Usually only once.
Usually only once.
LOL
^ very good.
I'm just watching the news, and of course above all there's the cost in human lives, lost, disrupted and displaced. Then there's the cost to civilians of the countries directly involved with the sanctions biting, etc. The cost to the economies of the country just caused by the cost of the war. And the cost to us all as a result of the oil prices, etc.
But when I see pictures of Mariupol, I just can't get my head round the scale of a rebuild. The place is devastated, there's barely a building left. A city of 430K people, that's the size of Bristol give or take. How do you even start rebuilding, even before you consider some buildings of historic importance that can never be rebuilt. How can anyone afford that?
^
But when I see pictures of Mariupol, I just can’t get my head round the scale of a rebuild. The place is devastated, there’s barely a building left. A city of 430K people, that’s the size of Bristol give or take. How do you even start rebuilding, even before you consider some buildings of historic importance that can never be rebuilt. How can anyone afford that?
Germany did it after WWII.
Have a look on YT at old video footage of bombed out German cities in the late 40's
Greek PM has said they'll rebuild the hospital in Mariupol
How do you even start rebuilding, even before you consider some buildings of historic importance that can never be rebuilt. How can anyone afford that?
We've managed it before. Not a quick or easy process, but it will get done. Those of us not directly impacted by the devastation or the refugee crisis will be helping pay for it for a couple of generations to come. Think of it as the price of freedom. If you think that is causing you some economic pain, be grateful you aren't Ukranian.
Edit - that's general "you", not aimed at the poster.
West Germany / Berlin, yes, eventually. Soviet controlled Germany / Berlin, less so
No no, I get that 'we' can, and we did in the past, and I'm not moaning about the cost (other than the fact that it's so senseless and I can't imagine why we're doing it after all the learning of the past - whether UKR, Syria, Iraq, I'm non-denominational) - it is what it is and a hit to our pockets is nothing in comparison.
I just can't get my head round the how. That's the point. Where do you find so many brickies, plasterers, materials...... like quantum physics, it's just out of my understanding.
How do you even start rebuilding, even before you consider some buildings of historic importance that can never be rebuilt. How can anyone afford that?
Germany, Japan, Russia, Eastern Europe, etc. had monumental rebuilding tasks after WW2. Provided there's a pool of labour available and financing, Ukraine should be able to rebuild in the same way. They will need a massive aid package from the EU and U.S. though.
The tricky thing will be that, assuming Putin gets thrown out, Russia may also need a massive aid package to avoid economic collapse. That will be a hard one to sell to voters in democratic countries.
There will be big construction players from all over the world figuring out who will pay them and who has the money.
I wouldn't be surprised if there companies with russian links in the rebuild mix.
Who will pay is the question. Not Putin/Russia that's for damn sure.
Where do you find so many brickies, plasterers,
Poland would probably be a good start judging by all the trades in Sw London.
Re the drones.....
Last week mate's missus (Ukrainian) had a list of things they are in need of. One of those things was any kind of drone.
Drone manufacturer in Taiwan is donating load of them to Ukraine.
An article in the Economist last week detailed how mortars were being fitted with 3D printed fins so that they could be launched/dropped by drones.
Anyone else see this? ****ing hell, that’s either some weird level mind-****ing by putin, or those guys are some of the bravest folks in Russia, backed by many other brave folks to make it happen. Wow.
Wow! Brave statement and one that is hopefully not going to go unnoticed by the Russian people. Another small crack in the Kremlin foundations.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1505084631984611333?s=20&t=dGZO6vUo3-SGv38TlURwLQ
Edit: beaten to it by BSN!
The cosmonauts take off & land from Kazakhstan so I imagine if they wanted to defect after landing it wouldn’t be a problem! The sanctions have got to seriously affect Russia’s ability/desire to fund civilian space missions in the future anyway, I’d have thought?
The guy who runs their space agency has thrown his toys out the pram somewhat & threatened non-co-operation, although apparently he does that a lot so is not being taken too seriously yet! 😂
The reason the cosmonaut gave for wearing yellow is priceless "We had accumulated a lot of yellow material so we needed to use it," he joked. "That's why we had to wear yellow."
