Russia invades Ukraine

[dakta]

It is and I hope it does, but to be more specific I was meaning boots on the ground in the sense of responding to TheEdges's post which mentions being active on the ground

 

[brad465]

The oil markets have just reopened and shot up, with Brent peaking at $139pb, although falling back to $129 very soon after. This is off the back of talks going on regarding an agreement being reached to ban Russian oil imports into Western countries, led by the US.

The record high for oil so far remains $147 seen in 2008, but I wouldn't be surprised if it goes above that in response to a successful embargo of Russian oil.

 

[Cloud Strife]

This is in some ways the tragedy of the situation and why I think some people have the opinion that Putin has effectively won, in some contexts he hasn't - the groundwork has been an absolute mess but what he has got (and this is where I suspect people holding this opinion are coming from) is a very public affirmation of 'we wont touch Putin or his forces directly because of what he could do to us - we are firm on this stance'. If you want to do a spot of invading and you like to know the risks and rewards that's a really good bit of info.

It's not ideal.

I would argue the opposite. Putin has shown that the Russian forces are weak, and that they will be torn apart by an enemy with considerably more resources. Certainly Riga, Tallinn and Vilnius will now know that there's very little chance of a successful invasion, which wasn't the case before. There's so much evidence to show that Russia can only rely on sheer numbers, nothing more.

From NATO's perspective, the critical thing is to learn from this invasion. Making sure that the 'Eastern Wall' states are equipped with Javelins, Stingers and the like is an absolute priority,

I just wonder if Russia can really take Kyiv. They're struggling to take Mariupol, and the Ukrainians are - to put it mildly - ready for a fight.

 

[Shrop]

I wonder what is the truth about the humanitarian escape corridors in Ukraine? I've tried to understand this war from the Russian perspective, and I've had great difficulty trying to accept their methods even if you believe the worst stories about the Ukranians. However, shooting at humanitarian corridors is a new low, even for the nastiest of aggressors. Have I misunderstood something here? Has this story been misrepresented by western media? What possible justification can there be for killing civilians whilst they're trying to escape from the threat of being killed if they stay where they are?

 

[adc82140]

I wonder what is the truth about the humanitarian escape corridors in Ukraine? I've tried to understand this war from the Russian perspective, and I've had great difficulty trying to accept their methods even if you believe the worst stories about the Ukranians. However, shooting at humanitarian corridors is a new low, even for the nastiest of aggressors. Have I misunderstood something here? Has this story been misrepresented by western media? What possible justification can there be for killing civilians whilst they're trying to escape from the threat of being killed if they stay where they are?

It's straight from the Russian playbook. They did it in Syria. Open up "humanitarian corridors", blame ceasefire violations on "Nationalists" (Ukraine) or "Terrorists" (Syria) and deflect attention away from your own misdeeds.

 

[DustyBin]

I would argue the opposite. Putin has shown that the Russian forces are weak, and that they will be torn apart by an enemy with considerably more resources. Certainly Riga, Tallinn and Vilnius will now know that there's very little chance of a successful invasion, which wasn't the case before. There's so much evidence to show that Russia can only rely on sheer numbers, nothing more.

From NATO's perspective, the critical thing is to learn from this invasion. Making sure that the 'Eastern Wall' states are equipped with Javelins, Stingers and the like is an absolute priority,

I just wonder if Russia can really take Kyiv. They're struggling to take Mariupol, and the Ukrainians are - to put it mildly - ready for a fight.

I agree, and furthermore even if they do take Kyiv it’s unlikely to be the end of the war. They will almost certainly face a vicious and well equipped insurgency as long as they remain in Ukraine. Putin has well and truly kicked the hornets nest here, and there’s no (worthwhile) victory to be won IMO.

 

[Shrop]

It's straight from the Russian playbook. They did it in Syria. Open up "humanitarian corridors", blame ceasefire violations on "Nationalists" (Ukraine) or "Terrorists" (Syria) and deflect attention away from your own misdeeds.

Thanks for the comment. I just wonder I there are any Russian sympathisers on the forum, or anyone who can offer any defence whatsoever, for attacking humanitarian corridors? It sounds like the Russians are blaming the Ukranians, but that sounds like clutching at straws ...

 

[YorkshireBear]

It's straight from the Russian playbook. They did it in Syria. Open up "humanitarian corridors", blame ceasefire violations on "Nationalists" (Ukraine) or "Terrorists" (Syria) and deflect attention away from your own misdeeds.

