Is Arming Ukraine and Sanctioning Russia the Right Response to Putin’s Invasion?
The Daily Sceptic’s Noah Carl, who is a critic of the West’s response to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, has posted a podcast debate on the issue between him and Konstantin Kisin, the Russian comedian, on his Substack account. This is how Noah tees it up:
Our discussion centres on the question, ‘Arming Ukraine and sanctioning Russia – is this the right approach?’ Konstantin takes the position that, broadly speaking, it is the right approach. I take the contrary position, arguing that this approach may have serious unintended consequences, and that the West ought to try a different strategy.
Worth listening in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Like I said below, we badly need a government minister of unintended consequences (and the clueless Tony Blair certainly did).
Don’t they all fill that role?
Given that there is a Minister for just about everything, (even lonliness FFS)
, why not?
The conflict in Yemen is between 2 proxy countries, there have been others.
The War in Ukraine started when Obama instigated the Maidan Coup in 2014, this then led to the self determination referendums The Donbass and for the past 8 years the Ukraine military led by the Neo Nazi Avoz Battalion have been shelling civilians in that region
To avoid war the west should have stopped moving NATO and the EU Eastwards, they should have implemented the Minsk Agreements but instead chose WAR
Things Konstantin misses
War = weapons = profits for the arms makers = payments to politicians.
2014? What happened in 2008 then? And is the Azov battalion really leading them, or for that matter mainly neo-Nazi?
It was clear enough in 2014 that the EU had a role in provoking this situation, which perhaps undermined their efforts in 2016 to claim that they were responsible for peace in Europe – the main justification for their existence. There may of course be some justification for closer cooperation between mainly countries of the former Carolingian empire, but, certainly the way things are now, their aggressive (and arrogant) expansionism was always likely to provoke a backlash sooner or later.
Who invaded Ukraine?
As in South Russia?
Perhaps England was once invaded by the Roudheads…
Ah… you believe Russia should acquire Ukraine?
I have been reading my 1906 encyclopaedia. That’s what part of it was called at the time. Another part was called. Another part was called Little Russia, another part was called Austria Hungary. I don’t know what to believe about recently made up countries, and it seems they don’t know what to believe about us if the Falklands is anything to go by.
Admittedly the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was only made up in 1922 (or so). But so far as England is concerned, we expect things to be done by consent and without violence. Wasn’t there a vote in the Donbass (as indicated elsewhere)? And was Russia ever likely to stand indefinitely for the slaughter of what she considers her own in that region/ At the end of the day, it is Russia that has the divisions and nuclear weapons, not me, so I think perhaps their policy needs to be take into account, whether or not the political ideologues who would kill us all for the sake of their ideology consider them right or wrong.
Should read Roundheads…
Who shelled
Donbass?
Nuland
All because the Western idiots continue with the farcical idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend!
Yes. Hence the interesting alliance between socialists and Islamists. More difficult after the Birmingham school nonsense, one assumes…
I have been struggling for some time to understand how this is UK’s war, when so many other territorial disputes have been left to the participants to settle between themselves.
Where we have been involved, we tend to intervene on the side of the oppressed.
For 8 years we have ignored the plight of ethnic Russians in the east of Ukraine and now become involved on the side of the bully when an even bigger bully tries to settle things and an even bigger bully realises they might be disadvantaged by that action.
Seems to me as if the UK sticks its nose into pretty much every territorial dispute across the globe. When it isn’t directly instigating it, that is.
Ooh, I wonder what side they took in South Sudan?
relevance to Ukraine is? ……
No, it’s relevant to Stewart’s post.
Indeed. What exactly has the UK (and the msm) done about the Donbass? Wht, for that matter, was done about the Salisbury attack, which caused years of hardship for that city? Is our politics really better than in the days of Old Sarum?
“Putin’s invasion”?
Russia is a member of the UN and the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) charter of 2005 allows countries to intervene when lives are at risk.
For the last 8 years thousands of ethnic Russians have been killed in Ukraine by neo-Nazi Ukrainians.
Russia is doing what NATO countries have done for years.
Arming the Ukrainians is totally the wrong approach as it will prolong the conflict and lead to more deaths.
Western governments and the public are supporting the wrong side.
All true – except perhaps the idea that we should support either side!
We should “support” Russia morally.
The West has no need to be involved.
I had a bit of a fancy for supporting Belarus in light of their alternative response to the shamdemic. I don’t know how much Russia had to do with it though. Incidentally, can I still buy Russian vodka?
getting harder by the day. I am sure there is a lot of it in warehouses but the righteous are virtual signalling by not putting on shelves to be bought.
I heard 13,000 were killed. Presumably some Ukrainians were killed too though, and not necessarily all neo- Nazis. Incidentally, how are things currently in Donetsk? I seem to have somehow missed most of the news reports about the situation in that city.
I follow independent journalists in Ukraine like Sonia Ende https://vk.com/sonjaende
Graham William Phillips https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4TCn-SJxoU
and Patrick Lancaster.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbjTWVaRx6jMN5ZYgbqe2_w
There are independent journalists in Mariupol? More than can be said for Russia. Allegedly (although | note the the BBC still seem to be sending reports from Moscow).
This guy is pretty independent https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com .
Yes the journalists are in Mariupol embedded within the protection of the Russian forces there clearing out the last dregs of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion who are holed up in the huge factories using civilians as human shields and bargaining chips to extricate themselves.
And you say there was a massacre in Mariupol after 2014? So how did people there feel about the February 2022 escalation? Or had people likely to object been “dealt with” by then?
The civilians left in Mariupol have recently been interviewed by the independent journalists and they say that most of the destruction is by the Ukrainian army and Azov Brigade and they welcome the Russian intervention.
Everything you see, hear or read in the legacy media is the opposite of reality.
Well I don’t doubt that Russia has legitimate grievances, but I don’t see how anything can be proved in the fog of war. I think I’d be like that fellow in the film Twelve Angry Men – I would want definite proof before I make uo my mind.
Definite proof is hard to come by but here is some very compelling evidence.
Top photo: A Ukrainian Tochka-U, commonly used by the Ukrainian fascist army, not used at all by the Russian army.
Bottom photo: the fragments of the rocket fired at the Kramatorsk train station. It’s a Tochka-U.
Possibly, I’m not a military expert.
And just how fascist are they? (As I’ve said, I suspect the Russian regime will have a field day if Marine wins).
Says who?
A fair point. The victors write history. We need full and thorough debate on points like this from experts on all sides, and we need it in the msm. But I guess I can dream on.
NATO-aligned Italian TV channel La7 scored a fantastic own goal. In his news report from Kramatorsk, the journalist showed the serial number of the Tochka-U missile that hit Kramatorsk station. The other Western channels had purposely blurred this key information.
Thanks to the serial number SH91579, the missile was traced back to the Ukrainian army. It had used other missiles of the same series to hit Alchevsk, Logvinovo, Berdyansk and Melitopol.
Alchevsk – Sh91565 (2015)
Logvinovo – Sh91566 (2015)
Berdyansk – Sh915611 (2022)
Melitopol – Sh915516 (2022)
Even so, nothing like this happened before 2022 (except perhaps in the Donbass). However legitimate their grievances, I suspect it still wouldn’t be if Russia had not invaded “South Russia”. Is this correct? And does it matter?
It has happened before when NATO countries bombed Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria under the false pretence of R2P.
In the Ukraine though. It was escalated in February. I seem to remember that most people assumed that Russia would not launch a large scale invasion encompassing many areas of the country. If they had simply decided to defend what was already held by the Donetsk and Lugansk “republics”, Lemberg and Mariupol and the rest might have been spared.
Russia is liberating the parts of Ukraine where there are many ethnic Russians from neo-Nazi militia who are backed by the Ukrainian government.
Odessa will be another target in retribution for the slaughter of ethnic Russians by the fascists in the arson attack on the Trade Union building in 2014.
https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/ukrainian-rightists-burn-alive-39-at-odessa-union-building/
That’s the propaganda you have been fed.