Bravery indeed, unless it is Putin muddying the water (see also the Russian UN ambassador's letter).
It will be a Kremlin organised action, showing unity with Ukraine as the liberating "hero's"
So where do we thinking this is going now? It's obvious that a full occupation of Ukraine isn't going to happen, but Putin will need to take something to save face here eh? A pure land grab seems the obvious route? He's got to be thinking of outs to this by now surely?
He'll defo be keeping some of the south, cause they need access to the Dnipro River to get water for Crimea(The Ukrainians blocked that pre war), guess question in the South is really how much land is he willing to occupy down there, will he attempt to keep cities like Kherson and similar in that big area north of Crimea and East to Mariupol? The flattening of Mariupol suggests that that isn't going to get given back anytime soon, seems to be straight up clearing out the city there. Similarly in the North with cities with Kharkiv, Sumi and Cherniv, they are all getting flattened too(Kharkiv defo, unsure if Sumi and Cherniv are faring any better). So perhaps, taking a strip of land north and south as well as Consolidating the Donbas is probably what he's looking at at the minute?
I think overreaching himself to Odesa is looking like a bit of stretch now? I think Odesa was/is a war aim, as he'll be wanting to shut off access to the black sea for Ukraine, and also that's where a lot of Ukraines Gas and Oil fields are in the bit between Crimea and Odesa, so we could potentially see him going for that.
Dunno, probably another while to go, I think the stalemate has to break at some point, eh? Guess it really depends on how stretched/motivated the Russians are, and how dug in the Ukrainians are now(Which is obviously a massive factor, I never guessed they would dig themselves in so well, so fair play to them for that.)
^^I think he'll settle for the land bridge in the south and the breakaway regions in the east.
He'll just destroy as much of the rest of the country out if pure vengeance basically. He wants to damage a defiant Ukraine as much as possible financially too with rebuilding a country and society again. Ironically I can see lots of money going into Ukraine and bugger all going into Russia. Unintended consequences.
Either way, the sanctions must continue after Russia withdraws. Putin and his cronies have to go.
I'm not convinced that public opinion would stand for the Russians just casually sauntering back home whistling. They must have done trillions of dollars of damage on top of the genocide and other war crimes.
Belarusians doing their bit
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1505260472492347395?t=diLtGII_46W-T5bg_fvH7A&s=19
So where do we thinking this is going now?
Give Putin what he wants unless Ukraine can force a stalemate then try salvage whatever is left in the West Ukraine if they are allowed to.
No point for Biden to go to China to ask China to broker a deal etc as China will only demand access to the world.
Either way, the sanctions must continue after Russia withdraws. Putin and his cronies have to go.
Putin will not withdraw even if Ukraine is wasteland.
I’m not convinced that public opinion would stand for the Russians just casually sauntering back home whistling. They must have done trillions of dollars of damage on top of the genocide and other war crimes.
Public opinion not is important if Russia felt threaten as they are fighting for the existence due to NATO expansion. This is not a domestic politics when one can be threaten etc. One wrong move and you have nuclear war.
kimbers
Full Member
Belarusians doing their bit
Superb. I suspect there might well be a concerted effort from Belarusians to rid themselves of their own mini Putin as an indirect result of the invasion of Ukraine.
I hope it's not as bloody.
I hope it’s not as bloody.
It might even be worst considering the size of the country compare to Ukraine.
Superb. I suspect there might well be a concerted effort from Belarusians to rid themselves of their own mini Putin as an indirect result of the invasion of Ukraine.
It wouldn't surprise me if Belarus try to distance themselves from Russia. They maybe see themselves as next in line for a "military operation" if Russia succeed in Ukraine. Maybe Kazakhstan too.
I’m not convinced that public opinion would stand for the Russians just casually sauntering back home whistling.
Without going for WSMO3 what are the options beyond just continued sanctions and....?
Beyond Ukraine will probably say "sure we wont join NATO" since that was a vague goal anyway and "Not a chance we will demilitarise" since outside of them joining NATO disarmament would basically say "please try invading us again next year when we have disarmed" its random crystal ball staring.
