[Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Guru Jason
No, every country that has joined nato has done so of their own democratic choice. Nato have not coerced, threatened or attacked anyone to expand.
Russia has.
Russia has.
I agree.
Although - if I wanted to be pedantic - I could argue that Portugal acceded to NATO during the Estado Novo regime and Turkey and Greece had dictatorships whilst in NATO; but that's by-the-by. Some skeletons can be forgotten. Well just pretend all democracy. It's also worth asking what does 'choice' mean in the international anarchic world. I think you're taking a lot for granted here. We are used to thinking about choice - in the West - in terms of picking someone for a ballot. In elections, no-one is allowed to threaten you. We live in a world of police officers, courts, judges and democratic accountability. No-one can run for Mayor saying "vote for me, because if you vote for John; Liverpool will come and attack us". But, in the international order, there is only one currency and that is power. Do you honestly think we were exercising our 'choice' when we decided to join NATO? England was one of the greatest imperial powers in history. We didn't really have a 'choice'. Like all states, we reacted to the structure of the international order and picked an option among limited number of alternatives. Being weak and small in the international world means you must enter into alliances. These states have no meaningful agency. They respond in entirely predictable ways. What you call a 'democratic choice' is in fact merely the option presented by the equilibrium of power. So, for example, the Turkish government recently agreed to Finnish and Sweden membership NATO. To most that looks like good-old lovely democracy. But in fact, it's just a bargain. Did Finland and Sweden have a 'democratic choice'? Turkey got a deal which was governed by the only currency that matters: military power and security. The US decided to sell Turkey military fighter jets after approving Sweden's Nato bid. If you look at the total NATO expenditure, you will get a bit of perspective. 70% of NATO's budget comes from America alone. Germany, France and the UK rounding out 15% between as a minor power centre. NATO is overwhelmingly an expression of American military power. That peerless US military might allows the Finnish President to puff his chest and say 'We are not afraid of Russia'. So, military alliances aren't actually about exericing the state's "own democratic choice".
Ultimately, you see 'democratic choice' (and typed it in your reply) as a concept that actually means something. It is a kind of buzzword that has inherent value. I understand that. I live in England and I am grateful that we are a liberal democracy with elections. But, 'democratic choice' means absolutely nothing in the international domain. As Morgenthau taught us, in the landscape of international politics, the national interest is defined in terms of power which really means security. NATO is basically American guns.
The problem I have is that NATO made assurances to the Soviets not to expand its military alliance eastwards in 1990. James Baker and Hans-Dieter Genscher have made this clear. Gorbachev and the Kremlin made clear that NATO expansion eastwards would be regarded as an unacceptable Russian security risk. It would shift the balance of power which they said they would not accept. Problem is that it was a gentleman's agreement which the US promptly broke.
Yet in the mere two decades since then, Russia has not changed its position at all. It has maintained the same policy, and again and again and again. It has been saying the same stuff. It became increasingly disturbed by the regime change interventions in Iraq, Libya, Kosovo etc. which brazenly broke non-intervention norms of IR. The Soviet Union gave permission for the 2 Germanies to be united on the dissolution of the Warsaw pact. Yet, they were never really invited into NATO proper. The former enemy was kept out. Russia eventually lost patience and invaded Ukraine before US controlled missiles could be placed within 5 minutes of Moscow. Russia isn't conquering Europe or anyone else. Russia is merely enforcing its own version of the Monroe doctrine. It is a red line against a military encroachment.
All of the major diplomats - esp. European ones - warned that NATO risked sparking Russian hostility when it began crafting the policy of enlargement. At the time, liberal internationalism was ascendant in IR theory. So, alliance leaders downplayed this danger because they fundamentally believed that Russian anxieties could be influenced by their arguments about NATO's new-founded 'benevolence' and their offers of a new cooperative partnership which would lead to democratic and economic entanglement and less conflict. A la the French revolution! At this time, Francis Fukyama wrote the defining article of the decade called the End of History which made this kind of argument.
