Arming the Ukrainians

[SteveH]

It's weakness, pure and simple. Russia knows only one language, force.

I 'ad that Volodymir Zelensky in the back of the cab once.

[ad_orientem]

I 'ad that Volodymir Zelensky in the back of the cab once.

Eh?

[SteveH]

Eh?

"The only language they understand, innit?". You sounded a bit like a stereotypical taxi-driver.

[ad_orientem]

"The only language they understand, innit?". You sounded a bit like a stereotypical taxi-driver.

Ok, I get it.

[ad_orientem]

No. Your opinion is that they are bollocks. Western leaders are probably better informed about the credibility of Russian threats than either of us.

And, even if they aren't, bombing civilian targets will not have the effect you want. In fact, it would be a propaganda windfall for Putin.

Again, despite my own views, I wasn't referring to civilian targets. Launch sites and their personnel are legitimate targets. We have one side (Russia) that doesn't care about the rules of war. Looting, raping, torturing and murdering are part of their war plan. Meanwhile we tie one of Ukraine's arms behind its back. Russia launches missiles, from within Russia, that target apartment buildings, hospitals, shopping malls, hotels etc and we won't give Ukraine the means to stop that. Fucking moral eunachs, no fucking balls!

I'll tell you what we should do. It would be easy and the quickest way to end the war. Everytime Russia bombs a hospital, or hotel, or apartment building, everytime a new mass grave is found, we kill the entire family of a Russian oligarch. As soon as they clock on the war would end and Putin would be drinking polonium tea or falling out of a tenth story window quicker than he could say blyat!

[jeremyp]

Again, despite my own views, I wasn't referring to civilian targets. Launch sites and their personnel are legitimate targets. We have one side (Russia) that doesn't care about the rules of war. Looting, raping, torturing and murdering are part of their war plan. Meanwhile we tie one of Ukraine's arms behind its back. Russia launches missiles, from within Russia, that target apartment buildings, hospitals, shopping malls, hotels etc and we won't give Ukraine the means to stop that. Fucking moral eunachs, no fucking balls!

I'll tell you what we should do. It would be easy and the quickest way to end the war. Everytime Russia bombs a hospital, or hotel, or apartment building, everytime a new mass grave is found, we kill the entire family of a Russian oligarch. As soon as they clock on the war would end and Putin would be drinking polonium tea or falling out of a tenth story window quicker than he could say blyat!

When did terrorist tactics ever work?

[Spud]

Well it failed at that when Finland joined NATO. Good job Putin.

That's NATO's and Ukraine's fault for committing to Ukrainian membership, not Putin's fault. Ukraine wanted NATO membership as well as to get Crimea back, but that is a red line for Russia because it would mean America's military alliance would have a naval base on Russia's doorstep.

[Outrider]

That's NATO's and Ukraine's fault for committing to Ukrainian membership, not Putin's fault.

From the NATO point of view, having more, committed members is not problematic, and therefore it's no-one's fault.

Ukraine wanted NATO membership as well as to get Crimea back, but that is a red line for Russia because it would mean America's military alliance would have a naval base on Russia's doorstep.

Ukraine wanted NATO membership before Russia invaded Crimea, to protect them from Russian aggression having seen them repeatedly invade other neighbouring countries. Russia-focussed leadership trying to override the public will on that and move closer to Russia instead of the West is what led to the Maidan protests that you keep bringing up.

O.

[Spud]

Ukraine wanted NATO membership before Russia invaded Crimea

"Polls conducted between 2005 and 2013 found low support among Ukrainians for NATO membership" - wiki

[jeremyp]

That's NATO's and Ukraine's fault

What do you mean "fault"? NATO and Ukraine don't regard it as a bad thing that Finland joined. And Finland wouldn't have joined without the Russian murderous rampage.

Ukraine wanted NATO membership as well as to get Crimea back, but that is a red line for Russia because it would mean America's military alliance would have a naval base on Russia's doorstep.

Well, when the warr is over, Russia has virtually guaranteed that Ukraine will join NATO.

Not only that, but NATO already controls the entrance to the Black Sea, so, strategically, who owns Crimea is of little import.

[jeremyp]

"Polls conducted between 2005 and 2013 found low support among Ukrainians for NATO membership" - wiki

Well Putin has managed to change that. Good job Putin.

