Arming the Ukrainians

[ad_orientem]

And here is yet another example of why there will never be any peace until Russia is not only defeated but also the ideology used to justify invading and committing genocide against its neighbours. It's also another reason we need a visa ban.

https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-approves-new-foreign-policy-doctrine-based-russian-world-2022-09-05/

[Nearly Sane]

The left linking the cost of living to Ukraine. There are voices on the right saying the same.



https://www.counterfire.org/articles/analysis/23440-to-avert-a-cost-of-living-catastrophe-we-need-to-talk-about-ukraine

[ad_orientem]

The left linking the cost of living to Ukraine. There are voices on the right saying the same.



https://www.counterfire.org/articles/analysis/23440-to-avert-a-cost-of-living-catastrophe-we-need-to-talk-about-ukraine

Yep! Tankies who can't bring themselves to stand with the side the West is supporting and far-right isolationists who can't stand western liberalism: both singing the same song, albeit for different reasons.

[ad_orientem]

For those who like irony, Nazi Nick accuses Ukrainians of being Nazis. Btw, this picture was proven to be doctored all the way back in 2015.
https://twitter.com/NickGriffinBU/status/1566674356985630720?t=MU38EoUqsScXAAvPDaK57g&s=19

[jeremyp]

The left linking the cost of living to Ukraine. There are voices on the right saying the same.



https://www.counterfire.org/articles/analysis/23440-to-avert-a-cost-of-living-catastrophe-we-need-to-talk-about-ukraine

Of course it's linked although the war is not the only thing contributing to the crisis. What are we supposed to do about it though? Are we supposed to hang Ukraine out to dry? Are we supposed to give in to Russia? In the long term, the latter could be very costly indeed.

[Spud]

You would have traded everything you own and then the Nazis would have killed all the Jews anyway. They were planning to do the same with the Slavic populations of Eastern Europe too after they beat Russia, by the way.

The death toll would have been much higher had we let Hitler do want he wants. Putin is not in thew same league but the same principle applies.

But if we're talking purely about the Holocaust, as soon as I take up arms I make myself more of a target. Better to go in unarmed and try to help them escape. Part of the problem was, at the time it cost £5,000 per person for a Jew to emigrate to Palestine, as set by the British. Many more could have escaped if that hadn't been the case.

I don't think I am against taking up arms, when it comes to something like ISIS. The mission there was to destroy their equipment (which we gave them). Should Britain have declared war on Germany when Hitler invaded Poland? Should the US have stayed out of the war? I'm not sure if Hitler originally intended to invade Britain, but it has been suggested that far less people would have died if the US had not got involved. I gather that the appeasement arrangement was to do with allowing Germany to occupy German-speaking lands such as Austria.
If as you say Putin isn't in the same league as Hitler, maybe it would be wiser to wait until he crossed the NATO line before getting involved militarily.

Of course it's linked although the war is not the only thing contributing to the crisis. What are we supposed to do about it though? Are we supposed to hang Ukraine out to dry? Are we supposed to give in to Russia? In the long term, the latter could be very costly indeed.

I've found an interview with someone in the DPR's army concerning the role of Russia in Donbas. He reminds us that the war started in 2014 with the coup d'etat. After the peace agreement of 2015, the separatists reduced their army to 10,000 which they kept in order to hold back the AFU. It became clear that Ukraine wasn't going to keep their side of the deal, which was for autonomy of Donbas within Ukraine, and that they would try to take Donbas back. That is why they asked Russia for help - because at that point they couldn't build their army up to strength in time to stop the Ukrainian army invading.

Given this, I don't think 'we' should be involved at present.

[ad_orientem]

I've found an interview with someone in the DPR's army concerning the role of Russia in Donbas. He reminds us that the war started in 2014 with the coup d'etat. After the peace agreement of 2015, the separatists reduced their army to 10,000 which they kept in order to hold back the AFU. It became clear that Ukraine wasn't going to keep their side of the deal, which was for autonomy of Donbas within Ukraine, and that they would try to take Donbas back. That is why they asked Russia for help - because at that point they couldn't build their army up to strength in time to stop the Ukrainian army invading.