I think the 11 September attacks and the huge global warfare represented an abatement of tensions. But those tensions never left. They came to the surface in 2006, and burst forth in NATO's Bucharest summit of 2008 (in the heyday of the hyper-liberal Bush doctrine) and then 2012. See the 2010 explanation of Russian military strategy. They called NATO (page 3) their 'main external military dangers'. In other words, primary threat.
'8. The main external military dangers are:
a) the desire to endow the force potential of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) with global functions carried out in violation of the norms of international law and to move the military infrastructure of NATO member countries closer to the borders of the Russian Federation, including by expanding the bloc;'
Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has been saying the same thing. Again and again: stop enlarging this miliary bloc. What the hell is NATO even for? Nobody knows. It's whatever unipolar power decides. So, the former enemy sees its quondam military bloc inching closer-and-closer-and-closer. And what has NATO done? It has already demonstrated that it will use military power in non-defensive conflicts for regime change purposes. It does so in spite of Russian protests. Basically saying whatever security concerns, we (liberal democracies) don't give a f***. Well, Russians aren't going to start crying. The international system itself drives state conduct and state policies will be adopted in response to that.So, similarly, Russia had already made clear in Georgia that it will respond with force if the military bloc encroaches on Russian borderlands.
Not once has Russia ever truly participated in managing Europe's security - including the Kosovo independence in which Russian concerns were sidelined. It's this partial exclusion which has seriously fuelled Russian mistrust and wrought the realist geopolitical perspective - particularly after NATO/West supported the democratic revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia - Orange and Pink.
Putin, let's not forget, is an authoritarian whose worldview was formed as a KGB officer in the setting days of the cold war. Putin reflects Russia. If he is removed, we're not going to get a pliant Russia. We're probably going to get some more tough and hardliner against NATO.
Our NATO enlargement policy has been on autopilot for so many - dominated by idealist thinking which says the only valid national security concerns are our own. My original post (which you quoted) said "All states have expansionist ideals - after all that is what NATO is." I don't expect you to agree with me (which I respect), but I hope you can see where I am coming from.
Original post by Djtoodles
Exactly anyone making that argument does so from an obviously anti-western position and they either don’t see how it’s a huge false equivalence or are willing to overlook it so they can push a pro-Russian position. Both are pretty bad. Its just so massively disingenuous.
The worst one could argue about the West is that it played into Russia’s hands, not because they actually care about NATO being a neighbour (let’s just ignore Finland and the Baltic states lol) but because Russia used it as a justification to invade and grab some land from what they thought would be an easy target. However the whole thing and Russian performance does raise questions about what kind of drugs Russian brass were taking when they decided it would be a good idea.
The worst one could argue about the West is that it played into Russia’s hands, not because they actually care about NATO being a neighbour (let’s just ignore Finland and the Baltic states lol) but because Russia used it as a justification to invade and grab some land from what they thought would be an easy target. However the whole thing and Russian performance does raise questions about what kind of drugs Russian brass were taking when they decided it would be a good idea.
I think the problem here is assuming that arguments are either pro-Russia or pro-Western.
For me, I have no particular like of Putin. I would prefer my life in the Western UK as opposed to Russia.
But, I regard IR from the perspective - not of moral judgment - and picking the good-guy. It's a question of being objective. Have a read of my views above which I spent an age typing up. Realism gives you tools to understand conflict and power relations between states. It's ok to criticise our own governments. It doesn't make us pro-Russian. It's ok to say that we have pursued policies that have caused trouble.
I think this conflict is completely avoidable. The whole reason the Cold war never went nuclear was because Western leaders actually respected the balance of power politics. I am not saying the necessarily respected Russia, or that they liked Russia, or were pro-Russia. I am saying the respect the underlying structure which prevented serious conflict.
Original post by Djtoodles
Exactly anyone making that argument does so from an obviously anti-western position and they either don’t see how it’s a huge false equivalence or are willing to overlook it so they can push a pro-Russian position. Both are pretty bad. Its just so massively disingenuous.