Further to that the only humanitarian corridors they have opened today are to Russia or Belarus.

 

[yorkie]

Thanks for the comment. I just wonder I there are any Russian sympathisers on the forum, or anyone who can offer any defence whatsoever, for attacking humanitarian corridors? It sounds like the Russians are blaming the Ukranians, but that sounds like clutching at straws ...

The Russian sympathisers have gone quiet, thankfully.

You can find some on Twitter, but you won't get any sense out of them.

 

[Shrop]

Interesting too, that we often take the view that sportsmen and women are unfairly penalised when they're banned. This morning's news has a Russian gymnast who was still allowed to compete, but what does he do? He wears a Russian pro war symbol on the podium ...

 

[Loppylugs]

Having seen pictures of the oligarchs various mansions in this country, could we not house many Ukrainian refugees in these establishments ?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Not according to Bloomberg when it comes to individuals sanctioned:

View attachment 111096

Also The Times have this article to provide an example of evidence of Russian influence in our Government, regarding how a key oligarch was appointed to the House of Lords by Johnson. The Times is certainly not a far-left/pro Labour paper.

Boris Johnson’s Russian crony Evgeny Lebedev got peerage after spies dropped warning

The security services withdrew an assessment that granting a peerage to a Russian businessman posed a national security risk after Boris Johnson intervened. The prime minister pushed ahead with the nomination of his friend Evgeny Lebedev, the Moscow-born son of an ex-KGB agent and media mogul, even

www.thetimes.co.uk

According to the Foreign Office, the UK has sanctioned 228, not 16. This Tweet may be relevant.

Bloomberg tweet is incorrect, they’ve subsequently apologised and taken down the graphs. UK has sanctioned 228 individuals, entities & subsidiaries since invasion.

I'm not sure if it's referring to the same Bloomberg graph you've posted, but that seems plausible.

Regarding how quickly we are sanctioning people, it seems we're restricted by the available laws (in some ways that's not unreasonable when seen in the context that the UK is supposed to be a country where we have rule of law and therefore don't arbitrarily appropriate someone's property for political reasons). This article on policy exchange gives a more detailed explanation.

The 2018 Act distinguishes between sanctions imposed in order to comply with a UN obligation or another international obligation, on the one hand, and sanctions imposed for other purposes, including in the interests of national security, foreign policy, suppression of terrorism, and international peace and security. In relation to the former type of sanctions, the process for designating a person to be the target of sanctions is relatively straightforward – we keep pace with, and rely on, the UN’s decision-making. In relation to the latter, partly because of amendments made in the Lords, the process is more complex, with ministers having to satisfy themselves of the appropriateness and reasonableness of sanctions and to prepare a lengthy written case in relation to each individual. The statutory language has been understood to import ECHR protections for the right to property and procedural fairness, which means that the idea of proportionality looms large, and the process for deciding to sanction any one oligarch or official has unsurprisingly become laborious, time-consuming and legalistic.

It does seem that any delays sanctioning individual Russians are down to what is currently legally possible in the UK, not because of some hypothetical conspiracy involving Tory ministers being in cahoots with Russian oligarchs. It does look now though like the Government are trying to push through emergency legislation to make it easier to sanction people.

 

[brad465]

According to the Foreign Office, the UK has sanctioned 228, not 16. This Tweet may be relevant.



I'm not sure if it's referring to the same Bloomberg graph you've posted, but that seems plausible.

Regarding how quickly we are sanctioning people, it seems we're restricted by the available laws (in some ways that's not unreasonable when seen in the context that the UK is supposed to be a country where we have rule of law and therefore don't arbitrarily appropriate someone's property for political reasons). This article on policy exchange gives a more detailed explanation.



It does seem that any delays sanctioning individual Russians are down to what is currently legally possible in the UK, not because of some hypothetical conspiracy involving Tory ministers being in cahoots with Russian oligarchs. It does look now though like the Government are trying to push through emergency legislation to make it easier to sanction people.

Ah right, I was not aware of this. I would have thought though a source like Bloomberg might have been more cautious to avoid posting something incorrect like that.

Interestingly Jacob Rees-Mogg posted another tweet last week about how apparently we've sanctioned £258bn worth of Russian assets. Now it's possible this is a lie, as no source was given. But if it's true, that is equal to around 1/8 or 12.5% of GDP, which is an alarmingly high amount of illicit money in this country.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Having seen pictures of the oligarchs various mansions in this country, could we not house many Ukrainian refugees in these establishments ?

