Russia and Ukraine

[Devil-Dick Willie]

23 minutes ago, Rick said:

Can we not all just agree that whoever you are, using those weapons make you a massive piece of shit, full stop? 
 

Taking away the impact of Russia bombing civilians because other countries have done the same thing doesn’t sit right with me. They are all fucking evil for doing it. 
 

 

I'm not trying to reduce the impact of russia using them, it's a pop at the medias hypocrisy. And a cry that we, and our strategic partners have no moral high ground. We're all in the mud. 

[Azeem]

Online courses from Russian universities are also getting banned. Great powers have an exaggerated perception of threat as they say !

[Azeem]

A member of Ukrainian negotiation team murdered in Kiev. 

[Reluctant Striker]

BBC News scared the crap out of me the other day. On screen headline when I got back from work that Russia had made a nuclear attack on Ukraine. Then turned out to only be a power station when I double checked on Sky News.

I'd certainly agree there are confused morals to see & contemplate.

In fairness, it can't come as a surprise that some casual observers see the NATO nations, and USA & UK in particular, as arrogant with superiority complexes.

But with Russia right now, there's no rhyme or reason at all other than Russian power & influence by sheer might.

Yet if a similar 'civil' war had broken out in some middle eastern region, all the good people of all the NATO countries right now would be 100% against any intervention of any kind.

And all the 'In Europe!? In this century!?' comments are total cringe. Pretty much saying 'in some lesser countries, yes, you expect it, who cares then'

I think it is Russia's giant super power status & James Bonds fairly accurate perceptions that are hyping people. Hopefully many are just too stupid or in too much shock to articulate that.

[Waylander]

3 hours ago, Reluctant Striker said:

BBC News scared the crap out of me the other day. On screen headline when I got back from work that Russia had made a nuclear attack on Ukraine. Then turned out to only be a power station when I double checked on Sky News.

I'd certainly agree there are confused morals to see & contemplate.

In fairness, it can't come as a surprise that some casual observers see the NATO nations, and USA & UK in particular, as arrogant with superiority complexes.

But with Russia right now, there's no rhyme or reason at all other than Russian power & influence by sheer might.

Yet if a similar 'civil' war had broken out in some middle eastern region, all the good people of all the NATO countries right now would be 100% against any intervention of any kind.

And all the 'In Europe!? In this century!?' comments are total cringe. Pretty much saying 'in some lesser countries, yes, you expect it, who cares then'

I think it is Russia's giant super power status & James Bonds fairly accurate perceptions that are hyping people. Hopefully many are just too stupid or in too much shock to articulate that.

I think it is more complicated, unfortunately.

Even before Biden got in people were saying Trump = face-off with China or Biden means trouble in Ukraine.

The US has something called the Monroe Doctrine authorising it to take action against any foreign power meddling in the Americas ( from Chile to Alaska) so to be willing to talk about fighting with the Ukrainians against Russia on Russia's doorsteps to me seems crazy.

In 2014 there was a coup to remove the Russian friendly govt and this was when the trouble started and they were extreme even calling Klitscho a traitor, even though him and his brother have now taken up arms.

Personally think it would have been better to have partitioned the country, now think that may happen through the Russian military and not as fairly.

Ukraine had a lot of corruption, Hunter Biden has been called out for investigation yet won't be due to repercussions yet other senior Democrats children were involved with Ukrainian business ventures too.

Zelensky is also alleged to have properties around the world including London.

This is why I say this is much more complicated despite the media hype, of course a lot of Ukrainians are going to suffer terribly due to the invasion.

[Stan]

It's quite a morbid thought but I have a scary one that one day we'll wake up to news that journalists Clive Myrie and Lyse Doucet have been killed in a bomb blast

 

[Tommy]

38 minutes ago, Stan said:

It's quite a morbid thought but I have a scary one that one day we'll wake up to news that journalists Clive Myrie and Lyse Doucet have been killed in a bomb blast

 

That is your main worry? 

