Russia invades Ukraine

[kermit]

Are you looking at the same website that I am? At the moment about half the homepage is devoted to Ukraine-related news:
View attachment 113445

Top ten most popular stories, not the choice available on the home page...

 

[nw1]

It would be interesting to know if there is an age thing about supposed pro Russian sympathies.

Are those who were around pre 1990 likely to be more sympathetic to the Russian angle?

No, I don't think so. I only became an adult at around the time of the fall of the Iron Curtain, but I am certainly not sympathetic to Putin. As an early teenager in the 1980s I considered the Soviet Union an oppressive and authoritarian regime and, as a late-teenager in the early 1990s I was glad to see the changes and the liberation of countries oppressed by the US"S"R.

As my post above indicates though, I do not agree with tarring all Russians with the same brush. The idea that all citizens of country X support the government of country X is idiotic in the extreme.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you were walking down the street, and you saw - say - a large gang of youths attacking an old woman, and you saw her lying on the ground while they were kicking her and beating her up: Would you refuse to take sides on the basis that neutrality and and open mind are the best approach?

Because that is the logic of what you are saying in regards to Ukraine.

That's quite a good example, because what I wouldn't do is physically intervene, because that would likely result in both of us lying on the ground dead (analogy: Putin and his nukes). I'd go round the corner and call 999, which I guess is the equivalent of giving Ukraine weapons on the quiet.

 

[John Luxton]

If that referendum had been free and fair, then Crimea would be recognised as an integral part of Russia by more than a handful of nations. As it stands, the regular Russian electoral process is not regarded as anything other than a sham even by many Russian citizens. Ditto Belarus.

This is, as posted above, a very clear case of an illegal encroachment on a sovereign nation by another. The USSR wasn't "put on hold" for a while, it was broken up - any territorial claims the current Russian Federation makes beyond the borders it had in 1991 lack any legitimacy.

I would say that with over 95% voting in favour that in my book is a clear win to me even if not with most members of the UN.
Though I would be questioning of the result if it had been a win by a margin of just a few percent.

 

[takno]

I would say that with over 95% voting in favour that in my book is a clear win to me even if not with most members of the UN.
Though I would be questioning of the result if it had been a win by a margin of just a few percent.

You don't find such an overwhelming margin of victory at least a tiny bit suspicious?

 

[Cloud Strife]

The Crimean referendum showed overwhelming support to join the Russian Federation back in 2014.

It wasn't a free or fair referendum. Opinion polls conducted in free Crimea before 2014 showed rather consistent majority support for increased autonomy for Crimea within Ukraine, with around 1/4th of the population preferring to be part of Russia. There was certainly no majority support for joining Russia, even among ethnic Russians.

But that 2014 referendum was a sham. Ukrainian TV channels were cut off, there was violence against pro-Ukraine activists, there was a mass billboard campaign for joining Russia and so on. Do not try and mislead people into believing that it was in any way representative of the Crimean people.

 

[AlterEgo]

However, I do believe that neutrality and an open mind is the best approach and I am siding with neither Vlad nor Vlod.

Ah yes, the wisest strategy, not backing either the politician who had his country invaded without cause or the dictator who did it. Hard to imagine what it would take to pick a side, at this stage of the war.

 

[John Luxton]

If you were walking down the street, and you saw - say - a large gang of youths attacking an old woman, and you saw her lying on the ground while they were kicking her and beating her up: Would you refuse to take sides on the basis that neutrality and and open mind are the best approach?

Because that is the logic of what you are saying in regards to Ukraine.

The analogy isn't very good.

Comparing street thuggery with territorial disputes.

Of course anyone observing someone being attacked in the street would do something about it.

Probably by summoning assistance from the police if faced with overwhelming odds, or perhaps even directly intervene if there were other likeminded people around.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I would say that with over 95% voting in favour that in my book is a clear win to me even if not with most members of the UN.
Though I would be questioning of the result if it had been a win by a margin of just a few percent.