Probably we could house a fair few in them... IF you're willing to just walk in and commandeer someone's private house to do so. Would you like it if the Government did that to your house?

Now obviously Ukrainian refugees are super-deserving and we should be helping them in any way we reasonably can. And if it turns out that a certain individual has gained their wealth illegally/only because of Putin's patronage and has acted to actively contribute to the war against Ukraine, then, on the whole, I'd be all for removing their ill-gotten wealth and using it in order to help Ukrainians. But you do need pretty strong evidence of that - and to be absolutely clear, if you confiscate their assets, that should be because you can prove their wealth was obtained illegally, not simply because they are Russian and wealthy (neither of which is a crime).

 

[DarloRich]

The Russians seem to have hit on a new plan: Agree a safe evacuation route, get everyone ready to move out, shell the $hit out of the evacuees, blame someone else.

Utter bar stewards but typical of thier actions in Syria.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Ah right, I was not aware of this. I would have thought though a source like Bloomberg might have been more cautious to avoid posting something incorrect like that.

Interestingly Jacob Rees-Mogg posted another tweet last week about how apparently we've sanctioned £258bn worth of Russian assets. Now it's possible this is a lie, as no source was given. But if it's true, that is equal to around 1/8 or 12.5% of GDP, which is an alarmingly high amount of illicit money in this country.

That does seem an extraordinary high amount. I'd agree with being a bit sceptical since JRM isn't exactly the most reliable source. I wonder he's including not just the assets of individuals but the assets of Russian banks and in particular the foreign reserves of the Russian Central Bank which I believe we've frozen (and which I imagine, if included, would make up the vast bulk of that figure).

And yeah, agree with you that Bloomberg would normally be cautious and can generally be relied on. I would guess this is a case of, even the most professional of outlets can occasionally make honest mistakes.

 

[DarloRich]

According to the Foreign Office, the UK has sanctioned 228, not 16.

Regardless it isn't enough or hard enough. Much more could and should be done. ( while not advocating simply impounding assets)

 

[TheEdge]

I see now Tiktok has reduced its service in Russia. It's been one of the last social media holdouts and part of one of the giant Chinese social media corporations with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party. So that's interesting when it comes to China's reaction.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Regardless it isn't enough or hard enough. Much more could and should be done. ( while not advocating simply impounding assets)

Out of interest, what do you think we specifically should be doing that isn't currently being done? (It's a genuine question. I'm not particularly trying to disagree with you. I also think we should be doing everything we can to make things as difficult as possible for the Russian regime. I'm just not clear what else there is yet to do on sanctions that is within the UK's power).

 

[Cloud Strife]

I agree, and furthermore even if they do take Kyiv it’s unlikely to be the end of the war. They will almost certainly face a vicious and well equipped insurgency as long as they remain in Ukraine. Putin has well and truly kicked the hornets nest here, and there’s no (worthwhile) victory to be won IMO.

A huge, huge question is just how armed Kyiv is. If it is armed to the teeth, then the Russians are facing a bloodbath. Think Warsaw 1944, except with an defender that is far more equipped and not lacking in fighters. The only tragic thing is that it seems certain that Russia will simply raze the city if it doesn't surrender.

I couldn't agree more with what you've said. Western Ukraine is still free, but all accounts by Poles going across suggest that there are checkpoints everywhere and that the territory is heavily guarded. If Zelenskiy goes down in Kyiv, then Lviv will almost certainly become home to a government hell bent on getting Russians out. I just cannot see how Russia can control such a large territory with so many people that want them dead. I also wouldn't be shocked if the Ukrainian side started taking car bombs into Russian cities to really spread chaos and carnage in that case.

There are now credible reports that Russia is compiling information on young Russian men to be drafted. It could well be that Russia intends to try and invade Kyiv using - to be blunt - cannon fodder.

 

[Giugiaro]

here are now credible reports that Russia is compiling information on young Russian men to be drafted. It could well be that Russia intends to try and invade Kyiv using - to be blunt - cannon fodder.

Is part of that research also taking into consideration which of the young Russian men are pro and anti-war?
Because the pro ones are obviously going to be drafted. The anti-ones are eventually going to be jailed.

Unfortunately, this means that a few of my close buddies on Discord are soon to be silenced...