The worst one could argue about the West is that it played into Russia’s hands, not because they actually care about NATO being a neighbour (let’s just ignore Finland and the Baltic states lol) but because Russia used it as a justification to invade and grab some land from what they thought would be an easy target. However the whole thing and Russian performance does raise questions about what kind of drugs Russian brass were taking when they decided it would be a good idea.
The worst one could argue about the West is that it played into Russia’s hands, not because they actually care about NATO being a neighbour (let’s just ignore Finland and the Baltic states lol) but because Russia used it as a justification to invade and grab some land from what they thought would be an easy target. However the whole thing and Russian performance does raise questions about what kind of drugs Russian brass were taking when they decided it would be a good idea.
It's ultimately an intelligence led failure compounded by a strategic failure. In a democracy, Putin, the head of the FSB and the Minister for Defense would have all been hung out to dry.
It was an intelligence led failure because the FSB incorrectly advised the probable reaction of the west (i.e. they underestimated how annoyed things like Novochok made the UK and USA) while it was a strategic failure because they clearly expected Keiv to fall and had no plan B. It's also clear that while Russia has a large number of Soviet paper assets, they lack the ability to logistically supply these assets, hence they can't even establish air dominance.
Russia has now blown through a $600bn reserve it had built up, has lost substantial oil and gas revenue (China only purchases at Moscow rather than global prices) and has increased military spending to about ~20% GDP which will produce a recession once it is eventually withdrawn.
Original post by Guru Jason
No, every country that has joined nato has done so of their own democratic choice. Nato have not coerced, threatened or attacked anyone to expand.
Russia has.
Russia has.
That doesn't really negate the point of it being expansionist though, equally, it doesn't negate the point that expansion is inherently threatening to those on the other side.. the means of said expansion being, i would posit, utterly irrelevant to the point.
That being said though, NATO has indeed had its violent moments in the east. Whether or not they were to try and absorb other countries isn't really relevant when another country sees an avowedly militarist bloc marching towards them and blitzing their allies for potentially questionable reasons.
Original post by Supermature
The problem is that Mr Zelensky's current 10 point peace plan is wholly unrealistic. Were he willing to return to the 15 point peace plan that he put forward in early 2022 there would be the real possibility of peace.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/zelensky-davos-ceasefire/
Mr Zelensky has boxed himself into a corner by repeatedly declaring that a Ukrainian "victory" requires Russia to withdraw from all the territory it has occupied since 2014. If this doesn't happen then, by his own admission, he has failed, and by extension, the death and destruction that his country has endured will have been for nothing. A brave and tireless patriot he may be, but he has also been exceptionally naïve. In particular, he allowed himself to believe the likes of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss - failed politicians who have since departed the scene and are now busy lining their pockets by making intellectually vacuous statements in speeches and articles paid for by their diminishing band of devotees. They, and others, convinced him that he should fight on at the very moment that negotiations were on the brink of a breakthrough. The result has been the ill-fated counter-offensive and the concomitant loss of support from Ukraine's Western allies.
It is quite reasonable for Ukraine to present the 10 point plan as a starting point for negotiations. But it must signal, at least in private, its willingness to compromise. As the article cited above suggests, the Russians may be doing exactly that. Sadly, with Russia currently having the upper hand, any settlement is likely to be less favourable to Ukraine than it might have been in the spring of 2022 before Russia "annexed" territories that it was previously content to see remaining under the Ukrainian flag but with a quasi-independent status.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/zelensky-davos-ceasefire/
Mr Zelensky has boxed himself into a corner by repeatedly declaring that a Ukrainian "victory" requires Russia to withdraw from all the territory it has occupied since 2014. If this doesn't happen then, by his own admission, he has failed, and by extension, the death and destruction that his country has endured will have been for nothing. A brave and tireless patriot he may be, but he has also been exceptionally naïve. In particular, he allowed himself to believe the likes of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss - failed politicians who have since departed the scene and are now busy lining their pockets by making intellectually vacuous statements in speeches and articles paid for by their diminishing band of devotees. They, and others, convinced him that he should fight on at the very moment that negotiations were on the brink of a breakthrough. The result has been the ill-fated counter-offensive and the concomitant loss of support from Ukraine's Western allies.