Ooh look, Matt Hancock is coming soon on Dan Wooton’s show. A special treat (but perhaps not for when you are eating).
Given the developments since February and the intense cultural and political significance of Odessa in Russian history, I suspect that it will be included in a republic (or republics) that are independent of Ukraine and aligned with Russia – along with the entire Black Sea coast.
The Ukrainian government appears to have had no understanding of Realpolitik and an absurd faith in semi-divine intervention.
The sense of godlike invincibility that has so grossly corrupted key sectors of US policy-making since 1989 has had and is continuing to have terrible consequences.
Mariupol is part of the Donetsk Oblast, under occupation by the Kiev regime for 8 years.
As for the option of limiting operations to just the Donbass, iirc Putin was asked that specific question when he announced the SMO, and made the pretty reasonable point, imo, that doing so would merely shift the borders back a bit but leave the problem of Ukrainian aggression towards the Donbass unresolved.
And how can it be resolved? It reminds me of the more extreme elements in Northern Ireland who might consider genocide or mass expulsion to be a legitimate way of furthering their ends. I would like to think that there are other ways though.
I think a permanent partition is now unavoidable. It could have been avoided (Crimea aside, but Crimea is better as part of Russia on every legitimate count) right up to this year, imo, if a Ukrainian regime in a position to honestly implement Minsk 2 had been in office, but in truth it appears the powers disallowing that (nationalist Ukrainian thugs and US sphere deep state types) were probably always too strong.
The Russians will have to police it, but they will be doing so from a position of having destroyed the NATO-ised military capability of the Ukraine to cause trouble, mostly.
“nationalist Ukrainian thugs and US sphere deep state types) “
Not the words of a balanced or informed commentator.
More the rabid Putin supporter!
“(Crimea aside, but Crimea is better as part of Russia on every legitimate count)”
Apart from water supply. Perhaps that is one reason they wanted a land bridge?
If you are using the “SMO” phrase, you have been brainwashed by the Russian line.
SMO, which is a form of warfare.
That’s what Putin called it, so that’s what I use when referring to what Putin said.
Russia has invaded Ukraine.
Yes, I don’t think that’s under dispute. And I’m not sure that how one refers to warfare makes any material difference.
From Russia’s point of view, I suppose they would say they have come to the aid of their allies in the Donetsk and Lugansk republics (who have been at war since 2014).And securing the Crimea, which voted to become part of Russia (like Catalonia a few years ago).
Catalonia voted to be part of Russia?
Catalonia is a similar case to the Crimea in that they voted to separate from the country they were then a part of (in Catalonia’s case, obviously Spain) but this was rejected in both cases by the country which they would be leaving. Spain as I recall responded in quite a heavy handed way though fortunately in their case it did not escalate to war this time.
Remember when ethnic cleansing was regarded as just cause for military intervention ?
Tree does not respond to questions of this kind, as you know Dale (not in the programme).
But, yes – some of us (with less convenient memories) do.
Ukraine had already been invaded by the cabal and its CIA puppets in 2014. Thats when the last remnants of its independence went. Nuland can be heard deciding who will be president. I’m not writing this for your sake, as you are merely an agitator. Im writing this for others to read.
Thanks, Cornubian.
The invasion to which you refer has certain similarities with Anschluss, but (I believe), with less general enthusiasm for the invaders than was the case in Austria in 1938.
I doubt the opinions of many Ukrainians (including Western Ukrainians) were given much respect. They seem to have preferred to live in peace. With dishonourable exceptions, Ukrainian soldiers were not keen on their task of ethnic cleansing: numerous desertions, even suicides.
Can you attest to the truth of this report?
Of course you can’t. I’ve found the sources, where you have cut and paste from.
You’ve chosen what to believe and this shows your antagonism towards Ukraine and their people.
When you have an actual fact to quote do so. In the mean time be sceptical about what you are told.
You’ve chosen what to believe and this shows your antagonism towards Russian and their people.
The balance in deaths between Ukraine and Donbass is about one to four.
And what about that RT piece about a child in the separatist held territory playing with empty shell casings that had landed near by, and her mother fearing for their safety (actually she said the girl was more afraid of storms than artillery fire)? How many civilians were affected on each side?
How many lives has Putin’s invasion “saved” then?
And how many lives were saved by the defence of Stalingrad and all the other battles of that terrible war? Sometimes saving one’s own skin is not the only consideration. Could Constantinople have saved themselves by surrendering to the Ottoman forces instead of defending their city? Would any of them have wanted to?
Not a meaningful point.
You might as well write your recipe for custard…
The “Glass half full” maniac justifies the invasion on the grounds of saving lives.
Another not meaningful point. Britain might have saved lives by coming to terms with Germany in 1940 instead of fighting on, as indeed some people wanted to.
Clearly lives will be lost in the short term. Long term, it all depends what Russia do with their independence (which can not be maintained without cost). Be clear, many lives are being extinguished by members of the EU (which The Ukraine proposes to join). And be clear also, some people (heroes, some would call them) would not necessarily prefer to remain alive having surrendered what they hold most dear. Do you remember that news item about those Ukrainian coastguards on that island who “refused to surrender and got killed by the Russians”? As it turned out, they were not killed, but their supposed heroism was widely applauded.
How many lives has the Ukraine /nato defence “saved” then?
The truth about Zelenskys murderous CIA/NAZI fascist police state https://theduran.com/zelenskys-secret-cia-nazi-ukrainian-government/
Recommended reading from your link (thanks again, Cornubian):
On 21 July 2016, Amnesty International had issued “Torture and secret detention in Ukraine – new report”.
The narrative currently being peddled, in the interests of those who wish to see both Ukraine and Russia turned into fields of exploitation and looting, depends upon wiping such matters from the historical slate.
No side is faultless, but has it not occurred to you that Putin has been material in encouraging and supporting the Russian separatists and has run a very efficient disinformation campaign for those not prepared to root around for alternative information. You might gainfully look out the following very recently published book to gain a more balanced viewpoint, or seek out the writer, Taras Kuzio’s earlier work which is available less expensively as an ebook, but equally informative.
Putin’s War Against Ukraine: Revolution, Nationalism, and Crime Paperback and ebook – 11 Mar. 2017by Taras Kuzio (Author)
Ukraine’s Outpost: Dnipropetrovsk and the Russian- Ukrainian War Paperback – 19 Jan. 2022by Taras Kuzio (Author)
I’ve looked at Patrick Lancaster’s videos. He appears to mean well, but I believe his wife is Russian, and he chooses his interviewees selectively. Perhaps he is not as unbiased as you prefer to imagine.
Lots of things occur to me because I have been analysing geopolitics for over 40 years and there is always at least 2 sides to every argument.
When the analysis is done one can have a good understanding of where the truth lies.
All the evidence points to the US and it’s poodles being the greatest threat to world peace and Russia and China are a bulwark against US overt and covert aggression.
Even if you ignore every element of the past 8 years or more, how can any government in the world believe that it has any shred of morality if it does not encourage the parties to negotiate; to actively arm one of the parties in the absence of genuine diplomacy is morally bankrupt.
I am old enough to remember shuttle diplomacy from the mid 1970s – why is that so old- fashioned and inappropriate now?
Because it is purely an exercise in distracting the masses for the balls-up of our society and economy made by the criminals in charge these last two years, and the further degradation of our lives by Net Zero.
And the dozy masses are lapping it up.
The phantom “downticker” believes that diplomacy is wrong – what an imbecile.
No! Because it’s none of our business, does not serves the interests of the British people, and is making us poorer by causing increased economic damage on top of the ruination the idiots in Government have already caused.
And…
“The US government is scrambling to trace large quantities of “lethal aid”transferred to Ukraine’s armed forces in recent months, officials have allegedly leaked to CNN… the White House is increasingly concerned the aid “may wind up in the hands of other militaries and militias that the US did not intend to arm,” a senior defense official told CNN on Tuesday.”