[Stan]

3 minutes ago, Tommy said:

That is your main worry? 

No? 

[Stan]

@Tommy it was more just an active thought as I've really liked their news coverage of the events that are happening. Never said it was a main worry. 

 

[6666]

On 05/03/2022 at 01:44, El Profesor said:

 

 

The sad thing is that the hypocrisy isn't that difficult to see but people will still just go along with the narrative that's being provided by the media.

[RandoEFC+]

What hypocrisy? Genuine question.

Are we talking about the perpetuation of a few urban myths like the ghost of Kiev being as unforgivable as the systematic, state-sponsored propaganda from the Russian government to lay the groundwork for an unprovoked invasion and genocide? Is that the hypocrisy?

1. We do not want war. Russia chose to go to war, Ukraine did not. No hypocrisy.

2. The opposite party alone is guilty of war. Russia invaded Ukraine. Not vice versa. Unless you blame Ukraine for fighting back? No hypocrisy.

3. The enemy is inherently evil and resembles the devil. I'd say Putin alone is pretty close to evil. We’ve already talked about sympathies for the Russian soldiers who have been lied to about their cause. Shut up was the only one who really chose to die on that hill and he's been banned from the forum for what followed so it's not like this is a majority opinion.

4. We defend a noble cause, not our own interests. Again, is it really hypocritical to say Ukraine's cause, defending themselves against an unprovoked invasion, is a bit more noble than Russia's leadership trying to wipe another country off the map?

I'm not doing the rest as I have to get back to work. The worst you could level at Ukraine is that they've allowed some of their own falsehoods and propaganda such as the Ghost of Kiev thing to spread. This is not the same level as Russia's propaganda and aggression though. The majority of those falsehoods, Russia could be accused of, many of them without a scintilla of an argument to the contrary. I'm not saying that Ukraine are innocent of every single one but it's a bit easier to forgive when they're a) the weaker of the two parties and b) not the aggressor.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise but it does just smack of people trying to show how much cleverer they are by choosing and justifying a position that differs or appears to be more nuanced to the majority. If you genuinely think that Ukraine are just as bad as Russia though and that it's therefore "hypocritical" of Russia to receive the vast majority of criticism for the events of this conflict, then I worry for you.

[Reluctant Striker]

1 hour ago, RondónEFC said:

What hypocrisy? Genuine question.

Are we talking about the perpetuation of a few urban myths like the ghost of Kiev being as unforgivable as the systematic, state-sponsored propaganda from the Russian government to lay the groundwork for an unprovoked invasion and genocide? Is that the hypocrisy?

1. We do not want war. Russia chose to go to war, Ukraine did not. No hypocrisy.

2. The opposite party alone is guilty of war. Russia invaded Ukraine. Not vice versa. Unless you blame Ukraine for fighting back? No hypocrisy.

3. The enemy is inherently evil and resembles the devil. I'd say Putin alone is pretty close to evil. We’ve already talked about sympathies for the Russian soldiers who have been lied to about their cause. Shut up was the only one who really chose to die on that hill and he's been banned from the forum for what followed so it's not like this is a majority opinion.

4. We defend a noble cause, not our own interests. Again, is it really hypocritical to say Ukraine's cause, defending themselves against an unprovoked invasion, is a bit more noble than Russia's leadership trying to wipe another country off the map?

I'm not doing the rest as I have to get back to work. The worst you could level at Ukraine is that they've allowed some of their own falsehoods and propaganda such as the Ghost of Kiev thing to spread. This is not the same level as Russia's propaganda and aggression though. The majority of those falsehoods, Russia could be accused of, many of them without a scintilla of an argument to the contrary. I'm not saying that Ukraine are innocent of every single one but it's a bit easier to forgive when they're a) the weaker of the two parties and b) not the aggressor.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise but it does just smack of people trying to show how much cleverer they are by choosing and justifying a position that differs or appears to be more nuanced to the majority. If you genuinely think that Ukraine are just as bad as Russia though and that it's therefore "hypocritical" of Russia to receive the vast majority of criticism for the events of this conflict, then I worry for you.