At a guess Ukraine might end up giving up Crimea and the other areas since whilst they might eventually win a war of attrition they have the disadvantage of going against a dictator who isnt overly fussed about lives and so an imperfect peace may well win out.
I am still confused though why about why Putin went for the war and when he did why he didnt go for the narrow aim of securing access to Crimea to back up the bridge.
Well let's hope war criminal Putin will be eradicated before nuclear war. He's like the bully at school who won't fight with fists so pulls a knife.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Belarus try to distance themselves from Russia. They maybe see themselves as next in line for a “military operation” if Russia succeed in Ukraine. Maybe Kazakhstan too.
If push too far my view is that there will probably be a first small (sample) of nuclear strike on one of them to keep the rest in line. Even with a nuclear strike NATO can only watch.
Remember if Russia falls China will be next and they will not allow that. If you drag China in now then you are looking a very long war in Europe.
If you wish Russia to stop then respect Russia and talk to them because the mortal enemy is Not Russia but China. Even Russia is afraid of China and China is a sleeping dragon that can sleep for a very long time.
Without going for WSMO3 what are the options beyond just continued sanctions and….?
The very simple option and a very good one is to Respect Russia and let them to be. DO NOT cross the line. Let Ukraine be neutral no matter what. Do that and you will see Russia withdraw. The world is Not created in one ideology like democracy only.
At a guess Ukraine might end up giving up Crimea and the other areas since
See what I said in earlier threads and see what Russia is demanding now. Do that look familiar?
It wouldn’t surprise me if Belarus try to distance themselves from Russia.
Its tricky. Since the only reason their current dictator is still in power is thanks to the Russian deployment of thugs, sorry, peacekeepers so if Russia does overextend then it might come back into play.
However sending their military in risks them dying which not only will upset the relatives but also weaken the ability to control the population.
Lukashenko has a difficult balancing act and hopefully he will fall off without any innocent casualties.
I was in London today and walked past Downing street as the anti Assad activists were walking down towards the Ukrainian picket. I did have a passing thought that they really should be disagreeing with each other since its in the Syrians interests that all Assad's battle hardened thugs take the cash and go to Ukraine and so allow for a counter attack.
Its tricky. Since the only reason their current dictator is still in power is thanks to the Russian deployment of thugs, sorry, peacekeepers so if Russia does overextend then it might come back into play.
That is their way of life. They have dictators. You force democracy on them then you will see war(s). That region is full of nukes and they are there for a reason.
Respect Russia and let them to be. DO NOT cross the line. Let Ukraine be neutral no matter what.
“Let them be” where? Which countries do we let the RF take by force? What’s “the line” for them? Invading a country isn’t letting them be neutral.
“Let them be” where? Which countries do we let the RF take by force? What’s “the line” for them? Invading a country isn’t letting them be neutral.
The red line is Ukraine or the current non-NATO states that used to be Soviet Union. Try not to convert many more because from now on I see there will only be wars. Probably some small nukes being used too ... once the place is uninhabited due to radioactive it will also become the natural buffer zone. The people have two choices either they escape or go West or go East to populate Russia.
They won't invade a country if NATO is not trying to creep into their space or backyard. i.e. buffer zone. They have a strong arm in influencing the local politics or dominate their domestic politics but that is their ways. They are non democratic but people don't get shot or bomb.
If they are neutral no harm will come to the people even if they have the most corrupt puppet leaders in the world.
The "East" (former Soviet bloc) is Not the domain of the West.
You don't push Russia away to China to create an even bigger enemy. You want Russia to side the West to create smaller enemy. Having Russia on the side of the West may even change them in the long run making them less/not hostile to NATO etc ...
That is their way of life. They have dictators. You force democracy on them then you will see war(s). That region is full of nukes and they are there for a reason.
Utter nonsense. It is not "their way of life," why would you say something so ridiculous? The region is not "full of nukes". Russia has nukes. The other countries in the region do not.
I think we've found the line.