Would that be the militias that the lying toads in US & British Govt tell us do not exist – just Russian propaganda used as an excuse to invade?
“The US government is scrambling to trace large quantities of “lethal aid”transferred to Ukraine’s armed forces in recent months, officials have allegedly leaked to CNN… the White House is increasingly concerned the aid “may wind up in the hands of other militaries and militias that the US did not intend to arm,” a senior defense official told CNN on Tuesday.”
Have these people learnt nothing from th/e Ethiopia debacle of the 1980’s?
“Because it’s… making us poorer”.
What was that experiment with rats where they were given just enough to survive, and had a thriving population – and then when they were given as much as they wanted, started experiencing all sorts of problems?
Yes, make poverty history and all that – but not much good if the wealth is chronically misused.
The reporting is stretching credulity now.
Ukrainian teleportation technology appears to have installed millions of women and children in a steel plant over the last few hours.
Because they have never been mentioned before in the last five weeks.
The Twitterati are going to lead us to nuclear annihilation if we don’t get together and stop them. They are insane
No, we are leading ourselves to nuclear annihilation. “The fruits of abortion are nuclear war” (Mother Teresa). How many have done something about it? A strong demographic element to the South Russia business.
I had this discussion with a friend over the weekend, he doesn’t look beyond the news at ten unfortunately, so I had to put it into hypothetical terms- We have much the same situation on our doorstep, with regard to Northern Ireland. “NI has a referendum, then decide to rejoin the Republic of Ireland, so the UK starts bombing them for eight years because of their decision to leave. So the ROI decide they have had enough and use force to regain control of NI. Who is right? Is intervention guided by a moral compass, or is it an allegiance? Now think about the same scenario, but the boot is on the other foot, NI sides with the UK, and the ROI decide to start shelling for eight years, should the UK go to N Ireland’s aid and take back possession of the territory?” He couldn’t give a straight answer, because he has too much skin in the game. So I had to point out, if you were in charge of the ROI or the UK being democratic nations, wouldn’t you just accept N Ireland’s decision and take no punitive action against them? His answer, “I would just nuke the… Read more »
Maybe an independent Scotland could bombard the Shetlands if they refused to be part of it?
Northern Ireland have been betrayed enough as it is, by the internal border agreed with the EU, and then by the UK imposing extreme abortion laws on the province without democratic consent, under the pretext of the suspension of the Stormont assembly – and further betrayed by Sinn Fein going along with this betrayal.
“Is Arming Ukraine and Sanctioning Russia the Right Response to Putin’s Invasion?”
No. Next question (note to self, this exam is a doddle).
The one question that would appear to have been ignored in all the gung-ho flag-waving and “support” and supply of weapons to Ukraine, a dubious place at the best of times, is this: What will the UK, the US, NATO, the West in general, actually DO if Putin does achieve his aims, whatever they may be, and overruns Ukraine? Setting aside the utter mess that it’s looking increasingly likely Putin will inherit, what will Johnson, Biden, Macron etc then do? If Putin does “win”, not only will there be a huge cost to Russia to repair the place and retain an ongoing military presence but, he will almost certainly have a long bloody guerrilla war to contend with, with thousands of displaced and very resentful Ukrainians unwilling to give up the fight. While that’s going on, does the West wring its collective hands and shout hurty words at Putin on Twitter, or does it steam in with the Big Guns and take him on in order to exonerate us with Zelensky, or does it sit on its hands and do absolutely nothing? This could get a lot more complicated, by dint of our ready involvement in yet another foreign war… Read more »
No, it shouts boaty words in Odessa…
So Manual Chevron is going to win then? I wonder. They have been talking approximately 52-48 in his favour. Then again, they were talking a similar margin in Brussels’ favour on 23rd (and probably early 24th) June 2016.
I’ve been wondering this. Alternative maps I have seen suggest that Putin has taken quite a chunk of territory in the east of Ukraine. Given that the majority of people probably couldn’t point to the Ukraine on a map in 2021, let along define the borders, are they just going to pretend this didn’t happen? Announce that Russia has withdrawn and then redraw the maps when people have forgotten?
I feel totally mad suggesting this but after the last two years it feels a plausible scenario.
I actually misread your post! I don’t think Putin wants all of Ukraine, just a corridor which includes a population that is largely ethnically Russian. I think Kiev was a distraction to allow him to take more of Eastern Ukraine.
but then I didn’t think he’d invade in the first place so what do I know!
“so what do I know?” Nothing is the answer.
Do you want to have a proper conversation or just be abusive (just out of interest)?
He/she/it doesn’t. Classic troll behaviour; insult everyone, make no points or express any opinions of their own whatsoever. Best ignored.
Maybe. I like trying to get through to these people, but sometimes it is probably more trouble than it’s worth if they are not going to engage properly.
77th or just bolshy, I wonder? There are “normal” people like that sometimes…
“so what do I know?” Nothing is the answer.
just for the record that there are other views, the simple fact is that Russia invaded Ukraine, is bombing cities in Ukraine etc.not the other way round, and aggression of this sort should not be rewarded in any way. there are enough historical parallels, danegeld, Sudetenland, where taking the easy course has only led to more problems later.Russia by the Budapest memorandum guaranteed Ukraines sovereignty, in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons. it broke that already in 2014 and of course now. (no country in future is going to give them up and I can think of a few with the capability who might now be acquiring them). Even if there had been the extent of shelling of civilians in the Donbas, and I do not accept the narrative given here, there is other sanctions Russia with all the heavier weapons at its disposal could have done locally without having to engage in an invasion of the whole country. it is time that 13000 figure was properly looked at being just as much caused by the Russians. the biggest contingent of casualties is 6000 Russian military followed by 4000 Ukrainian military. of the civilians that also includes all… Read more »
Iraq wasn’t bombing UK cities either, which is probably the reason the Blair creature lied about Iraq being able to deploy WMD against the UK in less than an hour.
Iraq should have been flattened faster. Putin should be targeted and assassinated to end this war
So should you to end the stream of drivel coming from your keyboard.
From the accounts I’ve seen, the likely replacements for Putin come from among the groups that think his biggest error is being too soft – old communists and hard line Russian nationalists and militarists, and that seems to be where Russian opinion lies.
Better hope you don’t get your wish….
I heard that some time ago. I was wondering if it was still true.
Fish finger sandwiches are good.
This fact has nothing to do with Ukraine being invaded.
Neither does the Iraq war..
It reveals Western hypocrisy.
The Iraq War was US, UK and numerous other nations invading a sovereign country.
And the referendum in Donetsk on the Maidan coup?
I don’t believe it was the original Russian intention to do anything other than sort out Donbass and allied areas.
I think that the constant goading by the West pushed Putin into widening the scope of his invasion to try to teach the West a lesson. He failed in that but has now done the sensible thing (from an offensive military point of view) and concentrated his effort along a single broad front on terrain that is compatible with a more mobile campaign.
That’s fine. Can you please write to the Treasury and tell them to use your tax contribution to send aid and weapons to Ukraine and reserve mine for UK only expenditure.
The manufacturers of the BUK missile did a simulation where they blew up different BUK missiles near the fuselage of a plane and their conclusion was that the BUK missile used to down MH17 was fired by the Ukrainians.
Of course the West came to a different conclusion because it didn’t fit their agenda.
Didn’t Holland have something to say about that?
The responsibility for investigation was delegated to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) and the Dutch-led joint investigation team (JIT), who concluded that the airliner was downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile launched from pro-Russian separatist-controlled territory in Ukraine.[3][7] According to the JIT, the Buk that was used originated from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade of the Russian Federation
And indeed the Hanseatic league (arguably a precursor of the EU) where the Danes were the victims.
No. The correct response from us is to mind our own business. It’s hardly as though we don’t have urgent and vital issues of our own to address in our own country, after all.
