Russia invades Ukraine

[yorksrob]

Although the USA may not have directly intervened in Europe, they have done so elsewhere (with most of it engineered by the CIA) with notable ones outlined below

The United Fruit Company in Guatemala was used as a front for the CIA during the civil war to impose military rule

The overthrow of democratically elected Salvadore Allende in Chile on 9/11 1973 (the 9/11 that never gets mentioned) and the installation of General Augusto Pinochet (who Jack Straw allowed to return to Chile back in 1998 due to "ill health" so as to avoid extradition to Madrid, Spain for war crimes)

The civil war in Angola (which conveniently happens to have oil) during the early years of independence from Portugal

The invention, funding, and training of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan when the former Soviets occupied it from 1979-89

The overthrow of the democratically elected president of Iran in 1953, then installing the Shah (subsequently overthrown in 1979). This led to the funding, training, and supporting of Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iran - Iraq conflict.

I take your point, and agree that a lot of those interventions were wrong or ill-advised.

However, from UK point of view, not having Russian tanks marauding across Europe is clearly a strategic necessity.

 

[Shrop]

Nevertheless, I stick by what I said about the right wing thinking Putin is the sort of leader we need.

The sort of leader who needs? Such thinking is to confuse strength with hardness and uncaring brutality. Surely it ought to be possible to have a leader who is strong but not brutal?

 

[jon0844]

One interesting and defining thing about the 2000s in Europe has been the rise of political religion - i.e. authoritarian regimes pretending to be religious. Russia, Hungary, Poland, Serbia - all of them feature the same nonsense.

Look at the evangelical Christians that have taken over the Republican party in the US, with a vision of Jesus that somehow would never help the poor and needy.

We haven't yet gone down that route in the UK, thank goodness.

Presumably you're referring to the far right here, not the average (C)conservative/right of centre voter (of which I'm one)? I agree with @DynamicSpirit and @SJL2020 as well that people on both extremes of the political spectrum are attracted to Putin, if only because he disrupts the status quo.

I am talking more like the US 'conservatives'. Sure, we have politicians here who would like to take us down the same road and get rid of free healthcare and reduce worker rights, but we haven't quite got there yet - and should fight to make sure it doesn't.

For all his faults, I don't think Boris is quite as mad as others far more to the right than he is - but he is a useful idiot and seems to be easily led, which is dangerous for us and the Conservative party.

 

[brad465]

That may well explain why people like Farage and Trump tend to be so supportive of Putin. But it does not explain why people like Jeremy Corbyn or so many of his followers in Momentum/the Labour Party[*] have been so relatively pro-Putin. Ditto groups like Sinn Fein, who have tended to be fairly pro-Putin prior to the Ukraine invasion.

Putin is a disruptor. He therefore has an appeal to some of those on the fringes (left and right) who despise the status quo.

There is a political theory called the horseshoe theory, where on some issues the far left and the far right tend to largely agree. Brexit is an example, as is perceived/visible Putin support (although their reasons for supporting them likely vary).

[*] To be fair to Labour, I suspect many of those people are no longer in the Labour Party.

From what I've heard Starmer threatened any Labour MP who'd signed a relevant letter, and/or was found to have turned up at protests that were anti-NATO, with having the whip removed, so, ignoring Corbyn already still not having the whip, those who might hold such views have probably quietened down.

 

[John Luxton]

Are you for real?

Places like Poland were carved up by places like Russia one way or another way back in the 18th century. Why would they need to wait 40 to 50 years to make their own choices who to align with?

Get real?!

I am real. Eighteenth Century?!

Now Britain perhaps was up to all sorts of things in the 18th Century as were many other countries. If we held up events of the 18th and early 19th Century we would never have made allies with the USA as I seem to remember we had a couple of scraps.

Of perhaps we should not be allies with France as they as the Normans invaded us and there was an attempt in the late 18th Century. Plus of course we had more than a few other scraps.

Sorry it is not me that needs to get real.

