Russia

[manxman1980]

21 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

Germany especially and remarkably seems to have completely forgotten about what happened at the end of WW2. 

 

14 minutes ago, opusManx said:

I heard an analysis on DW that referenced a culture of "owing a historical moral debt to Russia" in the German psyche going back to WW2 events (thus colouring their geopolitical and trade decisons. The panelists pointed out the illogic of this as many more Ukrainians died in that conflict.

No idea of objective proof of the above but interesting and plausible.

Addendum: I think guilt colours much of their behaviour e.g. letting in one million refugees in that first wave from Syria (though many have cited Merkel's suffering under East German oppression)

Another analysis I heard was that Germany feels a strong connection to Russia due to the control that Russia had over East Germany.  

I also wonder whether Germany would prefer to be seen as trying to find a peaceful solution rather than being seen as an instigator in another European war.

[The Phantom]

12 minutes ago, opusManx said:

Not sure if just a rhetorical question. Chernobyl was defended by Ukraine forces...though Ive read conflicting reports...from no one was there to fierce fighting. Now in Russian hands.

Not rhetorical.  I would have thought there was some sort of international force there, unless they had been pulled out in advance. 

I've had some ex-military friends that have been out on the Eastern lines over the last few years.  Luckily they haven't been there for at least six months.  Although I did speak to them recently and asked if they would be going back out and even they said it would be a suicide mission. 

I think the Ukrainians will however punch way above their weight - "GIVE EM HELL"

The only end I can see to this comes internally from the Russian people/Govt overthrowing Putin. 

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by The Phantom

[opusManx]

To be clear, when I mention Germany in any criticisms, much of that applies to Nato and the EU members as well. I would only single Germany out specifically for its own particular Russian energy dependence infrastructure.

Edited February 25, 2022 by opusManx

[manxman1980]

1 minute ago, opusManx said:

To be clear, when I mention Germany in any criticisms, much of that applies to Nato and the EU members as well. I would single Germany out specifically on its own Russian energy dependence.

I don't think it is just Germany either.  Sure they have a dependency on Russian natural gas but every European country, including the UK, is up to their eyeballs in some form of trade with Russia.  FFS London was nicknamed Londongrad! 

The same could be said of China.  The West has been far to keen to exploit the natural resources and low costs of trading with these countries whilst turning a blind eye to the atrocities that the Governments of these countries commit.  It results in lots of "thoughts and prayers" and threats of sanctions.  Even then the west is not keen on the sanctions as it also has an effect on their economies and trade.

[opusManx]

"Afghanistan’s Taliban have said they are “concerned” about the possibility of civilian casualties in Ukraine, reports the Guardian’s Akhtar Makoii"

Sounds like a headline out of "The Onion" (satirical U.S. magazine)

[opusManx]

1 minute ago, manxman1980 said:

I don't think it is just Germany either.  Sure they have a dependency on Russian natural gas but every European country, including the UK, is up to their eyeballs in some form of trade with Russia.  FFS London was nicknamed Londongrad! 

The same could be said of China.  The West has been far to keen to exploit the natural resources and low costs of trading with these countries whilst turning a blind eye to the atrocities that the Governments of these countries commit.  It results in lots of "thoughts and prayers" and threats of sanctions.  Even then the west is not keen on the sanctions as it also has an effect on their economies and trade.

Absolutely spot on. Western hypocrisy is immense. e.g. Iraq

[The Phantom]

5 minutes ago, opusManx said:

"Afghanistan’s Taliban have said they are “concerned” about the possibility of civilian casualties in Ukraine, reports the Guardian’s Akhtar Makoii"

Sounds like a headline out of "The Onion" (satirical U.S. magazine)

 

Maybe the Mujahideen could be outsourced to Ukraine.  They did pretty well in the 80s

[Chinahand]

15 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

I think the Ukrainians will however punch way above their weight - "GIVE EM HELL"

I'm so conflicted by this.  A huge part of me wants them to blast them to hell, but another part knows they don't have a chance and all that will result is mass destruction and loss of life in a futile gesture.  The idea that, in a new cold war, we could fund such a war for years, genuinely disturbs me, because it could happen with huge suffering for Ukraine's people.

What would be the alternative? Is it too naive to think calling for mass people power and peaceful protest?  No doubt there would still have been mass bloodshed, but also far less destruction - they'd have just shot them rather than bombing and frankly fewer people would die, but the moral clarity of Putin's evil would have been far clearer.

Imagine a Presidential address which told his army to cease fire and withdraw, but asking unarmed civillians to blockade every bridge and road.

Could any society take such a moral stand.  Even as the thugs desired to machine gun them? Some have in the past.  Here's what happened when Marcos tried it.

Is Putin the type of dictator to drive a tank through such a crowd?

Of course, Putin is on the phone to Xi Jinping - I can imagine his advice:

 

 

[slinkydevil]

15 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Someone told me yesterday that the U.K. gets most of its wheat from a Russia. Does anyone know if this is true? 

Yes. Ukraine supplies 8% of the world supply - that's a lot.

Russia also supplies 18% of world supply and we won't be getting that either.

[opusManx]

20 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

I'm so conflicted by this.  A huge part of me wants them to blast them to hell, but another part knows they don't have a chance and all that will result is mass destruction and loss of life in a futile gesture.  The idea that, in a new cold war, we could fund such a war for years, genuinely disturbs me, because it could happen with huge suffering for Ukraine's people.

What would be the alternative? Is it too naive to think calling for mass people power and peaceful protest?  No doubt there would still have been mass bloodshed, but also far less destruction - they'd have just shot them rather than bombing and frankly fewer people would die, but the moral clarity of Putin's evil would have been far clearer.

Imagine a Presidential address which told his army to cease fire and withdraw, but asking unarmed civillians to blockade every bridge and road.

Could any society take such a moral stand.  Even as the thugs desired to machine gun them? Some have in the past.  Here's what happened when Marcos tried it.

Is Putin the type of dictator to drive a tank through such a crowd?

Of course, Putin is on the phone to Xi Jinping - I can imagine his advice:

 

 

Great post.

[Chinahand]

The loop hole put in the US sanctions regime is pretty incredible. Can't wait to hear Biden trying to explain it. 

 

 

 

[opusManx]

31 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

The loop hole put in the US sanctions regime is pretty incredible. Can't wait to hear Biden trying to explain it. 

 

 

 

Zelensky is realizing too late that Ukraine is not the hill Nato wants to die on. Even yesterday, he was asking for a no-fly zone pitting Nato and Russian jets against each other (unrealistic, irresponsible, but I sympathize w his desperation). Biden is already going to pay a steep price for prices at the pump, which I just heard topped $6/gallon in the U.S. (which is very high by American standards). Political longevity and money will trump all moral considerations. Thats why we are here in the first place.

Edited February 25, 2022 by opusManx

[opusManx]

2 minutes ago, opusManx said:

Duplicate post deleted

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by opusManx

[Mr. Sausages]

Rachel Maddow on the money as usual

 

[Freggyragh]

5 hours ago, Chinahand said:

The Japanese constitution article 9 says:

[We] ... renounce wars as a sovereign right of a nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes. 

You can only achieve that with effective deterrence. Putin hasn't been deterred over the last 20 years as he's gained a taste for letting his tanks roll to get his way. 

Murderous cunt; deliberately and in cold blood too. 

You can only achieve that by giving three of your best natural harbours to the US Navy, and having multiple large-scale US airbases. And paying a couple of USD billion towards it. And having your own (albeit comparatively small) well equipped defense forces.