Unfortunately I think many more Ukrainians (and young Russian conscripts) will die before this is over, but the war seems to be something of a stalemate now. The Russians are digging in, which means their offensive operations are likely to be over for the moment. They seem to be digging in at the point of extremity for their logistics operation. Maybe they are waiting for the end of mud season, but by then their equipment will be even more knackered, and their men even more demoralised.
I don’t agree with much of what Chewie says but he is right that Putins actions may get more extreme. Mariupol is being made an example of, but it is also important to realise that this is where the Russians are most easily able to resupply.
Time will tell, but I’m not sure how much active help China will want to give to Russia. Probably the most useful thing they could give is trucks and food, but the Russians are probably asking for bigger guns, which frankly won’t help them!
Someone should tell chewie that the Soviet Union has gone and all that's left is a very nasty kleptocracy which the sensible people of Ukraine don't want to be part of.
The Russians are digging in, which means their offensive operations are likely to be over for the moment.
Seems to be the case.
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1505376617358577664
They won’t invade a country if NATO is not trying to creep into their space or backyard.
Apart from all those countries that they've already invaded regardless; Georgia, Abkahzia, Transnistria, North Ossetia (twice), Tajikistan, Chechnya (Twice), Dagestan, Crimea. which are all countries in Russia backyard who aren't looking to join NATO or the EU.
Parroting Putins' propaganda about NATO encroachment isn't a great argument
They won’t invade a country if NATO is not trying to creep into their space or backyard.
It's not their space, it's other countries' space. Russia has absolutely no business in Ukraine. Now they are shipping Ukrainians off to the gulag. The "NATO made them do it" line is just an excuse to turn a blind eye to ethnic cleansing.
https://twitter.com/xxmk23xx/status/1505262367478894597
Morning catch up read completed...
Twitter reported Belarussian diplomats leave Kyiv for Moldova and this morning:
09:24
Russians bombard art school in Mariupol, civilians trapped under rubble. The attack on March 19 hit an art school in Mariupol’s Livoberezhny District, where nearly 400 women, children and elderly were sheltering, Mariupol city council reports. The building is destroyed. The number of casualties is yet unknown.
Putin is morally bankrupt.
Also unconfirmed reports of Mariupol citizens being taken to Russia.
Unconfirmed. horrible if true for those people
I see nestle are still in Russia a shitty company showing it's true colours again.
And a question for the military types on those dug outs that's not modern warfare tactics?
No way on earth would I bed down on the side of a road if your opponent had air power. Infact cheap drones could find you it's like Russian military text books are still from the 50,s
Apart from all those countries that they’ve already invaded regardless; Georgia, Abkahzia, Transnistria, North Ossetia (twice), Tajikistan, Chechnya (Twice), Dagestan, Crimea. which are all countries in Russia backyard who aren’t looking to join NATO or the EU.
If we assume that Wagner are a front for the Russian government then we should include the countries Wagner have interfered with too.
These include - Venezuela, Mali, Libya, Syria, Central African Republic, Sudan, Madagascar, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Angola, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, and possibly the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Are we to assume that the above countries are all trying to join NATO & the EU, and therefore cross Putins red lines too?
non-NATO states that used to be Soviet Union
You are making a strong case for more countries joining NATO.
Anyway, you do know that Putin has called for NATO to pull out of the Czech Republic, Poland etc. Should that complied with to “let Russia be”? His line isn’t at the borders of current NATO states at all, as I fear we will discover in the coming years. Germany and the EU are going to have to take his threats far more seriously after the events of recent weeks. Many people in countries like Poland and Lithuania aren’t going to want to rely almost entirely on the USA much longer, they will want Europe to start defending itself, or risk losing lives and territory to Putin (and what follows him).
And a question for the military types on those dug outs that’s not modern warfare tactics?
If you are in static location for any reason for anything other than a short period, you dig a hole. A 'shell scrape' if you are in a hurry, a fire trench with overhead protection if you have time. It's the only effective protection infantry or any soldiers not in armoured vehicles have against artillery and mortar fire.
Squaddies hate it, and winge about it, especially on exercise when they have to fill them in afterwards, but they all know the value of it.
Can the Ukrainian Army actually defeat the Russia without help from Nato? All the hardware thats flooding in will help of course but there is still tactics and training.
