• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Russia invades Ukraine

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,320
It has never ever been called "the Ukraine".
In English, this error really seems to come out of the habit of saying "the UK", which is correct. It's an easy mistake to make, but a rather odd habit to double down on.
What might have been appropriate for Ukrainian forces would be to have withdrawn from the towns and cities and run a guerrilla war.

Now whether guerilla warfare may have been appropriate in Ukraine I do not know - my military experience being limited to CCF at school!
This is a coherent and interesting suggestion, and I have no doubt that Ukrainian military commanders will have weighed up the option alongside the intelligence supplied in the run up to the invasion by the West. I would suggest that the decision was made to fight the conflict without using guerilla tactics based on the skills, experience, and equipment of the existing military. Remember they have been fighting in the Donbas for years and have built a lot of "regular" combat experience in that time.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

John Luxton

Established Member
Joined
23 Nov 2014
Messages
2,038
Location
Liverpool
That was more than 30 years ago (which is quite a long time) and is a derogatory name for the country.
I can't see how it is derogatory.

Some people refer to Argentina as "The Argentine"

We say "The UK" "The USA" in the English language putting in the definite article can be quite a habit.

Probably because THE UK and THE USA sound so normal and both begin with a U referring to THE UKRAINE is not really any different.

No offence should be inferred in the case of using the definite article in this case especially for us older folks!

Frankly I couldn't care less if someone referred to THE UK or just UK - again a habit / slip of the tongue is being needlessly politicised.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

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.
No Kim Jong-un certainly isn't legitimate. In North Korea one has to support the "Dear Leader" or whatever his current title is or else!

A 100% brainwashed nation.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,568
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I can't see how it is derogatory.

Some people refer to Argentina as "The Argentine"

Who? I have never, ever heard that in my life.

We say "The UK" "The USA" in the English language putting in the definite article can be quite a habit.

That's because that is part of the names of those countries - "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and "The United States of America" respectively.

The right thing to do here is to apologise for using a term that may (for good reason) be considered offensive by some. One can be forgiven for thinking there is an ulterior motive given that you are instead continuing to defend doing so. A mistake is understandable, but to continue using an offensive term having been corrected on it, or to defend that use rather than apologising for it, shows intent to offend.
 

takno

Verified Rep - Traksy
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,593
I can't see how it is derogatory.

Some people refer to Argentina as "The Argentine"

We say "The UK" "The USA" in the English language putting in the definite article can be quite a habit.

Probably because THE UK and THE USA sound so normal and both begin with a U referring to THE UKRAINE is not really any different.

No offence should be inferred in the case of using the definite article in this case especially for us older folks!

Frankly I couldn't care less if someone referred to THE UK or just UK - again a habit / slip of the tongue is being needlessly politicised.
Nobody says "The Argentine". I've literally never heard that said once by anybody in the whole of my 45 years.

At the end of the day I couldn't care less what you call the country. What I find utterly appalling, and frankly un-British is your position on Putin, and your vile disregard for the Ukrainian people and their right to determine their own future.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,568
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
What I find utterly appalling, and frankly un-British is your position on Putin, and your vile disregard for the Ukrainian people and their right to determine their own future.

And yes, this is what it comes down to. Self-determination is the only sensible way to deal with the issue of who should govern what, and it seems clear the people of Ukraine don't want to be governed by Putin, and thus it is downright wrong to force them to be so governed by way of rape, murder, torture etc.
 

John Luxton

Established Member
Joined
23 Nov 2014
Messages
2,038
Location
Liverpool
This is a coherent and interesting suggestion, and I have no doubt that Ukrainian military commanders will have weighed up the option alongside the intelligence supplied in the run up to the invasion by the West. I would suggest that the decision was made to fight the conflict without using guerilla tactics based on the skills, experience, and equipment of the existing military. Remember they have been fighting in the Donbas for years and have built a lot of "regular" combat experience in that time.
But did they weigh up the consequences for the civilian population who always end up unprepared at the sharp end of such conflicts?

Living under an occupying force may not be desirable but being killed or having your home / business / work place wrecked is even less desirable.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,568
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
But did they weigh up the consequences for the civilian population who always end up unprepared at the sharp end of such conflicts?

The civilian population appear mostly to have taken up arms.

