Russia invades Ukraine

[sonic2009]

Not sure if this has been raised but why is the Ukranian Airforce not attacking the "37 Mile Column" it must be a sitting duck !!

It was mentioned last night that drone strikes have happened against this "37 Mile Column" but it's more of a build up of forces as Putin didn't expect Ukraine to probably take this long to fall over.

 

[dakta]

The thought had crossed my mind, I presumed they mustn't have the capability or resources any longer but if they are able to do something with regards this column even if its just a papercut then good on them

 

[DustyBin]

I have to agree, we either face him down and fight him now, which while unpleasent, stands some chance of success, or we wait until he has decided that he no longer accepts the reunification of Germany, having already overrun the Baltic states, Poland and states to the south. So we then end up having the same fight several hundred miles closer to our shores, and after a few million people have been killed, and Europe is broken and overrun with displaced people.

We could defeat Russia in a conventional war fairly easily but that's not the issue. Attacking NATO countries would be a huge escalation and there's no way he would overrun any of them. It's worth remembering that based on what we know Putin expected the invasion of Ukraine to be easy; delusional but there's nothing to say he wanted or expected to find himself at war at all. His constant threats may well in fact be borne out of fear of NATO; if we get involved he knows it's game over.

Just to clarify Putin has invaded, with no justification, a democratic country, who share a lot of history, and is going to grind it into the ground if he can killing as many of the Ukrainians as he can. If he can do that then what hope for say Germany, where there is a history of conflict.

He's not killing "as many Ukrainians as he can" (that's not to detract from his appalling actions to date by the way). I'll refer you to the above paragraph in regards to Germany.

It may not be what people want to hear, but history says thats how it will work.

On the face of it I can't disagree but again I'll refer you to the points I've made above.

 

[tommy2215]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/e32aaff8-af24-46e1-8c7c-2a7d09387e45

Slight bit of good news. Apparently China are using their strongest language yet against Russia. They are now calling the conflict deplorable and concerned about the loss of civilian life. Seems Putin is really testing China's patience.

 

[ainsworth74]

I've been slightly intrigued that their drones appear to be targeting quite a lot of Russia air defence equipment. Now obviously if that's all you can see you'll take it. But there's going to be plenty of other Russian forces around that might be deserving of a missile through the roof. So I've been spit balling with the idea that they're doing their best to degrade Russian air defences and are holding whatever is left of the Ukrainian Air Force in reserve until they have no choice but to use it (for instance once the column starts to break up and move into Kyiv) and so when they do use Russian ground based air defences are as degraded as they can make them. Why else spend so much time targeting Russian air defences unless you still have an air force? Like I said as a target of opportunity you'll take what you can get but it seems strange that the only targets of opportunity would be air defence units.

 

[Scotrail314209]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/e32aaff8-af24-46e1-8c7c-2a7d09387e45

Slight bit of good news. Apparently China are using their strongest language yet against Russia. They are now calling the conflict deplorable and concerned about the loss of civilian life. Seems Putin is really testing China's patience.

I think Russia may listen to China on this. I really don’t think Putin will want to test his strongest ally.

 

[DustyBin]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/e32aaff8-af24-46e1-8c7c-2a7d09387e45

Slight bit of good news. Apparently China are using their strongest language yet against Russia. They are now calling the conflict deplorable and concerned about the loss of civilian life. Seems Putin is really testing China's patience.

Again, I'm confident that this is absolutely not what Putin wanted or expected. He's seriously miscalculated here and I dare say would accept a way out but he needs to save face and that will inevitably involve offering him something. I'd be very unhappy with the latter but I think that's the reality.

I've been slightly intrigued that their drones appear to be targeting quite a lot of Russia air defence equipment. Now obviously if that's all you can see you'll take it. But there's going to be plenty of other Russian forces around that might be deserving of a missile through the roof. So I've been spit balling with the idea that they're doing their best to degrade Russian air defences and are holding whatever is left of the Ukrainian Air Force in reserve until they have no choice but to use it (for instance once the column starts to break up and move into Kyiv) and so when they do use Russian ground based air defences are as degraded as they can make them. Why else spend so much time targeting Russian air defences unless you still have an air force? Like I said as a target of opportunity you'll take what you can get but it seems strange that the only targets of opportunity would be air defence units.

I've had similar thoughts; I suspect they have some aircraft remaining but don't want to risk them. The other thing to consider is that if they take out the air defences the column itself becomes extremely vulnerable.

 

[adrock1976]

Although the below two part article is from 2014, it gives a snapshot of how present day Ukraine has came about from both the events of 1917.

Nationalism and fascism in Ukraine: A historical overview​

Part one​

Konrad Kreft, Clara Weiss
​

9 June 2014​

PART ONE | PART TWO
This is the first part of a two-part article.
The Western media is seeking to downplay the prominent role of fascists in the new Ukrainian government. Several of the regime’s ministries are headed by members of the far-right Svoboda party, and the militias of the neo-fascist Right Sector are active in violently repressing resistance in the east of the country.
Both Svoboda and Right Sector played a crucial role in the February 22 coup in Kiev, which was strongly backed by Berlin and Washington. This is no coincidence. The close collaboration of Germany and the US with Ukrainian fascists has a long history, reaching back over the last hundred years.

