Forum menu
Interesting article.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/20/britain-russia-ukraine-border-dispute
Interesting article.
It's tripe like most of what he writes
Completely ignored that Poland etc were also on the path to EU membership at the same time.
Could NATO refuse membership to a EU member state? No, so it would happen anyway.
His logic is a false narrative that sovereign states joining NATO is an aggression. He makes out that token UK activity is serious aggression, the destroyer running close the the Crimea, it wasn't exactly the Grand Fleet, it was also testing the right to navigate in international waters, like the navy is supposed to do.
As such even talking about this stuff should be off the cards 😯
Gives everyone a huge stiffy and excites their macho warrior genes. There’s barely disguised excitement at the prospect of a new Cold War and confronting Putin. Even the leader of the Labour Party and his apparatchiks are getting frisky. It’s pathetic.
Gives everyone a huge stiffy and excites their macho warrior genes. There’s barely disguised excitement at the prospect of a new Cold War and confronting Putin. Even the leader of the Labour Party and his apparatchiks are getting frisky. It’s pathetic.
I really doubt it
No-one wants to fight Russia that's why any troops diplomats and everyone else is getting out of the way. No-one wants a major conflict in Ukraine to turn into WW3.
The preferred option is to turn it into another China where you hold you nose and continue to buy the gas ignoring the unacceptable plane downings, assassination, cyberwarfare, minor invasions supporting ethnic Russians, territory grabs, fake news, etc etc Just like we do with China.
Part of the policy is good old deterrence, which means looking like you are prepared to inflict pain on Russia and Putin.
The Russians have a history of abhorrent behaviour towards Ukraine, to this day they deny the Holodomor actually happened:
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-was-the-holodomor.html
Puti’s claims have no real basis in history anyway.
I really doubt it
I think the only qualification to that is that US hawks will be interested as to how well US defence tech currently in Ukranian hands performs, and what hidden capacity, particularly cyber, the Russians decide to use. Getting Putin sucked into a draining insurgency-style conflict would be a bonus.
I'm interested as to whether China sees an opportunity to further its interests because the eyes of the world are elsewhere.
The Russians have a history of abhorrent behaviour towards Ukraine, to this day they deny the Holodomor actually happened:
1932 ?? Under Stalin.
And thats somehow still the fault of Russia a completely different country now under Putin.
What of India under Victoria, for example the Bengal famine of 1943, or the other atrocities committed by we the British while in occupation of Africa, or Australia. .. Are they as relevant today, are we to use those today as a sign Britain is a dangerous aggressive world power bent on the destruction of others for our own gain ?.
No of course they aren't. Britain is a completely different country now than it was in the 1930's.
Therefore completely irrelevant.
@Big and Daft.
You seem quick to dismiss any analysis in any paper which you disagree with, but others you are willing to accept as gospel. Even twitter.
You should really look at all parts of the argument.
" Getting Putin sucked into a draining insurgency-style conflict would be a bonus."
Unlikely, given the size of the country and the Russians already living there who feel they are still part of Russia. In Afghanistan the entire population hated the invaders, plus the lack of infrastructure made moving about difficult so insurgents were able to hide.A Ukrainian insurgency would fast run out of places to hide.
Little pockets of resistance would be quickly wiped out, not doubt in an atrocious manner
I think the only qualification to that is that US hawks will be interested as to how well US defence tech currently in Ukranian hands performs, and what hidden capacity, particularly cyber, the Russians decide to use. Getting Putin sucked into a draining insurgency-style conflict would be a bonus.
The tech gets plenty of use elsewhere, the grownups in the room will know that this is bollox reason which no-one sensible will put forward, a Russian invasion means half of Europe goes cold when the gas gets turned off.
There is no "upside" in a conflict, just dead Ukrainians and Russians and a rise in the cost of living, and more international uncertainty for us
And thats somehow still the fault of Russia a completely different country now under Putin.
Little pockets of resistance would be quickly wiped out, not doubt in an atrocious manner
?
A Ukrainian insurgency would fast run out of places to hide.
Ukraine is the largest country in Eastern Europe, excepting Russia itself. It is more than twice the size of the UK.
There is no “upside” in a conflict
I don't think we are in disagreement, but there will be some out there with a more warped mindset. I don't think that the capabilities of modern US battlefield tech have been trialled in this kind of conflict.
I learnt a great new quote today:
"Don't argue with stupid people. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
- Mark Twain
It really made me chuckle
This Twain guy sounds great. Is he on Twitter?
You seem quick to dismiss any analysis in any paper which you disagree with
Simon Jenkins is never "analysis"
It's a distorted picture to reflect his views and to attack individual members of the government and Brexit which he hates
As for Twitter what am I picking up off that platform?