And you don't think it's even a tiny bit suspicious that, the previous time there was a referendum, the result in Crimea was 60% voting for independence from Russia - in a referendum about which there are no serious doubts that it was free and fair. And yet 20-ish years later, when another referendum was organised by a Government that has a long history of rigging elections and arresting/harrassing/denying media air time to its opponents, suddenly you get 95% reported as having voted the way this Government wants them to vote?

 

[John Luxton]

Ah yes, the wisest strategy, not backing either the politician who had his country invaded without cause or the dictator who did it. Hard to imagine what it would take to pick a side, at this stage of the war.

Switzerland has always been a fairly wise country - perhaps that is why it is a fairly wealthy country?

Sit on the gate, be prepared to defend yourself if attacked, and generally don't meddle in the affairs of other countries.

Though I note this time they have compromised their position a little with Ukraine it certainly got them through World War II.

We should learn from that I think.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Apr 2022 ==

And you don't think it's even a tiny bit suspicious that, the previous time there was a referendum, the result in Crimea was 60% voting for independence from Russia - in a referendum about which there are no serious doubts that it was free and fair. And yet 20-ish years later, when another referendum was organised by a Government that has a long history of rigging elections and arresting/harrassing/denying media air time to its opponents, suddenly you get 95% reported as having voted the way this Government wants them to vote?

But views can change over 20 years to be fair? In that period of time many countries would see changes of political leaning and government.

I would be very suspicious if the two referendums were say within a couple of years but 20 years?

In our own UK context it would be interesting to see if a Scottish independence referendum would show significant difference between now and 2014.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Comparing street thuggery with territorial disputes.

This is also a good point. The borders of mainland Europe have moved around a lot over the years for various reasons, and it's difficult to say that Russia's claim to e.g. Crimea or the Donbas region is any more or less valid than Ukraine's, just as it's hard to say that the fact that part of France is currently Alsace-Lorraine makes it any less Elsaß-Lothringen in some peoples' eyes. See also the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or even Northern Ireland. Really the only way to sort out this sort of thing is a genuinely free referendum - i.e. who would the current inhabitants like to govern them* - but Russia of course would be unlikely to accept that if it didn't go their own way. in the street thuggery example, the thugs clearly had no valid claim to the old lady's purse.

What I think we'd all agree, though, is that war crimes and mass murder of civilians aren't an acceptable way to resolve border disputes.

* As per Scotland, say.

 

[ainsworth74]

The Crimean referendum showed overwhelming support to join the Russian Federation back in 2014.

Come on, an election run by Russia? With no real independent outside observers? Featuring wide spread reports of voter suppression, violence and possibly stuffed ballots? There certainly is a far stronger claim for Crimea to be Russian as it was only transferred to the Ukrainian SSR from the Russia SSR in the 60s so was Russian in living memory but it's crackers to suggest that that referendum was anything other than a sham.

Whether the CSA or USA fired the first shots is not really relevant. The fact is the USA didn't like the idea of secession otherwise Lincoln could just have allowed them to leave.

I mean it sort of is as the CSA started the war but in any event it still isn't an accurate comparison. Ukraine left the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union ceased to exist shortly thereafter. For this comparison to hold up you'd have needed the US to collapse following the withdrawal of some of the states and hten one of the former states (say Maryland) decide that it fancied a chunk of another (perhaps Virginia).

If the Soviet Union still existed and had invaded Ukraine in February 2022 the comparison might be more apt.

I wonder though if much of misery brought on the citizens of eastern Ukraine could not have been avoided if Zalensky had just withdrawn his forces. Basically we have two leaders with the civilian population caught between two armies.

And when Russia moves onto Kharkiv and destabilises that region? And then to Kherson? When is Ukraine supposed to say enough is enough and defend itself? Or should they just constantly give in to Russia? Only one country in this situation has invaded another and before that acted to destabilise the target of its aggression.

With Ukraine this isn't a clear cut case of one sovereign nation attacking another - say Russia vs Finland - but Russia with an area once considered by most to be Russian.