Not least of them, addressing the misrule that meant our country and those we are allied to contributed so much to the causes of the war in the Ukraine and Russia’s recent intervention in it.
We have no direct, material interest in the outcome. If we speak of general side-taking, then we should morally (but not actively) be on the side of governments like Russia’s, that are resisting the global menace that is the US sphere woke globalists, and against those like the Ukraine’s that operate as tools for the latter.
The best available outcome would be a quick peace that achieves all of Russia’s initial goals for their intervention, which are broadly good, on balance.
What if Poland and the Baltic states really are next though? It wouldn’t be the first time that an invasion of Poland affected us after all.
And what are the actual chances for your last point?
“And what are the actual chances for your last point?“
None. The moment for that passed when the US decided to use the Ukraine as a weapon, and the Ukrainian regime agreed to that.
“What if Poland and the Baltic states really are next though? It wouldn’t be the first time that an invasion of Poland affected us after all.“
It’s unlikely, because Russia has lived with those countries as part of NATO for years. Though obviously a lot depends on the actions of the US and its NATO proxies.
Regardless, settling the Ukraine war that has been going on for 8 year now is unlikely to put us in a significantly worse position to defend the NATO countries, which in any case is mostly based on nuclear deterrence.
We have no direct, material interest in the outcome. If we speak of general side-taking, then we should morally (but not actively) be on the side of governments like Russia’s, that are resisting the global menace that is the US sphere woke globalists, and against those like the Ukraine’s that operate as tools for the latter.
This sounds a lot like Afraid of being eaten by the tiger behind my back, I jumped into the shark-infested waters in front of me to me. Russian imperial rule in eastern Europe is not preferable to American imperial rule. Restoring that, regardless of to which degree, would amount to getting an old problem back instead of helping with solving a still existing problem. Russia may be opposed to the USA (although Obama somewhat famously referred to it as a mere regional power) but I don’t want to be dominated by Russia instead of being dominated by the USA. I want neither of both.
Personally, I’m a bit grateful that Putin has started this war because this implies he basically exploded a mine below the post-1945 international order. I hope it’ll eventually crumble because of that.
I do seem to remember that the 1980’s was a bit rubbish from a European point of vie. In any case, I suspect it might be China dominating (or trying to dominate). Consider what they’ve done already.
For the time being, China will remain busy trying to dominate the common cold. Or the people the Chinese government is already controlling, namely, those who live in China. Like Russia, that’s a multi-ethnic empire ultimatively kept together by force. Internationally, as we’ve had the mispleasure to experience since 2020, Chinese actions are based on so-called soft power, eg, controlling the WHO, and, to a somewhat lesser degree, our corrupt, left-leaning elites.
This is a false dichotomy. Russia is in no way comparable to the US in terms of global power, and would not become so by swallowing up even the whole of the Ukraine and Baltic states.
It might become so again in the future (but so might Germany – although not if it continues to commit hara-kiri in obedience to US neocon orders, or India, or any other past great power).
Nor is Russia currently in the cultural grip of a universalist aggressive ideology as the US sphere is. That makes it far less dangerous.
I don’t dispute that. But – insofar my opinion on this topic matters – I don’t want a Russian comeback, no matter how limited. Especially considering that Russia is still a formidable military power which could easily outmatch any individual European state given the current state of affairs.
Russia poses absolutely no military threat to the UK.
And never has.
Yes – as indeed all the “Russia weak” propagandists are in effect now loudly declaring, in between reverting to “Russia strong” when it suits their argument of the moment (and their budgetary and legislative requirements).
Probably not at the moment, mainly because it couldn’t possibly threaten the UK. I am – however – not the UK and my opinions on anything aren’t necessarily related to it.
Fine: continental Europeans are free to differ.
But there’s no reason for us to design our armed forces around continental interests.
“I don’t want a Russian comeback, no matter how limited.“
Many say the same about the Germans, and if some of those people in positions of power had had their way, German reunification would not have been allowed.
Regardless, Russia is still an independent power, not a still subservient satrapy like Germany, and so it is not to be dictated to in that kind of way. Negotiation between sovereign equals is necessary – something the neocons have failed to grasp and are being schooled in the hard way.
Ah ja. I still remember Maggie Fetzer[*] being piqued by that. But that was a long time ago in a far away galaxy. But as German, I say that about the Russians. Which makes it a rather different perspective.
[*] from German colloquial fetzen, to rip something apart.
“But as German, I say that about the Russians. Which makes it a rather different perspective.”
Indeed.
🙂 Some might suspect the envy of the tamed, chained and collared dog for the still free wolf…
I’m not part of the German federal government and the associated social and political would-be-elite.
The problem with looking the other way, as you seem to support, is that it allows the aggressor to get his way. Do it repeatedly and it would end very badly.
You mean like the aggressors “got their way” in Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan (at least until they themselves realised the game wasn’t worth the candle)?
Seems like the world survived, as it will the likely Russian victory in the Ukraine.
Your rationale for relating prior events to the Ukraine invasion is missing.
It’s common for people to spout this line, but there is no relationship.
I didn’t (on this occasion) make any such relationship, though there certainly is one to be made, as I have explained at length here in the past.
I merely pointed out that, as a matter of simple, incontrovertible, objective fact, the world seems not to fall apart merely because “an aggressor gets his way”.
I see no reason why this occurrence should be any different, in that regard, and many reasons to expect it to be far less harmful.
I believe Russia has a strong interest in the Serbian enclave of Bosnia-Herzegovina. And of course Syria might be relevant.
As in “Isil”ationism, which Obama was accused of?
..
Sanctions are a bit like Face masks/muzzles, lockdowns & quackcines.
There is vanishingly little evidence of them working anywhere.
They have been tried before & didn’t work then either.
MSM / govt are pushing their use & demonising the little boy who points out the naked emperor.
How do you relate face masks and sanctions? Any logic, or just emotional nonsense?
They don’t work. Russia will pursue its policy in South Russia now that it has started, whatever sanctions may be imposed (or not imposed if Germany is anything to go by).
Instead of bloviating, please inform us of a situation where sanctions have worked to bring about the change desired.
Once youve done that you can move on to itemise why face masks work, why lockdowns work, why vaxxs prevent catching & transmission of Covid.
The only path to Russia prospering and becoming a reasonable force in the world economy is for the population to snap out of their propaganda induced stupor and out their government. Sanctions will trash their economy and they should notice and eventually do something.
If we are lucky the “officials” will eventually wake from their fearful state and get rid of Putin. That would bring the change sooner.
Looking the other way is not a solution and it’s what Putin was hoping for.
Yes, they could take the option of being the well fed dog on a chain in a yard. But perhaps they would rather be like the fox that goes hungry sometimes but is free to roam. Perhaps they actually have principles that they think it is worth making sacrifices for, like we used to.
But “you” don’t have anything to say, except….
“Let Putin/Russia do what they want”
I fervently hope that Russia gets what it wants. I’m tired of Empire. Aren’t you ?