It is quite reasonable for Ukraine to present the 10 point plan as a starting point for negotiations. But it must signal, at least in private, its willingness to compromise. As the article cited above suggests, the Russians may be doing exactly that. Sadly, with Russia currently having the upper hand, any settlement is likely to be less favourable to Ukraine than it might have been in the spring of 2022 before Russia "annexed" territories that it was previously content to see remaining under the Ukrainian flag but with a quasi-independent status.
As the above quotation exemplifies, I have devoted most of my posts in this thread to urge all parties to this appalling tragedy to come forward and negotiate.
Those participants in the debate who confidently predicted that last year's counter-offensive would result in Ukrainian forces, with the aid of superior Western weaponry, sweeping across huge swathes of occupied territory - causing Russian troops to flee in terror - have fallen silent. Likewise, those who predicted that Russia would succumb to an economic collapse.
The reality has been very different, as these two articles show:
Outgunned and exhausted: what hope for Ukraine if US military aid dries up?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/11/ukraine-outgunned-and-exhausted-what-hope-if-us-military-aid-dries-up
Exhausted Ukraine struggles to find new men for front line
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68255490
As I predicted, public support in the West for the Ukrainian cause has markedly declined. Western politicians, while still publicly adhering to the "as long as it takes" rhetoric are clearly looking for a way out, while some Ukrainian leaders are reportedly preparing to blame the West if they are unable to realise their declared objective of driving Russia out of every inch of the territory it now occupies.
How on Earth did it come to this? In his recent "interview" with Tucker Carlson (in reality, a long-winded and eccentric history lesson combined with a party political broadcast) Mr Putin clearly indicated a willingness to negotiate along the lines that were being discussed in the spring of 2022. Mr Zelensky and his close aids should seize the opportunity. They need not meet Mr Putin face-to-face. They need not give in to all Russia's demands: but they will need to compromise. Any further financial support for Ukraine should be contingent on this approach and be directed towards defensive capabilities, humanitarian aid and reconstruction.
In the early stages of the conflict, I made donations to Ukraine. I was and still am highly sympathetic to their plight. But, at the same time, I believe that Mr Zelensky has been incredibly naïve in heeding those Western leaders who, for their own reasons, encouraged him to fight when he could have reached a settlement of his own devising. Now, as the above articles show, he is faced with an exhausted populace who are beginning to wonder whether all the sacrifices they are being asked to make are going to be in vain.
Original post by Supermature
As the above quotation exemplifies, I have devoted most of my posts in this thread to urge all parties to this appalling tragedy to come forward and negotiate.
Those participants in the debate who confidently predicted that last year's counter-offensive would result in Ukrainian forces, with the aid of superior Western weaponry, sweeping across huge swathes of occupied territory - causing Russian troops to flee in terror - have fallen silent. Likewise, those who predicted that Russia would succumb to an economic collapse.
The reality has been very different, as these two articles show:
Outgunned and exhausted: what hope for Ukraine if US military aid dries up?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/11/ukraine-outgunned-and-exhausted-what-hope-if-us-military-aid-dries-up
Exhausted Ukraine struggles to find new men for front line
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68255490
As I predicted, public support in the West for the Ukrainian cause has markedly declined. Western politicians, while still publicly adhering to the "as long as it takes" rhetoric are clearly looking for a way out, while some Ukrainian leaders are reportedly preparing to blame the West if they are unable to realise their declared objective of driving Russia out of every inch of the territory it now occupies.
How on Earth did it come to this? In his recent "interview" with Tucker Carlson (in reality, a long-winded and eccentric history lesson combined with a party political broadcast) Mr Putin clearly indicated a willingness to negotiate along the lines that were being discussed in the spring of 2022. Mr Zelensky and his close aids should seize the opportunity. They need not meet Mr Putin face-to-face. They need not give in to all Russia's demands: but they will need to compromise. Any further financial support for Ukraine should be contingent on this approach and be directed towards defensive capabilities, humanitarian aid and reconstruction.