Living under an occupying force may not be desirable but being killed or having your home / business / work place wrecked is even less desirable.

There is that, but they do seem quite a strong-willed people, all in all! I think the key is that it's their choice, not yours.
 

John Luxton

Established Member
Joined
23 Nov 2014
Messages
2,038
Location
Liverpool
Nobody says "The Argentine". I've literally never heard that said once by anybody in the whole of my 45 years.

At the end of the day I couldn't care less what you call the country. What I find utterly appalling, and frankly un-British is your position on Putin, and your vile disregard for the Ukrainian people and their right to determine their own future.
Un-British?

Sorry I am very British!

The term The Argentine was once extensively used. Interestingly there is this article which mentions The Ukraine as well:


A reader wonders about the phrase “the Argentine”:

I often come across the phase “the Argentine” in older books. People are said to “go out to the Argentine” for vacation or business. Mostly, these books are by British authors. I can’t find any information about why Argentina was once called “the Argentine”—what does “Argentine” mean that it would need the definite article?
The official name of the country we call Argentina is República or Confederación Argentina. The country is named for the Rio de la Plata. Plata is the Spanish word for silver. In naming the country, the Latin word for silver, argentum, was chosen instead of the Spanish equivalent.

The usual rule in English limits the article to countries whose names are plural or include such words as kingdom and republic. For example:

the Central African Republic
the Czech Republic
the Dominican Republic
the United Arab Emirates
the United Kingdom
the United States
An exception to this rule is the country of Gambia. In 1964, the prime minister’s office issued a directive that the country was to be called “The Gambia” (with a capital T). The reason given was to avoid confusion with newly independent Zambia.

Another reader, a US resident but a native of Ukraine, mentions her annoyance at such exchanges as this one:

New Acquaintance: Where are you from?
New Resident: Ukraine.

New Acquaintance: Oh, the Ukraine.
She doesn’t understand why people insist on prefacing Ukraine with an article.

Quoted in a BBC article, Oksana Kyzyma of the Embassy of Ukraine in London asserts that Ukraine is both the conventional short and long name of the country.

The region was called “the Ukraine” in English when it was part of the USSR. Then its official name was “the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.” Now, although parts of the country are reported to be held by Russian forces, Ukraine continues to be known internationally as Ukraine, without an article.

Note: Another good reason to leave off the article with Ukraine is the fact that neither the Ukrainian nor the Russian language has a definite article.

Of course, many speakers are not going to observe the conventions. One possible explanation for the fact that some countries acquire an unofficial the is that the country name is closely associated with a geographical feature.

In English, the names of geographical features such as mountain ranges, island groups, rivers, seas, oceans, and canals are prefaced with the definite article. For example:

the Alps
the Canaries
the Rhône
the Indian Ocean
the Suez Canal
the Plata
Perhaps speakers who say “the Argentine” associate the country with the river for which it is named.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,109
Location
Redcar
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.
I don't really care one way or the other but I do find it odd that a flawed election should just be accepted as gospel rather than treated with suspicion when considering an issue.
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.
So you are okay with accepting the rape and pillage of Ukraine by Russia simply because that's their "system" and so we should leave them to it? Okay then. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
What might have been appropriate for Ukrainian forces would be to have withdrawn from the towns and cities and run a guerrilla war.
I am sure that Ukraine's military leadership weighed their options including that as a choice. Indeed it seems that they've used guerrilla tactics certainly in the north as there plenty of reports of Ukrainian forces ignoring the main combat power of Russian forces and focussing on the logistics and support elements of Russian advancing forces. Only when left with no choice (such as a Hostomel) did Ukraine go toe to toe with Russian forces.

And, again, Russia could have avoided all of this bloodshed by not invading a sovereign country or could stop the bloodshed by withdrawing its forces immediately. Instead it has renewed its offensive action and continues to rape Ukraine's women and girls, loot their homes, destroy their infrastructure, kill civilians in indiscriminate bombardments, execute their men in cold blood and buries the victims in mass graves.

