Russia

[code99]

19 minutes ago, P.K. said:

If "Ukraine: The Peoples Fight" is on iPlayer I suggest you watch it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001grdw/ukraine-the-peoples-fight

[code99]

12 hours ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

I don't disagree with you about the conflict being a war crime and people like Putin should be brought to justice but there isn't anything unique about the war crime.  We don't have to talk about Hitler.  Maybe you should be talking about the US and it's Presidents and the justice they rightly deserved, as Iraq is a more recent example.  And with Iraq and Kosovo the US and UK got work sooner with destroying infrastructure.  

And what you're asking for, with complete defeat of Russia, might not be achievable.  If it is possible, the Ukraine might not be worth living in and worth returning to (for evacuees), many thousands or more would have died, Europe will be weakened and brought further under US influence, and a resource-rich nation would turn further to the East to trade with.  And for what?  Will the Ukraine just offer referenda and hand back the Donbas or continue to hold it and deal with civil war  indefinitely.

10 hours ago, woolley said:

It's not Russian propaganda. It's a tenable assessment of the situation on the ground which is not going to be resolved by wishful thinking that the Russians "must be defeated". There is nothing to suggest that this can happen. The current path is one of death and destruction, and there isn't a viable end anywhere in sight.

Drawing comparisons between the wars in Kosovo and Iraq and what is happening in Ukraine is offensive and absurd.

Whatever one may think of Tony Blair, “Tonibler is now a male name in Kosovo, given in honour of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair following his role in the 1999 NATO air campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War”. That name is something that Kosovans created as a mark of respect for someone who helped them. The overall intention of the war in Kosovo (to liberate their people) was actually commendable. Unfortunately, subsequent events didn’t play out as people would have liked.

Of course, the war in Iraq turned into a catastrophe for Iraq and was widely condemned. That said, in the beginning of that war millions of Iraq citizens were jubilant about the removal of Saddam - the ruthless corrupt despot who oppressed and terrorised the Shia and Kurdish communities in Iraq. I had an Iraqi work colleague who was adamant that the ‘allies’ removal of Saddam was a right thing to do for his country, even though events went disastrously awry in the ensuing years.

Additionally, there is no comparison between how British soldiers behaved in Iraq and how the Russian soldiers are behaving in Ukraine. The Russian soldiers are routinely prosecuting their war against Ukraine by any means, including using torture and rape. I was told by a Ukrainian refuge in the UK with Russian speaking relatives in Donbas that their 7-year-old son was raped by a Russian soldier. The British soldiers in Iraq were never accused of these types of heinous crimes.

The only valid comparison between atrocities committed by Russians in Ukraine is the atrocities committed by Russians in Syria where they still prop-up another brutal dictator, Bashar al-Assad.    

[The Phantom]

There are some similiarities with NATO involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, although that is mainly to do with Russian propaganda which we all know is fantasical at the best of times. 

I was in Bosnia in the early 00s and I can tell you all there is no comparison to that particular shit-show.  Certainly, it's no fun being shot at when you aren't allowed to shoot back. 

However on the lighter side, I was glad to see the Ukrainians getting up to some good old soldier play over christmas.  

Himars launching decked out in fairy lights and Santa flying a MIG 29 were highlights. 

[quilp]

Thought NATO could engage if fired at? 

Edited January 5, 2023 by quilp

[The Phantom]

2 hours ago, quilp said:

Thought NATO could engage if fired at? 

Sort of.  But proceedures had to be followed, identified, challenges called out etc etc. 

It was a beaucratic nightmare on who could make the call to return fire as you had to receive direct orders to do so.  Often no one was willing to make the decision, would have to pass it up the chain of command or not sure which command could make the call (bearing in mind you had multiple different nations working under UNPROFOR) and you had to be 100% certain it wasn't friendly fire.  All the while you're sat there being shot at, often not entirely sure by who.  Then usually by the time you were allowed to return fire, it had stopped, they had pulled back. 