Pardon? In what way is Ukraine not a sovereign nation like Finland? That sounds like something straight out of Russian state television or one of Putin's speeches to be quite honest.

Whatever the rights and wrongs the senseless killing and destruction needs to stop.

It could of course end immediately if Russia withdrew its forces from Ukraine and stopped bombarding Ukrainian cities.

 

[najaB]

Putting it into historical context is Putin doing nothing more than the US did when it reclaimed the Confederacy?

Not even close. There is zero parallel between the two.

The United States is a Federal Union of independent states, each of which has its own internally constituted and elected government. Several of those states formally seceded from the Union and formed their own country. That country then proceeded to start a war with the Union by attacking Fort Sumpter.

The present situation in Ukraine would the equivalent of Mexico (playing the part of Russia) having joined in the war against the Union because Texas (one of the Confederate states) was also formerly part of the Spanish Empire.

 

[John Luxton]

What I think we'd all agree, though, is that war crimes and mass murder of civilians aren't an acceptable way to resolve border disputes.

Agreed.

That is why I suggested earlier that Zalensky should have withdrawn forces from the contested areas to avoid Russian attack would have protected civilians, property and infrastructure.

Such a move would not be surrendering but reducing risk of casualties and damage.

As has been the case with virtually all wars we have leaders with their entourages who place their own people and countries in peril to settle a dispute.

Then its the frontline service people and civilians who end up being killed or maimed, businesses and homes destroyed etc.

Many many years ago an elderly relative who had lived through WWI and WWII told me as a child something along the lines that "Wars will stop when the ordinary man in the street says no."

Unfortunately we have not reached that situation yet and I doubt we ever will.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is why I suggested earlier that Zalensky should have withdrawn forces from the contested areas to avoid Russian attack would have protected civilians, property and infrastructure.

Such a move would not be surrendering but reducing risk of casualties and damage.

Er, it would be surrendering in order to reduce risk of casualties and damage.

In the end I think it's down to whether the population wanted to take that risk to defend the country or not, and given how many have stepped up I think that's as good as any referendum.

 

[najaB]

That is why I suggested earlier that Zalensky should have withdrawn forces from the contested areas to avoid Russian attack would have protected civilians, property and infrastructure.

Such a move would not be surrendering but reducing risk of casualties and damage.

Er, it would be surrendering in order to reduce risk of casualties and damage.

You beat me to it. It took a while to get my balance back after that amazing display of mental gymnastics.

 

[John Luxton]

Come on, an election run by Russia? With no real independent outside observers? Featuring wide spread reports of voter suppression, violence and possibly stuffed ballots? There certainly is a far stronger claim for Crimea to be Russian as it was only transferred to the Ukrainian SSR from the Russia SSR in the 60s so was Russian in living memory but it's crackers to suggest that that referendum was anything other than a sham.

I mean it sort of is as the CSA started the war but in any event it still isn't an accurate comparison. Ukraine left the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union ceased to exist shortly thereafter. For this comparison to hold up you'd have needed the US to collapse following the withdrawal of some of the states and hten one of the former states (say Maryland) decide that it fancied a chunk of another (perhaps Virginia).

If the Soviet Union still existed and had invaded Ukraine in February 2022 the comparison might be more apt.

And when Russia moves onto Kharkiv and destabilises that region? And then to Kherson? When is Ukraine supposed to say enough is enough and defend itself? Or should they just constantly give in to Russia? Only one country in this situation has invaded another and before that acted to destabilise the target of its aggression.

Pardon? In what way is Ukraine not a sovereign nation like Finland? That sounds like something straight out of Russian state television or one of Putin's speeches to be quite honest.

It could of course end immediately if Russia withdrew its forces from Ukraine and stopped bombarding Ukrainian cities.

Your first remark reminds me of the old "we can't trust the Russians / Soviets" approach pre the collapse of the Iron Curtain.

Back in those days I firmly believed Russia / USSR was the evil empire with much of eastern Europe under its thumb.

