Arming the Ukrainians

[Outrider]

The cold war had ended, but they understandably feared future Russian threats. You can't however pretend that expanding NATO to Russia's border would not be seen by Russia as a threat, and ultimately lead to conflict.

I'm not suggesting that Russia wouldn't see it as a threat, although I will say that they shouldn't see it that way. What I'm saying is that the Russian aggression was there anyway, and the implication here that if NATO hadn't expanded Russia would have been a peaceable neighbour is nonsense. We can see that in the fact that they invaded countries that were nothing to do with NATO or its expansion, they invaded countries long before the expansion of NATO.

That in this particular episode they have invaded a country that seemed interested in joining NATO does not make it about NATO - Russian propoganda is trying to make it about that, but the evidence doesn't support that.

O.

[Spud]

I'm not suggesting that Russia wouldn't see it as a threat, although I will say that they shouldn't see it that way. What I'm saying is that the Russian aggression was there anyway, and the implication here that if NATO hadn't expanded Russia would have been a peaceable neighbour is nonsense. We can see that in the fact that they invaded countries that were nothing to do with NATO or its expansion, they invaded countries long before the expansion of NATO.

That in this particular episode they have invaded a country that seemed interested in joining NATO does not make it about NATO - Russian propoganda is trying to make it about that, but the evidence doesn't support that.

O.

From what I have heard about the Russian 'invasions' of those countries, these were not 'expansionist' in nature, but rather just getting involved in disputes on its own borders. That's what is happening here, there is no threat to European countries unless they get involved in the war.

[Spud]

Scott Ritter on what would happen if the US marines got into a fight with the Russians, from 10 minutes into the video:
https://youtu.be/tJjtFmohu3Q?si=8j_zSCOPHR23Rx5M
Russians break through US forward unit threatening rest of US troops. Marines automatically fire nuclear-tipped artillery round to ensure they can't go any further. Russians respond with SS20s; this followed by thermonuclear war and end of the world.
That seems a good enough reason to keep nuclear armed countries out of alliances with countries near Russia or China.

[ad_orientem]

Please stop quoting Scott "the nonce" Ritter. He's nothing more than a twice convicted paedophile (further proof of the uncannily strong correlation between Russia supporters and sex offenders) and a paid Russian shill. There's not one take of his he's ever got right.

[ad_orientem]

From what I have heard about the Russian 'invasions' of those countries, these were not 'expansionist' in nature, but rather just getting involved in disputes on its own borders. That's what is happening here, there is no threat to European countries unless they get involved in the war.

So why does Russia still occupy Transnistria,  Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Do you still not understand how Russia works? It creates those situations as a pretext to land grabs.

[Outrider]

From what I have heard about the Russian 'invasions' of those countries, these were not 'expansionist' in nature, but rather just getting involved in disputes on its own borders.

Maybe you need to be a bit more critical on what sources you listen to. If they weren't expansionist in nature, why does Russia still occupy so much of the territory? Why is Russia making further territorial claims?

That's what is happening here, there is no threat to European countries unless they get involved in the war.

NATO's a defensive alliance, there's no threat to Russia from NATO unless it invades. Again. And again. And again. And again...

Scott Ritter on what would happen if the US marines got into a fight with the Russians, from 10 minutes into the video:
https://youtu.be/tJjtFmohu3Q?si=8j_zSCOPHR23Rx5M
Russians break through US forward unit threatening rest of US troops. Marines automatically fire nuclear-tipped artillery round to ensure they can't go any further. Russians respond with SS20s; this followed by thermonuclear war and end of the world. That seems a good enough reason to keep nuclear armed countries out of alliances with countries near Russia or China.

I think you meant to post that on the jokes thread, right? Notwithstanding the scary-sounding paraphrasing of depleted uranium rounds (which are problematic, don't get me wrong) as 'nuclear-tipped artillery'... I'm not sure there's a single element of that which bears up to reality. The idea that the Russian military which STILL hasn't managed to make significant gains against the Ukrainian armed forces utilising redundant NATO hardware would somehow prevail against the best equipped military in the world is not even laughable. It falls into the oft-quoted category here of 'not even wrong'.

Russia's best hope in a conflict against the American military is to hope that the rest of NATO does join in, because then there's at least a chance that American friendly-fire incidents will make it look like they actually managed to damage some enemy units.

O.

[Spud]

Maybe you need to be a bit more critical on what sources you listen to. If they weren't expansionist in nature, why does Russia still occupy so much of the territory? Why is Russia making further territorial claims?

NATO's a defensive alliance, there's no threat to Russia from NATO unless it invades. Again. And again. And again. And again...