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The oil markets have just reopened and shot up, with Brent peaking at $139pb, although falling back to $129 very soon after. This is off the back of talks going on regarding an agreement being reached to ban Russian oil imports into Western countries, led by the US.

The record high for oil so far remains $147 seen in 2008, but I wouldn't be surprised if it goes above that in response to a successful embargo of Russian oil.

UK Gas up 30% today OK fair amount of speculation but this will cripple the UK economy if its sustained.

Also look at wheat prices upto a 14 year high and then the amount of countries whose currencies are dropping like a stone against US dollar which will compound there ability to import food. The rest of the globe will be drawn into its own chaos soon as economic issues in countries lead to food shortages then civil disorder.

The West needs to tread carefully about blowing up the major economies as it it will be equally weakened if they don't manage it carefully.

 

[dosxuk]

The Russians seem to have hit on a new plan: Agree a safe evacuation route, get everyone ready to move out, shell the $hit out of the evacuees, blame someone else.

Utter bar stewards but typical of thier actions in Syria.

Today's evacuations are even more cynical - create routes to Russia so you can claim that the Ukrainian's are desperate to return to the motherland. The evacuation route from Kyiv takes you out past Chernobyl to Belarus where you will be flown to Russia - as opposed to going to the south-west into fully Ukrainian held territory, a much shorter and safer journey.

I see now Tiktok has reduced its service in Russia. It's been one of the last social media holdouts and part of one of the giant Chinese social media corporations with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party. So that's interesting when it comes to China's reaction.

Two other aspects of this - first they announced they were restricting service while the implications of the "fake news ban" were investigated - I doubt they want their staff arresting / jailed for publishing non-approved messaging on the platform, which looks like a distinct possibility. Secondly, TikTok, as a Chinese company, are actually helping Russia by restricting platforms that don't carry the approved messages.

 

[DarloRich]

Out of interest, what do you think we specifically should be doing that isn't currently being done?

We could start by freezing assets of more oligarchs. How can Abmraovich, for instance, be allowed/able to sell Chelsea? Remove "golden visa" arrangements ( I know the scheme has now been closed but a bit after the horse has bolted) and remove citizenship from dual citizens ( If we can do it for a young girl in ISIS we can do it for a rich Russian). We can duplicate both personal & commercial sanctions lists from the US & EU to provide a common front. We can add every person on those lists to no fly lists and exclude them and thier families from the country.

We can start to break open the shell companies these oligarchs use to hide thier investment in UK property, we can hit every single one of them with an unexplained wealth order and we can close the "London laundromat". Private Eye have been calling this out for several years. (See Lootin with Putin as an example)

There are things like removing visa arrangement for oligarchs kids to attend fancy public schools or Oxbridge collages, limiting academic contacts ( research projects etc), cut off all cultural, sporting, political and social links & return the millions taken in back han sorry donations given to UK political parties etc.

However the last point is the key one in my mind: The Tories are neck deep in Russian money and dare not upset those who bought and paid for them.

I am sure the oligarchs will contest sanctions. Let them. Drag it out at every stage and make them explain in court every penny they are moaning about. I would be quite clear: This will stop when you get you mate Putin to leave. Until then you can stay in Russia and not enjoy the benefits and attractions of London or have access to your money or property in the UK.

 

[najaB]

It does seem that any delays sanctioning individual Russians are down to what is currently legally possible in the UK, not because of some hypothetical conspiracy involving Tory ministers being in cahoots with Russian oligarchs. It does look now though like the Government are trying to push through emergency legislation to make it easier to sanction people.

The thing about the government being limited by legislation is that they make legislation! I can't remember the details offhand, but the 'emergency legislation' being pushed through had actually already been laid before the house (first reading) some weeks/months ago.

The government 'lamented' that there was no way to progress it any faster and Kier Starmer basically said in PMQs last week "Bring it back on Monday and we'll vote with you to pass it". He even offered to support an amendment that would allow it to take effect immediately, rather than in (several?) months as per the current wording.

 

[Howardh]

Angry Russian mothers have accused Vladimir Putin of deploying their sons as "cannon fodder" in his invasion of Ukraine

It's from the Telegraph's twitter site, can't verify if the subtitles are correct or even the video is entirely true; but if this is the start of questioning sending their sons to death for a "military exercise" it's beginning to look like Putin might be on dodgy ground amongst his own. The number of arrests for protesting must be significant? You can hide information, but you can't hide body bags?