However post Gorbachev and the transition of Russia from a communist to capitalist society I changed my views.

What we do have to realize is that Russia along with certain other regions of the world do not follow the ways of the "western world" - but have their own ways of doing things. We have to ask ourselves what right to we have to impose our standards on others? The fact is they had a referendum - they went through the motions and we should just have moved on.

Sorry if I sound pro Putin - I am not but neither am I pro Zelensky.

The two guys need their heads banging together hard - both are intransigent whilst their service people and civilians die.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your first remark reminds me of the old "we can't trust the Russians / Soviets" approach pre the collapse of the Iron Curtain.

Back in those days I firmly believed Russia / USSR was the evil empire with much of eastern Europe under its thumb.

However post Gorbachev and the transition of Russia from a communist to capitalist society I changed my views.

I think most people did. However I think someone not recognising that we're back there again with Putin is to be honest rather deluded. Putin cannot be trusted, that much is very, very clear.

 

[John Luxton]

Er, it would be surrendering in order to reduce risk of casualties and damage.

In the end I think it's down to whether the population wanted to take that risk to defend the country or not, and given how many have stepped up I think that's as good as any referendum.

From what I gather there wasn't much option for Ukranians to step up and fight. Were not all fit males under 60 prevented from leaving the Ukraine when this kicked off?

I don't think one could say they had very much choice in the matter as to whether they stepped up or not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

From what I gather there wasn't much option for Ukranians to step up and fight. Were not all fit males under 60 prevented from leaving the Ukraine when this kicked off?

I don't think one could say they had very much choice in the matter as to whether they stepped up or not.

They were prevented from leaving, yes, but I don't think anyone put a gun to their head and forced them to actually fight. Plenty of the country isn't under attack.

Are you using "the Ukraine" to deliberately show allegiance to Putin or out of wilful disrespect, as it certainly reads that way? That is not the name of the country; it has not been called that since it ceased to be a region of the USSR.

 

[John Luxton]

I think most people did. However I think someone not recognising that we're back there again with Putin is to be honest rather deluded. Putin cannot be trusted, that much is very, very clear.

But I do wonder how much we in the west have mis read Putin and given him the political ammunition to justify his actions.

Having watched a BBC documentary on iPLayer made in 2016 (thus well detached from the current conflict) regarding Putin a few weeks ago, I don't think our governments are entirely blameless.

One thing does appear to be quite clear from recent appearances Putin is not the fit leader he once was. There is something clearly wrong with the chap. If that proves to be the case one must speculate as to what happens next.

 

[tommy2215]

I would say that with over 95% voting in favour that in my book is a clear win to me even if not with most members of the UN.
Though I would be questioning of the result if it had been a win by a margin of just a few percent.

So Kim Jong-un winning 100% of the vote in 2019 on a 99.99% turnout was legitimate? That was an overwhelming win, and you seem to think 95% can't be manufactured.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But I do wonder how much we in the west have mis read Putin and given him the political ammunition to justify his actions.

Wow. Not at all, in my view. It's quite clear he wants to take Ukrainian territory by way of lethal force.

One thing does appear to be quite clear from recent appearances Putin is not the fit leader he once was. There is something clearly wrong with the chap. If that proves to be the case one must speculate as to what happens next.

He certainly does seem unwell; one of the favourable ways for this to end would be him popping his clogs. Unfortunately it might also make him braver and more hurried, thus more likely to e.g. wheel the nukes out. If he's going to die anyway...

 

[ainsworth74]

Your first remark reminds me of the old "we can't trust the Russians / Soviets" approach pre the collapse of the Iron Curtain.

And if the evidence suggested that elections in Russia or run by Russia weren't extremely dubious in their legitamticy that would be a perfectly reasonable charge to lay against me but that isn't the case. We know that elections in Russia are corrupt and open to abuse. Just as the referendum in Crimea was likely highly corrupt.