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.
I did and I do recall it being a very enjoyable and interesting watch. Though of course in the Falklands War British forces came back and fought a conventional war to retake the territory lost. We should just be grateful that the Argentine forces surrendered before we were forced to evict them by force from Port Stanley.
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.
Though of course they failed in their objective of creating united island of Ireland.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,109
Location
Redcar
Living under an occupying force may not be desirable but being killed or having your home / business / work place wrecked is even less desirable.
Of course that's exactly what's happened to many of those who lived under Russian occupation in north Ukraine in the last few months. They've been murdered, raped and had their homes and business looted, mined and destroyed by the occupying Russian forces.

All of this could have been avoided if Russia hadn't have invaded a sovereign nation.
 

tommy2215

Member
Joined
10 Aug 2017
Messages
346
I can't see how it is derogatory.

Some people refer to Argentina as "The Argentine"

We say "The UK" "The USA" in the English language putting in the definite article can be quite a habit.

Probably because THE UK and THE USA sound so normal and both begin with a U referring to THE UKRAINE is not really any different.

No offence should be inferred in the case of using the definite article in this case especially for us older folks!

Frankly I couldn't care less if someone referred to THE UK or just UK - again a habit / slip of the tongue is being needlessly politicised.
You're just digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself.
No Kim Jong-un certainly isn't legitimate. In North Korea one has to support the "Dear Leader" or whatever his current title is or else!

A 100% brainwashed nation.
But you said the result of Crimean referendum couldn't possibly have been fixed because there was such a high percentage was in favour of the annexation. But when it happens in North Korea its totally fixed. That says all we need to know about how pro-Putin you are.
 

John Luxton

Established Member
Joined
23 Nov 2014
Messages
2,038
Location
Liverpool
Of course that's exactly what's happened to many of those who lived under Russian occupation in north Ukraine in the last few months. They've been murdered, raped and had their homes and business looted, mined and destroyed by the occupying Russian forces.

All of this could have been avoided if Russia hadn't have invaded a sovereign nation.

It could and SHOULD have been avoided as much as Putin should not have done what he did perhaps Zalensky had not carried on making noises about joining NATO and ceding some territory it could have been avoided?

We conveniently forget that the Ukraine is home to the the openly Nazi paramilitary organization the Azov Battalion - this played right into Putin's hands and gave him the opportunity to justify his "special military operation".

To be honest I am surprised Zalensky allows this force to exist given that he himself is Jewish.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

You're just digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself.

But you said the result of Crimean referendum couldn't possibly have been fixed because there was such a high percentage was in favour of the annexation. But when it happens in North Korea its totally fixed. That says all we need to know about how pro-Putin you are.
No don't read that as Pro-Putin rather anti Kim Jong-Un he remains a totally unreformed communist of the old school.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,516
Location
LBK
Switzerland has always been a fairly wise country - perhaps that is why it is a fairly wealthy country?
No, it is wealthy because it launders money, finances wars, repressive regimes, and conflict worldwide, and has an extremely favourable geopolitical position. It also attracts wealthy foreigners.
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.
Switzerland financed the Nazis, exported weapons and weapon components to them, and laundered millions of dollars worth the illegally confiscated possessions of WWII Holocaust victims. I am not sure that the Swiss model of just financing fascism and war is something we should try to emulate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I can't see how it is derogatory.
It doesn't matter if you can't see it yourself, the point is it's not the name they'd like used, because it implies the country is merely a client or part of Imperial Russia. So, I suppose it's reasonable enough to use the name they ask, no?
 

Dent

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2015
Messages
1,200
It could and SHOULD have been avoided as much as Putin should not have done what he did perhaps Zalensky had not carried on making noises about joining NATO and ceding some territory it could have been avoided?

What you are proposing is appeasement, which doesn't work to avoid conflict because it just leads to the aggressor demanding even more and causing even more conflict.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
Nobody says "The Argentine". I've literally never heard that said once by anybody in the whole of my 45 years.

I recall it being used interchangeably with 'Argentina' in the press for a short period around and just after the time of the Falklands War. Then it disappeared again. I have no idea where the term came from, and I don't recall anyone using it more recently than the mid 1980s.
 

alex397

Established Member
Joined
6 Oct 2017
Messages
2,036
Location
UK
Ukrainians want their country to be called Ukraine as “the Ukraine” is somewhat offensive as it has Soviet era connotations. So, we should call it Ukraine. It’s really quite simple, and I’m not sure why it is so difficult to understand.
 