[Spud]

What do you mean "fault"? NATO and Ukraine don't regard it as a bad thing that Finland joined. And Finland wouldn't have joined without the Russian murderous rampage.
Well, when the warr is over, Russia has virtually guaranteed that Ukraine will join NATO.

Not only that, but NATO already controls the entrance to the Black Sea, so, strategically, who owns Crimea is of little import.

I suspect the people of NATO would hesitate to see Finland's membership as a good thing. For example, Biden recently said that America doesn't want to fight Russia.
The war won't be over until Russia has it in writing that Ukraine won't join NATO.
Looking at it from another angle, I wonder how much the people of Crimea and Donbas would want to be part of NATO?

[jeremyp]

I suspect the people of NATO would hesitate to see Finland's membership as a good thing.

I'm part of the people of NATO. I think it's great, especially since Russia has shown itself as a major threat.

For example, Biden recently said that America doesn't want to fight Russia.

Finland being in NATO means that we are less likely to be fighting Russia. NATO is stronger now and Putin is less likely to try to confront it.

The war won't be over until Russia has it in writing that Ukraine won't join NATO.

Yes it will. The war will be over when one side or the other gives up. Ukraine is a sovereign country. It is not going to accede to that demand unless it has already been defeated.

Looking at it from another angle, I wonder how much the people of Crimea and Donbas would want to be part of NATO?

Which people of Donbas and Crimea? The ones that Putin has moved in or the ones that he deported or murdered?

For a Christian, you seem to be very keen on the fascist dictator and murderer Putin. How do you live with yourself?

[Outrider]

I suspect the people of NATO would hesitate to see Finland's membership as a good thing.

Like who? Orban, perhaps, but not many others.

For example, Biden recently said that America doesn't want to fight Russia.

Nobody in NATO WANTS to fight Russia, if they did we'd have used the invasion of Ukraine as sufficient justification to launch military operations. That we don't want to fight Russia does not mean that we don't appreciate strengthening the defensive alliance with other competent, capable nations with strategic advantages (like an extensive land border) with the principle threatening state.

The war won't be over until Russia has it in writing that Ukraine won't join NATO.

Or until Russia's current regime is replaced or forced to back down, and cedes its claims to Ukrainian territory. There's always the prospect of another war, but THIS war will be done.

Looking at it from another angle, I wonder how much the people of Crimea and Donbas would want to be part of NATO?

I'd imagine a significant number of them only wish they already were... it appears that Russia is reluctant to follow through on its military threats to NATO nations.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Powerful column from Elina Svitolina

https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/68045799

[ad_orientem]

Don't believe any of the shit you hear about POW's being on the plane that crashed today. The media has been blindly repeating Russian claims.

https://twitter.com/SlavaUk30722777/status/1750154906554785998?s=19

https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1750172436996255984?s=19

[Nearly Sane]

Don't believe any of the shit you hear about POW's being on the plane that crashed today. The media has been blindly repeating Russian claims.

https://twitter.com/SlavaUk30722777/status/1750154906554785998?s=19

https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1750172436996255984?s=19

I haven't seen all.the media but what I have seen has reported that it is what is claimed by Russia, and not reported it as true.

[ad_orientem]

"Now assured there will be no intervention from the civilized world, Russians are now free to slowly destroy any Ukrainian city they choose."

Sounds about right. We could have finished this last year had we just given Ukraine everything it needed but I suppose there's nothing left to do but let Russia slowly genocide Ukrainians. We've let Ukraine down and we should hold our heads in shame. This, it seems, is what they gave up nuclear weapons for.

https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1750394129601749209?s=19

[jeremyp]

I haven't seen all.the media but what I have seen has reported that it is what is claimed by Russia, and not reported it as true.

Here's the BBC analysis

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68089698

...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". That doesn't mean every word from the Russian Defence Ministry and the Kremlin is untrue - or from MPs and the state media. But they often are, so they need checking carefully before repeating.

Spud would do well to read the above and remember it before spouting more of his propaganda.

Anyway, the BBC seems to think it is not even certain that Ukraine shot down the plane. And if it was Ukraine, and if there were POW's on board, this is a war. People die in wars. Deaths from friendly fire are sad but inevitable. I wouldn't blame Ukraine if they had shot down a plane load of their own soldiers, I would blame Russia for starting the war in the first place.