Some nations were more trigger happy than others. The Danes (or other Scandis) were notorious for it, but did have some very sucessful ripostes. 

Funnily enough the Russians were there too if you'll recall.   There was one particularly sketchy situation at Pristina Airport with them basically being dicks true to form. 

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Incident_at_Pristina_airport

And yes, that is the same James Blunt ("You're beautiful").  Another time that WW3 with the Russians was avoided.  

 

[woolley]

16 hours ago, code99 said:

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts". I've come to expect Russian propaganda from you. I pity you.

How you can interpret what @La_Dolce_Vita posted as Russian propaganda is a mystery. He condemned Putin's actions in the strongest terms as war crimes.

9 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

@La_Dolce_Vita @woolley

If the UK was invaded by a foreign power how much of the country would you be willing to sacrifice to that invading nation?

If you did sacrifice part of the country what is then to stop that invading force laying claim to further UK territory? 

Ukraine already surrendered Crimea without much of a fight and now we are witnessing Russia trying to take more territory because they though Ukraine would just surrender more land to them. 

 

6 hours ago, P.K. said:

It's often said that wars can only be ended by a political solution. However as surrender is not an option for these people it would appear that this war can only be ended with a victory and defeat...

How far are you prepared to go to support Ukraine? Nobody questions the justice of their cause, except maybe a few ethnic Russians in the extreme east of the country, and even they are probably having second thoughts about it by now having seen the modus operandi of their sponsors and champions. I alluded to the question in an earlier post, and it needs to be faced and soon.

It's all very principled to sit here in the safety of the Isle of Man and pontificate about what needs to be done by others and how the abomination 'must' end in a particular way. Brave words will not win a war. Let us be honest with ourselves. Russia cannot be defeated by a limited war fought entirely on Ukrainian soil. The Ukrainians might conceivably drive them out, unlikely as that seems today, but they are always going to be there just over the border, licking their wounds and ready to have the next shot at the prize. Even now there is speculation about another assault on Kyiv via Belarus.

So to support the laudable war aims how far will you go? If Putin needs to be defeated to uphold the international order of decency, are you ready for a wider war between NATO and Russia with all that it might entail? Will you get your hands dirty? Send your sons? Or are you content to continue to throw deadly hardware into the limited unwinnable war of attrition, but prepared to fight only to the last Ukrainian? Is this stance honourable? Or is it absurd and offensive? Are you kidding yourselves as you glow in your self-righteousness?

@manxman1980 Your analogy with a foreign power invading the UK doesn't quite work because there isn't an adversary on its borders that so comprehensively outguns it. However, there is a comparison from history that we can draw. Had the US continued to send supplies across the Atlantic from 1940 onwards rather than become a full, senior ally in the war, it is highly likely that Britain would have exhausted itself in terms of manpower and infrastructure over many years and ultimately been defeated. The US faced a similar choice then as NATO does now. Will there be a Pearl Harbor moment to make the decision easier?

 

[manxman1980]

@woolleygiven the WW2 analogy would you have been a pacifist on the shores of Britain taking the view that there is a body of water between Britain and Europe and therefore the British shouldn't get involved?

Hitler's Germany wasn't really a threat to Britain until it placed itself in direct opposition to Germany's aims in Europe.

What about WW1?  Would you have taken the same view then?  WW1 wasn't about Nazi's.  It was about imperialism.

At some point a line has to be drawn in the sand and we have to decide which side we are on.  Good or bad will be decided by the Victor.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

9 hours ago, code99 said:

Drawing comparisons between the wars in Kosovo and Iraq and what is happening in Ukraine is offensive and absurd.

Whatever one may think of Tony Blair, “Tonibler is now a male name in Kosovo, given in honour of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair following his role in the 1999 NATO air campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War”. That name is something that Kosovans created as a mark of respect for someone who helped them. The overall intention of the war in Kosovo (to liberate their people) was actually commendable. Unfortunately, subsequent events didn’t play out as people would have liked.