 

[najaB]

...and for elected representatives to still pledge allegiance to the monarchy rather than the electorate...

Which is entirely appropriate in a monarchy. Now, republicanism is a completely different matter.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The sort of leader who needs? Such thinking is to confuse strength with hardness and uncaring brutality. Surely it ought to be possible to have a leader who is strong but not brutal?

If you have ever studied world historical events, you will have noted that Russia was once invaded by the forces led by Tamerlane, who turned brutality into an art form.

 

[Doppelganger]

Get real?!

I am real. Eighteenth Century?!

Now Britain perhaps was up to all sorts of things in the 18th Century as were many other countries. If we held up events of the 18th and early 19th Century we would never have made allies with the USA as I seem to remember we had a couple of scraps.

Of perhaps we should not be allies with France as they as the Normans invaded us and there was an attempt in the late 18th Century. Plus of course we had more than a few other scraps.

Sorry it is not me that needs to get real.

My point being that Poland was partitioned in the late 18th century and only got its own independence in 1918, it was then invaded by Nazi Germany in 1939 and didn't escape the Soviet influence untill 1989. This is a long time to be dominated and it has built up over time culturally to want escape the control of others.

This history lesson is very much to do with the here and now and Ukraine is no different in that regard.

 

[AlterEgo]

My point being that Poland was partitioned in the late 18th century and only got its own independence in 1918, it was then invaded by Nazi Germany in 1939 and didn't escape the Soviet influence untill 1989. This is a long time to be dominated and it has built up over time culturally to want escape the control of others.

This history lesson is very much to do with the here and now and Ukraine is no different in that regard.

Indeed.

One of the start points of Polishness is "not Russia", in the same way one of the start points of Irishness is "not English".

Poland hates Russia probably more than any other ex-Soviet state, and that's saying something. As @Cloud Strife alluded to earlier, Poland prides itself on being the most successful departure from the Soviet bloc and fully integrated as a European nation. This is partly why Poland has shown such leadership in taking in Ukrainian refugees.

 

[GS250]

Indeed.

One of the start points of Polishness is "not Russia", in the same way one of the start points of Irishness is "not English".

Poland hates Russia probably more than any other ex-Soviet state, and that's saying something. As @Cloud Strife alluded to earlier, Poland prides itself on being the most successful departure from the Soviet bloc and fully integrated as a European nation. This is partly why Poland has shown such leadership in taking in Ukrainian refugees.

Mention Russia or specifically Putin to many a Pole and the instant look of revulsion on their face tells all.

 

[Annetts key]

Do you not recall how, after the Salisbury poisonings, Corbyn and many on the left were taking the line that we shouldn't blame Russia because we didn't have complete 100% proof that Putin's regime was responsible. My memory (from being in the Labour Party at the time, something I now rather regret) is that some people were even taking the line that the whole thing was probably done by the CIA/MI5/America in order to discredit Putin or something.

Or how, even as Russian tanks were preparing to enter Ukraine earlier this year, Corbyn and a number of left-wing Labour MPs were busily signing a letter that tried to excuse Putin and blame everything on NATO?

I wouldn’t know, I’m not a member of any political party and although I follow a reasonable amount of political news, I don’t follow any particular political party or group. Before Corbyn became Labour leader, I took no notice of him. And now that he is no longer the Labour leader, I again take no notice of him.

As I’m in favour of maintaining a nuclear deterrent, this tends to upset any far left people that I talk to. I’m also in favour of properly funding our military. But I’m definitely not a conservative supporter.

I make my own mind up based on my own principles and the available information.

So to me, it was always most likely that Russia/Putin was behind the Salisbury poisonings.