Not sure the context El Professor was intending it, but many points do apply to how Putin is selling the war to his own nation.

On 1 & 2, Russia are performing a special military operation as Ukraine is led by pro-EU Nazi's. Quite openly stated on Russian TV by Putin.

And some part of that is working to some extent on the older generations. I did see one individual on BBC News describing difficult family conversations as the Russian based relatives genuinely believe Ukraine is causing all the fighting & is the one that needs to back down.

The RT (Russia Today) News channel in the UK is finally off air. On point 3, they had started showing archive documentaries on the evils of the WWII Nazi's. I was losing my will to try to see what the Russian view was at that stage. WWII actually being used as a modern day reason for Russia invading pro-EU & pro-democracy Ukraine.

On point 5 RT was also broadcasting a Russian expert describing how footage of a rocket impacting a residential block of flats was actually (quite clearly) a misfired Ukraine anti aircraft missile. The Ukrainians are also apparently guilty of using human shields around military targets. They are committing genocide on the Russian leaning citizens of Ukraine. etc.

On point 10, it is now illegal in Russia for the Ukraine violence to be described as a war or an invasion on Russian TV. And the 1 independent non-state controlled channel has stopped broadcasting.

Go back further before interpreters were a common thing, let alone the internet & much of this would have probably been the normal rhetoric around many wars.

[RandoEFC+]

32 minutes ago, Reluctant Striker said:

Not sure the context El Professor was intending it, but many points do apply to how Putin is selling the war to his own nation.

On 1 & 2, Russia are performing a special military operation as Ukraine is led by pro-EU Nazi's. Quite openly stated on Russian TV by Putin.

And some part of that is working to some extent on the older generations. I did see one individual on BBC News describing difficult family conversations as the Russian based relatives genuinely believe Ukraine is causing all the fighting & is the one that needs to back down.

The RT (Russia Today) News channel in the UK is finally off air. On point 3, they had started showing archive documentaries on the evils of the WWII Nazi's. I was losing my will to try to see what the Russian view was at that stage. WWII actually being used as a modern day reason for Russia invading pro-EU & pro-democracy Ukraine.

On point 5 RT was also broadcasting a Russian expert describing how footage of a rocket impacting a residential block of flats was actually (quite clearly) a misfired Ukraine anti aircraft missile. The Ukrainians are also apparently guilty of using human shields around military targets. They are committing genocide on the Russian leaning citizens of Ukraine. etc.

On point 10, it is now illegal in Russia for the Ukraine violence to be described as a war or an invasion on Russian TV. And the 1 independent non-state controlled channel has stopped broadcasting.

Go back further before interpreters were a common thing, let alone the internet & much of this would have probably been the normal rhetoric around many wars.

That's what I mean though. I thought El Professor originally posted those points in relation to the Russian propaganda that is fed to their population and military in order to get the buy-in and political capital they need to initiate this invasion, and that we should bear this in mind before demonising the Russian people, Russian soldiers, Russian athletes competing internationally, etc. I'm all on board with all of that.

Where I lose my thread is where people start calling this hypocrisy. I was reading that as "why are we only criticising the Russians when the Ukrainians are just as bad" which I found confusing. Now I've given it another once over, I can see DDW, Spike, 6666, El Prof all agreeing, perhaps, the hypocrisy is on the part of the media and it's more about "why are we only criticising the Russians when we don't criticise the US/Western nations when they did the same thing". When Russia do it, it's war crimes, inhumane, etc., yet when our own 'allies' have perpetrated those acts, it doesn't get reported like that. Perhaps this is the penny dropping for me because I don't disagree with that part.

I just feel as if there's a tone with this argument that sort of makes out that those of us on this forum who are horrified by what the Russian military have done and are doing, are somehow guilty of this hypocrisy too, and perhaps we are subconsciously, or more likely by just not having the same information (which goes back to the media) in order to make a consistent judgement when "our side" does it too.