Airpower is being neutralized by both sides having serious AA capability so will we see a push back at any point? Or is it a long, slow drawn out attrition with both sides losing men and machines and one side losing their homes ad well.?
The rf just seem to have so much more hardware, although where it is its unrepairable even if lightly damaged.
If Belarus backfill troops from the north, I wonder what they will be thinking heading south past all the scrap and burnt out kit on the way to Kyiv.
Can the Ukrainian Army actually defeat the Russia without help from Nato?
Absolutely not. But they’re not trying to. They’re just trying to resist being captured. No one is trying to “defeat Russia”, they are just defending their homes. There is no ending scenario to this where the Russian army surrenders, or the fight is taken to Russia. But there is the hope that, against the odds, resistance might result in stalling the advance for long enough that Ukraine still exists in the future, and people can live there outside the reach of RF security forces. I don’t fancy their chances at all, but I do want to be wrong and see the people of Ukraine succeed in their resistance to military occupation. The much more likely scenario is vast areas of Ukraine emptying and being flattened, depressingly.
nickc
Full Member
They won’t invade a country if NATO is not trying to creep into their space or backyard.Apart from all those countries that they’ve already invaded regardless; Georgia, Abkahzia, Transnistria, North Ossetia (twice), Tajikistan, Chechnya (Twice), Dagestan, Crimea. which are all countries in Russia backyard who aren’t looking to join NATO or the EU.
Parroting Putins’ propaganda about NATO encroachment isn’t a great argument
Neither is overblowing the Russian intent either tbh. Chechnya and Dagestan are in Russia, and Abkhzia and North Ossentia was what the Georgian war was about(And it was only 4 months after NATO announced the intention to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO eventually).
NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
Russia attacked Georgia, 4 months later. (It's completely Russia blame as they are the military aggressor, but it's still a very real thing, it's not imagined..)
So, completely ignoring that NATO is a big factor in Russian minds is a bit silly too. (Whether you believe it to be true or not.) It's not an excuse, but it is an important point to consider.
And not even just in relation to Russia tbh, I think a question needing discussed is how much is NATO actually going to expand in the future? Considering the US really considers China to be the issue, is it eventually going expand to China's borders? tbh f that. I'm not a fan of the need for NATO in general tbh, it should have been dismantled in the late 90s imo. But the expansion doesn't seem to me, given America's obvious desire to dominate China going forward, that it's going to be limited to North America and Europe.
And not even just in relation to Russia tbh, I think the question needs discussed is how much is NATO actually going to expand in the future, consider the US really considers China to be the issue, is it eventually going expand to China’s borders? tbh f that.
The U.S. already has defense treaties and bases in Japan and South Korea. They have a policy of ambiguity about Taiwan, but they already supply equipment. If China did try to invade Taiwan, it's certain that the U.S. would at least support them similarly to the support they are giving Ukraine and it would not be surprising if they joined combat. China has had U.S. forces on its borders for many decades and has not invaded those countries.
Yeah, I'm aware, it's a situation that will only get worse as time goes and China gets stronger.
The US supplying arms to Taiwan isn't particularly ambiguous.
The rf just seem to have so much more hardware, although where it is its unrepairable even if lightly damaged.
There's no point in having 10 000 tanks if you don't have trucks to supply them with fuel. There's no point in having supersonic attack planes if you don't have smart bombs to arm them with.
The Ukrainians are operating on familiar terrain and ambushing Russian convoys. The Ukrainians can operate in small groups, choose where and when they want to fight, and melt away into the countryside if things go bad. The Russians are limited to driving along roads where they are easy to ambush. Having more tanks just means more targets for the Ukrainians to shoot at.
One analyst had an interesting article a couple of weeks ago about the U.S. aid to Ukraine. There's pressure to supply big-ticket items like fighter planes or Rapier missile systems, but those need months or years of training and a lot of support infrastructure so they're not really much use. Instead, they have been supplying much simpler systems like Stinger and Javelin missiles which negate the Russian superiority in aircraft and tanks but don't need the intensive training and infrastructure. Also, things like body armour and night-vision gear are a huge advantage for Ukraine - they can wait till dark and then the Russian troops are helpless. The Ukrainian railways are still running so Ukraine can supply its troops with food, fuel, and ammunition, and they can also retrieve tanks and weapons from the front and ship them back to repair depots. The Russian troops seem to be just abandoning anything that breaks down.
