The Ukraine War

[BaaLocks]

12 hours ago, LondonRam2 said:

OK, someone asked "what should the west do"?  A few thoughts:

Refuse to trade with Putin and extract ourselves from all contracts of any kind as soon as legally possible.

On a personal level, send any Russian person who attempts to defend this stuff to Coventry (sorry).  There might be some theoretical "justification" for grabbing Crimea and the Donbas from their point of view but...bombing Lviv?  Bombing hospitals with kids inside?  I think not.

Announce a No Fly Zone west of the Dnieper.  Simple to operate, it's a damn great river, you can't miss it.  Whatever excuses they might make for intervening in the east, there is no excuse whatever to bomb in the west.  The NATO aircraft should fly very high and send information to Ukrainian ground forces (rather than engaging Russian planes or missiles themselves) so that the Ukrainian forces can target and fight back against any Russian airspace incursions west of the Dnieper.  This would also have the advantage of reassuring non combatants that if they can somehow get over the Dnieper they will be much safer and do not need to leave Ukraine to reach safety.  This in turn will lessen the pressure on neighbouring countries.

Finally - bitter pill - persuade the Ukraine government to in effect trade land for peace.  Let Putin have Crimea and the Donbas, get the Russian army out of everywhere else, and wait for a better government in Russia post Putin.  Persuade Ukraine to not join NATO - they have already committed to this publicly.  BUT, Ukraine should NOT accept any limits on it's armed forces, why should they in view of recent events?

Europe's rearmament should (with deep regret) continue.  Sanctions should continue long term until Russia leaves Crimea and the Donbas.  Free referendums then to be held in these areas under direct UN supervision and see which way the people vote once they have returned.  Crimea will probably vote for Russia, the Donbas probably for Ukraine.  Agreement that the Donbas should be completely demilitarised (under UN supervision) by BOTH sides.  Demilitarised buffer zone to include Kharkiv.  If China assists Russia then sanctions and refusal to trade as well.  If China is sensible it will keep its head well down, because the west is (FINALLY!) starting to take a moral stand, where possible, about who we trade with.  At some point a more pragmatic government will emerge in Russia with which we can do business.  Russia may yet have it's own "Maidan".

No reward for Putin simply stopping the bombing or withdrawing from the rest of Ukraine, why reward what would simply be a return to normality?  Continued refusal to deal with this gangster government.

In the UK, open up the remaining North Sea oil and gas fields as a temporary stopgap and then (taxes up if necessary) go for a "dash for renewables" (tidal power, green hydrogen etc), aiming for long term self sufficiency of 70-80%.  Also a "dash for food", incentivising organic sustainable agriculture as well as tree planting, making non meat food options cheaper (meat tax?), penalising imports of non seasonal produce (tariffs).  We learned to live more simply during the lockdowns, why not continue that good work?

The big lesson here is that globalisation benefits only the rich and powerful and makes us hostages to despotic overseas governments.  A century from now, those who follow us may come to think that Putin actually did us all a favour by reminding us of this uncomfortable fact, and forcing us to change our ways out of sheer disgust.

That will do for starters I think.

Over and out.

Except for continuation of sanctions - which only serve to impact on the civilians in Russia plus will likely harden their resolve against the West - I'd pretty much agree with all of that. And the 'send to Coventry' piece I would just say that you are absolutely right, nobody should be justifying the war, the invasion and the destruction. But you have to listen to the reasons behind it, what got all sides to this place and then act from there. Because just a blanket 'you are wrong' stance is not going to solve anything.

[Comrade 86]

1 hour ago, BaaLocks said:

Except for continuation of sanctions - which only serve to impact on the civilians in Russia plus will likely harden their resolve against the West - I'd pretty much agree with all of that. And the 'send to Coventry' piece I would just say that you are absolutely right, nobody should be justifying the war, the invasion and the destruction. But you have to listen to the reasons behind it, what got all sides to this place and then act from there. Because just a blanket 'you are wrong' stance is not going to solve anything.

Easy to say when it's not your apartment building being levelled, or your kids going without food and water. The time for intellectualising this will come, but geopolitical musings won't stop Russian tanks in the interim, will they? Sanctions are being imposed because boots on the ground and no-fly zones are pretty much a 'nuclear option' when dealing with Putin. If he genuinely wants to be heard, and I have serious doubts as to whether he is even remotely concerned with popular opinion, then he too needs to offer concessions, since to coin your own terminology, bombing civilians 'is not going to solve anything'. Such actions will simply harden the opinions of Western Europeans and continue to provide a ready-made justification for further US and Western European backed interventions.

And lest we forget while we postulate on Russian sacrifices, that there are far worse things than rising living costs which are being experienced pretty much globally, in some cases, as a direct result of Putin's chosen course of action. Here's a visual reminder, if ever on was needed.