I think you meant to post that on the jokes thread, right? Notwithstanding the scary-sounding paraphrasing of depleted uranium rounds (which are problematic, don't get me wrong) as 'nuclear-tipped artillery'... I'm not sure there's a single element of that which bears up to reality. The idea that the Russian military which STILL hasn't managed to make significant gains against the Ukrainian armed forces utilising redundant NATO hardware would somehow prevail against the best equipped military in the world is not even laughable. It falls into the oft-quoted category here of 'not even wrong'.

Russia's best hope in a conflict against the American military is to hope that the rest of NATO does join in, because then there's at least a chance that American friendly-fire incidents will make it look like they actually managed to damage some enemy units.

O.

I'll keep reading about the invasions of Georgia etc.
NATO is backed by a country with just as violent a record (the US).
I'm not sure what type of weapon Ritter was referring to, but his point was that while Russia would be wiped out in a war with the West, it would ensure that the West was wiped out along with it.

[Outrider]

I'll keep reading about the invasions of Georgia etc.

Keep reading is great. Read more widely would be good, too.

NATO is backed by a country with just as violent a record (the US).

NATO is not 'backed' by the US, the US is one of the members of NATO. The US does not have anything like the record of Russia when it comes to invasions - the US gets involved in wars, too often for my liking, but it does not often invade foreign states, and when it does so it tends to do so with some sort of international mandate. It's far from perfect, but it's also far from Russian levels of encroachment.

I'm not sure what type of weapon Ritter was referring to, but his point was that while Russia would be wiped out in a war with the West, it would ensure that the West was wiped out along with it.

Russia would not be 'wiped out' in a war with the West, Russia would be beaten, probably forced into some degree of reparations (although hopefully we've learned the lessons of the past on the extent of those) and it would have restrictions placed on its military activities at least for a while. Putin's grip on Russia, of course, would be broken, and for the Russian oligarchic system that's a more pressing concern, hence all the 'mutually assured destruction' rhetoric and the repeated references to Russia's nuclear arsenal.

O.

[ad_orientem]

Russia building filtration camps in Volga region.

https://x.com/United24media/status/1793583982455738531?s=19

[Spud]

Reports have been slowly coming out of Vovchansk, Kharkiv region, near the Russian border, of new attrocities being carried out by Russian soldiers. Civilians being herded into cellars for God knows what, and executions. Another Bucha, Irpin etc.

https://kyivindependent.com/minister-russia-takes-civilians-captive-in-northern-vovchansk-executions-reported/

People have always talked about the "mysterious Russian soul", that we don't underatand it and all that rubbish. There's nothing mysterious about it, we know it's a genocidal barbarian.

According to the Russians their invasion of Kharkov is a response to ongoing Ukrainian shelling from the Kharkov region, of civilian targets in Belgorod in Russia. On 12 May they hit a 9 storey block of flats, reportedly killing 18 civilians.

Similarly, they said one of the reasons for the invasion of Donbas was that it was in response to ongoing shelling of civilians in Donetsk city.

It does look like their overall objective is to create a buffer zone. I'm not sure how they intend to prevent the rest of Ukraine from joining NATO - do they intend to keep fighting until they take over Kiev? That would be very costly.

[ad_orientem]

The apartment building was blown up from the inside. Watch the video. Certainly not from a missile or shelling.

https://x.com/yasminalombaert/status/1789602946742641140?s=19

[Outrider]

According to the Russians their invasion of Kharkov is a response to ongoing Ukrainian shelling from the Kharkov region, of civilian targets in Belgorod in Russia. On 12 May they hit a 9 storey block of flats, reportedly killing 18 civilians.

If they left Ukraine there wouldn't be a war any more. That's a tactical decision that in no way justifies the earlier strategic decision to invade a foreign nation.

Similarly, they said one of the reasons for the invasion of Donbas was that it was in response to ongoing shelling of civilians in Donetsk city.

Which nobody accepts was happening, nobody except apparently you believes is actually the case, and even if it were true doesn't matter because it's not their job to invade a foreign nation for the second time in less than a decade, whilst still illegally occupying territory from the first invasion.

It does look like their overall objective is to create a buffer zone.

Why do they need a 'buffer zone'? If they don't invade anyone, they don't risk triggering any defensive alliances.

I'm not sure how they intend to prevent the rest of Ukraine from joining NATO - do they intend to keep fighting until they take over Kiev? That would be very costly.

It certainly seems that way. More to the point, how do they intend to keep funding this conflict? Ukraine doesn't have to outlast Russian troops, it has to outlast Russian roubles, and Russia's economy is the fastest moving factor in this whole thing.

O.

[Spud]

The apartment building was blown up from the inside. Watch the video. Certainly not from a missile or shelling.

https://x.com/yasminalombaert/status/1789602946742641140?s=19

Sure looks like it. But there have been many other attacks on the city.

[Outrider]

Sure looks like it. But there have been many other attacks on the city.

So you have hypothetical other incidents now that the singular instance you've cited appears not actually to be what you suggested.

