Arming the Ukrainians

[jeremyp]

I was going to say to ad that we have given Ukraine a lot. 'We' thought it would be enough.
But back to my point last year that this could have ended without half a million dead if Ukraine had agreed to Russia's terms, and your reply that there would have been genocide by Russia. If Ukraine had agreed and Russia had stopped attacking without committing genocide, would you have accepted that?

Ukraine would not need to accept Russia's terms if Russia hadn't chosen to go on a murder spree across another country.

I don't like Ad O's position but he does at least understand the true situation.

[jeremyp]

Is this supposed to be some sort of westplaining?

No, I'm just tired of your constant whining that we need to kill all Russians. The world is a complex place and a simplistic take like yours could get us all killed.

[jeremyp]

I think it may be that the original objective of Ukraine was to take back Crimea - if it wasn't then, it is now. They haven't succeeded and that's what ad wants done.

Ukraine didn't start this war. Their objective was only to stop Russia from taking over their country.

I asked specifically if in March 2022 the two sides had agreed a peace deal and stuck to it, you would be ok with the loss of territory?

That couldn't have happened because Russia still thought that they could get everything they wanted by using force.

Jeremy was claiming there would have been genocide, but actually we don't know what would have happened.

Listen to the rhetoric coming out of Russia.

I was reading the subtitles of Putin's speech on Feb 21 and 24 2022. He was calling for  arms to be laid down

Of course he was. That would make it much easier to invade. Remember the BBC article I quoted?

"it's important to remember that Russia specifically has a long history of brazen lies and disinformation. That was proven with the shooting down of MH17 and the Salisbury Novichok poisonings, to name just two major incidents in the past decade. Even the full-scale invasion of Ukraine was launched on a lie: the false claim that a "Nazi" regime was putting Russian speakers here at risk of "genocide"."

Can't you understand? Putin lies. He says exactly what will get him what he wants. He is the baddie in all this.

and the West to stop flooding tje country with weapons, and Ukraine instead took them up, encouraged by the West. If they had done what Putin asked, there may well have been no, what you call genocide - which I interpret as attempts to root out anyone who sympathised with Bandera and the like, not all Ukrainians.

I take back what I said about Ad O's posts, this is nauseating.

[ad_orientem]

No, I'm just tired of your constant whining that we need to kill all Russians. The world is a complex place and a simplistic take like yours could get us all killed.

I've never said kill all Russians.

[Spud]

That couldn't have happened because Russia still thought that they could get everything they wanted by using force.

But if, for the sake of argument, they had stuck to it, and with the hindsight that fighting would cause half a million dead, would you have accepted the loss of territory (Donbas and Crimea) and Russia's other terms?
I sense that pride is stopping Ukraine and the West from surrendering, not threat of genocide or risk of Russia invading NATO countries.
And let's also bear in mind here the admission by Merkle regarding the Minsk agreement.

[ad_orientem]

But if, for the sake of argument, they had stuck to it, and with the hindsight that fighting would cause half a million dead, would you have accepted the loss of territory (Donbas and Crimea) and Russia's other terms?
I sense that pride is stopping Ukraine and the West from surrendering, not threat of genocide or risk of Russia invading NATO countries.
And let's also bear in mind here the admission by Merkle regarding the Minsk agreement.

Russia broke them Minsk agreements (they were never worth the paper they were written on), and if you'd listened to what Putin has said and his state media, they openly admit this is a land grab to regain, what they believe, historically belongs to them. They want to erase Ukrainian identity. For them, Ukranians are just rebellious Russians. This has been a long term plan, not a last minute decision done on a whim. The cogs were turning already some time before Maidan. Look to Girkin. He admits it. That's why he's just been jailed for four years.

[Outrider]

But if, for the sake of argument, they had stuck to it, and with the hindsight that fighting would cause half a million dead, would you have accepted the loss of territory (Donbas and Crimea) and Russia's other terms?

But if, for the sake of argument, Russia hadn't invaded in the first place... we can't deal with the authoritarian, expansionist dick-bags we wish we had, we have to deal with the ones we have.

I sense that pride is stopping Ukraine and the West from surrendering, not threat of genocide or risk of Russia invading NATO countries.

I sense that a desperate need to somehow shift the blame onto Ukraine and the west has you scrabbling for the most bat-shit crazy excuses you can find. Even if pride were the major element of it, it just change the fundamental, unalterable, unavoidable reality that the blame for all of this lies on Russia for its - checks records - eighth* invasion of a foreign nation in the last thirty or so years.

