Arming the Ukrainians

[jeremyp]

Non-violent resistance worked effectively against the Quisling regime in Norway in WW2.

Did it overthrow the German occupation?

[jeremyp]

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

The South Koreans might have a different view. Also, the Kuwaitis and the Falkland Islanders.

[SteveH]

Did it overthrow the German occupation?

No, but I've already acknowledged that it can't usually remove an aggressor altogether. It did make things very difficult for the Quisling regime, though, and saved many Jews.

[Spud]

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.

Thanks, just looked up Girkin and can understand your concern. Are his views those of Putin as well? It seems to me that there is too much history to learn to be able to form a judgment on which side is the aggressor and what their intentions are. How can enough people learn the truth to be able to participate effectively in a war thousands of miles away? If Putin's forces were pushing across France it would be obvious we should be worried. It seems people here just take the view that Russia is at fault without knowing much about the situation. Or maybe it's just me that knows nothing? At first I was pretty much sure it was Russia, but now when I read things like Zelensky's claims in this week's Sunday Times I think he is not entirely right. He said something to the effect of, think back to when London was being bombed by Germany. You don't want that to happen again, do you? Well the only way I can see that happening is if we get too far involved. As I said before, quoting Colonel Douglas Macgregor, Russia is highly unlikely to attack Nato because it is far weaker. But the more we get involved the less safe we will be in the event of a retaliation from Russia.

[Udayana]

...

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

Zelensky?

[Udayana]

Thanks, just looked up Girkin and can understand your concern. Are his views those of Putin as well? It seems to me that there is too much history to learn to be able to form a judgment on which side is the aggressor and what their intentions are. How can enough people learn the truth to be able to participate effectively in a war thousands of miles away? If Putin's forces were pushing across France it would be obvious we should be worried. It seems people here just take the view that Russia is at fault without knowing much about the situation. Or maybe it's just me that knows nothing? At first I was pretty much sure it was Russia, but now when I read things like Zelensky's claims in this week's Sunday Times I think he is not entirely right. He said something to the effect of, think back to when London was being bombed by Germany. You don't want that to happen again, do you? Well the only way I can see that happening is if we get too far involved. As I said before, quoting Colonel Douglas Macgregor, Russia is highly unlikely to attack Nato because it is far weaker. But the more we get involved the less safe we will be in the event of a retaliation from Russia.

Zelensky has a propaganda war to fight - just as much as Putin, Biden ...

You can't, certainly at this stage, collect enough facts and history to properly understand exactly who is right and wrong. We have to try and ensure our data sources are objective and verifiable, then formulate the story that most likely explains the motives and actions of the players involved.

"We" (on the forum or in the West) could be wrong about about Putin's objectives, but we do have facts on how he has engaged in many situations since he took power and his outlook recorded in his own words. 

Of-course there is danger of being wrong. Blair was in dealing with Sadam - although the information that could have prevented the war was available - overlooked due to hubris and political outlook.
     

[ad_orientem]

Thanks, just looked up Girkin and can understand your concern. Are his views those of Putin as well? It seems to me that there is too much history to learn to be able to form a judgment on which side is the aggressor and what their intentions are. How can enough people learn the truth to be able to participate effectively in a war thousands of miles away? If Putin's forces were pushing across France it would be obvious we should be worried. It seems people here just take the view that Russia is at fault without knowing much about the situation. Or maybe it's just me that knows nothing? At first I was pretty much sure it was Russia, but now when I read things like Zelensky's claims in this week's Sunday Times I think he is not entirely right. He said something to the effect of, think back to when London was being bombed by Germany. You don't want that to happen again, do you? Well the only way I can see that happening is if we get too far involved. As I said before, quoting Colonel Douglas Macgregor, Russia is highly unlikely to attack Nato because it is far weaker. But the more we get involved the less safe we will be in the event of a retaliation from Russia.

We do have quite a bit of evidence to go on. Firstly, Putin. Secondly, Russia's entire history of a nation. I know I can be hot and mouthy at times (alright, a lot of the time) but seriously, why are you burying your head in the sand and making excuses? It's as clear as day. Neither do I buy into the argument that it's a long way away and therefore poses no threat to us, so no need to do anything. No! That's not morally right. It's not that far away to all of us and as I have said many times before, there's a reason why those who live next to Russia usually are the most hawkish: firsthand experience.

Thanks for looking up what I suggested. 👍

[jeremyp]

Zelensky has a propaganda war to fight - just as much as Putin, Biden ...

You can't, certainly at this stage, collect enough facts and history to properly understand exactly who is right and wrong. We have to try and ensure our data sources are objective and verifiable, then formulate the story that most likely explains the motives and actions of the players involved.