Kisin: “Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014” This is straightforwardly false – either a lie on his part or an error. The fact that Kisin’s family, according to his words in this podcast, are Ukrainian themselves suggest he is extremely biased on the topic, and that seems born out by his ideas about the situation. Here’s a summary of the reality of the situation, from a neutral source: “Let’s try to examine the roots of the conflict. It starts with those who for the last eight years have been talking about “separatists” or “independentists” from Donbass. This is not true. The referendums conducted by the two self-proclaimed Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in May 2014, were not referendums of “independence” (независимость), as some unscrupulous journalists have claimed, but referendums of “self-determination” or “autonomy” (самостоятельность). The qualifier “pro-Russian” suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case, and the term “Russian speakers” would have been more honest. Moreover, these referendums were conducted against the advice of Vladimir Putin. In fact, these Republics were not seeking to separate from Ukraine, but to have a status of autonomy, guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official… Read more »
Cont: “In October 2015, Vasyl Hrytsak, director of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), confessed that only 56 Russian fighters had been observed in the Donbass. This was exactly comparable to the Swiss who went to fight in Bosnia on weekends, in the 1990s, or the French who go to fight in the Ukraine today. The Ukrainian army was then in a deplorable state. In October 2018, after four years of war, the chief Ukrainian military prosecutor, Anatoly Matios, stated that Ukraine had lost 2,700 men in the Donbass: 891 from illnesses, 318 from road accidents, 177 from other accidents, 175 from poisonings (alcohol, drugs), 172 from careless handling of weapons, 101 from breaches of security regulations, 228 from murders and 615 from suicides. In fact, the army was undermined by the corruption of its cadres and no longer enjoyed the support of the population. According to a British Home Office report, in the March/April 2014 recall of reservists, 70 percent did not show up for the first session, 80 percent for the second, 90 percent for the third, and 95 percent for the fourth. In October/November 2017, 70% of conscripts did not show up for the “Fall 2017” recall campaign.… Read more »
On the subject of anti-semitism, it was the Odessa massacres of the early 20th century that gave a major boost to Zionism. And now we have had further massacre there.
For me, the major lesson is that over 70 years of the prison camp Soviet Union (and Warsaw pact) stored up a whole host of troubles. Incidentally, how would NATO have reacted in 1979 if an independent Scotland had proposed to join the Warsaw pact and put Soviet warships on the Clyde?
“Led by France”.
Blimey. And what would Marine have done? I have suspected for a while that a lot of our current troubles in the UK could have been avoided if it was 10 or 15 million votes in 2015 instead of 4 million. It seems perhaps the same could be said about France in 2017.
Just plain wrong.
‘The former commander-in-chief of the armed formations of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, Igor Strelkov, said he was responsible for military operations in eastern Ukraine. He spoke about this in an interview with the Zavtra newspaper.
“I still pulled the trigger of the war. If our detachment had not crossed the border, in the end everything would have ended, as in Kharkov, as in Odessa. There would have been several dozen killed, burned, arrested. And that would be the end of it. And practically the flywheel of the war, which is still going on, launched our detachment. ”, Strelkov said in an interview with the editor-in-chief of the publication Alexander Prokhanov.
Igor Strelkov also stated that Russian military personnel, who allegedly arrived in Donbass while “on vacation”, played an important role in the hostilities.
“Separate units of the militia were subordinate to them. But mostly “vacationers” attacked Mariupol. When they left, both the front line and the opportunities remained unsteady, ”said Strelkov.’
‘NEW’ 20 Nov 2014
Strelkov is a famous hardliner blowhard in Russia, but him claiming credit for saving the Donbass does not equate to Russia invading”, which remains a lie.
I’ll stick with Jacques Baud’s account, thanks.
‘Kisin: “Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014” This is straightforwardly false’
Or not really.
‘The former commander-in-chief of the armed formations of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, Igor Strelkov, said he was responsible for military operations in eastern Ukraine.’
‘“I still pulled the trigger of the war. If our detachment had not crossed the border, in the end everything would have ended, as in Kharkov, as in Odessa. There would have been several dozen killed, burned, arrested. And that would be the end of it. And practically the flywheel of the war, which is still going on, launched our detachment. ”, Strelkov said’
‘Igor Strelkov also stated that Russian military personnel, who allegedly arrived in Donbass while “on vacation”, played an important role in the hostilities.
“Separate units of the militia were subordinate to them. But mostly “vacationers” attacked Mariupol.’
‘NEW’ 20 Nov 2014
“Konstantin takes the position that, broadly speaking, it is the right approach. I take the contrary position, arguing that this approach may have serious unintended consequences, and that the West ought to try a different strategy.“
So, a debate between two people who share the same basic assumptions, that the Russian intervention is wrong and needs to be defeated, over what the best way of achieving their shared objectives might be.
Not much help when those basic shared assumptions are open to serious question (to say the least!)
Kisin: “the fact that the west is forced into a position where it has to punish Russia including innocent people in Russia for what their country is doing is sad and it’s tragic and I don’t wish any ill on those people, but I’m afraid it’s a consequence of what their government is doing“. In reality, the suffering of Ukrainians today is a consequence of the war they have allowed their government, under the influence of fanatical thugs, to wage against the people in their country who did not want to live under the rules set by those fanatics. Remember that in 2014, there was a settlement negotiated after the Maidan riots, and a new election due in just a year’s time, but the fanatics weren’t prepared to accept that and instead overthrew the government by force. As one of them afterwards observed: “if not for the nationalists that whole thing would have turned into a gay parade“. That triggered the uprising of the autonomists, and the murderous violent hatred of the new regime ensured that no settlement was possible. And when the government was forced by military defeat into signing up to a perfectly reasonable settlement (Minsk 2), they… Read more »
they have allowed their government
Have they had any more say than we have had over our government since March 2020?
It’s a legitimate point, but mine was addressed to Kisin’s excuse for wishing harm on Russians. Such arguments go both ways.
let’s check where arming Ukraine and Sanctioning Russia has brought us: on the brink of WW3 with thousands dead (including Ukrainian civilians themselves, which were supposed to be protected in the first place even if the west doesn’t care about Russian soldiers and civilians in Donbass). Also, arming and sanctioning didn’t start in Feb this year, it’s been going on since 2014 at least. Clearly, this policy hasn’t worked. Because it wasn’t designed to do so.
Oh don’t worry, the elite will get somewhere safe. Same as with the millions who will die because of lockdowns etc.
WW3 is quite possibly going to be nuclear. Where is ‘safe’? Mars?
Actually, underground. People emerged uninjured from conventional air raid shelters in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in areas where the buildings had been completely flattened by the blast.
What happens after they emerge from the underground shelters (which I agree will protect from the heat flash, and the blast unless the detonation is close by)?
About 6,000 nukes on each side (NATO and Russia). Think of the top 12,000 places they will target. And think also that they would be unlikely to use the whole lot. There will be lots of places well out of the way, though admittedly nuclear fallout could be an issue if Chernobyl is anything to go by. One of the many things I’d like to see properly discussed in the msm.
The UK is so small, and there are so many targets here, that it would mean the end for us.
Exactly the sort of reason why St. Kilda (and the South Shetlands) should be populated.
Worth bearing in mind that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with what these days would be viewed as low yield bombs (15-20kt), whereas most of those used in a modern strategic exchange, especially by the Chinese, would be an order of magnitude or two greater in energy release.
If there is Nuclear war, each of us needs to hope they are vapourised immediately.
And when do you think it would be safe to come out from such shelters?
Exactly the sort of thing the msm should be discussing. Will all 12,000 nukes be used? What would be the prospects for survivors of the immediate detonations from nuclear fallout? Given what happened across Europe after Chernobyl, would anyone anywhere ever be likely to be healthy again?
One billion predicted to die. Which means lots of people won’t die. Lots of places must be safe. I checked on that nuclear war app and it’s actually not as bad as I thought. The Antarctic? (Unless you get “covid”).
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
This one?
Indeed
Yes a major mistake was made in 2014 (Crimea) and then Syria, when the west decided to look the other way, and ignore Putin’s acts. Now he is emboldened and he thought the same would happen again. How far would you like him to go, without response?
When Russia invaded Georgia and then started handing out Russian passports to anyone in the Crimea who wanted them (as I mentioned elsewhere), the Uk and their allies should have looked seriously at resolving the issues of concern to Russia. So far as I am concerned, it should have been all too obvious where this could end up. Instead we were betrayed. All that matters now is what can be done to have a least bad outcome for people in the UK, and what Russia is likely to do, whether we like it or not.
The Crimea is very clearly historically and demographically Russian, not Ukrainian.
They were in Syria at the invitation of the legitimate government.
This well oiled Mariupol resident tells it like it is on Crimea:
https://youtu.be/dUask2cfFh4?t=415
South Russia, according to a recent(ish) encyclopaedia.