In the early stages of the conflict, I made donations to Ukraine. I was and still am highly sympathetic to their plight. But, at the same time, I believe that Mr Zelensky has been incredibly naïve in heeding those Western leaders who, for their own reasons, encouraged him to fight when he could have reached a settlement of his own devising. Now, as the above articles show, he is faced with an exhausted populace who are beginning to wonder whether all the sacrifices they are being asked to make are going to be in vain.
Those participants in the debate who confidently predicted that last year's counter-offensive would result in Ukrainian forces, with the aid of superior Western weaponry, sweeping across huge swathes of occupied territory - causing Russian troops to flee in terror - have fallen silent. Likewise, those who predicted that Russia would succumb to an economic collapse.
The reality has been very different, as these two articles show:
Outgunned and exhausted: what hope for Ukraine if US military aid dries up?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/11/ukraine-outgunned-and-exhausted-what-hope-if-us-military-aid-dries-up
Exhausted Ukraine struggles to find new men for front line
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68255490
As I predicted, public support in the West for the Ukrainian cause has markedly declined. Western politicians, while still publicly adhering to the "as long as it takes" rhetoric are clearly looking for a way out, while some Ukrainian leaders are reportedly preparing to blame the West if they are unable to realise their declared objective of driving Russia out of every inch of the territory it now occupies.
How on Earth did it come to this? In his recent "interview" with Tucker Carlson (in reality, a long-winded and eccentric history lesson combined with a party political broadcast) Mr Putin clearly indicated a willingness to negotiate along the lines that were being discussed in the spring of 2022. Mr Zelensky and his close aids should seize the opportunity. They need not meet Mr Putin face-to-face. They need not give in to all Russia's demands: but they will need to compromise. Any further financial support for Ukraine should be contingent on this approach and be directed towards defensive capabilities, humanitarian aid and reconstruction.
In the early stages of the conflict, I made donations to Ukraine. I was and still am highly sympathetic to their plight. But, at the same time, I believe that Mr Zelensky has been incredibly naïve in heeding those Western leaders who, for their own reasons, encouraged him to fight when he could have reached a settlement of his own devising. Now, as the above articles show, he is faced with an exhausted populace who are beginning to wonder whether all the sacrifices they are being asked to make are going to be in vain.
It likely doesn't help that Kiev seems appalling at seeming grateful for billions in aid. Whether or not its justified a not insignificant number of people take exception to reading about billions of their pounds being given to a country they dont know and the next day reading quotes from their leadership whining about it being not nearly enough.
In turn, despite the relative media blackout here on it, i imagine a fair few raise an eyebrow to seeing the Russians commit atrocity after atrocity and then finding out that Kiev does the same, albeit on a reduced scale (see striking shopping centres for example).
Simply put though its just another war in a far off land, people are suffering here through inflation and incompent leaders i'm not about to blame them for being tired of told to pay more to government, to receive less whilst foreign states reap it as well. After all, how much has Britain given and what was the shortfall on major infrastructure works/healthcare? The case is even worse in America of course, $50bn odd is an astounding amount of money and thats just the tranche being argued over.
Original post by Napp
It likely doesn't help that Kiev seems appalling at seeming grateful for billions in aid. Whether or not its justified a not insignificant number of people take exception to reading about billions of their pounds being given to a country they dont know and the next day reading quotes from their leadership whining about it being not nearly enough.
In turn, despite the relative media blackout here on it, i imagine a fair few raise an eyebrow to seeing the Russians commit atrocity after atrocity and then finding out that Kiev does the same, albeit on a reduced scale (see striking shopping centres for example).
Simply put though its just another war in a far off land, people are suffering here through inflation and incompent leaders i'm not about to blame them for being tired of told to pay more to government, to receive less whilst foreign states reap it as well. After all, how much has Britain given and what was the shortfall on major infrastructure works/healthcare? The case is even worse in America of course, $50bn odd is an astounding amount of money and thats just the tranche being argued over.
In turn, despite the relative media blackout here on it, i imagine a fair few raise an eyebrow to seeing the Russians commit atrocity after atrocity and then finding out that Kiev does the same, albeit on a reduced scale (see striking shopping centres for example).