Still, I think there's a more productive way of having this conversation and educating each other better than throwing around the "hypocrite" shout toward people who are more "involuntarily unaware". I don't think anyone here is going to offer up a fervent defence of the Bush/Blair/Obama interventions in the Middle East, for example, so perhaps some of us could stop speaking to or about each other as if they would do.

Edited March 7, 2022 by RondónEFC

[Dr. Gonzo]

On 04/03/2022 at 20:55, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Outstanding. Articulately clarifies what Spike and I have preached more clumsily. 

 

Russia have been hammered for using vacuum bombs. Their use isn't in violation of international law, and the USA used them extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan, in both battles in Fallujah too(a major city). But now Russia might be using them it's the greatest crime imaginable.  

Idk about Iraq (but if they were used in Fallujah that's pretty bad), but in Afghanistan they were mostly used for clearing out cave complexes the taliban were using as bunkers. But their use in Kharkiv (and Fallujah) is horrifying, imo. They're meant for clearing out bunkers and shelters - not for use on civilian populations.

Their use on civilian populations might not be in violation of international law - but it definitely should be.

The red cross is also saying the evacuation cooridor from the city of Mariupol has been mined - I think that is definitely in violation of international law. And there are reports that the mines the Russians have used are internationally banned butterfly mines: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/02/26/7326201/ That's pretty fucking grim.

[MUFC]

 

[Bluewolf]

Zelenskyy will be part of a direct video link to the commons tomorrow apparently... 

Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has granted Mr Zelenskyy's request to read a statement to the House of Commons at 5pm GMT on Tuesday.

It is expected he will ask for more arms and will repeat calls for a no-fly zone over Ukraine, which Western leaders have so far denied as it could mean NATO having to shoot down Russian planes.

They fear it would risk a third world war.

"Every parliamentarian wants to hear directly from the president, who will be speaking to us live from Ukraine, so this is an important opportunity for the House," the Speaker said.

[Carnivore Chris]

If world war III starts, I've decided I'm going to seek refuge in Latin America, as they probably wouldn't get involved. Do you think Brazil will have me?@El Profesor

[Tommy]

7 minutes ago, Carnivore Chris said:

If world war III starts, I've decided I'm going to seek refuge in Latin America, as they probably wouldn't get involved. Do you think Brazil will have me?@El Profesor

[Waylander]

@BluewolfCan't see Zelensky's appeal making any difference.

Cameron backed out  of sending troops to Syria because of public opinion I don't see this as any different. Much to risky to get into a shooting war with the Russians as that is what it would become. 

A lot of people also know despite media propaganda that since 2014 this is not a simple case of good vs bad, it is much more complicated. 

Yes people are dying and being made refugees and it has happened in a lot more places in the last 21 years.

 

[RandoEFC+]

 

 

[El Profesor]

19 minutes ago, Carnivore Chris said:

If world war III starts, I've decided I'm going to seek refuge in Latin America, as they probably wouldn't get involved. Do you think Brazil will have me?@El Profesor

Well, there's the presidential election this year here and it'll probably WWIII between Lula and Bolsonaro supporters. 

We should form a TF365 colony in Uruguay.

[Bluewolf]

2 minutes ago, Waylander said:

@BluewolfCan't see Zelensky's appeal making any difference.

It won't... He will be asking for a no fly zone which we cannot commit to, there is nothing more we can do without tipping things over the edge that will bring this war to an end... If this was just a ground war then things would have been a lot different but with a nuclear threat hanging over everybody nobody wants to be provoking the situation further... I fear the Ukraine is lost despite the bravery of it's people to fight on, it's just a matter of time before they are forced to concede.. These are seriously sad and frightening times

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 hours ago, Bluewolf said:

It won't... He will be asking for a no fly zone which we cannot commit to, there is nothing more we can do without tipping things over the edge that will bring this war to an end... If this was just a ground war then things would have been a lot different but with a nuclear threat hanging over everybody nobody wants to be provoking the situation further... I fear the Ukraine is lost despite the bravery of it's people to fight on, it's just a matter of time before they are forced to concede.. These are seriously sad and frightening times

If Ukraine is lost, can Russia fully occupy it under the present circumstances? I think it would be a sort of quagmire for them that isn't really sustainable for them, there would likely be an insurgent resistance to their occupation like what the US found itself fighting in: Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq... or the Russians themselves found themselves in Afghanistan.