I personally think that we should have allowed Ukraine to have joined NATO prior to this war. Maybe not as a full member given the existing dispute. But we (the west) certainly should have had NATO forces in Ukraine to assist them with their defence, as well as training and education. If this had happened, it’s very likely (IMHO) that Putin would not have dared to start this recent war. But that’s obviously speculation…

 

[brad465]

I'm starting to come round the notion that large sections of the Russian population are in need of a major de-radicalisation post-Putin, in light of discovering a Russian vlogger actively encouraging the rape of Ukrainian teenagers:

https://twitter.com/jane_in_vain/status/1508897959064317952

a russian blogger saying it's ok for russians to rape 17-year-olds in Ukraine because the age of consent is 16

(Video attached)

At the very least the country should have absolutely nothing to do with Europe while this culture is allowed to prevail.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Russians have a peculiar fixation with rape in war - WW2 was notorious for it, though it also happened elsewhere (Georgia and Afghanistan, to name two).

 

[oldman]

I'm starting to come round the notion that large sections of the Russian population are in need of a major de-radicalisation post-Putin, in light of discovering a Russian vlogger actively encouraging the rape of Ukrainian teenagers:

If you google bozhejakekonchene - the banner on the video, her Telegram channel is in Ukrainian. This is 'satire', or as the Russian fascists would say, a provocation.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Another day, and it's becoming more and more apparent that the war will now take place in the Donbas and in the south. Kyiv isn't in any real danger now due to the retreat of the Russian forces, and my prediction is that the RF will now try and focus on expanding the self-proclaimed LDPR borders as much as possible. But, the question remains as to just how capable the RF really are. We haven't seen the destruction of Mariupol repeated elsewhere (except Chernhiv to a certain extent), and it may be that the Russian leadership have realised that the Ukrainians won't surrender regardless.

The question still remains: why hasn't Russia committed significantly more troops to the invasion? Is there something at play that involves the Russian military refusing to commit additional resources?

 

[najaB]

The question still remains: why hasn't Russia committed significantly more troops to the invasion? Is there something at play that involves the Russian military refusing to commit additional resources?

My guess is that the issues with readiness of both equipment and personnel have been repeated elsewhere. While the Russian Army was c. 300,000 on paper they seem to be struggling to mobilise anything close to that number.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm curious about how Ukraine is holding out so long in Mariupol. It feels like we've been hearing for weeks, not only about the terrible humanitarian situation there, but that the Ukrainians are running out of food and ammunition and that it'll be days or hours before the city falls. Yet somehow the Ukrainians are still defending it. And in the process, apparently preventing thousands of Russian troops from joining the battles in Donbas. The fact that Russia has just within the last few hours demanded a surrender to end the shelling suggests they are still unable to take the city by force.

Those must be incredibly brave/resourceful Ukrainian forces defending it.

 

[Gostav]

I'm starting to come round the notion that large sections of the Russian population are in need of a major de-radicalisation post-Putin, in light of discovering a Russian vlogger actively encouraging the rape of Ukrainian teenagers:

https://twitter.com/jane_in_vain/status/1508897959064317952

(Video attached)

At the very least the country should have absolutely nothing to do with Europe while this culture is allowed to prevail.

Well, if I repost this site's thread to a Chinese forum or any Chinese social website (use Google translate), I guarantee they'll find enough ammo too. Such kind of people who make extreme statements can be found in anywhere and I doubt they can represent the people of a country.

 

[DustyBin]

Another day, and it's becoming more and more apparent that the war will now take place in the Donbas and in the south. Kyiv isn't in any real danger now due to the retreat of the Russian forces, and my prediction is that the RF will now try and focus on expanding the self-proclaimed LDPR borders as much as possible. But, the question remains as to just how capable the RF really are. We haven't seen the destruction of Mariupol repeated elsewhere (except Chernhiv to a certain extent), and it may be that the Russian leadership have realised that the Ukrainians won't surrender regardless.

The question still remains: why hasn't Russia committed significantly more troops to the invasion? Is there something at play that involves the Russian military refusing to commit additional resources?