Remember if Russia falls..
Who's taking about Russia falling? I'm quite happy for Russia to exist. It's the invasion of other countries I'm not keen on.
Utter nonsense. It is not “their way of life,” why would you say something so ridiculous? The region is not “full of nukes”. Russia has nukes. The other countries in the region do not.
Unfortunately they disagree with the West's interpretation. The more the NATO/West insists the more they will stand their ground just like when the NATO/West stand their ground during the Cuba missile crisis. If West/NATO wishes to test this theory then the situation will escalate. They do have nukes.
Time will tell, but I’m not sure how much active help China will want to give to Russia. Probably the most useful thing they could give is trucks and food, but the Russians are probably asking for bigger guns, which frankly won’t help them!
China CCP is not fully ready yet but their involvement will only prolong the current situation. Remember India is also on the Russian side albeit not getting involve much.
Someone should tell chewie that the Soviet Union has gone and all that’s left is a very nasty kleptocracy which the sensible people of Ukraine don’t want to be part of.
That's their domestic affairs with their kleptocrats. Dealing with other nations over their kleptocrats is just going to complicate matters. Domestic politics have no place in the affairs of other nation state and international politics especially when they also have nukes.
Apart from all those countries that they’ve already invaded regardless; Georgia, Abkahzia, Transnistria, North Ossetia (twice), Tajikistan, Chechnya (Twice), Dagestan, Crimea. which are all countries in Russia backyard who aren’t looking to join NATO or the EU.
Those countries listed above are in their domain. That is their domestic affairs.
Russia has Never invaded a NATO member state, fact.
Parroting Putins’ propaganda about NATO encroachment isn’t a great argument
If the West/NATO cannot even this very basic reason than the escalation is inevitable. Both sides have propaganda and if West/NATO thinks that only one side is effective at propaganda than the West/NATO is no different.
Are we to assume that the above countries are all trying to join NATO & the EU, and therefore cross Putins red lines too?
Only those that Russia/Putin perceives as existential threats near Russia
(Refer to 2008 Bucharest summit and Monroe Doctrine (i.e. US version and currently Russia/Putin's views) Remember the NATO membership is expanding towards the East and now reaching Russia. Russia/Putin has been letting go of former Soviet Bloc joining NATO but there come a time where the line is draw and this is the currently situation.
You are making a strong case for more countries joining NATO.
To Russia/Putin that is provocation and evidence has pointed Russia/Putin has never invaded a NATO member state. The case to join NATO will only encourage a retaliation even if that means confrontation. Again NATO will not come to their aid openly if there is a retaliation from Russia/Putin. Russia is Not expanding but "shrinking" and they do not want to be surrounded by NATO member states.
Anyway, you do know that Putin has called for NATO to pull out of the Czech Republic, Poland etc. Should that complied with to “let Russia be”?
He might be showing his displeasure but there is no evidence he would invade NATO member states.
Can the Ukrainian Army actually defeat the Russia without help from Nato?
No. Even with the hardware supplied by the West/NATO will not defeat Russia. Human cost on both sides will be high unfortunately.
Who’s taking about Russia falling? I’m quite happy for Russia to exist. It’s the invasion of other countries I’m not keen on.
It is not for the West/NATO to interpret but for Russia/Putin. They don't like other systems of governance. The "Russia falling" is referring to system of governance i.e. democracy.
That’s their domestic affairs with their kleptocrats.
Well, no because…
1) a country has been invaded and its citizens are being bombed
2) those kleptocrats rely on international economics to build their wealth
They don’t like other systems of governance.
Are we talking about the people in Russia, or in the countries Russia invades?
Well, no because…
1) a country has been invaded and its citizens are being bombed
2) those kleptocrats rely on international economics to build their wealth
1. Refer to the Monroe doctrine. This is no domestic politics but international strategic positioning. Nukes are the deterrent for all sides.
