Russia

[The Phantom]

It's all starting to resemble a Tom Clancy novel. 

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I cannot believe what the British government is saying about wanting to keep the Ukraine fighting until Russia is eventually turfed out.

It just seems idiotic to me.

As this continues the rest of Europe is getting more and more involved which is just making things whole war more dangerous.

But what about the Ukrainian people? I mean the civilians. Are thousands of them to be disregarded and left to die and millions to be displaced for the sake of restablishing the the earlier territorial control and borders of Ukraine?

 

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

I cannot believe what the British government is saying about wanting to keep the Ukraine fighting until Russia is eventually turfed out.

It just seems idiotic to me.

As this continues the rest of Europe is getting more and more involved which is just making things whole war more dangerous.

But what about the Ukrainian people? I mean the civilians. Are thousands of them to be disregarded and left to die and millions to be displaced for the sake of restablishing the the earlier territorial control and borders of Ukraine?

Like a lot of things in life if you do nothing then the only thing that changes is that it will get worse. Absolutely 100% guaranteed.

Putin annexed the Crimea and supported the separatists in the Donbas and the West huffed and puffed and did little else. This invasion is the net result of that inactivity.

So Putin has to be stopped. If not in Ukraine then it will be somewhere else.

One massive difference between the combatants is the fighting spirit of the Ukrainians. They very much do not want to be a vassal state kow-towing to Moscow. It is a bad mistake to underestimate this.

So the war will go on. Unfortunately the East of the country is perfect AFV terrain that suits the Soviet tactics. All the Ukrainians can do is destroy enough of the soviet armour to make Putin think again. Because they simply cannot win a war of attrition.

[manxman1980]

@La_Dolce_Vita whilst I tend to agree that the UK is playing a very dangerous game and has provoked the reactionary threat from Russia I have to agree with @P.K.

If the rest of Europe backs down now then Russia will simply occupy the whole of the Ukraine and also push on towards Moldova which seems to be it's next objective.  There have already been suggestions of false flag attacks in the area and Lukashenko and the Chechen leader seem to have confirmed that as an objective.

Until Putin's leadership comes to an end, by whatever cause, then Russia are going to continue to be aggressive and seek to establish a New USSR and take back land that it believes belongs to it.

[Passing Time]

8 hours ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

I cannot believe what the British government is saying about wanting to keep the Ukraine fighting until Russia is eventually turfed out.

It just seems idiotic to me.

As this continues the rest of Europe is getting more and more involved which is just making things whole war more dangerous.

But what about the Ukrainian people? I mean the civilians. Are thousands of them to be disregarded and left to die and millions to be displaced for the sake of restablishing the the earlier territorial control and borders of Ukraine?

 

Thankfully for the Ukranians, you have no say in the matter

[Passing Time]

"For evil to flourish it only requires good men to do nothing". Excellent quote from Simon Wiesenthal

[La_Dolce_Vita]

16 hours ago, P.K. said:

Like a lot of things in life if you do nothing then the only thing that changes is that it will get worse. Absolutely 100% guaranteed.

Putin annexed the Crimea and supported the separatists in the Donbas and the West huffed and puffed and did little else. This invasion is the net result of that inactivity.

So Putin has to be stopped. If not in Ukraine then it will be somewhere else.

One massive difference between the combatants is the fighting spirit of the Ukrainians. They very much do not want to be a vassal state kow-towing to Moscow. It is a bad mistake to underestimate this.

So the war will go on. Unfortunately the East of the country is perfect AFV terrain that suits the Soviet tactics. All the Ukrainians can do is destroy enough of the soviet armour to make Putin think again. Because they simply cannot win a war of attrition.

But the alternative of allowing this war to continue is not to do nothing.  As I was saying, the best thing is to have this war end.

I think all this talk on this forums, in the mainstream media and from the British and US governments that talks of national sovereignty as being the most important matter in all of this is missing the point of who this war affects the most.

And rather than having the Ukrainian people and their interests in mind, I think all too many people are latching on the notion of a good versus evil fight and with some sacred value of national sovereignty placed above all else.  If people thinks that this is so important that it is worth doing nothing else but arming the Ukrainians then I think that's losing sight of

I think that sort of outlook is one that doesn't really place the lives of Ukrainian people that highly. But given the players, it doesn't give much regard to the potential that this could turn into a much bigger war and where the worldwide economic.and environmental damage are already being seen.

Though I don't think Russia wants to absorb the Ukraine,Moldova or other nations entirely.  I don't understand how this view is quite common.  Would anyone expect these lands to ever be entirely subdued by a Russian occupation force? I can't see how.  I am not underestimating the Ukrainian desire for independence. 
There would be constant fighting in those lands in the cause of national independence.  A very long and protected conflict that Russia can't afford and where the costs would far outweigh the gains.  And it would completely devastate the Ukraine.

Is it really the right thing to sit back and watch as either Russia or the Ukraine is destroyed? Is that what the territorial integrity of the Ukraine is worth? And that's setting aside the catastrophic consequences of the war expands.

 

[La_Dolce_Vita]

10 hours ago, Passing Time said:

Thankfully for the Ukranians, you have no say in the matter 

 

"For evil to flourish it only requires good men to do nothing". Excellent quote from Simon Wiesenthal

So is having the say and how do you think it is their interest?

The Ukrainians seem to have little say in any of this at all.  But what the British government is arguing for is only something that makes their deaths from war more likely. Maybe that's what you think the Ukrainian people want but I doubt it.

The quote is a rather silly platitude to be applied here.  I can understand the view of it all getting exciting with it being a good versus evil scenario like in some action film but it's not really how the world works.