Unlikely, given the size of the country and the Russians already living there who feel they are still part of Russia. In Afghanistan the entire population hated the invaders, plus the lack of infrastructure made moving about difficult so insurgents were able to hide.A Ukrainian insurgency would fast run out of places to hide.
Makes you wonder why they just don't give Putin the keys and let him get on with the takeover.
. I don’t think that the capabilities of modern US battlefield tech have been trialled in this kind of conflict.
As the people who make these things know, as soon as you reveal your capabilities the other side develops counter measures.
Makes you wonder why they just don’t give Putin the keys and let him get on with the takeover.
I think thats a bit extreme.
I've been going over this thread. Its over 4 weeks old. 4 weeks ago the invasion was days away. Analysis today is it is days away. And thats analysis of the sources you are agreeing with. So who to follow, who to believe, who to spit at or readily dismiss.
– Mark Twain
The slavery apologist.
But call him racist, or call him the man of the times, its only your point of view.
. I don’t think that the capabilities of modern US battlefield tech have been trialled in this kind of conflict.
The U.S. will not supply their cutting edge tech to Ukraine. First, they don't want Russia to get hold of it. Second, it would take months or years to train Ukraine to use it effectively. The U.S. military put huge emphasis on networked technology so that soldiers on the ground can share and access information to and from aircraft, satellites, etc. That requires massive IT infrastructure and training that Ukraine doesn't have. As far as anyone has reported, the aid is limited to things like anti-tank missiles and anti-helicopter missiles, which don't require intensive training. The U.S. already has years of experience using those in combat. Of course, they may have been covertly training Ukrainians to use more advanced radars and missiles, but those haven't been supplied to Ukraine yet. Those wouldn't be supplied until after hostilities broke out and the U.S. already has years or decades of combat experience with them.
Unlikely, given the size of the country and the Russians already living there who feel they are still part of Russia. In Afghanistan the entire population hated the invaders, plus the lack of infrastructure made moving about difficult so insurgents were able to hide.A Ukrainian insurgency would fast run out of places to hide.
Even a quick google tells us that approximately 17% of Ukraine's population is ethnic Russian, they are concentrated in regions already de facto occupied by the Russians, and that a majority of those voted in favour of independence in the referendum. So it is likely that, even if attitudes have hardened, the percentage of Ukraine's population who both view themselves as Russian and would be supportive of Russian intervention is probably in single digits.
The U.S. will not supply their cutting edge tech to Ukraine.
Fair enough.
– Mark Twain
The
slavery apologistadvocate for the abolition of slavery and vice-president of The American Anti-Imperialist League.
FTFY
Some interesting analysis stressing the utter irrelevance of post-Brexit Britain, despite Liz’s photo ops. Nobody gives a flying **** what anyone in London thinks, because everyone knows that this government is funded by dirty Russian money
https://twitter.com/carneross/status/1492783358233001987?s=21
Nobody gives a flying **** what anyone in London thinks,
Good. We’ve got f-all to do with it so best we keep out of it.
Would Putin be posturing to invade Ukraine if Trump was still in office?
Just a thought...
Trump would have organised a tableful of hamberders to welcome him to Kiev.
We will rebuild the iron curtain Russia is going to pay for it
Would Putin be posturing to invade Ukraine if Trump was still in office?
Just a thought…
I actually think that it's Trumps repeated attempts at weakening NATO are one of the things that has encouraged Putin to consider it
I actually think that it’s Trumps repeated attempts at weakening NATO are one of the things that has encouraged Putin to consider it
Wasn't that more to do with the spending budgets, with the US putting in the lions share and Trump believing the rest should put more in than they were. Hence the threat to pull out if they didn't.
The big table up there, Macron refused to do a pcr test in Russia as he didn't want Russia to get his DNA, hence the super large socially distanced table.
The table was so Putin could not pour macrons tea.
1 lump or2
Does Putin have a mole on here?
Joking aside, he doesn't need bots/moles, just a sympathetic ear to then amplify the message.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/60292915
he doesn’t need bots/moles, just a sympathetic ear to then amplify the message.
The correct term is "useful idiots".
The correct term is “useful idiots”.
Or maybe some of us are able to see both sides and don't immediately start chest beating like demented apes the minute the opportunity arises to prove our masculinity. In addition to Starmer using it to show the arms industry he's no threat to them you have our defence ministers stoking the fires with talk of appeasement and missiles raining down 'within minutes' (where have we heard that before?).
When Putin marches his troops away from Ukraine with his goal of preventing Ukraine joining NATO in his pocket all the pound-shop warmongers are going to look pretty stupid. The only place war is being hyped up is in the west, and in particular the US and UK.