2. There is no reason to expand NATO because of kleptocrats and to go to war over them.
Are we talking about the people in Russia, or in the countries Russia invades?
1. Refer to Monroe doctrine. Ukraine is currently testing Russia's own "Monroe doctrine".
Look at Cuba a tiny nation but for US they see them as existential threats and 60 later they are still under embargo. In the case of Cuba US is applying the Monroe Doctrine.
2. There is no reason to expand NATO because of kleptocrats and to go to war over them.
Are we talking
Finland & Georgia looking at Ukraine & thinking that may not be the case
You stated why they might think that before...
Russia has Never invaded a NATO member state, fact.
Putin being worried about Nato encroachment doesn't justify him invading another country & killing its citizens
This is no domestic politics
Agreed.
1. Refer to the Monroe doctrine.
The Monroe document is 200 years old. The world has changed a bit since then. Most importantly, the United Nations was established after WW2. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is exactly the sort of thing the UN was intended to stop.
Finland & Georgia looking at Ukraine & thinking that may not be the case
You stated why they might think that before…
Yes, but they need to tread the situation very carefully. Russia has not threaten Finland for a long time so it might not be wise to currently add fuel to fire.
Putin being worried about Nato encroachment doesn’t justify him invading another country & killing its citizens
... so are Cuba where ordinary folks are just going about their daily life but is it fair to embargo Cuba for 60 years?
The Monroe document is 200 years old. The world has changed a bit since then. Most importantly, the United Nations was established after WW2. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is exactly the sort of thing the UN was intended to stop.
No, it has Not changed at all. Hence, the case for Cuba.
No, it has Not changed at all. Hence, the case for Cuba.
The U.S. hasn't invaded Cuba. Russia has invade Ukraine. What you are saying is that the U.S. would be justified in invading Cuba. Nobody agrees with you on that.
Cuba hasn’t been invaded for over 50 years. If the USA were flattening Havana right now, I, and I suspect many of us, would be incensed.
If the USA were flattening Havana right now, I, and I suspect many of us, would be incensed.
Exactly.
The U.S. hasn’t invaded Cuba. Russia has invade Ukraine. What you are saying is that the U.S. would be justified in invading Cuba. Nobody agrees with you on that.
Yes, US have not directly but the Bay of Pigs is the example of indirect intervention or "invasion". US protested very strongly about Cuba having the missiles and succeeded in getting their way. This is a well known case and any alternative interpretation is inaccurate.
Cuba hasn’t been invaded for over 50 years. If the USA were flattening Havana right now, I, and I suspect many of us, would be incensed.
Then why is Cuba still under embargo? They are such a tiny country by comparison to the superpower US and yet US still feel threaten by them. Why? The answer is the strategic position.
I do wonder if Chewie has ever actually met any Ukrainians. He seems to talk of them as though they are merely sheep or cattle, to be herded from one field to another at the whim of whichever corrupt and incompetent shepherd happens to be living in the Kremlin at the time.
Then why is Cuba still under embargo?
An economic embargo is not a military invasion. If you're an anti-globalist, an embargo should be seen as a good thing, it prohibits free trade and protects local industry. To Lefties, an embargo should be a good thing.
Then why is Cuba still under embargo?
You would need to ask Trump. Obama tried to thaw relations but he wanted none of it.
I do wonder if Chewie has ever actually met any Ukrainians. He seems to talk of them as though they are merely sheep or cattle, to be herded from one field to another at the whim of whichever corrupt and incompetent shepherd happens to be living in the Kremlin at the time.
Pretty much. He's arguing that Russia should be judged on Great Power politics from the 19th century. Poor people had no rights. If a bunch of farm boys got sent off to be slaughtered in a war, the mothers could just be told to serve their Emperor by having more babies.
Monroe doctrine not changed apart from being changed and reinterpreted.
"After 1898, the Monroe Doctrine was reinterpreted by Latin American lawyers and intellectuals as promoting multilateralism and non-intervention. In 1933, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the U.S. affirmed this new interpretation, namely through co-founding the Organization of American States.[6] Into the 21st century, the doctrine continues to be variably denounced, reinstated, or reinterpreted."