 

[Stive Pesley]

3 hours ago, Highgate said:

Absolutely, as long as that man stays in power the world will be a far more dangerous place.  One benefactor from Putin's invasion of Ukraine will be the arms industry.  Military budgets will be increased all over the world....especially in Europe and understandably so...but it's another step backwards.

It's so utterly depressing - when you consider that the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons treaty was signed in 1968 and has been in force since 1970, the fact that the so-called superpowers have continued to stockpile and develop new nuclear weapons, despite having signed a treaty that was supposed to lead to complete disarmament. The Arms industry has won, and always will

The only true purpose of the treaty seems to have been to ensure that the US, UK, France, China and Russia get to have nuclear weapons and no other country is allowed to. Has that kept world peace? Maybe...until now

But I'd love someone from outside the Arms industry to explain to me why these 5 countries have (and more the point, need) something like 15,000 nuclear warheads between them. 50 years after they signed a disarmament treaty

Damn them all to hell!

 

[i-Ram]

3 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

It's so utterly depressing - when you consider that the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons treaty was signed in 1968 and has been in force since 1970, the fact that the so-called superpowers have continued to stockpile and develop new nuclear weapons, despite having signed a treaty that was supposed to lead to complete disarmament. The Arms industry has won, and always will

The only true purpose of the treaty seems to have been to ensure that the US, UK, France, China and Russia get to have nuclear weapons and no other country is allowed to. Has that kept world peace? Maybe...until now

But I'd love someone from outside the Arms industry to explain to me why these 5 countries have (and more the point, need) something like 15,000 nuclear warheads between them. 50 years after they signed a disarmament treaty

Damn them all to hell!

 

They aren’t all going to work, in fact very few will. Haven’t you ever found a leftover firework in the garage from a year or two previous and tried to set it off. Total waste of time.

[GboroRam]

If anyone is interested in helping by taking in a refugee please contact me. My wife is working on matching people with families to sponsor. I short supply are people with capacity to host a family of 4 or more. 

Below are some pictures I have been sent. I won't vouch for their authenticity, before anyone challenges me. 

[Stive Pesley]

Question for @BaaLocks

What's the situation with public flights in and out of Russia at the moment (ie for civilians)?

I've seen it implied that Russian airspace is closed to international flights and no domestic Russian airlines are being allowed to land anywhere outside of Russia. But at the same time, not seen it stated definitively

Is that true? If so - I'm thinking about the amount of European resorts I've been to on summer holidays that are largely populated by Russian tourists. That's got to hurt the man in the street if they are denied their summers in the Med/Adriatic?

[Bob The Badger]

On 20/03/2022 at 19:32, Stive Pesley said:

The only true purpose of the treaty seems to have been to ensure that the US, UK, France, China and Russia get to have nuclear weapons and no other country is allowed to. Has that kept world peace? Maybe...until now

 

Israel, Pakistan and India all have nukes as does (I think) North Korea.

The big concern with the skirmishes on the Indian/Pakistan border is that it could escalate into a nuclear exchange. 

[Stive Pesley]

3 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

Israel, Pakistan and India all have nukes as does (I think) North Korea.

Yes, sorry should have said that India, Israel, Pakistan, and South Sudan never signed up to the treaty. So at least they are honest about not wanting to see multi-lateral disarmament

North Korea signed it and then withdrew their signature in 2003

 

[BaaLocks]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

Question for @BaaLocks

What's the situation with public flights in and out of Russia at the moment (ie for civilians)?

I've seen it implied that Russian airspace is closed to international flights and no domestic Russian airlines are being allowed to land anywhere outside of Russia. But at the same time, not seen it stated definitively

Is that true? If so - I'm thinking about the amount of European resorts I've been to on summer holidays that are largely populated by Russian tourists. That's got to hurt the man in the street if they are denied their summers in the Med/Adriatic?

If you want to get in and out of Russia for personal (or business) reasons you can but it's not easy. You can fly out of the Middle East hubs such as Doha or Dubai and a lot of traffic is going through Armenia.

For tourists there are apparently stalls in Moscow offering Italian visas that have popped up, given lots of places are going to be a little more tricky to get to. Not sure how they will travel but be sure they only want sanctions to apply in one direction. Some of the traditional locations such as Goa and Turkey are still open for business for Russians. Vietnam just removed all visa restrictions for Russians and most of SE Asia is happy to receive them.

But they should be careful what they wish for, I would be more likely to be supportive of Putin before I would endorse the actions of the average Russian tourist. If you think Brits abroad are something special you've obviously never encountered a group of Russian holidaymakers at an all inclusive buffet.