*Transnistra/Moldova 1992-94, Abkhazia/Georgia 1993, Chechnya 1994-96, Chechnya 2 1999-2009, Georgia 2 2008, Syria 2015-22, Ukraine 2014-15, Ukraine 2 2022-???

And let's also bear in mind here the admission by Merkle regarding the Minsk agreement.

Which is what? Angela Merkel said a lot of things, not least in her sixteen years as a Chancellor having to deal with a world made more dangerous by, amongst other things, Russian expansionism, militarism and sabre-rattling.

Are you referring to her commentary that the pause in fighting between 2015 and 2022 gave Ukraine the opportunity to re-arm and prepare defences? So what, that's an appropriate response to a recent invasion, and is further justified by the reality that the invasion it was preparing for came exactly as predicted. Ukraine didn't rearm in order to invade Russia, but Russia did rearm to reinvade Ukraine. Exactly where is the problematic part of Ukraine engaging in diplomatic measures to build up what it hoped would be a deterrent to prevent exactly the bloodshed that you keep trying to pin on them?

O.

[Spud]

Ukraine didn't start this war. Their objective was only to stop Russia from taking over their country.

More likely, to prevent regime change. I doubt Russia can take over the whole country, but it can take the four eastern territories and perhaps effect regime change by defeating Ukraine's army on the battlefield.

[ad_orientem]

More likely, to prevent regime change. I doubt Russia can take over the whole country, but it can take the four eastern territories and perhaps effect regime change by defeating Ukraine's army on the battlefield.

In otherwords, you'd prefer a puppet regime like in Belarus. Ukrainians don't want that. They made that clear 9 years ago!

[jeremyp]

But if, for the sake of argument, they had stuck to it, and with the hindsight that fighting would cause half a million dead, would you have accepted the loss of territory (Donbas and Crimea) and Russia's other terms?

It's not for me to say. I'm not Ukrainian.

However, had Russia invaded Britain and somebody said "let's accept their term and let them keep East Anglia" I would probably have said "shove it up your arse" and had I been of fighting age I would have accepted it was my duty to fight.

I sense that pride is stopping Ukraine and the West from surrendering, not threat of genocide or risk of Russia invading NATO countries.
And let's also bear in mind here the admission by Merkle regarding the Minsk agreement.

No, it's pride that is stopping Putin from surrendering. He's failed, but he won't accept it. The war would stop tomorrow if Russia withdrew to the pre-2014 borders. Ukraine might even let them keep Crimea in exchange for no opposition to NATO membership.

[ad_orientem]

I still don't really see the strategic significance of Crimea for Russia, except for bullying its neighbours around the Black Sea. A NATO member controls the only way in or out.

[Spud]

I still don't really see the strategic significance of Crimea for Russia, except for bullying its neighbours around the Black Sea. A NATO member controls the only way in or out.

Same here, but maybe we should be open to the idea? It could be to do with Russia being able to prevent unwanted naval forces approaching it's Black Sea shores?
Anyway, this is an excerpt from Putin's speech on Feb 21 2022:

Next, notably, Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that deploying foreign military bases on its territory is illegal. However, as it turns out, this is just a conventionality that can be easily circumvented.

Ukraine is home to NATO training missions which are, in fact, foreign military bases. They just called a base a mission and were done with it.

Kiev has long proclaimed a strategic course on joining NATO. Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one's own security at the expense of the security of other states. This is stated in the 1999 OSCE Charter for European Security adopted in Istanbul and the 2010 OSCE Astana Declaration.

In other words, the choice of pathways towards ensuring security should not pose a threat to other states, whereas Ukraine joining NATO is a direct threat to Russia's security.

Note the idea that if countries in a neutral zone between two opposing alliances join on alliance, that alliance gets stronger at the expense of the other.

Also, this morning a video was shown on the military summary channel which claims to show the loading of pows onto the Russian transport plane. Not sure how visible the pows are as it only shows a clip.