What we do have to realize is that Russia along with certain other regions of the world do not follow the ways of the "western world" - but have their own ways of doing things. We have to ask ourselves what right to we have to impose our standards on others? The fact is they had a referendum - they went through the motions and we should just have moved on.

I'm sorry are you now suggesting that "going through the motions" is a good enough for an election? Seriously? It doesn't matter whether or not its an accurate reflection of what the electorate want as long as we did the pantomime elements?

And certainly I'm perfectly aware that many regions of the world don't follow the "western way" but that doesn't mean it's okay for them to invade other countries, bomb their civilians, rape their women and girls, execute their men and boys and bury them in mass graves. I think we have every right to impose a standard on anyone who's way of life involves that and they decide to export it to another country whose way of life isn't the same.

Sorry if I sound pro Putin - I am not but neither am I pro Zelensky.

In which case you're certainly doing a fine job of appearing pro-Putin despite claiming to not be so.

The two guys need their heads banging together hard - both are intransigent whilst their service people and civilians die.

Only one of them invaded a sovereign nation and is allowing their armed forces to brutalise the civilian population of that nation. Russia could end the war today, all it has to do is withdraw it's forces. That's it. War over.

That is why I suggested earlier that Zalensky should have withdrawn forces from the contested areas to avoid Russian attack would have protected civilians, property and infrastructure.

And when Russia moved onto Kharkiv? Or Kherson? Mariupol? At what point is it acceptable for Ukraine to resist Russian aggression? Or is it never acceptable?

When is it acceptable for any nation to resist foreign aggression or should we never and just allow anyone who decides that they want part of another countries territory to simply take it?

 

[nw1]

Your first remark reminds me of the old "we can't trust the Russians / Soviets" approach pre the collapse of the Iron Curtain.

Back in those days I firmly believed Russia / USSR was the evil empire with much of eastern Europe under its thumb.

However post Gorbachev and the transition of Russia from a communist to capitalist society I changed my views.

I don't think the communist to capitalist thing is anything to do with it. Just because Putin is more sympathetic to capitalism doesn't make him any better than the old communist leaders. (In fact, aside from Stalin, he's worse than any of them).

It's democracy and not invading other people's territory by force that makes a given regime acceptable, not whether they are capitalist or communist.

One of the nastiest world leaders of the late 20th century, Pinochet, was a good capitalist. Erdogan, a nasty autocrat, is apparently right-wing.

 

[John Luxton]

They were prevented from leaving, yes, but I don't think anyone put a gun to their head and forced them to actually fight. Plenty of the country isn't under attack.

Are you using "the Ukraine" to deliberately show allegiance to Putin or out of wilful disrespect, as it certainly reads that way? That is not the name of the country; it has not been called that since it ceased to be a region of the USSR.

Neither.

I use "the Ukraine" because it has always been "the Ukraine" that is the term I am familiar with and existed for half my lifetime.

There have been quite few other name changes around the world over the years I still tend to use Peking and Bombay - thus it will be a long time before I accept the new way of spelling Kiev

In this pc orientated world I am a bit of a dinosaur resistant to change. No one should read anything into it but so many people appear to want to do so.

 

[najaB]

In this pc orientated world I am a bit of a dinosaur resistant to change. No one should read anything into it but so many people appear to want to do so.

It's not a matter of political correctness. An example by analogy...

"Hello, my name's Peter, what's yours?"
"Nice to meet you Bob. My name is James."
"Nice to meet you too, James. I think you might have misheard, my name is Peter, not Bob".
"Ah, okay. So what do you do for a living Bob?"

And so on.

There have been quite few other name changes around the world over the years I still tend to use Peking and Bombay

And that's the point - the names of the cities (in these cases at least) never changed. The cities have always been Beijing and Mumbai* - to the people who live there - the same as Kiev has always been Kyiv. We're the ones who have been mispronouncing/misnaming them all along.

*Bombay/Mumbai is an odd one as the official spelling changed to more correctly reflect the pronunciation of the original name.

 

[tommy2215]

In this pc orientated world I am a bit of a dinosaur resistant to change. No one should read anything into it but so many people appear to want to do so.