Who are the good men sitting back doing nothing? Those arguing that the Russians need pushing out with even great British supplies are not the good men.  It could be said that such a position is criminal when it is patently obvious that this will mean more unnecessary deaths of Ukrainian people and devastation to their country. 

And the alternative of the very difficult, dangerous and probably stupid idea of pushing Russia out of Ukraine is not just simply doing nothing.

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by La_Dolce_Vita

[Shake me up Judy]

Why not just face it LDV. Your good guys have turned out to be the bad guys. It's pitiful reading your posts as you try to cling to what you thought was certain. Give it up lad...

[manxman1980]

4 hours ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

And rather than having the Ukrainian people and their interests in mind, I think all too many people are latching on the notion of a good versus evil fight and with some sacred value of national sovereignty placed above all else.  If people thinks that this is so important that it is worth doing nothing else but arming the Ukrainians then I think that's losing sight of

I think that sort of outlook is one that doesn't really place the lives of Ukrainian people that highly. But given the players, it doesn't give much regard to the potential that this could turn into a much bigger war and where the worldwide economic.and environmental damage are already being seen.

Whilst I am sure no Ukrainian wants war they very clearly do not want Russian rule otherwise Russia would have had the walk over result it was expecting.

Instead the Ukrainian people have defied Russia attacks and fought hard to resist them at every turn.

How many people did the Russian forces rape, torture and massacre being being forced to retreat? 

4 hours ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

Though I don't think Russia wants to absorb the Ukraine,Moldova or other nations entirely.  I don't understand how this view is quite common.  Would anyone expect these lands to ever be entirely subdued by a Russian occupation force? I can't see how.  I am not underestimating the Ukrainian desire for independence. 
There would be constant fighting in those lands in the cause of national independence.  A very long and protected conflict that Russia can't afford and where the costs would far outweigh the gains.  And it would completely devastate the Ukraine.

Again your statement rather proves that the Ukrainian people do not want to fall under direct or indirect Russian rule.

Russia probably doesn't want to occupy those countries because of the challenge is continued resistant.  Much more likely that Russia wants to install a puppet government who will dance to Russia's tune much like Belarus.

The end result would be the same though.  Russia extends it sphere of influence and ultimately gains control of previous independent nations and their people and resources.

[Passing Time]

5 hours ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

So is having the say and how do you think it is their interest?

The Ukrainians seem to have little say in any of this at all.  But what the British government is arguing for is only something that makes their deaths from war more likely. Maybe that's what you think the Ukrainian people want but I doubt it.

The quote is a rather silly platitude to be applied here.  I can understand the view of it all getting exciting with it being a good versus evil scenario like in some action film but it's not really how the world works.

Who are the good men sitting back doing nothing? Those arguing that the Russians need pushing out with even great British supplies are not the good men.  It could be said that such a position is criminal when it is patently obvious that this will mean more unnecessary deaths of Ukrainian people and devastation to their country. 

And the alternative of the very difficult, dangerous and probably stupid idea of pushing Russia out of Ukraine is not just simply doing nothing.

 

Read it properly before criticising. Your support for doing nothing is embarrassing. Just as well you weren't around when the other madman was attempting to conquer the world. Your support for him would have been cringeworthy. Was Lord Haw Haw your hero?

[P.K.]

6 hours ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

Though I don't think Russia wants to absorb the Ukraine,Moldova or other nations entirely.  I don't understand how this view is quite common.  Would anyone expect these lands to ever be entirely subdued by a Russian occupation force? I can't see how.  I am not underestimating the Ukrainian desire for independence. 

There would be constant fighting in those lands in the cause of national independence.  A very long and protected conflict that Russia can't afford and where the costs would far outweigh the gains.  And it would completely devastate the Ukraine.

There already has been! Since 2014 - 8 years of it. The human cost is some 14,000 fatalities. All because of Putin's ambition.

In 2014 the Ukraine had a very Moscow-friendly president in Viktor Yanukovych. He was driven out of office by mass protests because the population didn't like the idea of being a vassal state of Moscow. Putin responded by promptly annexing the Crimea. He also started supporting the pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk to go to war with Kyiv and they've been fighting it out ever since.

Putin's ambition was clearly to take control of Ukraine and Moldova. Toady Lukashenko was filmed with a tactical map behind him showing how it would be done. If you want to take control of a country quickly you take it's capital and control it's government. Putin's attempt to take Kyiv quickly was a military disaster. The airborne troops spearheading the attempt met fierce Ukrainian resistance and were basically wiped out. The armoured columns coming South also ran into lots of problems. A combination of Ukrainian resistance and very poor Russian logistics and they ground to a halt. So the attempt to take Kyiv and take control of the country quickly failed.

So what happens next is essentially down to how much face Putin needs to save for domestic consumption. While he does it sanctions etc will start to hit the Russian populace hard. But Putin just doesn't care....

[The Phantom]

4 minutes ago, P.K. said:

There already has been! Since 2014 - 8 years of it. The human cost is some 14,000 fatalities. All because of Putin's ambition.

In 2014 the Ukraine had a very Moscow-friendly president in Viktor Yanukovych. He was driven out of office by mass protests because the population didn't like the idea of being a vassal state of Moscow. Putin responded by promptly annexing the Crimea. He also started supporting the pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk to go to war with Kyiv and they've been fighting it out ever since.

 

This is what few in the West seem to appreciate.  This isn't new, it's been going on for ages, an actual hot war in Donbas and a slow build-up in the rest of Ukraine against Russia.  They've known there would be a reckoning for quite sometime. 

[tugaj]

Just a Russia's old threat repeated for propaganda purposes - as someone pointed out: their math is 7th grade at best but "what we should be afraid of is fear itself" Kaja Kallas, Estonian's Prime Minister.

 

[TheTeapot]