Given this, I don't think 'we' should be involved at present.

That's just pure RuSSian propaganda. This was already planned in 2008. The template was RuSSia's invasion of Georgia. Look up Igor Girkin and his role in all this, starting with the invasion of Crimea and then Donbas and also neo-Nazi Wagner Group who were operating in the area since the beginning.

[ad_orientem]

Of course it's linked although the war is not the only thing contributing to the crisis. What are we supposed to do about it though? Are we supposed to hang Ukraine out to dry? Are we supposed to give in to Russia? In the long term, the latter could be very costly indeed.

The fact is that Europe is much better equipped to see this through than RuSSia, as long as we stay united.

[Roses]

But if we're talking purely about the Holocaust, as soon as I take up arms I make myself more of a target. Better to go in unarmed and try to help them escape. Part of the problem was, at the time it cost £5,000 per person for a Jew to emigrate to Palestine, as set by the British. Many more could have escaped if that hadn't been the case.

I don't think I am against taking up arms, when it comes to something like ISIS. The mission there was to destroy their equipment (which we gave them). Should Britain have declared war on Germany when Hitler invaded Poland? Should the US have stayed out of the war? I'm not sure if Hitler originally intended to invade Britain, but it has been suggested that far less people would have died if the US had not got involved. I gather that the appeasement arrangement was to do with allowing Germany to occupy German-speaking lands such as Austria.
If as you say Putin isn't in the same league as Hitler, maybe it would be wiser to wait until he crossed the NATO line before getting involved militarily.


I've found an interview with someone in the DPR's army concerning the role of Russia in Donbas. He reminds us that the war started in 2014 with the coup d'etat. After the peace agreement of 2015, the separatists reduced their army to 10,000 which they kept in order to hold back the AFU. It became clear that Ukraine wasn't going to keep their side of the deal, which was for autonomy of Donbas within Ukraine, and that they would try to take Donbas back. That is why they asked Russia for help - because at that point they couldn't build their army up to strength in time to stop the Ukrainian army invading.

Given this, I don't think 'we' should be involved at present.

You are a scaredy cat!

[jeremyp]

But if we're talking purely about the Holocaust,

Why are we talking purely about the Holocaust? Hitler didn't just murder Jews.

Should Britain have declared war on Germany when Hitler invaded Poland?

We should have declared war when he invaded Czechoslovakia. We weren't really ready at that point of course, but that was because of our policy of appeasement. You know, the very thing you are advocating.

Should the US have stayed out of the war?

The USA had no choice. Germany declared war on them.

I've found an interview with someone in the DPR's army concerning the role of Russia in Donbas. He reminds us that the war started in 2014 with the coup d'etat. After the peace agreement of 2015, the separatists reduced their army to 10,000 which they kept in order to hold back the AFU. It became clear that Ukraine wasn't going to keep their side of the deal, which was for autonomy of Donbas within Ukraine, and that they would try to take Donbas back.

"Autonomy of Donbas within Ukraine". I would suggest that, with Donbas claiming it is not part of Ukraine, the deal was already dead.

Given this, I don't think 'we' should be involved at present.

We were presented with the opportunity to neutralise one of the most malignant states in World politics. Russia is isolated, its military is shown to be a paper tiger, we no longer have to worry about it corrupting sports events or our politicians, NATO and the EU are both strengthened, the dependence on Russian fossil fuels is broken. I'd say we've done very well to be involved and the outcome has been pretty good for most countries. There may even by some positive points for Ukraine. It may get back some or all of the territory that Russia stole before the war.

[jeremyp]

You are a scaredy cat!

That's a little bit unfair actually. Within the context of this forum, Spud is demonstrating more courage than the rest of us. We all think he's wrong for various reasons but we are doing it from the comfort of our computers in the UK. We are not in constant danger of being shelled by the murdering Russians so it is easy for us to say fight on.