Syria, like the Ukraine, is a bit of a made up country, and from what I’ve heard, never likely to work very well in the long term.
Crimea? What happened there? No bloodshed and I bet people of Crimea are thanking God now that Sevastopol is not Mariupol 2.0. what happened in Syria? The west weaponised radicals (same as in Ukraine ) which turned out 100 times worse than ‘dictatorial’ rule because of ensued conflict and power vacuum.
How far has Putin gone in 20 years prior to Ukraine conflict? Prevented Georgia joining hostile NATO and left it to it’s own devices. Mediocre at best for the ‘world’s most evil dictator’.
‘…..this approach may have serious unintended consequences’ It may have the consequence of nuclear war…..but all protagonists are fully aware of that. We have been here before…..we know what to do. Nuclear war may, even so, result but Russian advanced technology is not robust, high maintenance, in volume production, and Russian maintenance, by the unmotivated ‘you pretend to pay us, we pretend to work’ is unlikely to be of the standard required for old rocketry to work particularly effectively. Chilling stuff but, through stupidity, complacency, poor leadership, incompetence, democracy, the least worst form of government, we are the authors of our own misfortune. Deterrence has failed and must be painstakingly rebuilt. The last time we built it with the required foundations was in 1945, now squandered, and so, today, given what we know from countries bordering Russia: ‘….countries in eastern Europe viewed things differently to those in the west of the continent because of their histories. The Soviet Union occupied and then annexed Estonia and the other Baltic countries in the 1940s. He described Russia’s demand for Nato’s borders to be returned to their 1997 state — before Estonia or 13 other countries joined — as “unimaginable” Alar Karis, President… Read more »
unmotivated ‘you pretend to pay us, we pretend to work’
Russia is no longer Communist, and hasn’t been for more than a generation, so I’m not sure what that’s based on? Russia was supplying rocket motors for the USA’s Atlas rockets. https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-halts-deliveries-rocket-engines-us-2022-03-03/
I make no mention of communism.
Who maintains those Atlas rocket motors? That is the point.
But we may not have too long to wait before this question is answered once and for all……
“They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work” was a joke that used to be made in the days of the Soviet Union, describing the communist system. The Russians were maintaining those rocket motors, see the Reuters article. That is indeed the point.
Or not really.
‘United Launch Alliance (ULA) has in-house expertise to maintain and operate the engines.’
ULA Press Release 03 March 22
Judging by recent UK experience of so far paying £3 billion to a US firm for reconaissance vehicles and getting nothing in return the saying in the West should be “You pay us shedloads and we pretend to work”.
They will have to pretend that it is not their fault…..
Parliamentary written question.
Kevan Jones, MP North Durham, asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether the scope of the parent company guarantee from General Dynamics for the delivery of AJAX includes reimbursement in the event that the vehicle is unable to reach IOC.”
Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement, answered:
“Yes, provided liability for breach is established.”
So only half of targets in the UK might be hit?
That would still be enough to end us.
That “old badly maintained tech” seems to be doing a pretty decent job at the moment of turning the Ukrainian military, and most of the western taxpayer-funded military gear sent into the Ukraine, into pink mist and twisted metal.
Just saying…
“Is Arming Ukraine and Sanctioning Russia the Right Response to Putin’s Invasion?” Let me think…. We are being told that it is by the very same people who profited from money laundering and other corruption in Ukraine for years. And by same people who enforced authoritarian and draconian restrictions on the population unlawfully for the last two years, destroying the economy, the NHS and full time education in the process, and sacking many people for disregarding unlawful ‘vaccines’ mandates. By the same people who are intent on giving away or banning the several means of recovering fuel security in the U.K and punishing energy consumers in the U.K. by imposing sanctions on Russia. And by the same people who are winding down the military but want to spend billions arming another country thousands of miles away. In the face of a looming recession and rampant inflation. So the answer is no. Whatever it is that those people want to do, is the clearly the wrong thing to do. It seems to be another attempt, like ‘build back better’ and ‘net zero’ to grandstand and virtue signal on the world stage, with the bill picked up by the taxpayer. Nice work… Read more »
We are arming Ukraine because our Prime Minister in 1994 signed the Budapest Memorandum guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity (as did the USA and Russia).
I do not believe that we should have signed that document but, at the time, in return for Ukraine’s giving up its nuclear weapons, it no doubt seemed like a good idea.
In fact the EU should have signed that memorandum. The situation in Ukraine impacts continental Europe. It is one of their strategic interests, not one of ours.
Nevertheless, we are where we find ourselves. We did not back up the Budapest Memorandum guarantee in 2014.
A totalitarian plutocracy cannot coexist with an adjacent capitalist democracy. Countries much closer to Russia than we are have no doubt that Russia will continue its expansionist foreign policy after Ukraine has been destroyed.
We either make a stand now, or we will have to decide whether to implement Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty in due course.
Those, realistically, are the only two options that we have.
“A totalitarian plutocracy cannot coexist with a capitalist democracy.”
There’s absolutely no fundamental reason why the UK and Russia can’t co-exist. It really doesn’t matter to us where the border between Russia and Ukraine is.
And the idea that the UK is a “capitalist democracy” is laughable: have you noticed nothing since the Covid scam started?
How many other countries would you propose it is acceptable for Russia to annex?
What is your point about UK’s democracy? Do you not get a vote? Are you saying elections are rigged? Surely you voted for BJ and his insane BREXIT.
As in UK independence from the Brussels (and Strasbourg, and Luxembour) regime, and their five presidents (and they could easily have kept us if they’d tried)?
I suspect that Russia will consider invading sooner or later countries that kill Russians (especially if they don’t have a nuclear deterrent) whether or not us plebs consider it acceptable.
Russia clearly doesn’t intend to annex the majority of Ukraine.
A vote once every 5 years for parties with identical globalist policies doesn’t constitute democracy
“Russia clearly doesn’t intend to annex the majority of Ukraine.”
How do you know this?
“A vote once every 5 years for parties with identical globalist policies doesn’t constitute democracy”
A free vote for anyone who stands sound like democracy to me. Sure PR would be more democratic, but oddly the democracy voted against it. So if you don’t like this, what do you propose?
You could start a new party. You have the right. No one will jail you.
Can you say the same for Russia?
Do you remember what happened when a certain Mr. Farage stood in South Thannet? He stood, yes, but a level playing field? Hardly.
First two past the post might be more democratic.
You mean people voted against him?
How does that work? I haven’t noticed a No box on the voting slip.
What you do is vote for the candidate you think best. Or least bad.
If that’s not Farage, you have voted against him.
Or think about voting for his competitor.
It’s not difficult.
That seems so unfair. You have one vote for one person but a larger number of votes against everyone else on the electoral list.
No, I mean that a party campaigning against him (the Conservative party) broke electoral rules, and went on to win narrowly. This encourages a belief in a narrative that those holding power will be somewhat unscrupulous in preventing real change (and to be fair, I have seen similar behaviour outside of politics).
Electoral rules are there fore a reason, and breaking them might reasonably be seen as subverting democracy. Do you have an alternative narrative on this specific point?
PR wasn’t an option in the referendum: it was a choice between the current system and one that would have benefited the LibDems.
I’d go for the complete separation of the executive and the legislature,a lower house elected using an element of sortition with genuinely local candidates, regular referendums on issues of taste, demonstrably able people in ministerial positions and no funding for parties other than membership fees and state funding based on total votes in the last election.
Obviously PR benefits smaller parties. That’s what it is for.
What exactly do you think was not proportional about it?
It would also benefit the far right parties, that might be to the taste of most “sceptics”
So you have prosed a structure, but nothing on the election principles.
What do you want?
What exactly do you find hard to understand about “PR wasn’t an option in the referendum”?
You haven’t dealt with any of my suggestions for making things more democratic.
And what about first two past the post?