[Spud]

And another excerpt:

Finally, after the US destroyed the INF Treaty, the Pentagon has been openly developing many land-based attack weapons, including ballistic missiles that are capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 5,500 km. If deployed in Ukraine, such systems will be able to hit targets in Russia’s entire European part. The flying time of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Moscow will be less than 35 minutes; ballistic missiles from Kharkov will take seven to eight minutes; and hypersonic assault weapons, four to five minutes. It is like a knife to the throat. I have no doubt that they hope to carry out these plans, as they did many times in the past, expanding NATO eastward, moving their military infrastructure to Russian borders and fully ignoring our concerns, protests and warnings. Excuse me, but they simply did not care at all about such things and did whatever they deemed necessary

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828

[jeremyp]

Same here, but maybe we should be open to the idea?

What? Open to the idea that Russia should be allowed to bully its neighbours in the Black Sea?

It could be to do with Russia being able to prevent unwanted naval forces approaching its Black Sea shores?

That's just Russian paranoia again. There's no danger of NATO approaching its Black Sea shores except in time of war and if NATO was at war with Russia, Russia would no longer have a Black Sea fleet.

Note the idea that if countries in a neutral zone between two opposing alliances join on alliance, that alliance gets stronger at the expense of the other.

And Putin's actions have led to two neutral countries in the "neutral zone" joining NATO. Good job Putin.

Also, this morning a video was shown on the military summary channel which claims to show the loading of pows onto the Russian transport plane. Not sure how visible the pows are as it only shows a clip.

On to a Russian transport plane.

[jeremyp]

Next, notably, Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that deploying foreign military bases on its territory is illegal. However, as it turns out, this is just a conventionality that can be easily circumvented.

And Putin circumvented it by invading.

When are you going to get that Putin lies all the time. He cannot be trusted.

[Spud]

What? Open to the idea that Russia should be allowed to bully its neighbours in the Black Sea?That's just Russian paranoia again. There's no danger of NATO approaching its Black Sea shores except in time of war and if NATO was at war with Russia, Russia would no longer have a Black Sea fleet.
And Putin's actions have led to two neutral countries in the "neutral zone" joining NATO. Good job Putin.On to a Russian transport plane.

Yes but (he is saying) it was NATO's actions that led to Putin's actions. Good job NATO.
No, open to the possibility that Russia had genuine security concerns.

[ad_orientem]

Also, this morning a video was shown on the military summary channel which claims to show the loading of pows onto the Russian transport plane. Not sure how visible the pows are as it only shows a clip.

We have no idea when the video was made, by whom, or even if it's the same plane. You can't even make anything out. We've just got Russia's word for it, which is worthless, because we know they always lie.

[ad_orientem]

No, open to the possibility that Russia had genuine security concerns.

I never will be open to that because it's all bullshit. Russia's concerns flow from pure paranoia, the kind of paranoia that comes from fearing having done to you that which you've done to others. The solution was always simple: if you don't want NATO to expand, don't invade your neighbours. Everything else is just excuses and victim blaming.

[Spud]

I never will be open to that because it's all bullshit. Russia's concerns flow from pure paranoia, the kind of paranoia that comes from fearing having done to you that which you've done to others. The solution was always simple: if you don't want NATO to expand, don't invade your neighbours. Everything else is just excuses and victim blaming.

Okay, in principle you have a point, however I'm not sure whether the timing of Russian wars and NATO expansion of the last 3 decades was such that we can say that the latter was the result of the former, as your statement claims.

[jeremyp]

Yes but (he is saying) it was NATO's actions that led to Putin's actions.

But that would be a lie. It wasn't NATO's actions that led to Putin's actions. Putin did what he did to distract his population from domestic issues.

No, open to the possibility that Russia had genuine security concerns.

But they didn't. You know as well as I do that there was no chance of NATO invading Russia.

[Outrider]

Yes but (he is saying) it was NATO's actions that led to Putin's actions.

Of course he is. That doesn't make that true, either. NATO only represents a threat to Russia's security because it's a mutual defence alliance and he keeps on invading places.

No, open to the possibility that Russia had genuine security concerns.

Like they had in Moldova? And Chechnya? Twice? And Syria? How many times does he have to invade other countries before you start thinking 'hang on, maybe this is about him'?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Yer Da sells Avon for Putin


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67425366

[jeremyp]

Yer Da sells Avon for Putin


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67425366

That’s it. I’m boycotting Avon’s products.

[ekim]

As if they haven't got enough problems ........... https://www.euronews.com/2024/01/28/ukraine-says-corrupt-officials-stole-40-million-meant-to-buy-arms-for-the-war-with-russia

[Nearly Sane]

EU leaders unlock €50bn support package for Ukraine.

And seems to have been surpringsingly easy

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68165971