"We" (on the forum or in the West) could be wrong about about Putin's objectives, but we do have facts on how he has engaged in many situations since he took power and his outlook recorded in his own words. 

Of-course there is danger of being wrong. Blair was in dealing with Sadam - although the information that could have prevented the war was available - overlooked due to hubris and political outlook.
   

I'm not aware that there is any doubt that Putin ordered an invasion of another sovereign country, nor the Russians are actively tying to take at least part of that country.

[Udayana]

I'm not aware that there is any doubt that Putin ordered an invasion of another sovereign country, nor the Russians are actively tying to take at least part of that country.

I'd have thought there were plenty of Russians who believe Putin, Russia, are trying to save Ukraine from fascism?
 

[ad_orientem]

I'd have thought there were plenty of Russians who believe Putin, Russia, are trying to save Ukraine from fascism?
 

Most of them support the war and at best just turn a blind eye.

[jeremyp]

I'd have thought there were plenty of Russians who believe Putin, Russia, are trying to save Ukraine from fascism?
 

I didn't say there aren't.

[Spud]

We do have quite a bit of evidence to go on. Firstly, Putin. Secondly, Russia's entire history of a nation. I know I can be hot and mouthy at times (alright, a lot of the time) but seriously, why are you burying your head in the sand and making excuses? It's as clear as day. Neither do I buy into the argument that it's a long way away and therefore poses no threat to us, so no need to do anything. No! That's not morally right. It's not that far away to all of us and as I have said many times before, there's a reason why those who live next to Russia usually are the most hawkish: firsthand experience.

Thanks for looking up what I suggested. 👍

Just looked up the war in 2008. I just read the first bit of the Wiki article on it. It looks like it was a similar situation to Ukraine, with a region of Georgia wanting independence and being backed by Russia. Regarding this, Nato didn't supply weapons to Georgia so what is different about Ukraine?
Also, Hungary doesn't seem to be worried about Russian invasion. Any thoughts on that?

[Aruntraveller]

Also, Hungary doesn't seem to be worried about Russian invasion. Any thoughts on that?

Because Orban and Putin are like-minded bastards.

[ad_orientem]

So it looks like the Russian frontlines in Kharkiv region are collapsing! Pro-Russian Twitter and Telegram accounts are in meltdown or simply refuse admit it. Copium is at never seen before levels. Yes, these are still early days but if this works out this will in the future be taught as a military strategy masterclass. Ukraine made Russia believe the main attack would be in Kherson region after weeks of pinpoint precision attacks there on Russian supply lines and ammo dumps. Now is the time to ramp up the pressure by sending Ukraine everything it needs.

[ad_orientem]

Unconfirmed reports that Donetsk airport has been retaken.

[Outrider]

Just looked up the war in 2008. I just read the first bit of the Wiki article on it. It looks like it was a similar situation to Ukraine, with a region of Georgia wanting independence and being backed by Russia. Regarding this, Nato didn't supply weapons to Georgia so what is different about Ukraine?

It is at best debatable about whether areas of either Georgia or Ukraine 'wanted' independence; there were likely some individuals - much like Cornwall - amplified by Russian reporting and Russian influenced internet information, but it's not likely there was a majority even in isolated locations.

NATO, and Europe in General, didn't supply weapons to Georgia on a combination basis of: Georgia wasn't a regime you'd want to support at the time; Georgia wasn't in the process of reaching out to the West with things like requests to join NATO; and, Russian wasn't getting significantly closer to Western nations and NATO members by bringing regions of Georgia into their sphere of influence.

Also, Hungary doesn't seem to be worried about Russian invasion. Any thoughts on that?

Hungary's current stance is serving to disrupt Western unity, particularly the European Union, so for the moment it serves Putin's interests to leave it alone, and Orban and his government know that.

O.

[jeremyp]

It is at best debatable about whether areas of either Georgia or Ukraine 'wanted' independence; there were likely some individuals - much like Cornwall - amplified by Russian reporting and Russian influenced internet information, but it's not likely there was a majority even in isolated locations.

NATO, and Europe in General, didn't supply weapons to Georgia on a combination basis of: Georgia wasn't a regime you'd want to support at the time; Georgia wasn't in the process of reaching out to the West with things like requests to join NATO; and, Russian wasn't getting significantly closer to Western nations and NATO members by bringing regions of Georgia into their sphere of influence.

Hungary's current stance is serving to disrupt Western unity, particularly the European Union, so for the moment it serves Putin's interests to leave it alone, and Orban and his government know that.

O.