“It would also benefit the far right parties, that might be to the taste of most “sceptics” I never took you as a sceptic, but you openly support the far right. Ukraine Azov Battalion – ” The battalion drew controversy over allegations of torture and war crimes,as well as association with neo-Nazi ideology. Azov uses controversial symbols, including Wolfsangel insignia used by the Nazi SS divisions” Oh dear. “The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named “Sect 82” (1982 is the year of the founding of the group). “Sect 82” was (at least until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow ultras” They started out as far right football hooligans. “Reports published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) have connected the Azov Battalion to war crimes such as mass looting, unlawful detention, and torture. An OHCHR report from March 2016 stated that the organization had “collected detailed information about the conduct of hostilities by Ukrainian armed forces and the Azov regiment in and around Shyrokyne (31km east of Mariupol), from the summer of 2014 to date. Mass looting of civilian homes was documented, as well… Read more »
You didn’t read my post, did you? I read yours. The undertakings signed for have been broken by both the USA and Russia, why would the UK be bound by them? It’s not our war. Ukraine are not members of NATO. And in any case NATO are not acting in our best interests and should be reigned back. If you want a war, I suggest you fund it, privately. We have bigger fish to fry at home.
“We are arming Ukraine because our Prime Minister in 1994 signed the Budapest Memorandum guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity (as did the USA and Russia).
I do not believe that we should have signed that document but, at the time, in return for Ukraine’s giving up its nuclear weapons, it no doubt seemed like a good idea.”
There are two possibilities here:
1 You falsely believe that the Budapest Memorandum makes some kind of commitment to protect signatories from conventional military attacks (in which case, of course, there would be no need for NATO membership and the Article 5 pretext for intervention).
2 You know it does not, but choose to claim that it does anyway, presumably because you believe lying is justified for the cause you believe you are trying to advance.
Either way, here for anyone interested in the actual facts is the wording of the said Memorandum, which is no more relevant to the current situation in the Ukraine than the Magna Carta:
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf
You lost your line of reasoning on the second line.
Amusingly, just after the words “Let me think”
Have you got anything factual to add beyond your scramble for facile distractions?
As CG says, looking like just a troll. They is starting to get a bit tedious.
The choice of words matter and calling it “Putin’s invasion” as opposed to “Russia’s invasion” is not helpful to serious debate.
Who made the decision?
Was it Putin? YES.
someone with their little thumb thinks Putin didn’t decide to Invade Ukraine!
How can even this be denied?
The invasion clearly couldn’t happened if Putin didn’t want it.
But neither could it have happened if nobody else did.
I thought that DS had stopped writing these articles, that provoke the horrible responses from those (majority), who seem to support the Russian campaign of murder.
Certainly, they want Russia to gain maximum advantage, through the Ukrainian’s losing quickly, with out outside support.
Unfortunately they have swallowed the Russian propaganda without consideration.
Re ‘they have swallowed the Russian propaganda without consideration.’ Well said.
Unfortunately? No, wrong word, nothing to do with luck. I refer you to my post above, here it is again for your convenience. If you want a war, go ahead, knock yourself out. You pay for it with your money, not mine. “Is Arming Ukraine and Sanctioning Russia the Right Response to Putin’s Invasion?” Let me think…. We are being told that it is by the very same people who profited from money laundering and other corruption in Ukraine for years. And by same people who enforced authoritarian and draconian restrictions on the population unlawfully for the last two years, destroying the economy, the NHS and full time education in the process, and sacking many people for disregarding unlawful ‘vaccines’ mandates. By the same people who are intent on giving away or banning the several means of recovering fuel security in the U.K and punishing energy consumers in the U.K. by imposing sanctions on Russia. And by the same people who are winding down the military but want to spend billions arming another country thousands of miles away. In the face of a looming recession and rampant inflation. So the answer is no. Whatever it is that those people want… Read more »
You seem to have generalised dissatisfaction ( as is the way with most “sceptics”) and are now applying it to this single issue. The reasoning is missing, of course.
There are 4 assertions in your straw man. All incorrect.
What are they?
Ooh look, Matt Hancock is coming on GB News at twenty past ten tonight! Be prepared for serious psychological harm…
I have turned it off after 10 minutes to protect my sanity. Baseless assertion after baseless assertion – the man oozes insincerity.
Clearly we disagree as to which side has fallen for propaganda, those like me who dissent from the Official Truth put about by our oh so reliable and honest mainstream media and political class, or those like you who believe in what you are told by the people who claimed that there were WMD in Iraq, that Trump was a Russian agent, and that covid was the worst pandemic in modern times and we’d all die if we didn’t mask up and lock down.
Seems to me the solution to this impasse would be free and open discussion.
Your mileage seems to vary…
So you want Ukraine to be captured and the people murdered, simply because western governments and media suggest it is a bad thing. Is that really your justification?
“So you want Ukraine to be captured and the people murdered“
No. Nor, I suspect, does the Russian leadership.
Most likely, the latter want pretty much what they say they want, based on their actions over the past 8 years – Ukraine stable and neutral under its own elected government, and Russian speakers in the Ukraine protected from repression and harassment by the murderous fanatics who have been shelling their towns and cities whenever possible.
The Russian government seems to have bent over backwardsfor eight years to try to find a way to keep the Donbass autonomists inside the Ukraine, but the Ukrainians themselves have made that impossible.
All in all, the lesson of Ukraine seems to be: don’t let your nation be run by people who make the perfect the enemy of the good enough. Or by people who let themselves be pushed around by brownshirt thugs, either.
“, simply because western governments and media suggest it is a bad thing. Is that really your justification?”
This is a straightforward non sequitur.
It’s the Cathy Newman technique: “so what you’re really saying is” 🙂
Looks like it. I think he’s giving up a bit now, though….
If you swallow Russian propaganda so easily, you should enter a pie eating contest.
The Russian government seems to have bent over backwards for eight years to try to find a way to keep the Donbass autonomists inside the Ukraine.
One (not tree or any of the trolls, of course) can see why that would be the preferred option.
The idea that Russia has been spoiling for a fight and was eager to invade Ukraine is peculiarly dense.
From our point of view, there has been murder all over the Soviet Union and “the West” for decades, and the only question is who are the worst murderers.
Certainly there is propaganda on both sides, as with any other war. And all legitimate questions can and should be asked. Such as why the silence for the most part from large parts of the media on the war in the Donbass since 2014? And for that matter, why the silence on the starvation caused in Madagascar by their wretched lockdowns (much of the media collaborated in this for base financial motives, so far as I can tell, and yes, that includes the Times muppets).
But it’s absolutely fine to swallow western propaganda without consideration?
While you and your buddy deep throat each other on another stunning failure, I would just like to point out that considering both sides of story isn’t falling for propaganda.
It’s usually called a rational debate, using facts and reasoning to establish what is actually happening, as opposed to a personal opinion, which is biased.
Fact, the Ukraine has been attacking it’s own people for eight years.
Fact, Russia has invaded the Ukraine in response.
Fact, your opinion and belief in propaganda has no merit.
Fact, Innocent people are dying and nothing you say or do can prevent it.
Fact, the West are involved in a pissing contest with the East.
Fact, adding weapons to a conflict only amounts in more death.
Fact, sanctions imposed on a country only effect the civilian population.
Fact, there is no “good guys” in this conflict, only a child would think otherwise.
Hmm, but your desire to leave Ukraine to the mercy of Russia’s invasion results in what? The annexation of Ukraine, followed by what next?
There you go throwing your opinion round again, at what point did I express a “desire to leave (the) Ukraine to the mercy of Russia”?
I didn’t did I?
What do you think will happen next? Go and consult the BBC or CNN, I hear they are talking up a nuclear war, sounds legitimate, that is if fantasy is your thing.
Where was all the screeching and wailing when Russia annexed the Crimea?
Or when they just rolled into Georgia then walked back out again?
What happened after these two incidents?
Nothing.