Of course, the war in Iraq turned into a catastrophe for Iraq and was widely condemned. That said, in the beginning of that war millions of Iraq citizens were jubilant about the removal of Saddam - the ruthless corrupt despot who oppressed and terrorised the Shia and Kurdish communities in Iraq. I had an Iraqi work colleague who was adamant that the ‘allies’ removal of Saddam was a right thing to do for his country, even though events went disastrously awry in the ensuing years.

Additionally, there is no comparison between how British soldiers behaved in Iraq and how the Russian soldiers are behaving in Ukraine. The Russian soldiers are routinely prosecuting their war against Ukraine by any means, including using torture and rape. I was told by a Ukrainian refuge in the UK with Russian speaking relatives in Donbas that their 7-year-old son was raped by a Russian soldier. The British soldiers in Iraq were never accused of these types of heinous crimes.

The only valid comparison between atrocities committed by Russians in Ukraine is the atrocities committed by Russians in Syria where they still prop-up another brutal dictator, Bashar al-Assad.    

I think you are talking a nationalistic view of things and excusing what Britain gets away with. 

It doesn't matter what children gets called in Kosovo. It doesn't matter if Kosovans are the biggest fans of Britain.  The same goes for Iraq.  

The point I am making is that countries who invade or attack other countries without the sanction of the international community are committing a war crime.  The UN condemned the US (and lapdog's) invasion of Iraq. The UN was sidelined because the combined might of those nations meant they could get away with an illegal war.  And then they attacked the infrastructure of the country where the targets were considered dual-use. But one use was undoubtedly civilian.  What Russia is doing now by attacking infrastructure is much the same, except it has held off from obliterating civilian infrastructure until things turned pear-shaped. 

As for Kosovo, I am talking more about the attacks on civilian infrastructure though, as an aside, the ethnic cleansing accelerated and the number of refugees increased after the bombing began. And the US knew that bombing would accelerate Serbian ethnic cleansing. 

If you want, you can even go back to the war crime of Suez in 1956 for a good example of Western nations attacking other nations illegally.  It was fortunate that Britain was too weak to pull it off and Britain paid a big price for it but there were no war crime trials.

If you're going to excuse US and British aggression and strategies on the back of humanitarian causes or consequences then you might want to take a look at the rest of the world and its problems and where the west does nothing or supports nasty regimes.  Maybe even fuss over the US and British withdrawal of Afghanistan, which has left that nation with the Taliban and with the US worsening mass starvation earlier in 2022.

The Russians are not prosecuting the war by rape and torture as a war strategy.  That's a symptom of war.  They're war crimes and possibly the worst of them but Britain and the US aren't much better when you look at their history.  

Again, I think Putin is vile.  And I don't have a high opinion of Russian foreign policy but you're almost painting a picture of the good versus the evil and the reality is far from that.  

I think it better to consider the value of Ukrainian lives first.

The elites in the US do not care about the Ukrainian lives and not do the elites in Britain. For the US it means greatest economic and military influence through NATO. It means even more money going to the private military equipment companies. More money going to American petroleum companies to supply Europe.  From the perspective of American elites, a longer war is a good war. 

And there aren't many other countries other than Britain and the US who want to push the Ukraine on until one of them can't fight anymore.  Most European governments and their citizens are reluctant to embrace this goal.  I think in one recent poll most Slovakians want negotiations.  

Edited January 5, 2023 by La_Dolce_Vita

[The Phantom]

6 hours ago, quilp said:

Thought NATO could engage if fired at? 

Also it was the UN not NATO.

NATO is a military alliance whereas the UN is more humanitarian. 

So the UN were there to monitor and protect first and fight only as a last resort (ignoring airstrikes), further complicating the ROE.

It probably would have been easier from a combat point of view, if it was NATO.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

@woolley...

At some point a line has to be drawn in the sand and we have to decide which side we are on.  Good or bad will be decided by the Victor.

The option isn't a dichotomy of supporting Ukraine until it gets the Crimea and Donbas back or let Russia have everything it wants. 

And drawing the line about aggression and illegal wars is what most of us want.  