[BaaLocks]

Watched the iPlayer documentary again on Putin. Episode one, when he came to power and dealt with the oligarchs, is my time in Russia so it's all a bit nostalgic for me. The documentary is over ten years old now but the key point he makes early on is a really good one - why does Russia not get an invite to join NATO? The whole premise of NATO is grounded in the Cold War, what sort of organization is it that sets itself up 'against' certain countries from the get go. We've decided you're the enemy, irrespective of how you might change and evolve in the future. Someone mentioned a couple of pages back that Putin is simply trying to re-establish the Warsaw Pact, well what are they supposed to do when NATO is on the other side. The very nature of it actively encourages a reaction.

[Gaspode]

10 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Watched the iPlayer documentary again on Putin. Episode one, when he came to power and dealt with the oligarchs, is my time in Russia so it's all a bit nostalgic for me. The documentary is over ten years old now but the key point he makes early on is a really good one - why does Russia not get an invite to join NATO? The whole premise of NATO is grounded in the Cold War, what sort of organization is it that sets itself up 'against' certain countries from the get go. We've decided you're the enemy, irrespective of how you might change and evolve in the future. Someone mentioned a couple of pages back that Putin is simply trying to re-establish the Warsaw Pact, well what are they supposed to do when NATO is on the other side. The very nature of it actively encourages a reaction.

I'm no expert, but I suspect that invading democratic countries and being happy to use chemical weapons (both with total disregard for international law) are probably key factors......

[Alph]

Thank God America are in Nato to stop a country that uses chemical weapons and has a total disregard for civilians from joining. 

This is why the thread went off to the points Putin has made/people saying others are apologists or justifying the invasion

Nato aggression is a thing. 

I note that now there's talks how Donbas needs to hold a referendum for independence. Are we going to pretend it's the first time? 

[ramit]

9 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

Watched the iPlayer documentary again on Putin. Episode one, when he came to power and dealt with the oligarchs, is my time in Russia so it's all a bit nostalgic for me. The documentary is over ten years old now but the key point he makes early on is a really good one - why does Russia not get an invite to join NATO? The whole premise of NATO is grounded in the Cold War, what sort of organization is it that sets itself up 'against' certain countries from the get go. We've decided you're the enemy, irrespective of how you might change and evolve in the future. Someone mentioned a couple of pages back that Putin is simply trying to re-establish the Warsaw Pact, well what are they supposed to do when NATO is on the other side. The very nature of it actively encourages a reaction.

For a military empire the need for an enemy heavily outweighs the need for peace between nations.

Gotta keep feeding the military industrial complex.

[Ram-Alf]

2 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

But they should be careful what they wish for, I would be more likely to be supportive of Putin before I would endorse the actions of the average Russian tourist. If you think Brits abroad are something special you've obviously never encountered a group of Russian holidaymakers at an all inclusive buffet.

A little off topic, But I have, I was in Saltzberg a few years back, When arriving at the hotel we were given our key card and shown where the dining room was for our breakfast, On the lash all day, Went to bed , Showered and off for my breakfast, Sitting down and eating I get a tap on the shoulder, I look up and it's the waitress, Yes I said, Can I have your room number, 321, Sorry she said you're in the wrong dining room this is for the Russians, I opologised and said it want happen again.

The next Morning I go to the right dining room, The same waitress greets me with a smile and shows me to my table, One look at the buffet and my eyes popped out like stalks, It was an Aladins cave of foods and cakes, Far far better than what was in the other dining room, I asked the waitress, Why were Russians allowed their own restaraunt, Very simple..."they eat like pigs"  "take all the food there is"  "and leave the place in a mess"

They also spend a shed load on cash, Don't understand what a round is, They only bought their own drinks rather than in groups, And drank until there's no booze left.

[BaaLocks]

3 hours ago, Gaspode said:

I'm no expert, but I suspect that invading democratic countries and being happy to use chemical weapons (both with total disregard for international law) are probably key factors......

As I said, the documentary is ten years old, the question is ten years old. The point is, which is hard to refute, if you are going to set up a military alliance in the time of the Cold War and then not only keep it in place but expand it's potential borders it shouldn't be too much of a surprise when the people you are expanding up to the borders of find that a rather intimidating action. That is all I am saying.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

36 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

A little off topic, But I have, I was in Saltzberg a few years back, When arriving at the hotel we were given our key card and shown where the dining room was for our breakfast, On the lash all day, Went to bed , Showered and off for my breakfast, Sitting down and eating I get a tap on the shoulder, I look up and it's the waitress, Yes I said, Can I have your room number, 321, Sorry she said you're in the wrong dining room this is for the Russians, I opologised and said it want happen again.