So are you saying Putin’s invasion should be opposed?
I thought it was being opposed, by the Ukraine with their military hardware they got from the Russians.
What difference would it make if I was for or against either of them? None.
What difference does it make that you are cheerleading for one side over the other? None.
As for external military opposition, who do you suggest should do it and how?
Do you think the US/UK invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the failed attempt in Syria should have been opposed?
As I clearly pointed out before, it’s a pointless conflict that could have been avoided with a bit of diplomacy.
I refuse to support either side, they are both scumbags.
Talking about this war is weird, more than most subjects the opinions of you and me seem to account for nothing. Any discussions on this topic remind me of the old (politically incorrect – sorry) Irish joke, when asked how to get to Ballycastle from here the guy answers, if I was going to Ballycastle I would not start from here. If I was asked to sort out Russia and Ukraine I would not start from here, but here we are and we must be practical and realistic. The background to why this war started is complex, mucky, murky and devious, as are the politics of both Russia and Ukraine. Leaving aside considerations of judgements on what has happened and who is barbarous, monstrous and outrageous what now are the viable options? Do we think there is any chance of Crimea reverting to Ukraine? I would say no chance? Do we think we can force Russia to give up the land bridge they have gained between mainland Russia and Crimea, I would say unlikely without a huge fight and considerable loss of life. Do we think there is some chance that we could negotiate with Russia to establish the rest… Read more »
The major stumbling block would be who/how Ukraine would be protected from Russia.
Anything practical and effective will be very close to NATO protection in reality.
The theory maybe seen as rather naive and unrealistic but the idea is that Russia would protect Ukraine from NATO and Nato would protect it from Russia. One effect of this war is that Russia is now more likely to honour such a deal
The expansion of NATO and the Western anti Russian rhetoric is one of the reasons war is being waged.
Unfortunately it is the common people who suffer the consequences, neither side will come out a winner.
The US (or the collection of corporate interests that calls itself the US) doesn’t want peace. It’s not in its interest at all. It wants to sell weapons and corner the European gas market with its plundered LPG. It wants Europe to be a vassal, and not a competitor. The conflict fulfils all these objectives, so we’ll never see the US do anything to promote peace here (or anywhere else).
As far as I can tell points three and four are/were achievable.
They could have been reached quite easily with a bit of open dialogue, unfortunately that never happened so it’s conflict instead.
They could still be potentially be achieved, but they won’t be as long as external war mongers keep dipping their oar in. I fear the only way this will end is when Putin decides to end it.
They were also pretty much the basis of the Russian position in the early peace talks. Had it been accepted at the time just think of the lives that would have been saved and the collateral damage avoided.
No of course not. It is the height of irresponsibility and reckless stupidity and precisely the kind of behaviour we’ve come to expect from the US and its vassals. Russia has a right to protect its compatriots; other countries should be doing everything they can to help dialogue, take refugees if necessary and work to bring about a cessation of hostilities.
Unfortunately the level of Western analysis, as demonstrated by ‘tree’ on this forum, is: Ukraine Good; Putin Bad. We’ve turned a complex, nuanced and long-running conflict into a pantomime.
Hmm. you give away your rationale by the way you order your post.
Whet you propose is looking the other way, which is the same as “let Russia do its worst”
Mark Steyn was talking about demographics tonight on his show, and specifically the book Tomorrow’s People. Japan sounds worrying – they’ve decided on low birth rate and no mass immigration. In fact all the “Western” countries sound pretty dire (apart from Israel). Apparently it is quite easy for governments to persuade their populations to have a low birth rate, but practically impossible to persuade them to substantially increase their birth rate, short of real change to their culture, which perhaps falls outside the power of government. What we are seeing is the destruction of the West. “Death of the West”, I think Mr. (?) Steyn calls it. But never mind that, Russia should just stand by and allow ethnic Russians to become part of this toxic culture (and with more than a hint of outside interference) by integrating with the West. Perhaps…
Incidentally Russia had a lot of success in this area, by providing quite large subsidies under their Maternity Capital programme to families with children starting in 2008. The UN population projection for Russia is still slopes downward, but their actual population is increasing.
Yes, I recall they tried something, though whether reaching replacement level (about 2.07 children per woman) is realistic, I don’t know. Anyhow, the last century or so has been terrible for them.
And imagine what could have been done for young families in Britain with the hundreds of billions squandered on the shamdemic, or the many billions that could be gained from a sensible energy policy.
Indeed, the consequences of the toxic anti-life culture we have allowed to be imposed upon us should be one of a number of urgent concerns that should be much further forward in our consciousness than who rules where in the eastern and southern Ukraine.
“Japan sounds worrying – they’ve decided on low birth rate and no mass immigration. “
Japan are the least worrying – a declining birthrate is most likely a temporary and ultimately self-correcting problem, albeit a serious one, for a society, provided there is no mass immigration.
With mass immigration, it becomes cultural suicide.
I reckoned on a correction of at least a few decades. Globally, I have assumed that after the 1968 global fertility peak, there were then a few decades of growth due to less child care costs, a decade or so of treading water, a decade of kicking the can down the road after the financial crisis, with the 2019 scamdemic signalling the start of perhaps three decades of economic hardship. It will vary from country to country though. In China, the work force has recently started contracting and I assume this will be a problem for some time to come. I’m not sure that so many countries have ever had below replacement birth rate before, and I don’t know if it can be said with certainty how this will turn out. And there are also the toxic cultural aspects. I don’t know how far along the path Japan is, and in any case, they will be affected by other countries who suffer from this effect as their exports will be hit. But globally, the 1968 peak may be expected to take 70 or 80 years from that time to work through, and globally the number of over 54 year olds… Read more »
I’m sorry, but until Putin actualy does some small thing, like actually respecting his own (or his on site commanders’ promises) to allow the evacuation of civilians through the supposedly arranged safe corridors, and we see some cessation of the targetting of civilians with bombs or butchery (and I do not believe these are set-ups on the part of Ukraine), I am in no mood for jolly debates on whether we should be readjusting our approach to this invasion by Russia, with its openly stated intention to obliterate all things Ukrainian and destroy their choice to remain a free nation. If that labels me a biased warmongering Phillistine, so be it.
The correct response to the unmitigated horror of war (which includes the deliberate killing of children) is to work towards its abolition. This in turn requires the replacement of the whole suspicion, rivalry and force-based nation state system with peaceful local administrations.
The domestically non-violent, tolerant and egalitarian principles of multi-party liberal democracies (including Ukraine) are at least heading in the right direction;
Whilst the violent, oppressive, intolerant, sectarian, ultra-nationalist, expansionist and basically fascistic ideologies holding sway in contemporary tyrannies such as Russia (and it’s main ally China) point in precisely the opposite one.
Which helps explain why the Kremlin regime has not only launched the most unambiguous war of unilateral aggression since the Nazis, but is repeatedly threatening to annihilate the whole human race through nuclear armageddon if anyone dares stand in their way (even worse than Hitler’s revolting and nearly fulfilled threat to kill all Jewish people if a major war broke out in Europe).
“The domestically non-violent, tolerant and egalitarian principles of multi-party liberal democracies (including Ukraine) ”
Are you being serious or trying a wind-up? Ukraine has banned the Russian Language (a bit like the French speakers banning Flemish in Belgium or vice versa), Ukraine has banished the opposition parties, Ukraine has been shelling the Donbas for the past eight years and has failed to apply the Minsk agreement (cosigned by German and French, and I believe signed off by the UN). And then had the audacity to cure the Nazi issue by incorporating the Azov Battalion and Right Sector into the countries forces.
Sorry but multi-party liberal democracies have been responsible for the deliberate killing of millions of children. And the democracy has been subverted by public service broadcasters such as the BBC who have helped bring these horrors about with their bias and subterfuge, and swinging between pushing minority agendas when it supports them, to excluding minority voices that they consider unacceptable (eg climate realists).
NO.
Next question……