The Ukraine War

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

7 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

If Private Eye is seen as left wing then the goalposts have not just been moved but relocated to another continent!

Private Eye uncovers and exposes hypocrisy, whether from the right or left. Its best journalism is against corruption and cronyism, doesn't matter who or where, labour councils, tory councils, Lib Dems, whatever, if its dodgy they expose it.

I once read an article in Private Eye about a bloke who finished second in the worlds smelliest man competition .  He made a pair of paper mache pants and stuffed them with Camembert cheese then wore them for a week.  God knows who won. 

[Ram-Alf]

9 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

If Private Eye is seen as left wing then the goalposts have not just been moved but relocated to another continent!

Private Eye uncovers and exposes hypocrisy, whether from the right or left. Its best journalism is against corruption and cronyism, doesn't matter who or where, labour councils, tory councils, Lib Dems, whatever, if its dodgy they expose it.

Then I'll expose it, Why on Have I Got News For You does the guest questioner always favour Paul Merton over Ian Hislop??

[BaaLocks]

13 hours ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

Aaah,basically biased nonsense from a left wing stance then.

I can't help but admire your honesty in admitting it tho,bravo!

So left wing is nonsense then? I'm totally happy to admit my politics and views are left wing, really no shame there - even if you seem to suggest it's as if I've just admitted a criminal offence?

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/16/ukraine-slams-germany-for-failing-to-send-it-weapons.html

 

Lamentable.

Edited September 17, 2022 by kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong

[Crewton]

It looks like Putin's reservists have decided to invade other countries off their own bat. ?

What next? General conscription? Surely his generals will be brave enough to tell him that you won't succeed in a war of aggression with conscripts and unwilling reservists? Russian mothers must be frantic with worry. 

[BaaLocks]

14 minutes ago, Crewton said:

It looks like Putin's reservists have decided to invade other countries off their own bat. ?

What next? General conscription? Surely his generals will be brave enough to tell him that you won't succeed in a war of aggression with conscripts and unwilling reservists? Russian mothers must be frantic with worry. 

Why not? Ukraine have been fighting with conscripts since the first days.

As for the referendum - it seems interesting that the west are quick and easy to label the current referendum as flawed (they are) but even though they know that this will lead to a position where Putin will now claim these lands are Russian due to be inhabited by people who consider themselves Russian (true, at least in past) they offer no suggested alternative. And this is high stakes now, Russia has declared they would only use nuclear weapons if there geographic integrity was threatened - now we might get to a place where, at least to Putin, that is true.

So why have the UN or someone else not offered to revisit the initial Minsk protocol, call a cease fire, hold an independently verified referendum? What is it that they so fear? That maybe the people there do want to be part of Russia instead of Ukraine? I don't know the answer to this, nobody does, but if we had at least some inkling it would certainly help guide us to a more accepted conclusion (unless the aim of the West is, indeed, not to protect Ukraine but instead to use it to beat Russia - vicariously).

[GboroRam]

6 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Why not? Ukraine have been fighting with conscripts since the first days.

As for the referendum - it seems interesting that the west are quick and easy to label the current referendum as flawed (they are) but even though they know that this will lead to a position where Putin will now claim these lands are Russian due to be inhabited by people who consider themselves Russian (true, at least in past) they offer no suggested alternative. And this is high stakes now, Russia has declared they would only use nuclear weapons if there geographic integrity was threatened - now we might get to a place where, at least to Putin, that is true.

So why have the UN or someone else not offered to revisit the initial Minsk protocol, call a cease fire, hold an independently verified referendum? What is it that they so fear? That maybe the people there do want to be part of Russia instead of Ukraine? I don't know the answer to this, nobody does, but if we had at least some inkling it would certainly help guide us to a more accepted conclusion (unless the aim of the West is, indeed, not to protect Ukraine but instead to use it to beat Russia - vicariously).

Russia have shown zero interest in holding a cease fire, and their actions of firing on civilians in the humanitarian corridors should be enough to make anyone think twice about their trustability to hold to any ceasefire agreement. 

[BaaLocks]

58 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Russia have shown zero interest in holding a cease fire, and their actions of firing on civilians in the humanitarian corridors should be enough to make anyone think twice about their trustability to hold to any ceasefire agreement. 

Both sides have repeatedly broken the cease fire since 2014, only one gets reported though. But you're right, Russia is doing nothing to suggest it wants to mediate at this time.

But my broader point is that we're so keen to let the voice of the people be heard over here (Brexit) so, really, what is so wrong with letting the people in the disputed territories have their say in who they want to be governed by?