There are unconfirmed reports of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the just liberated areas welcoming the Ukrainian soldiers. If these are true, it gives the lie to the idea that the Russian speaking Ukrainians are pro Russian.

[Spud]

It is at best debatable about whether areas of either Georgia or Ukraine 'wanted' independence; there were likely some individuals - much like Cornwall - amplified by Russian reporting and Russian influenced internet information, but it's not likely there was a majority even in isolated locations.

Most people would probably just cooperate with whichever power won the territory and not be particularly bothered who it was, I would think. As someone said about Israel after biblical times, it belongs to whoever can hold it.

NATO, and Europe in General, didn't supply weapons to Georgia on a combination basis of: Georgia wasn't a regime you'd want to support at the time; Georgia wasn't in the process of reaching out to the West with things like requests to join NATO; and, Russian wasn't getting significantly closer to Western nations and NATO members by bringing regions of Georgia into their sphere of influence.

The Donbas is hardly significantly close to the West. Ukraine may have asked to join Nato, and I don't see that as a problem, but Russia did have a problem with it and so for Ukraine to join would escalate tension with Russia.

Hungary's current stance is serving to disrupt Western unity, particularly the European Union, so for the moment it serves Putin's interests to leave it alone, and Orban and his government know that.

O.

If Hungary relies on Russia for fuel, what is wrong with its remaining neutral?

[ad_orientem]

Most people would probably just cooperate with whichever power won the territory and not be particularly bothered who it was, I would think. As someone said about Israel after biblical times, it belongs to whoever can hold it.

This has nothing to do with Israel and biblical times. Are you really arguing that Ukrainians aren't that bothered? Hmm! How would I rather live? In a liberal democracy or occupation under constant fear of torture, rape and death?

The Donbas is hardly significantly close to the West. Ukraine may have asked to join Nato, and I don't see that as a problem, but Russia did have a problem with it and so for Ukraine to join would escalate tension with Russia.

Boo hoo to Russia! Not their decision.

If Hungary relies on Russia for fuel, what is wrong with its remaining neutral?

They are facilitating Russian aggression.

[jeremyp]

Most people would probably just cooperate with whichever power won the territory and not be particularly bothered who it was, I would think. As someone said about Israel after biblical times, it belongs to whoever can hold it.

Might is right. Do you really believe that?

Anyway, it doesn't matter what most people want. If enough people don't want it and organise an insurgency, lots of blood will be shed.

The Donbas is hardly significantly close to the West.

Russia doesn't want Donbas, it wants the whole of Ukraine. This is why, in the early days of the war they tried to take Kyiv. Ukraine borders on Poland which is both a NATO and EU country. Furthermore, a Russian victory in Ukraine would embolden then to attack other former parts of the Soviet Union.

Ukraine may have asked to join Nato, and I don't see that as a problem, but Russia did have a problem with it and so for Ukraine to join would escalate tension with Russia.

Russia and Ukraine are in the middle of an all out war. The tension is no longer relevant.

[Spud]

Might is right. Do you really believe that?

That a territory belongs to whoever is able to hold onto it may not always be right but it seems to be reality. For example, Europeans took and kept land from native Americans and Aborigines.

[Spud]

Anyway, it doesn't matter what most people want. If enough people don't want it and organise an insurgency, lots of blood will be shed.

I shouldn't have said most people wouldn't be bothered, but if someone assumed control of their country I think most would cooperate and adapt. Eg the English who tried to defend against the Romans but eventually failed. Again, I'm not saying invading is right, but that cooperation by the invaded avoids bloodshed.

[Spud]

This has nothing to do with Israel and biblical times. Are you really arguing that Ukrainians aren't that bothered? Hmm! How would I rather live? In a liberal democracy or occupation under constant fear of torture, rape and death?

Boo hoo to Russia! Not their decision.

They are facilitating Russian aggression.

Yes, I agree Ukrainians are bothered!
I am friends with a Hungarian and he hasn't mentioned being worried about either being invaded or going without fuel for winter. His first point when I asked him was that Orban wants peace and doesn't believe that can be achieved by war.

[jeremyp]

I shouldn't have said most people wouldn't be bothered, but if someone assumed control of their country I think most would cooperate and adapt. Eg the English who tried to defend against the Romans but eventually failed.

Not the English. The British maybe.

Again, I'm not saying invading is right, but that cooperation by the invaded avoids bloodshed.

Not if the invaders are intent on genocide. I think there's pretty good evidence that Russia would have ethnically cleansed Eastern Ukraine of anybody not sympathetic to them.

[ad_orientem]

Some reports coming out, as yet unconfirmed, that several Russian units along the Kherson front are negotiating the surrender of their weapons.