John Luxton

Established Member
Joined
23 Nov 2014
Messages
2,038
Location
Liverpool
What you are proposing is appeasement, which doesn't work to avoid conflict because it just leads to the aggressor demanding even more and causing even more conflict.
One never knows unless on tries. One aggressor is not the same as the next. it also gives time to build up resources for a potential future conflict as was the case for the UK back in 1938/9.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

No, it is wealthy because it launders money, finances wars, repressive regimes, and conflict worldwide, and has an extremely favourable geopolitical position. It also attracts wealthy foreigners.

Switzerland financed the Nazis, exported weapons and weapon components to them, and laundered millions of dollars worth the illegally confiscated possessions of WWII Holocaust victims. I am not sure that the Swiss model of just financing fascism and war is something we should try to emulate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


It doesn't matter if you can't see it yourself, the point is it's not the name they'd like used, because it implies the country is merely a client or part of Imperial Russia. So, I suppose it's reasonable enough to use the name they ask, no?
Whatever the morals of Switzerland other nations never seem to question their approach.

If they were as ethically bad as you suggest perhaps they too would have been subjected to pressure to conform to "western values"?

On the balance of things Switzerland unlike other European nations hardly ever makes the news.

With regard to financing fascism back in the 1930s if you supported capitalism backing communism wasn't a good idea. It took a few years before the atrocities of the Nazi interpretation of fascism became known. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

One has to remember many in the UK at the time supported fascism and that included some well known newspapers and members of the establishment.
 
Last edited:

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
3,816
Location
West is best
However, the break up of the USSR is a different matter. Much of the Ukraine seems to be ethnically Russian, some in the east appear to want to be part of Russia.

It all appears rather complicated.
After any break up of any large empire, there will always be the possibility of a mess. Just look at many of the problems around the world caused after the breakup of the British Empire. Or indeed any empire.

Who speaks what and what each person’s ethnicity is, is not really relevant. Russia itself is a country made up of over 193 ethnic groups. And many countries have many different ethnic groups.

What is relevant is finding a peaceful way to give the relevant population a choice in a reasonable way, ideally in a democratic way.

War decreed by a leader who is far from the disputed area is definitely not the answer. Yet with the war in Ukraine, what we have is a war started by Putin. A man that lies. And the country that he leads also lies. Worse, Putin has ignored every single leader from every single country who has asked him to stop the fighting. He is even ignoring the Pope.

As to the excuse that this war is all about N.A.T.O., Ukraine is not a member of N.A.T.O. and never has been. And before the war that Putin started, did not look likely to meet the criteria anytime soon.

When did any N.A.T.O. country, or even any western country last carry out any invasion or military action against Russia?

And given the aggression from Russia under Putin, that’s more likely to persuade other countries to join N.A.T.O.
 
Last edited:

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
3,436
Location
Stevenage
I recall it being used interchangeably with 'Argentina' in the press for a short period around and just after the time of the Falklands War. Then it disappeared again. I have no idea where the term came from, and I don't recall anyone using it more recently than the mid 1980s.
From what I recall (which may be wrong), there was a gradual change of UK usage taking place from 'The Argentine' to 'Argentina'. Whichever was used in a given press article may have been down to the age of the journalist. Prior to that war starting, neither name appeared very often. When the war did start, with the large amount of press coverage, the use of alternate forms became conspicuous. Use then fairly quickly settled on 'Argentina'.
 

John Luxton

Established Member
Joined
23 Nov 2014
Messages
2,038
Location
Liverpool
After any break up of any large empire, there will always be the possibility of a mess. Just look at many of the problems around the world caused after the breakup of the British Empire. Or indeed any empire.

Who speaks what and what each person’s ethnicity is, is not really relevant. Russia itself is a country made up of over 193 ethnic groups. And many countries have many different ethnic groups.

What is relevant is finding a peaceful way to give the relevant population a choice in a reasonable way, ideally in a democratic way.

War decreed by a leader who is far from the disputed area is definitely not the answer. Yet with the war in Ukraine, what we have is a war started by Putin. A man that lies. And the country that he leads also lies. Worse, Putin has ignored every single leader from every single country who has asked him to stop the fighting. He is even ignoring the Pope.

As to the excuse that this war is all about N.A.T.O., Ukraine is not a member of N.A.T.O. and never has been. And before the war that Putin started, did not look likely to meet the criteria anytime soon.