Russia did draw a line though. It is didn't want NATO expansion, which is exactly what Britain and the US would have said if the positions were reversed.  They said further expansion is provocative. Rightly or wrongly, the warning was there for the US and Ukraine.when.neutrality was an option. The US crosses that line.

But the lines for the future might be those where all nations do not invade others without legal sanction from the UN.  But that has to apply to the US and Britain too.  Otherwise talk of drawing lines is just  hypocrisy and even laughable.

 

 

[woolley]

3 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

@woolleygiven the WW2 analogy would you have been a pacifist on the shores of Britain taking the view that there is a body of water between Britain and Europe and therefore the British shouldn't get involved?

Hitler's Germany wasn't really a threat to Britain until it placed itself in direct opposition to Germany's aims in Europe.

What about WW1?  Would you have taken the same view then?  WW1 wasn't about Nazi's.  It was about imperialism.

At some point a line has to be drawn in the sand and we have to decide which side we are on.  Good or bad will be decided by the Victor.

@La_Dolce_Vitahas answered the points fairly comprehensively, but I will attempt your questions if you will address mine.

It is difficult to say what one would have done as a young man in the circumstances of 80 years ago in the former scenario or 110 years ago in the latter. As a youth back then I would probably been dragged along with the national fervour for victory. With my current knowledge as an older person in the present day, I certainly wouldn't have been a pacifist for the sake of being a pacifist. I would have been up for the WW2 struggle against Hitler because, ultimately, I think he would have come for us whatever his blandishments upfront. I am more unsure about WW1. I don't believe that there was anything heroic about becoming cannon fodder in the trenches to maintain the privilege in British society of the early 20th century. In the end it's ancient history, and impossible to place ourselves in the shoes of those of the time. Our outlook today is a world away from theirs.

What I asked you was completely different. Are you advocating a wider war by NATO on Russia? Drawing a line in the sand sounds very much like you are. If so, it is an honourable position to take which I can respect. What I do not respect is the notion that giving oxygen to the prosecution of this lower level war fought entirely by Ukrainians on the territory of Ukraine is doing a service to anybody except the arms industry. I completely understand that they want to fight for their freedom and that Zelensky is an inspirational war leader. What they really need is full hearted support rather than fence sitting. If we regard their cause as worthy should we not join the fight?

Currently the West is sending very dangerous signals to Moscow. NATO will not even approve air cover to Ukraine for fear of provoking Putin. It provides weapons, but only for defensive purposes within Ukraine. It is amazing that Russia thinks it can maim and kill in Ukraine with impunity, but feels entitled to scream blue murder when Ukraine has the audacity to attack the invaders within its own borders. NATO is encouraging this attitude in the Kremlin by tying Ukraine's hands with the sort of hardware it is sending them and warning them not to deploy into Russia.

So, @manxman1980, are you for a wider war in Europe led by NATO? Or are you for continuing to support a war by proxy with somebody else doing the suffering and dying and no prospect of a satisfactory end? It seems rather craven to me.

[manxman1980]

10 minutes ago, woolley said:

@La_Dolce_Vitahas 

So, @manxman1980, are you for a wider war in Europe led by NATO? Or are you for continuing to support a war by proxy with somebody else doing the suffering and dying and no prospect of a satisfactory end? It seems rather craven to me.

I disagree with a wider war in Europe because that would see an even greater loss of innocent lives.  

I do, however, believe that further intervention will be necessary to conclude the war swiftly.  That may well include allowing weapon systems to be used for offensive purposes.

Let's not forget that Russia have also threatened other nations such as Finland.

That said I don't think Russia is the big bad we have been led to believe. We largely fear them because of the nuclear threat but so far their tactics and forces have been shambolic.  It also looks like they are utilising a lot of old weapon systems.   Why would they keep more modern weapon systems in reserve if they had them?

I do agree though that Russia would probably succeed is a war of attrition as they have done many times before when they just throw inadequately armed people in vast numbers at the enemy.

[P.K.]