Again, sadly, I really do think that deep down the West care less for the protection of Ukraine and more for the opportunity to let rip against Putin. That makes me so sorry for Ukrainians, as I have said previously Zelensky was "bigged up" in a "we've got your back bruv" way for years before this and as soon as the last shell is fired everyone will be out of there like a shot, leaving them with a decimated country and nobody ready to help rebuild it (unless they are in receipt of the contract that is).

[GboroRam]

1 hour ago, BaaLocks said:

Both sides have repeatedly broken the cease fire since 2014, only one gets reported though. But you're right, Russia is doing nothing to suggest it wants to mediate at this time.

But my broader point is that we're so keen to let the voice of the people be heard over here (Brexit) so, really, what is so wrong with letting the people in the disputed territories have their say in who they want to be governed by?

Again, sadly, I really do think that deep down the West care less for the protection of Ukraine and more for the opportunity to let rip against Putin. That makes me so sorry for Ukrainians, as I have said previously Zelensky was "bigged up" in a "we've got your back bruv" way for years before this and as soon as the last shell is fired everyone will be out of there like a shot, leaving them with a decimated country and nobody ready to help rebuild it (unless they are in receipt of the contract that is).

I don't have any issue with letting the people in the disputed regions have a voice in their future. But would I allow it after an invasion, when populations have fled, when the natural population distribution is hugely unbalanced, and would I trust the Russian government to allow a fair and free referendum? No, I don't think that makes sense.

[Tamworthram]

2 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

Why not? Ukraine have been fighting with conscripts since the first days.

As for the referendum - it seems interesting that the west are quick and easy to label the current referendum as flawed (they are) but even though they know that this will lead to a position where Putin will now claim these lands are Russian due to be inhabited by people who consider themselves Russian (true, at least in past) they offer no suggested alternative. And this is high stakes now, Russia has declared they would only use nuclear weapons if there geographic integrity was threatened - now we might get to a place where, at least to Putin, that is true.

So why have the UN or someone else not offered to revisit the initial Minsk protocol, call a cease fire, hold an independently verified referendum? What is it that they so fear? That maybe the people there do want to be part of Russia instead of Ukraine? I don't know the answer to this, nobody does, but if we had at least some inkling it would certainly help guide us to a more accepted conclusion (unless the aim of the West is, indeed, not to protect Ukraine but instead to use it to beat Russia - vicariously).

I agree the West should be suggesting an alternative proposal but this, not unreasonably in my opinion, should include an independently monitored referendum of all inhabitants (including any that may have been forced to or chosen to flee) and AFTER all foreign powers (mainly Russia) have completely withdrawn from areas they have illegally invaded. Without these two conditions, it’s hard to imagine how a free and fair referendum can take place. Ordinarily, you’d put a peace keeping force in place but I’m not sure the majority of the UN are entirely neutral. I think hell will freeze over before Putin agreed to such a suggestion.

With regard to the MInsk protocol, I have tried to read up on that in order to understand why it’s not been implemented and, it would seem, it’s not just as simple as Ukraine refusing to hold a referendum. There also seems to be different interpretations of what the protocol means. I’m no expert though and haven’t yet had time to fully get my head around it.

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, BaaLocks said:

Both sides have repeatedly broken the cease fire since 2014, only one gets reported though. But you're right, Russia is doing nothing to suggest it wants to mediate at this time.

But my broader point is that we're so keen to let the voice of the people be heard over here (Brexit) so, really, what is so wrong with letting the people in the disputed territories have their say in who they want to be governed by?

Again, sadly, I really do think that deep down the West care less for the protection of Ukraine and more for the opportunity to let rip against Putin. That makes me so sorry for Ukrainians, as I have said previously Zelensky was "bigged up" in a "we've got your back bruv" way for years before this and as soon as the last shell is fired everyone will be out of there like a shot, leaving them with a decimated country and nobody ready to help rebuild it (unless they are in receipt of the contract that is).

You could argue that initially Putin didn’t care too much about the regions in question specifically and was more interested in either destroying Ukraine independence or, at the very least, removing the regime in power. Otherwise, why did he advance on Kyiv rather than just occupy the disputed territories?

[Gone]

2 hours ago, Crewton said:

It looks like Putin's reservists have decided to invade other countries off their own bat. ?

What next? General conscription? Surely his generals will be brave enough to tell him that you won't succeed in a war of aggression with conscripts and unwilling reservists? Russian mothers must be frantic with worry. 