[jeremyp]

"Now assured there will be no intervention from the civilized world, Russians are now free to slowly destroy any Ukrainian city they choose."

Sounds about right. We could have finished this last year had we just given Ukraine everything it needed but I suppose there's nothing left to do but let Russia slowly genocide Ukrainians. We've let Ukraine down and we should hold our heads in shame. This, it seems, is what they gave up nuclear weapons for.

https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1750394129601749209?s=19

Please stop. We are treading a fine line here between a Russian victory and a global war. Your simplistic take on the situation is nauseating.

[Spud]

Please stop. We are treading a fine line here between a Russian victory and a global war. Your simplistic take on the situation is nauseating.

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?

[Outrider]

I was going to say to ad that we have given Ukraine a lot. 'We' thought it would be enough.

It has been enough - we supported Ukraine so that it wouldn't fall to Russia, and it hasn't fallen to Russia. We didn't give arms so that no-one else would die.

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?

And that's one of the decisions that people are having to make - if we concede to Russia, will that stop the military actions, will that stop the expansionism and the attacks and the deaths. Ukraine agreed to Russia's terms after the invasion of Crimea, and look where we are. The current Russian leadership cannot be trusted, they have a demonstrable history of breaching the agreements they make and invading neighbouring countries.

Even if I accepted the argument that who runs any given territory isn't relevant, and we should just try to limit the wars, conceding ground to Russia does not seem likely to achieve that, they will simply rearm, regroup and invade somewhere else.

O.

[ad_orientem]

Please stop. We are treading a fine line here between a Russian victory and a global war. Your simplistic take on the situation is nauseating.

Is this supposed to be some sort of westplaining? Those countries and people neighbouring Russia are the most hawkish for a reason, and we have been proved right time and time again. By not doing enough now, we are setting ourselves up for a bigger war later.

[Spud]

It has been enough - we supported Ukraine so that it wouldn't fall to Russia, and it hasn't fallen to Russia. We didn't give arms so that no-one else would die.

And that's one of the decisions that people are having to make - if we concede to Russia, will that stop the military actions, will that stop the expansionism and the attacks and the deaths. Ukraine agreed to Russia's terms after the invasion of Crimea, and look where we are. The current Russian leadership cannot be trusted, they have a demonstrable history of breaching the agreements they make and invading neighbouring countries.

Even if I accepted the argument that who runs any given territory isn't relevant, and we should just try to limit the wars, conceding ground to Russia does not seem likely to achieve that, they will simply rearm, regroup and invade somewhere else.

O.

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.
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?
Jeremy was claiming there would have been genocide, but actually we don't know what would have happened. I was reading the subtitles of Putin's speech on Feb 21 and 24 2022. He was calling for  arms to be laid down 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.

[Outrider]

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've always publicly stated that they wanted Crimea back, but they were undertaking that diplomatically until Russia invaded again.

They haven't succeeded and that's what ad wants done.

Not that my vote counts for much, but if I was asked I think Crimea should be returned to Ukraine, as well. I might not be as militant as Ad about that should be achieved, but I agree with that as a goal.
 

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?

As a stand alone decision I think it's a decision that would have needed to be made, I'm not sure (if I were there) how I'd feel about it. However, it's not a decision that gets made in isolation, it's a decision made against a backdrop of making agreements with a nation that has a recent, demonstrable history of not sticking to these agreements. The question is more would Putin have been satisfied with just that territory, and I can't say that I think he would have been.

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

We don't know, but we can look at recent examples. We can look at how the occupants of Crimea were treated in the wake of the last invasion, we can look at how thing are in South Ossetia, in Chechnya, and we can look at the treatment of dissenting voices within Russia and deduce that whilst it might not reach the legal definition of genocide (but it could) if you're quibbling on whether it's reached the legal definition it's still a shitshow to live (or die) through.

I was reading the subtitles of Putin's speech on Feb 21 and 24 2022. He was calling for  arms to be laid down 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'd say that only two people in the world appear to believe a word that comes out of Putin's mouth, but then I remember that the other one is Putin, and he knows damned well that he's lying. I'll remind you that Ukraine laid down its arms over Crimea a decade ago, and Russia has invaded again. Yes he wants them to lay down arms, because then he can achieve piecemeal what he's struggling to achieve in one action - the complete occupation of Ukraine.

O.