6 hours ago, woolley said:

How far are you prepared to go to support Ukraine? Nobody questions the justice of their cause, except maybe a few ethnic Russians in the extreme east of the country, and even they are probably having second thoughts about it by now having seen the modus operandi of their sponsors and champions. I alluded to the question in an earlier post, and it needs to be faced and soon.

It's all very principled to sit here in the safety of the Isle of Man and pontificate about what needs to be done by others and how the abomination 'must' end in a particular way. Brave words will not win a war. Let us be honest with ourselves. Russia cannot be defeated by a limited war fought entirely on Ukrainian soil. The Ukrainians might conceivably drive them out, unlikely as that seems today, but they are always going to be there just over the border, licking their wounds and ready to have the next shot at the prize. Even now there is speculation about another assault on Kyiv via Belarus.

So to support the laudable war aims how far will you go? If Putin needs to be defeated to uphold the international order of decency, are you ready for a wider war between NATO and Russia with all that it might entail? Will you get your hands dirty? Send your sons? Or are you content to continue to throw deadly hardware into the limited unwinnable war of attrition, but prepared to fight only to the last Ukrainian? Is this stance honourable? Or is it absurd and offensive? Are you kidding yourselves as you glow in your self-righteousness?

Well time there was a tax on OTT hyperbole...

So master strategist, what would you have the Ukrainians do? By the way you missed a major point. Russia cannot win this war. 

There will not be a wider war between Russia and NATO. If anything this war has pointed out how the days of the Russians being a major military force are over. But yes they are still a nuclear power.

The Russians are now in a defensive position except around Bakhmut where they are taking excessive casualties for little gain. This is good for the Ukrainians as you always take a lot of casualties when you take the war to the enemy. As they have found...

One side wants to win. The other side wants to survive the experience and go home.

That mindset could be crucial...

[woolley]

13 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Well time there was a tax on OTT hyperbole...

So master strategist, what would you have the Ukrainians do? By the way you missed a major point. Russia cannot win this war. 

There will not be a wider war between Russia and NATO. If anything this war has pointed out how the days of the Russians being a major military force are over. But yes they are still a nuclear power.

The Russians are now in a defensive position except around Bakhmut where they are taking excessive casualties for little gain. This is good for the Ukrainians as you always take a lot of casualties when you take the war to the enemy. As they have found...

One side wants to win. The other side wants to survive the experience and go home.

That mindset could be crucial...

There's no hyperbole. You can take every word literally.

The Ukrainians will do what they will do, but the extent and efficacy of their actions depends on what is provided by the West.

It is conceivable the Russians could win the war, although it would be impossible for them to win the peace. There are no certainties in this.

On the front line one side wants to win and the other wants to go home, but war is not directed by those on the front line. There appears to be no prospect of the Russians being expelled from Ukraine by force. As the situation festers into stalemate, escalation becomes more likely.

[P.K.]

7 hours ago, woolley said:

There's no hyperbole. You can take every word literally.

The Ukrainians will do what they will do, but the extent and efficacy of their actions depends on what is provided by the West.

It is conceivable the Russians could win the war, although it would be impossible for them to win the peace. There are no certainties in this.

On the front line one side wants to win and the other wants to go home, but war is not directed by those on the front line. There appears to be no prospect of the Russians being expelled from Ukraine by force. As the situation festers into stalemate, escalation becomes more likely.

There is a certainty in this - the Ukrainians will never surrender. The brutality as displayed by the Russians in the areas they have conquered will make sure of that.

They have also pushed the Russians back to the Dnipro river which is a formidable barrier for both sides.

What happens in the coming spring may well decide the outcome of this conflict. The Ukrainians will continue to degrade Russian combat power and probably attempt to outflank the Russian defences. Attacking in the South runs the risk of cutting off the Crimea which will not be well received in Moscow.

As they cannot bludgeon their way through from the East the Russians will probably make another attempt on Kyiv but this time from Belarus thus escalating the conflict. 

Don't forget this war is all about curbing unprovoked Russian aggression.