I saw an interview with a 32 year old Russian, he was an IT manager, he has a wife, kids and a mortgage and bills to pay but has now been called up. He’s never fought in his life but said his choices are fight or prison. What an evil man Putin is. 

[BaaLocks]

6 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

With regard to the MInsk protocol, I have tried to read up on that in order to understand why it’s not been implemented and, it would seem, it’s not just as simple as Ukraine refusing to hold a referendum. There also seems to be different interpretations of what the protocol means. I’m no expert though and haven’t yet had time to fully get my head around it.

Agreed - it's a mess. I'm not sure a lot of study would leave you wiser, I certainly am not (though I can't profess to have given it more than a glance enough to be able to quote it on forums like this in the vain hope that people think I actually know what I'm on about).

[BaaLocks]

1 minute ago, TexasRam said:

I saw an interview with a 32 year old Russian, he was an IT manager, he has a wife, kids and a mortgage and bills to pay but has now been called up. He’s never fought in his life but said his choices are fight or prison. What an evil man Putin is. 

Yeah, nobody in history has ever done conscription have they? Zelensky ordered for people to be dragged from their cars, at border check points, with their wives and children in the car rather than let them leave the country. But that makes Zelensky a hero? BTW - my suggestion is not that we should be claiming Putin to be a hero, I am saying we should all try to take a moment to look beyond the story as it's being told to us.

[BaaLocks]

6 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

You could argue that initially Putin didn’t care too much about the regions in question specifically and was more interested in either destroying Ukraine independence or, at the very least, removing the regime in power. Otherwise, why did he advance on Kyiv rather than just occupy the disputed territories?

Done this one a few times but the attack on Kyiv was - according to multiple sources - merely intended to force Ukraine to yield Donbass and Lughansk. No suggestion ever that he wanted to take all of Ukraine - and, as before, I don't say I agree with that action, but that's apparently why.

[BaaLocks]

17 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I don't have any issue with letting the people in the disputed regions have a voice in their future. But would I allow it after an invasion, when populations have fled, when the natural population distribution is hugely unbalanced, and would I trust the Russian government to allow a fair and free referendum? No, I don't think that makes sense.

I wouldn't trust the Russian government either, or the Ukranian one. And I agree, those who have fled should (somehow) be allowed to participate. But the point is that when the only answer on the table is bombs, guns and escalation it seems we're not really doing all we can to resolve the situation.

[Tamworthram]

8 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Done this one a few times but the attack on Kyiv was - according to multiple sources - merely intended to force Ukraine to yield Donbass and Lughansk. No suggestion ever that he wanted to take all of Ukraine - and, as before, I don't say I agree with that action, but that's apparently why.

"Apparently" being the key word.

We'll never know but I wonder if the Russian army had taken Kyiv and Ukraine had agreed to the referendum (not to yield until the outcome had been established. Interesting you used that word) they would simply have withdrawn and allowed Ukraine to continue as is but without these regions? My gut feeling, based on no facts or knowledge, is no they wouldn't. 

[Tamworthram]

19 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Agreed - it's a mess. I'm not sure a lot of study would leave you wiser, I certainly am not (though I can't profess to have given it more than a glance enough to be able to quote it on forums like this in the vain hope that people think I actually know what I'm on about).

Consequently, I don't think we can simply point to implementing the protocol as the solution. It seems to mean different things to different people and therefore hardly seems fit for purpose. 

[Gone]

16 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Yeah, nobody in history has ever done conscription have they? Zelensky ordered for people to be dragged from their cars, at border check points, with their wives and children in the car rather than let them leave the country. But that makes Zelensky a hero? BTW - my suggestion is not that we should be claiming Putin to be a hero, I am saying we should all try to take a moment to look beyond the story as it's being told to us.

Yeah just looked beyond the story and saw a mad man invading a country and slaughtering  innocent people, who now looks to be losing his war so is calling up more innocent people to be slaughtered. Moreover looking beyond the story he has also stated anybody getting in the way of his slaughter of innocents will be met with an apocalyptic type reaction. 

[Ram-Alf]

12 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Yeah just looked beyond the story and saw a mad man invading a country and slaughtering  innocent people, who now looks to be losing his war so is calling up more innocent people to be slaughtered. Moreover looking beyond the story he has also stated anybody getting in the way of his slaughter of innocents will be met with an apocalyptic type reaction. 

This I'm a little confused by, Not the fact he would use nuclear weapons but the end game, There's been mad men all through history, But there hasn't been a mad man who's got his finger on the button, Using nuclear weapons will bring other Country's into play, The utter devastation and consequences this would bring to the world would be that man/women kind are ducked.

It has to come within to stop all this.