Simply put though its just another war in a far off land, people are suffering here through inflation and incompent leaders i'm not about to blame them for being tired of told to pay more to government, to receive less whilst foreign states reap it as well. After all, how much has Britain given and what was the shortfall on major infrastructure works/healthcare? The case is even worse in America of course, $50bn odd is an astounding amount of money and thats just the tranche being argued over.
We have to bear in mind that in the spring of 2022 the Ukrainian leadership was encouraged continue fighting by leaders such as Boris Johnson, who allegedly told Mr Zelensky that the West would not accept a peace settlement at that stage. To be fair to Mr Zelensky, he was probably unaware of Mr Johnson's reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth and could not have predicted his ignominious downfall.
A BBC News report today on the situation in Avdiivka, where Ukrainian forces are in danger of defeat, indicates that there may be signs of a change of heart on Ukraine's part. It cites Ukrainian General Oleksandr Tarnavsky as saying, "We value every piece of Ukrainian land, but the highest value and priority for us is the preservation of the life of the Ukrainian soldier". This would seem to mark a significant change from the stance taken at the start of the ill-fated counter-offensive, when many soldiers lost their lives or suffered horrendous injuries in pursuit of a campaign that was doomed to failure before it even began.
Ukraine is now desperately short of ammunition and the multi billion dollar support package is still held up in the US House of Representatives. Although this funding is likely to eventually be approved it is not going to fundamentally change the situation on the ground where the biggest problem Ukraine faces is in finding enough of its younger citizens ready and willing to fight. They can hardly be blamed when they know only too well what has happened to friends, relatives and compatriots who have either not survived or returned from the front with life-changing injuries.
Everyone now wants out but without loss of face. The tragedy is that there is a deal to be done. Nobody wins and nobody loses - except of course the poor souls on both sides who, as so often in history, have died or suffered heinously because of the arrogance and stupidity of their leaders.
One final, unrelated comment. As I write, there are reports that the jailed Russian opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, collapsed and died earlier today "while taking a walk". Whatever our views on this conflict, most contributors to this thread will be appalled by that news. And, as for the cause of death, it would be putting it politely to say that we are entitled to be sceptical.
(edited 2 months ago)
Alexa nalveny confirmed as passed away
I am reminded by the election scene in blackadder where he says “the previous occupant accidentally and brutally cut his own head off while combing his hair”
I am reminded by the election scene in blackadder where he says “the previous occupant accidentally and brutally cut his own head off while combing his hair”
I have loved ones in Ukraine and I worry about the current situation there. The human cost is immeasurable, and it's tragic that so many suffer due to the actions of a few. However, I do believe that Ukraine will overcome these challenges with the help and support of the international community. I also came across a great website https://cartodonate.com where you can help Ukraine. It's important to do our part to support its people during these difficult times.
(edited 2 months ago)
Original post by Jordref
I have loved ones in Ukraine and I worry about the current situation there. The human cost is immeasurable, and it's tragic that so many suffer due to the actions of a few. However, I do believe that Ukraine will overcome these challenges with the help and support of the international community. I also came across a great website https://cartodonate.com where you can help Ukraine. It's important to do our part to support its people during these difficult times.
I pass no comment on people choosing to support Ukraine however it is interesting the exceptionally notable differences between this and any other recent conflict. I mean, just imagine the reaction if tens of billions had been sent to Syria, people were encouraged to sign up as fighters and so on. Of course, there are actual differences between those conflicts but if you use a like for like exchange then anyone who did this in the latter tended to be treated somewhat different than the ones around the Ukraine. Interesting, if nothing else.
2nd anniversary of the invasion today 
(edited 2 months ago)
Original post by erin11
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68467359
'BBC News - Germany under pressure to explain intercepted phone call'
'BBC News - Germany under pressure to explain intercepted phone call'
The BBC link at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68467359 is "George Galloway vows his party will take Angela Rayner's seat".
Original post by londonmyst
What intercepted phone call?
The BBC link at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68467359 is "George Galloway vows his party will take Angela Rayner's seat".