There's a huge economic cost but also a huge manpower cost for a long-term occupation like that... and now that Russia's been given a pariah state treatment after it's invasion, I'm not sure a long occupation is really feasible for them without reducing the standard of living for ordinary people pretty drastically. We've seen countries like Cuba, Iran, and even North Korea (granted they can now threaten the world with nukes to get food aid sent to them) survive despite this sort of economic warfare waged on normal people with the hopes of getting the citizens there to become so fed up they take up arms against their autocratic leaders who brutalise them... but none of these countries are attempting a long occupation of a country being armed to the teeth by NATO.

If the reports that this war was meant to last just 15 days and we're now on day 15... I think it's fair to say this hasn't really gone the way Putin would have liked. Can Russia truly occupy Ukraine if NATO and the EU keep supporting Ukraine? It could mean Ukraine is a bloody battlefield for a very long time... but I am not so sure Russia would be able to hold and control it, even with a puppet government.

[Carnivore Chris]

8 minutes ago, Tommy said:

 

20 minutes ago, El Profesor said:

Well, there's the presidential election this year here and it'll probably WWIII between Lula and Bolsonaro supporters. 

We should form a TF365 colony in Uruguay.

To be honest parts of Latin American countries are pretty much at war themselves in theory because even though most are drug wars, they aren't ordinary ones. The violence near the boarders in Colombia, the Cartel wars in Mexico or even the gang wars in parts of Brazil and Honduras, for example, are certainly what I'd regard as being at war technically. They are practically on the same level as a civil war, especially the Mexican one.

Then again they are also countries that people can visit without problems, barring they avoid specific parts. This is the difference between said countries and certain African or Middle Eastern Asian countries, where they are literally no go zones completely. 

Either way, it's sad how even in this day and age there is so much blood shed, whatever the country or continent, and the people who most suffer are usually ones who aren't the actual cause, but rather manipulated and brainwashed.

What stands out the most here however is the threat of nuclear warfare, which could literally end humanity. I don't think it's a case of people caring less about the civil war currently occurring in Ethiopia and Sudan, as I'd say most would like to see world peace, but more the threat of it going nuclear. 

As for Uruguay Ricardo, that would actually be a great option. When are we all going?

 

 

[Waylander]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If Ukraine is lost, can Russia fully occupy it under the present circumstances? I think it would be a sort of quagmire for them that isn't really sustainable for them, there would likely be an insurgent resistance to their occupation like what the US found itself fighting in: Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq... or the Russians themselves found themselves in Afghanistan.

There's a huge economic cost but also a huge manpower cost for a long-term occupation like that... and now that Russia's been given a pariah state treatment after it's invasion, I'm not sure a long occupation is really feasible for them without reducing the standard of living for ordinary people pretty drastically. We've seen countries like Cuba, Iran, and even North Korea (granted they can now threaten the world with nukes to get food aid sent to them) survive despite this sort of economic warfare waged on normal people with the hopes of getting the citizens there to become so fed up they take up arms against their autocratic leaders who brutalise them... but none of these countries are attempting a long occupation of a country being armed to the teeth by NATO.

If the reports that this war was meant to last just 15 days and we're now on day 15... I think it's fair to say this hasn't really gone the way Putin would have liked. Can Russia truly occupy Ukraine if NATO and the EU keep supporting Ukraine? It could mean Ukraine is a bloody battlefield for a very long time... but I am not so sure Russia would be able to hold and control it, even with a puppet government.

I personally think Russia will let the Western (Catholic) area go independent as otherwise they will need to police it. Expect it to be smaller in size due to this conflict than it might otherwise had been.