Is that like how this invasion is different from the other unjustified invasions?

O.

[Spud]

So you have hypothetical other incidents now that the singular instance you've cited appears not actually to be what you suggested.

Is that like how this invasion is different from the other unjustified invasions?

O.

Well first of all, if the above incident was some kind of bomb inside the building, who planted it?

[ad_orientem]

Well first of all, if the above incident was some kind of bomb inside the building, who planted it?

What was the pretext to the Second Chechen War?

[Outrider]

Well first of all, if the above incident was some kind of bomb inside the building, who planted it?

Who has invaded the country and appears intent on trying to destroy significant portions of the infrastructure in wanton acts of terrorism? Is it possible that this was some sort of guerilla activity on the part of a local militia; yes, I suspect that's possible. Is it possible that this is a Russian attempt at some sort of 'false-flag' activity, or just an attempt to create disinformation to post hoc rationalise their invasion as necessary; equally, yes.

Of the two, which is more likely? The Ukrainians, I'd suggest, might struggle to get that much explosive into position in occupied territory, but the Russians appear to be struggling to get much of their munitions to actually work, so who knows.

Either way, it's pretty much a solid guarantee that it wasn't caused by artillery fire, which means whether it was genuinely Ukrainian clandestine warfare, a clumsy propaganda piece by Russian forces, or just some munitions cock-up by Russia's deplorable logistics operation, it's not a justification for the continued bombardment of civilian centres by the illegally invading Russian troops.

O.

[Spud]

Who has invaded the country and appears intent on trying to destroy significant portions of the infrastructure in wanton acts of terrorism? Is it possible that this was some sort of guerilla activity on the part of a local militia; yes, I suspect that's possible.

Thanks.

So you have hypothetical other incidents now that the singular instance you've cited appears not actually to be what you suggested.

Is that like how this invasion is different from the other unjustified invasions?

O.

My original point was, "According to the Russians their invasion of Kharkov is a response to ongoing Ukrainian shelling from the Kharkov region of civilian targets in Belgorod in Russia. On 12 May they hit a 9 storey block of flats, reportedly killing 18 civilians."

[Aruntraveller]

I'm going to start putting a daily reminder up for a poster here:

Russia invaded Ukraine without provocation.

[Outrider]

Thanks.My original point was, "According to the Russians their invasion of Kharkov is a response to ongoing Ukrainian shelling from the Kharkov region of civilian targets in Belgorod in Russia.

And my points were:
1 - that's Russian claims and therefore inherently questionable
2 - if Russians are that bothered they can fuck off back to Russia and solve the problem for everyone.

On 12 May they hit a 9 storey block of flats, reportedly killing 18 civilians."

That's possibly true. It's highly unlikely if it is true that it was an intentional strike, but it may have been the result of information, or misinformation, that we are not privy to. It is, if true, another profoundly sad outcome of this entirely avoidable war.

A war Russia started. A war without any justification whatsoever.

A war that has, to date, accounted for somewhere in the region of half a million deaths, mostly of Russian troops. With those half a million unjustified deaths to account for, whilst even one more is sad, it seems somewhat of a failure of perspective to focus on these potential but unverified eighteen and the even less likely accusation of the proximate cause of their deaths whilst ignoring the ultimate cause.

O.

[ekim]

"Before the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin, during a meeting in Moscow, outlined to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz the reasons he had concocted to justify his decision, according to Ukrinform."  ....... https://tinyurl.com/p98kz446

[Outrider]

New York Times reports that Russian's are engaged in sabotage and extra-military activities across the broader range of Europe as part of their efforts to undermine support for Ukraine.

"Far from the front lines, U.S. and allied intelligence officials are tracking an increase in low-level sabotage operations in Europe, saying that the acts are part of a Russian campaign to undermine support for Ukraine.

The covert operations have mostly been arsons or attempted arsons targeting a wide range of sites, including a warehouse in England, a paint factory in Poland, homes in Latvia and an Ikea store in Lithuania. People accused of being Russian operatives have also been arrested on charges of plotting attacks on U.S. military bases." New York Times Daily Briefing (European Edition) Monday May 27th 2024

O.

[Aruntraveller]

The daily reminder:

Russia invaded Ukraine without provocation.

[Nearly Sane]

"Pressure on Biden to let US weapons strike Russia" - it feels that no matter the decision he takes here that any action or inaction will benefit Trump.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c844g9eyzz7o

[ad_orientem]

"Pressure on Biden to let US weapons strike Russia" - it feels that no matter the decision he takes here that any action or inaction will benefit Trump.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c844g9eyzz7o

But what benefits Trump or not shouldn't be a factor. I'm not so sure the problem is Biden but rather his advisor Sullivan. Blinken has quite a lot of authority though and I think he'll get this pushed through. This is the most stupid and immoral self-imposed red line.