.
Now you don't have to agree or disagree with any subsequent actions taken by Russia, nor whether or not you think or feel that was good or bad, just your take on what the effects would be. An analysis of it really. Unbiased clean and clear.
I mean, you need to judge both sides of the coin dont you ?. you cant have a blinkered view and at the same time claim to understand the situation at hand.
@Frank
Look in your mirror.
You’re a current (or ex) butcher, now a geo-political expert; good to know that transition is possible.
I shouldn’t waste time posting about dim comments.
I have never claimed to be an expert on anything, other than making furniture or butchering meat for the pot. But im sure everyone posting on here could have the same claim laid against them by you view.
In point of fact nobody on here, with the exception of our ex military have a clear view of those politics. But then they were absorbed into it.
Which NATO countries shouldn’t have been allowed to join?
expanding right up to the Russian border
So, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia… Poland?
You are Seamas Milne and I claim my signed painting of Stalin
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. 🙄