When did any N.A.T.O. country, or even any western country last carry out any invasion or military action against Russia?

And given the aggression from Russia under Putin, that’s more likely to persuade other countries to join N.A.T.O.

NATO or some of its constituent members have conducted wars against Russia and previously the Soviet Union by proxy - it is very much happening again.
 

dakta

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2008
Messages
577
Is this where we'd end up if we didn't ban dodgy info?

might be worth it

Appease the enemy because innocent people might get hurt

The war wouldn't be as bad if we didn't arm Ukraine so much

I'm just glad there are people who look at some of the wrongs in the world and have enough spine to say 'nope'. No deal, nada, it might not be pretty but we're not doing that
 

tommy2215

Member
Joined
10 Aug 2017
Messages
346
One never knows unless on tries. One aggressor is not the same as the next. it also gives time to build up resources for a potential future conflict as was the case for the UK back in 1938/9.
One of the reasons Putin invaded Ukraine was likely because no one did anything when he took over Crimea. And Chamberlain's appeasement gave Hitler plenty of time to build his war machine too. I don't support British boots on the ground but I certainly support supplying weapons to Ukraine.
No don't read that as Pro-Putin rather anti Kim Jong-Un he remains a totally unreformed communist of the old school.
But Putin is man who supports freedom and democracy?
 

John Luxton

Established Member
Joined
23 Nov 2014
Messages
2,038
Location
Liverpool
From what I recall (which may be wrong), there was a gradual change of UK usage taking place from 'The Argentine' to 'Argentina'. Whichever was used in a given press article may have been down to the age of the journalist. Prior to that war starting, neither name appeared very often. When the war did start, with the large amount of press coverage, the use of alternate forms became conspicuous. Use then fairly quickly settled on 'Argentina'.
I am actually a bit of a fan of the musical "Evita" and have the DVD of the movie. There is definitely a line in one of the songs which refers to "The Argentine" given that the original lyrics date from the 1970s it was obviously in quite common usage by then. I also seem to recall my great aunt in the 1960s or 70s when referring to Dewhurst butchers shops (part of the Vestey Group) used to call them "The Argentine" as this was the source of some of their meat. I think some of their branches before the adoption of the name Dewhurst had used this title.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

One of the reasons Putin invaded Ukraine was likely because no one did anything when he took over Crimea. And Chamberlain's appeasement gave Hitler plenty of time to build his war machine too.

But Putin is man who supports freedom and democracy?
With hindsight jumping in to fight Hitler in 1939 could have been our undoing - a very close run thing.

If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbour we could well have been left on our own.

Fortunately the American's entered the war.

I sometimes wonder what the outcome would have been if we had not entered conflict with the Axis powers until a later date.

Would the war have been shorter? Less destructive - but the outcome the same?

One of history's interesting "What ifs?"

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

But Putin is man who supports freedom and democracy?
No but if one had to make a choice I know who I would chose and it certainly would not be Kim!
 
Last edited:

takno

Verified Rep - Traksy
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,593
One never knows unless on tries. One aggressor is not the same as the next. it also gives time to build up resources for a potential future conflict as was the case for the UK back in 1938/9.
Let's describe Crimea, Transdnistria and South Ossetia as "tries" in this context.

All the evidence is that if you let Putin keep your lawn just because he's already parked his tanks on it, he won't just sit back and admire his lovely new lawn - he'll be back for your neighbour's lawn, and your garage. There isn't any sense in carrying on this appeasement, or in some craven pretence that the behaviour is somehow okay and people are grateful for it.
 

Dent

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2015
Messages
1,200
One never knows unless on tries. One aggressor is not the same as the next. it also gives time to build up resources for a potential future conflict as was the case for the UK back in 1938/9.

It doesn't sounds like a very good plan to do something that logic and past experience dictate will lead to endlessly increasing demands purely on the basis that "one never knows unless on tries" whether this one case will be somehow different, despite there being no reason to expect it to be any different.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,239
Location
UK
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.

It’s never been called Germany, it’s Deutschland. It’s London, not Londres.
.

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.

Whatever the rights and wrongs the senseless killing and destruction needs to stop.
Much like Germany and the Rhineland?
 

Top