To Lefties, an embargo should be a good thing.
Jesus. I know chewy gets some stick on here but rarely has he/she said something this stupid. Care to elaborate on what you mean? I could infer all sorts of things about your views of 'the left' from this one ill-informed comment but I suppose I should at least give you the chance to explain yourself before jumping to conclusions.
Care to elaborate on what you mean?
An embargo is the opposite of free trade. If free trade is bad, then an embargo should be good. It's basically an infinite tariff on imports and exports. If you think tariffs are good, then embargos should also be good.
An embargo is the opposite of free trade. If free trade is bad, then an embargo should be good. It’s basically an infinite tariff on imports and exports. If you think tariffs are good, then embargos should also be good.
I am really not sure that you believe this.
An embargo is the opposite of free trade.
Ha ha you don't have to give me a patronising economics lesson, I know what an embargo is. I'm more interested in why you think 'lefties' are pro-embargoes.
I do wonder if Chewie has ever actually met any Ukrainians. He seems to talk of them as though they are merely sheep or cattle, to be herded from one field to another at the whim of whichever corrupt and incompetent shepherd happens to be living in the Kremlin at the time.
I have Ukrainians and Russian friends. All good laugh.
None of them wanted war(s) and all are very nice people (the ones I know).
All of them (the ones I know) agree that their system is imperfect but so is liberal democracy.
One of my Ukrainian friend gave me a bottle of Vodka (have not drank it yet as the bottle is so nice) and is now in Oz.
An economic embargo is not a military invasion.
How do you describe the Bay of Pigs?
You would need to ask Trump. Obama tried to thaw relations but he wanted none of it.
That's where you are wrong. Both Presidents have no say in this matter. The Foreign Office (the Blob) controls the narrative. As with their foreign policies both Republicans and Democrats are roughly the same but none could override the Blob. In one occasion Obama (can't remember exactly which one now) had to take the matter to the Congress but was still unable to change.
Pretty much. He’s arguing that Russia should be judged on Great Power politics from the 19th century. Poor people had no rights. If a bunch of farm boys got sent off to be slaughtered in a war, the mothers could just be told to serve their Emperor by having more babies
The argument that they belong to 19th century people is a weak one. You should look at how powerful nations govern themselves and the way they perceive threats.
Bottom line, powerful nations do not feel comfortable living side by side especially when they have nuclear capabilities.
I’m more interested in why you think ‘lefties’ are pro-embargoes.
Well, if you're opposed to free trade, then you would logically support a disruption to free trade. An embargo is a disruption to free trade. Unless you think that the world is complex and free trade brings benefits as well as problems. (I think the world is complex, just to be clear.)
Then why is Cuba still under embargo? They are such a tiny country by comparison to the superpower US and yet US still feel threaten by them. Why? The answer is the strategic position.
For the last 30 years the Cuban embargo is about US domestic politics rather than any strategic reason. Provides a communist bogeyman for the the right wing to rile their base about and the Cuban exile community is an important electoral bloc in a key swing state.
Well, if you’re opposed to free trade
Lefties are opposed to free trade? News to me. 🤷🏻♂️
What has lead you to this incorrect opinion?
For the last 30 years the Cuban embargo is about US domestic politics rather than any strategic reason. Provides a communist bogeyman for the the right wing to rile their base about and the Cuban exile community is an important electoral bloc in a key swing state.
Why extend US domestic politics to Cuba? What is there to gain?
Nothing to do with right wing politics.
Is JFK right wing? It was in his administration that started Cuba embargo.
How do you describe the Bay of Pigs?
A USA backed invasion that shouldn’t have happened, that occurred before I was born. Before you were born?
For the last 30 years the Cuban embargo is about US domestic politics rather than any strategic reason.
Exactly this. There’s votes in it.
If I was loaded, I’d be holidaying in Cuba, and spending big there. In my dreams…
This is quite a side step though: Cuba in the 1950/60s has nothing to do with Russia’s current invasion of a country that the USA and UK helped to remove its nuclear weapons to stop them becoming a threat to Russia or anyone else.