I agree with @najaB; I don’t think Russia can commit much more in terms of troops and equipment than it already has. In regard to troops there is obviously an issue with training and morale, as well as arming and feeding them, and in regard to equipment a lot of what they’ve deployed is frankly knackered and obsolete. It’s one thing to have so many thousand main battle tanks, it’s quite another to keep them combat ready. And even if they are combat ready there’s no way of getting around the fact that the majority are old and inherently vulnerable to modern anti-tank weapons, especially minus proper infantry support.

There’s also the fact that Russia has security issues left right and centre and can’t afford to leave itself exposed in other areas.

I'm curious about how Ukraine is holding out so long in Mariupol. It feels like we've been hearing for weeks, not only about the terrible humanitarian situation there, but that the Ukrainians are running out of food and ammunition and that it'll be days or hours before the city falls. Yet somehow the Ukrainians are still defending it. And in the process, apparently preventing thousands of Russian troops from joining the battles in Donbas. The fact that Russia has just within the last few hours demanded a surrender to end the shelling suggests they are still unable to take the city by force.

Those must be incredibly brave/resourceful Ukrainian forces defending it.

I’m not sure how they’re doing it, but the kind of defence being mounted in Mariupol is exactly what the Ukrainians promised in Kyiv. Fighting street to street amongst the rubble against highly motivated defenders must be a complete nightmare for the Russian forces. The problem they have is that whilst the shelling has caused a humanitarian disaster, it won’t dislodge the Ukrainian forces. So we get back to fighting for every street against a well dug in and highly motivated enemy. I think it’s as simple as that.

 

[GusB]

I'm curious about how Ukraine is holding out so long in Mariupol

Sheer bloody-mindedness, maybe? I think that sums up how the Ukranian people have reacted to this whole situation, and how much Russia underestimated how people would react when they decided to send the troops in.

Obviously I'm not faced with such a dilemma, but if I had to choose between an uncertain future in another country or trying to hold on to what I know and love, I'm not so sure I'd be happy to up-sticks and abandon everything.

 

[yorksrob]

Such kind of people who make extreme statements can be found in anywhere

The one in the Kremlin being the most obvious example at present.

 

[Roast Veg]

I don't know how to sound properly like a Putin apologist/anti-Western conspiracy theorist really.

Please continue attempting your impression - I need a good laugh!

The question still remains: why hasn't Russia committed significantly more troops to the invasion? Is there something at play that involves the Russian military refusing to commit additional resources?

On top of the other speculation mentioned, plenty of Russian hardware is locked up in Georgia, Syria, et al. It was never the plan to have to move any over, since Kyiv was supposed to fall within a couple of weeks.

Intelligence agencies are reporting that Putin was actually not fully aware of the extent of the rot in the Russian MoD ahead of the invasion of Ukraine. Perhaps this is a cautionary tale about not falling for your own "agitprop"?

 

[Loppylugs]

My guess is that the issues with readiness of both equipment and personnel have been repeated elsewhere. While the Russian Army was c. 300,000 on paper they seem to be struggling to mobilise anything close to that number.

Now recruiting Syrian fighters with the "promise" of good pay and lump sums to their families if they are killed. This relieves Russian troops of being the cannon fodder so there won't be so many grieving mothers in Russia and no need to pay Syrian families either. Putin will more than likely simply say their sons defected to Ukraine and died fighting for the "enemy". It shows what a desperate situation it is in Syria with Assad in charge that these guys have to do this.

 

[najaB]

Intelligence agencies are reporting that Putin was actually not fully aware of the extent of the rot in the Russian MoD ahead of the invasion of Ukraine.

Of course he wasn't. Most of the rot is due to corruption - why spend money on fuel to drive the vehicles so that their tires don't rot when you can say you did it and pocket the cash instead. And so on...

 

[Cowley]

Of course he wasn't. Most of the rot is due to corruption - why spend money on fuel to drive the vehicles so that their tires don't rot when you can say you did it and pocket the cash instead. And so on...