The BBC link at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68467359 is "George Galloway vows his party will take Angela Rayner's seat".
Original post by londonmyst
What intercepted phone call?
The BBC link at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68467359 is "George Galloway vows his party will take Angela Rayner's seat".
The BBC link at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68467359 is "George Galloway vows his party will take Angela Rayner's seat".
German air force officials were having sensitive discussions on an unencrypted channel/platform and this discussion got intercepted.
Original post by Napp
As a matter of interest, where do you view enough as being enough though? After all, the logic that continued external support, for both sides, is simply keeping the meat grinder running whilst not really helping anyone does stand. Do you view sovereignty as sacrosanct above all else (the old quote about ruling the rubble being apt), as our government claims to, or do you think it would be better to live under the thumb of Russia but, well, live?
I pass no comment on people choosing to support Ukraine however it is interesting the exceptionally notable differences between this and any other recent conflict. I mean, just imagine the reaction if tens of billions had been sent to Syria, people were encouraged to sign up as fighters and so on. Of course, there are actual differences between those conflicts but if you use a like for like exchange then anyone who did this in the latter tended to be treated somewhat different than the ones around the Ukraine. Interesting, if nothing else.
I pass no comment on people choosing to support Ukraine however it is interesting the exceptionally notable differences between this and any other recent conflict. I mean, just imagine the reaction if tens of billions had been sent to Syria, people were encouraged to sign up as fighters and so on. Of course, there are actual differences between those conflicts but if you use a like for like exchange then anyone who did this in the latter tended to be treated somewhat different than the ones around the Ukraine. Interesting, if nothing else.
Yes - to die for. We give half hearted support to Ukraine but this is exactly how Hitler gained his henchmen and became obsessed with power - encouraging the extermination of its own people.
The worst part today is that a number of our society consist of spoilt over indulged people who have lost sight of what real hardship is (broken eyelash syndrome) When freedom is gone it is often gone for good. Too late when half hearted apathy lets it go. So maybe the apathetic here should just go to Russia and carry on there - with some interesting observations? There are probably many Russian sympathisers here in significant numbers but nobody bothered to count them in.
I'm just glad you weren't influential when Hitler was in power.
Nothing says "the 'special operation' is going well" like a propaganda book designed to recruit teenagers to feed into the meat grinder.
Gross stuff.
BBC > Russian schoolbook urges teenagers to join the army
Gross stuff.
BBC > Russian schoolbook urges teenagers to join the army
Putting 'encouraged' in speechmarks would have been an absolute banger here.
BBC > Occupied Ukraine encouraged to vote in Russian election by armed men
BBC > Occupied Ukraine encouraged to vote in Russian election by armed men
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68692195
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has warned Europe is in a "pre-war era" and Ukraine must not be defeated by Russia for the good of the whole continent.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has warned Europe is in a "pre-war era" and Ukraine must not be defeated by Russia for the good of the whole continent.
Original post by Talkative Toad
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68692195
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has warned Europe is in a "pre-war era" and Ukraine must not be defeated by Russia for the good of the whole continent.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has warned Europe is in a "pre-war era" and Ukraine must not be defeated by Russia for the good of the whole continent.
bit hard when the main funder for ukraine is a democratic country that has a recent election coming up where a person who isn't exactly pro ukraine is the favourite.
Original post by jacksmith23
bit hard when the main funder for ukraine is a democratic country that has a recent election coming up where a person who isn't exactly pro ukraine is the favourite.
Donald Trump USA?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- New search On The Student Room!
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- This will inspire you !
- Guys which are like this
- I have no friends, no relationship, nothing, I'm rejected for my Nationality
- Transferring Medical Schools
- I would like some sugestions of schools to go to
- Where can I practise Russian?
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- Medicine - forgetting everything
- Medic mentor virtual work experience
- Should i go for STP course of cardiac science
- Introducing an Eelam flag emoticon on TSR
- Why do some soldiers rape?
- Are these extra circulars enough for medical school
- Sofia Medical University 2023
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- IEU - Ukraine
- Think twice about applying abroad for medicine!!!**
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