[ad_orientem]

Russia is being routed at the moment, both in Kherson and Kharkiv regions. Multiple sources for this if you know where to look. The sure sign this is true though is seeing Russian Telegram accounts:  We're not panicking! Reminiscent of Comical Ali.

[Nearly Sane]

You are a scaredy cat!

I disagree with Spud but using simplistic playground phrases about what policy is right here is ridiculous.

[Nearly Sane]

That's a little bit unfair actually. Within the context of this forum, Spud is demonstrating more courage than the rest of us. We all think he's wrong for various reasons but we are doing it from the comfort of our computers in the UK. We are not in constant danger of being shelled by the murdering Russians so it is easy for us to say fight on.

Agree but worth noting that ad_o is a bit closer.

[Spud]

You are a scaredy cat!

Indeed! I'd probably be up a tree the moment I saw a tank.

[Spud]

Although I am more scared of what the people of my own country have done than the Russians. Lockdowns, vaccine mandates, supporting a false messiah who forces people to fight.

[Aruntraveller]

Although I am more scared of what the people of my own country have done than the Russians. Lockdowns, vaccine mandates, supporting a false messiah who forces people to fight.

For goodness sake. Lockdowns & vaccines (the mandate such as it was only applied to healthcare workers, rightly imo) were necessary to save lives.

I'm not sure who this false messiah is you speak of.

[ad_orientem]

Agree but worth noting that ad_o is a bit closer.

And there are good reasons those bordering Russia are the most hawkish. The Baltics more than us, but then they had to endure 50 years of Soviet occupation. Still, it's something for us to strive to. I mean, we hate Russia but only now do we have a generation of politicians who never had to deal with Finlandinisation at any point in their careers.

[SteveH]

The problem with pacifism, which is what you appear to be advocating, is that it only works if everyone is a pacifist.

Not true. As a former pacifist, and still near-pacifist, I can tell you that most modern pacifists advocate non-violent resistance to violent aggressors: non-co-operation with them, sabotage, etc. I remember seeing a long list of specific non-violent resistance tactics, which included "Lysistratan non-co-operation". Non-violent resistance worked effectively against the Quisling regime in Norway in WW2.

[Aruntraveller]

Not true. As a former pacifist, and still near-pacifist, I can tell you that most modern pacifists advocate non-violent resistance to violent aggressors: non-co-operation with them, sabotage, etc. I remember seeing a long list of specific non-violent resistance tactics, which included "Lysistratan non-co-operation". Non-violent resistance worked effectively against the Quisling regime in Norway in WW2.

Pacifism and non-violent resistance are not the same things. That pacifists use non-violent resistance in some cases is true, and that it is effective in some cases is also true (though I doubt it would work with Putin) but they are different.

Or to put it another way, people who are not pacifists use non-violent resistance too.

Pacifism is the ideology, non-violence is one of the tools used by them.

[SteveH]

Pacifism and non-violent resistance are not the same thing.

Non-violent resistance is a form of pacifism.

[Aruntraveller]

Non-violent resistance is a form of pacifism.

See my expanded reply above.

[SteveH]

None of which is contrary to what I said, and I'd prefer it if you didn't try to teach me, a lifelong pacifist or near-pacifist,and former Quaker attender and member of the Peace Pledge Union and Fellowship of Reconciliation, what pacifism is and isn't.

[Aruntraveller]

None of which is contrary to what I said, and I'd prefer it if you didn't try to teach me, a lifelong pacifist or near-pacifist,and former Quaker attender and member of the Peace Pledge Union and Fellowship of Reconciliation, what pacifism is and isn't.

Ooh handbags at dawn.

So would it be ok to say if everyone were to become a non violent resistor then pacifism would work, because pacifism on its own does not?

Who got out of the bed on the wrong side this morning?

Go and have a cuppa.

[SteveH]

 
That's why I'm no longer an absolute pacifist. Non-violent resistance can be an effective technique, but can't defeat an aggressor on its own. However, I can't think of a war since 1945 that theUK has fought that was worth fighting