Or maybe some of us are able to see both sides and don’t immediately start chest beating like demented apes the minute the opportunity arises to prove our masculinity
Just out of interest: how would you define moving 140,000 troops to the border with lots of tanks and planes to deliver lots of explodey things?
As 'chest-beating' goes, that seems quite chest-beaty to me. Not to you though?
*wanders off to move a number of trebuchet to the bottom of Daz's garden*
how would you define moving 140,000 troops to the border
It's a strategic move designed to force Ukraine to give up their reckless ambition to join NATO. And it will almost certainly be successful.
Or are you suggesting that a sovereign state doesn't have the right to move its military within its borders? No one in Kyiv is particular worried about an invasion, no one in Russia is. Stop listening to tory and labour warmongers who are trying to look hard on the news. Best leave the grown up stuff to the Russians and Americans and cease with the pathetic schoolyard posturing.
It is odd though Binners that you arent equating NATO building bases along the border of Russia as a similarly aggressive move.
So nato(North Atlantic Treaty Organization(None of the Eastern European states are bordered by the Atlantic, but never mind, a minor point really eh ? 😉 )Expands and expands right up to the Russian border, building bases, adding missiles and stationing tens of thousands of troops isnt aggressive. But Russia moves 130,000 troops within its own country and you see that as aggressive.
Hmm. me thinks hypocrisy is at work here.
.
Awaits thols for his latest sarcastic comment. Thats a debate winner for sure.
When Putin marches his troops away from Ukraine with his goal of preventing Ukraine joining NATO in his pocket all the pound-shop warmongers are going to look pretty stupid.
Except Putin who will have won by using (the threat of) force to change the foreign policy of another sovereign state. Do we deem that acceptable?
What if he next demands Finland never join, or Estonia leave? When do we say no?
The result is Putin has given his troops a change of scenery. Shaken the cobwebs out the kit, and refocused his military's attention. meanwhile NATO have spent tens of millions.
It’s a strategic move designed to force Ukraine to give up their reckless ambition to join NATO.
Pretty much the definition of chest beating. So, what you're saying is that, if Ukraine doesn't do what Russia demands, it's ok for Russia to invade them? I'm a bit confused about your point here, you make it sound like Russia is trying to bully Ukraine but you don't think anyone should support Ukraine in resisting being bullied.
But Russia moves 130,000 troops within its own country and you see that as aggressive.
Russia invaded Ukraine years ago. This is preparation for a larger scale invasion. NATO has not invaded Russia, Ukraine has not invaded Russia. Russia has invaded Ukraine, that's the problem.
Given a neighbour with expansionist tendencies which has already invaded part of your country, and a leader who has already said he sees the two countries as one, then I don’t really see wanting to join a defensive alliance as reckless. In fact if you’re the leader of Ukraine it’s arguably more reckless not to join NATO, given the disparity in the size and capability of the armed forces.
The annexation of Crimea ?.Thats disputed between the Ukraine and Russia.
We are neither Russian, or Ukrainian. but you feel we should be siding with the Ukrainians. Why is that ?. What makes the Ukraine- a horribly corrupt country,so important to us.
There are plenty of other disputes going on in the world. None of which we are supporting with military assistance.
I seem to remember the Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko being poisoned a few years back..or are you still waiting For the evidence e to be 100% on that one as well...
And when it comes to chest beating, Putin is rather fond of taking his top off at every opportunity, For some reason Boris hasn't tried that look yet.
Given a neighbour with expansionist tendencies
And NATO doesn't have expansionist tendencies? So Russia is supposed to just accept NATO expanding eastwards on to it's borders? The obvious solution is for Ukraine to be neutral like Finland. Both Russia and NATO need to step back from the pissing match and Ukraine should recognise that there is a significant portion of their population who see themselves as Russian and don't want to be 'Western'.
NATO was formed to counter the threat to western european countries from the Soviet Union following USSR expansion into the iron curtain. What is it for now? Does anyone seriously believe Russia (or anyone else for that matter) poses a material threat to western European borders? Seems to me NATO is largely redundant but rather than admit that, it seeks to justify it's existence by stoking tensions and looking for a fight. All no doubt to fill the pockets of arms manufacturers and dealers.
So Russia is supposed to just accept NATO expanding eastwards on to it’s borders?
Well, yes. NATO isn't just going to march over the border into Mother Russia one day. Russia on the other hand . . .
NATO is not going to invade Russia. Putin knows this. He wants to stop NATO expanding because it makes his own aspirations more difficult to achieve, both territorially and politically.
reckless ambition to join NATO
Ukraine can't form alliances? Is this kind of logic going to be applied to Russia and China?
And NATO doesn’t have expansionist tendencies?
NATO hasn't invaded Russia. It's not going to. Russia has invaded Ukraine many times in the last 8 years. The conflict is ongoing, and happening on Ukraine soil.