You're certainly very resistant with regards to criticizing a murderous regime that is slaughtering innocent citizens. And you can't come on a public forum, profess what you have and then complain when people reply based on what you've said.

I use "the Ukraine" because it has always been "the Ukraine" that is the term I am familiar with and existed for half my lifetime.

It has never ever been called "the Ukraine". Ukraine is an independent country.

 

[John Luxton]

I'm sorry are you now suggesting that "going through the motions" is a good enough for an election? Seriously? It doesn't matter whether or not its an accurate reflection of what the electorate want as long as we did the pantomime elements?

And certainly I'm perfectly aware that many regions of the world don't follow the "western way" but that doesn't mean it's okay for them to invade other countries, bomb their civilians, rape their women and girls, execute their men and boys and bury them in mass graves. I think we have every right to impose a standard on anyone who's way of life involves that and they decide to export it to another country whose way of life isn't the same.

In which case you're certainly doing a fine job of appearing pro-Putin despite claiming to not be so.

Only one of them invaded a sovereign nation and is allowing their armed forces to brutalise the civilian population of that nation. Russia could end the war today, all it has to do is withdraw it's forces. That's it. War over.

And when Russia moved onto Kharkiv? Or Kherson? Mariupol? At what point is it acceptable for Ukraine to resist Russian aggression? Or is it never acceptable?

When is it acceptable for any nation to resist foreign aggression or should we never and just allow anyone who decides that they want part of another countries territory to simply take it?

Sometimes it is better to accept what is done at face value to than cause conflict. Picking holes in an election result only causes problems. We only have to look to our own recent referendum on the EU to see what a finely balanced result can cause.

No I don't think we have a right impose our standards on others outside our own nations - smacks of a certain arrogance. Don't get me wrong I would rather live under "our system" but we have to accept others do not do it our way.

What might have been appropriate for Ukrainian forces would be to have withdrawn from the towns and cities and run a guerrilla war.

I don't know if you have ever watched the Falklands War TV movie "An Ungentlemanly Act"?

I imagine it was made with a fairly good degree of accuracy in particular since it was filmed on location.

The Royal Marine commander pleads with the Governor to allow himself to be evacuated from Government House and fall back with the marines to the hills from which they could mount guerilla attacks on the overwhelming numbers of Argentine forces until the UK can send reinforcements. The Governor insists they stand and fight. This then results in a battle around Port Stanley until the Marines surrender as they realize that the civilians are caught in the cross fire.

Now whether guerilla warfare may have been appropriate in Ukraine I do not know - my military experience being limited to CCF at school!

However, looking to history and noting how effective the Irish guerilla campaigns were against the much larger British forces during the Anglo Irish conflict I can see the logic a guerilla campaign.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Apr 2022 ==

You're certainly very resistant with regards to criticizing a murderous regime that is slaughtering innocent citizens. And you can't come on a public forum, profess what you have and then complain when people reply based on what you've said.

It has never ever been called "the Ukraine". Ukraine is an independent country.

The term The Ukraine was in common usage until 1991.

This is from a BBC web site article from 2012:

"Ukraine is both the conventional short and long name of the country," she says. "This name is stated in the Ukrainian Declaration of Independence and Constitution."
"The use of the article relates to the time before independence in 1991, when Ukraine was a republic of the Soviet Union known as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, she says. Since then, it should be merely Ukraine."

Thus I am merely using the term I was familiar with from the first half of my own lifetime. Is that such a sin?

 

[tommy2215]

"Ukraine is both the conventional short and long name of the country," she says. "This name is stated in the Ukrainian Declaration of Independence and Constitution."
"The use of the article relates to the time before independence in 1991, when Ukraine was a republic of the Soviet Union known as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, she says. Since then, it should be merely Ukraine."

Thus I am merely using the term I was familiar with from the first half of my own lifetime. Is that such a sin?

That was more than 30 years ago (which is quite a long time) and is a derogatory name for the country.