That’s exactly it. Corruption from the top which goes right down to the very bottom.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm curious about how Ukraine is holding out so long in Mariupol. It feels like we've been hearing for weeks, not only about the terrible humanitarian situation there, but that the Ukrainians are running out of food and ammunition and that it'll be days or hours before the city falls. Yet somehow the Ukrainians are still defending it. And in the process, apparently preventing thousands of Russian troops from joining the battles in Donbas. The fact that Russia has just within the last few hours demanded a surrender to end the shelling suggests they are still unable to take the city by force.

Those must be incredibly brave/resourceful Ukrainian forces defending it.

Looking at the maps: Mariupol is the key to Donbass where most of the Ukrainian professional army is fighting apparently. if that city falls the Russian forces can link up meaning the Ukrainians have to either withdraw over the Dnieper or be encircled/destroyed. Either way they end up giving up large areas to Russian control.

 

[Gostav]

Looking at the maps: Mariupol is the key to Donbass where most of the Ukrainian professional army is fighting apparently. if that city falls the Russian forces can link up meaning the Ukrainians have to either withdraw over the Dnieper or be encircled/destroyed. Either way they end up giving up large areas to Russian control.

And there's the biggest steel works in Europe.

 

[ainsworth74]

Apparently at least some of the Russian soldiers who were operating in the Chernobyl area have now got acute radiation sickness:

Russian troops leaving Chernobyl nuclear site 'have acute radiation sickness'​

The Pentagon has said that Russian troops are leaving the Chernobyl nuclear site in Ukraine, where fighting led to workers forced to work around the clock to prevent any further meltdowns​

Russian troops leaving the Chernobyl nuclear site have 'acute radiation sickness', it has been claimed.

The Pentagon confirmed Russian troops were pulling out of the irradiated nuclear wasteland, but an employee at the Public Council at the State Agency of Ukraine for Exclusion Zone Management said they were running away "irradiated".

He said they were being transported by the bus load to a special radiation medical centre in Gomel, Belarus to help treat their radioactive poisoning.

In a post on facebook, Yaroslav Yemelianenko, who worked to keep the site safe, said: "Another batch of radiation irradiation of Russian terrorists who captured the Chernobyl zone, was brought to the Belarusian center of radiation medicine in Gomel today.

"Digging the trenches in the Rudu forest, bitches? Now live the rest of your short life with this. There are rules of handling this territory.

"They are mandatory to perform because radiation is physics - it works regardless of status or chases. If you have minimal intelligence in command or soldiers, these consequences could have been avoided."

He went onto quote a Belarusian TV channel which said "about 7 medical PAZs arrived at the Republican Scientific and Practical Center for Radiation Medicine and Human Ecology.

...

Russian troops leaving Chernobyl nuclear site 'have acute radiation sickness'

The Pentagon has said that Russian troops are leaving the Chernobyl nuclear site in Ukraine, where fighting led to workers forced to work around the clock to prevent any further meltdowns

www.mirror.co.uk

Who knows whether any of them will end up dying of it rather than just getting extremely ill but in any event it's likely taken years off their life expectancy. Any Russian soldiers who have been exposed for any great length of time I would gamble will now be far more likely to come down with various cancers as they get older.

To be clear this is likely due to exposure to radioactivity in the soil from the original accident which has been kicked up as dust by vehicles and from digging trenches(!) rather than new release of radiation from the Safe Confinement structure over reactor 4. Chernobyl was comparatively safe to visit as long as you didn't, you know, go around kicking up dust inhaling it as well eating and drinking things which might have been exposed to that dust and dirt.

 

[najaB]

Who knows whether any of them will end up dying of it rather than just getting extremely ill but in any event it's likely taken years off their life expectancy. Any Russian soldiers who have been exposed for any great length of time I would gamble will now be far more likely to come down with various cancers as they get older.

Well, it's a good thing that they can look forward to assistance and compensation from the government for the damage done to their health.

 

[DustyBin]

Well, it's a good thing that they can look forward to assistance and compensation from the government for the damage done to their health.

Quite, and happy in the knowledge they were fighting for a just cause!