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1500769632768118788

 

[Giugiaro]

It's from the Telegraph's twitter site, can't verify if the subtitles are correct or even the video is entirely true;

If you can find the same video on Youtube, you can try using automatic subtitles and automatic translation to check if Telegraph's subs differ in context to what's being machine translated.

I did this with Gorbachev's interview for the BBC. Since he wasn't talking in English, it was very possible that the subs could've been manipulated.
So I did exactly what I described above for safety.

 

[XAM2175]

The Danish government have called a referendum with the intent of ending the country's opt-out from the EU Common Security and Defence Policy:

Denmark to hold referendum on scrapping EU defence opt-out

PM urges voters to overturn existing policy in June and pledges boost to defence spending following Russian invasion of Ukraine

www.theguardian.com

Denmark’s prime minister has called for the country’s citizens to overturn the country’s opt-out from EU defence policy in a referendum to be held on 1 June, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“Historic times call for historic decisions,” Mette Frederiksen told a news conference on Sunday, adding that the government “very clearly calls on Danes to lift the opt-out on defence”.

Frederiksen also pledged to increase defence spending by 7bn kroner (£780m) over the next two years.

Calling it the “largest investment in recent decades”, Frederiksen set out plans to increase spending to 2% of GDP, in line with Nato membership requirements, by 2033.

Participating in the common security and defence policy (CSDP) would enable Denmark to take part in joint EU military operations and to cooperate on the development and acquisition of military capabilities within the EU framework.

“For me, as prime minister, this is a values-based decision,” Frederiksen said.

“Putin’s pointless and brutal attack on Ukraine has heralded a new era in Europe, a new reality,” she said. “Ukraine’s struggle is not just Ukraine’s; it’s a test of strength for everything we believe in: our values, democracy, human rights, peace and freedom.”

To accommodate higher defence spending, Denmark’s current budget restrictions will be eased, and the deficit will turn negative after 2025.

Frederiksen also said the main parliamentary parties had agreed that Denmark should become independent of Russian gas “as soon as possible”, although no timeframe was stipulated.

“We will also work towards this in the rest of Europe,” she said.

The referendum is part of an agreement reached on Sunday with a majority of parties in Denmark’s parliament, the Folketing.

The potential turnaround in the Nordic country’s defence policy, in place for 30 years, comes as other European nations also overturn long-held positions on defence and security after the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February.

Sweden and Finland, which are not members of Nato, have both seen public support for joining the military alliance reach historically high levels since the start of the war, and this week both governments announced closer partnership with Nato and with each other on defence.

Meanwhile, the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, overturned decades of defence policy by announcing a €100bn defence spending increase and sending weapons to Ukraine.

Denmark’s upcoming referendum will be the ninth that it has held since the 1972 public vote on EU membership.

After the public rejected the Maastricht Treaty in June 1992, Copenhagen obtained opt-outs in four sovereign areas: the single currency, justice and police matters, defence and EU citizenship.

In December 2015, the Danes voted no to strengthening their cooperation with the European Union on police and security matters for fear of losing their sovereignty over immigration.

 

[REVUpminster]

Surely the safe passage to Russia is a ploy to get the families of the fighters in the cities under Russian control so they can threaten them if their husbands do not surrender.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Moscow accused of targeting civilians fleeing Ukrainian cities - as it happened

This blog is closed

amp.theguardian.com

Poland has not and will not send its fighter jets to Ukraine to support the embattled country’s defence against Russia, Polish government officials said on Monday.
Marcin Przydacz, a deputy foreign minister, said in an interview on Radio Zet:

We will not open our airports and Polish planes will not fight over Ukraine ... Polish planes will not fight over Ukraine.

But, separately, the government’s spokesman Piotr Mueller indicated a final decision had not been made, the Associated Press reported. He said that the decision on whether to send fighter jets presented risks and was a “very delicate matter’.
The comments come after the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, asked the US to help Kyiv get more warplanes to fight Russia’s invasion and retain control of its airspace.
The US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, said Washington was looking at a proposal under which Poland would supply Kyiv with Soviet-era fighters and in turn receive American F-16s to make up for their loss.
Poland has been less than enthusiastic about the idea, at least publicly, largely because Russia has warned that supporting Ukraine’s air force would be seen in Moscow as participating in the war and could create a risk of retaliation.

Interesting to see that Poland are not sending fighter jets to Ukraine. Is the fear of retaliation too great?