The next Morning I go to the right dining room, The same waitress greets me with a smile and shows me to my table, One look at the buffet and my eyes popped out like stalks, It was an Aladins cave of foods and cakes, Far far better than what was in the other dining room, I asked the waitress, Why were Russians allowed their own restaraunt, Very simple..."they eat like pigs"  "take all the food there is"  "and leave the place in a mess"

They also spend a shed load on cash, Don't understand what a round is, They only bought their own drinks rather than in groups, And drank until there's no booze left.

As opposed to the Australian blokes I met at a pub in Nottingham years ago whilst the cricket was on, whose "rounds" were a pack of 24 bottles for 6 people, including a 16 year old me who'd just started venturing out in earnest and couldn't remember getting home. 

[Gaspode]

4 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

As I said, the documentary is ten years old, the question is ten years old. The point is, which is hard to refute, if you are going to set up a military alliance in the time of the Cold War and then not only keep it in place but expand it's potential borders it shouldn't be too much of a surprise when the people you are expanding up to the borders of find that a rather intimidating action. That is all I am saying.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/06/poisoned-umbrellas-and-polonium-russian-linked-uk-deaths

To save you reading the whole article:

• Georgi Markov, September 1978
• Alexander Litvinenko, November 2006
• German Gorbuntsov, March 2012
• Alexander Perepilichnyy, November 2012
• Boris Berezovsky, March 2013

All deaths/attempted killing in the UK linked to the Russian state - and that's ignoring the attempted murders and the innocent British life lost in Salisbury - hardly the acts of a country wanting to be thought of as anything other than a threat.....

[BaaLocks]

10 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/06/poisoned-umbrellas-and-polonium-russian-linked-uk-deaths

To save you reading the whole article:

• Georgi Markov, September 1978
• Alexander Litvinenko, November 2006
• German Gorbuntsov, March 2012
• Alexander Perepilichnyy, November 2012
• Boris Berezovsky, March 2013

All deaths/attempted killing in the UK linked to the Russian state - and that's ignoring the attempted murders and the innocent British life lost in Salisbury - hardly the acts of a country wanting to be thought of as anything other than a threat.....

I'm not going to condone those actions but you are, if I may, making my point for me.

As an aside, if we are talking about not letting countries into NATO who want to be thought of as anything but a threat should we consider the US then? This is a list of military conflicts they have been involved in since the turn of the century - but, hey, they're spreading democracy and apple pie so what's not to love eh!

And that second one - remember which members of the United Nations security council opposed that particular little dust up? France and, you guessed it, Russia who both confirmed that they did not believe WMDs existed. But that didn't bother Dick Cheney and his crew, both as Vice President of the US and also as CEO for Halliburton, one of many companies awarded huge contracts to rebuild Iraq after both the first and second war.

But Coca Cola and free will - everbody needs it.

 

2001–2021Invasion of AfghanistanUnited States and Coalition Forces vs. the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to fight terrorism

2003–2011Invasion of IraqUnited States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq

2004–presentWar in Northwest PakistanUnited States vs. Pakistan, mainly drone attacks

2007–presentSomalia and Northeastern KenyaUnited States and Coalition forces vs. al-Shabaab militants

2009–2016Operation Ocean Shield (Indian Ocean)NATO allies vs. Somali pirates

2011Intervention in LibyaU.S. and NATO allies vs. Libya

2011–2017Lord's Resistance ArmyU.S. and allies against the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda

2014–2017U.S.-led Intervention in IraqU.S. and coalition forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

2014–presentU.S.-led intervention in SyriaU.S. and coalition forces against al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Syria

2015–presentYemeni Civil WarSaudi-led coalition and U.S., France, and Kingdom against the Houthi rebels, Supreme Political Council in Yemen, and allies

2015–presentU.S. intervention in LibyaU.S. and Libya against ISIS

 

[Bob The Badger]

5 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

Yes, sorry

 

After careful consideration I have decided to forgive you.

Go in peace.

[1of4]

It's not just the Ukrainian population that don't want to a satellite state of Russia. There's a section of the Belarusian population that are now actively helping with Ukraine's fight against Russia. And it's not only men joining the Ukrainian army,  apparently the Russian supply lines that are going through Belarus by train are being disrupted due to 'lack of maintenance to the tracks and points'.

If this war drags on could we also see unrest building in Belarus? Would President Lukashenko have to call on Putin to send him a few tanks to help quell any uprising. Could, would the West want to supply arms and support, through Ukraine, to those who want President Lukashenko ousted?

Could Putin's quest to grab back Ukraine, win lose or draw, seriously backfire on him not only with him having to justify what took place in the Ukraine and the possible continued struggle with the people of Ukraine. But also the danger of seeing Lukashenko, one of his few allies, being toppled from power?