The roots of Ukrainian nationalism​

In contrast to many other European countries, there has never been a strong bourgeois national movement in Ukraine. Ukraine has been divided between Poland and Russia since the late Middle Ages. After the carve-up of Poland at the end of the eighteenth century, Ukraine became part of the Russian Empire. Only a section of what is now western Ukraine was integrated into the Hapsburg Empire.
The weakness of the Ukrainian national movement was due on the one hand to the country’s economic backwardness and lack of a strong middle class. Significant industrialisation occurred only in the era of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, a large proportion of the urban population consisted of Russians, Germans and Jews, while the rural population was mainly Ukrainian.
When bourgeois forces finally erected a Ukrainian nation-state, following the 1917 February Revolution’s overthrow of the tsar in Russia, they were immediately confronted with a revolutionary working class. The Bolsheviks, who seized power in Russia in October, received powerful support from the workers of Ukraine. Ever since then, bourgeois nationalism in Ukraine has been characterised by virulent anti-communism, pogroms against revolutionary workers and Jews, and attempts to win the support of imperialist powers.

The Social Democratic-dominated Rada (parliament), which proclaimed Ukraine’s independence in January 1918, tried to reach an agreement with Germany. After the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, however, the Soviet government was forced to cede Ukraine to Germany. When German troops marched into the country, the military dispensed with the Rada and established a dictatorship under Hetman (pre-eminent military commander) Pavlo Skoropadskyi, a landowner and former tsarist general. Skoropadskyi proceeded to make Kiev a rallying point for extreme right-wing and anti-Semitic politicians and military officers from all over Russia. (See: Anti-Semitism and the Russian Revolution: Part two)
Germany’s defeat in the First World War led to its forced retreat from Ukraine. Bloody battles engulfed Ukraine during the ensuing civil war in Russia. Supported by Western powers on Ukrainian soil in its fight against the Soviet government, the volunteer army under General Denikin committed horrific crimes and organised anti-Jewish pogroms. An estimated 50,000 Jews were murdered by the Whites in the second half of 1919 alone.

Symon Petliura, one the many Social Democrats who became nationalists, headed a directorate that took power in Kiev. This body also sought the backing of the Western powers in its war against the Soviet government and was responsible for the murder of more than 30,000 Jews. Both Petliura and Stepan Bandera, who emerged later as a leading figure, are regarded as role models by present-day Ukrainian nationalists.
https://www.wsws.org/en/special/pages/stop-the-drive-to-world-war-three.html
Lenin advocated self-determination for Ukraine, and this democratic demand played a crucial role in winning the oppressed Ukrainian workers and peasants to the side of the Bolsheviks, who eventually won the civil war in 1921. In 1922, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic officially became part of the newly formed Soviet Union. However, western Ukraine remained under Polish rule.
Genuine independence from imperialism and development of national culture were possible in Ukraine only during the early years of the Soviet Union. These advances emerged from Lenin and Trotsky’s nationalities policy, which conceded to the nations within the Soviet confederation a comprehensive right to self-determination. The oppression of nationalities, as was common in the tsarist empire, was decisively rejected by the Bolsheviks.

The cultural life and material living standards of the Ukrainian masses underwent a dramatic improvement in the 1920s. The illiteracy rate declined sharply, as educational institutions and universities were established throughout the country. The Ukrainian language and culture were widely promoted, and this greatly stimulated intellectual life. As Leon Trotsky wrote in 1939, thanks to this policy, Soviet Ukraine became extremely attractive to the workers, peasants and revolutionary intelligentsia of western Ukraine, which remained enslaved by Poland.
However, the rise of the Stalinist bureaucracy brought an end to this nationalities policy. Lenin had attacked Stalin because of his centralist and bureaucratic tendencies in relation to the Georgian and Ukrainian questions. But after Lenin’s death, Stalin became increasingly ruthless in his attacks on non-Russian nationalities.

“The bureaucracy strangled and plundered the people within Great Russia, too,” wrote Trotsky in 1939. “But in the Ukraine matters were further complicated by the massacre of national hopes. Nowhere did restrictions, purges, repressions and in general all forms of bureaucratic hooliganism assume such murderous sweep as they did in the Ukraine in the struggle against the powerful, deeply-rooted longings of the Ukrainian masses for greater freedom and independence.” [1]

The Ukrainian peasants were particularly affected by the forced collectivisation of the late 1920s and early 1930s. Approximately 3.3 million people fell victim to this policy.
The devastating consequences of the nationalist polities of the Stalinist bureaucracy strengthened “nationalist underground groups… which were led by fanatical anti-Communists, successors of Petliura’s supporters and forerunners of Bandera’s people,” writes Vadim Rogovin in his book Stalin’s War Communism. [2]

Stalin’s murderous policies of repression played into the hands of Ukrainian nationalists and fascists, who agitated in the western parts of the divided Ukraine and collaborated with Hitler when he invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. Despite the crimes of Stalinism, however, the great majority of Ukrainians fought in the Red Army to defend the Soviet Union.

The crimes of the Ukrainian fascists in World War II​

Among the most significant organisations that collaborated with the Nazis was the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). Its members were recruited mainly from veterans of the Civil War who had fought on the side of Petliura against the Bolsheviks.
During the 1930s, the OUN carried out numerous terrorist attacks in Ukraine, Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia. Its ideological head was Dmytro Dontsov (1883-1973), who became one of the leading ideologues of the Ukrainian extreme right-wing through his journalistic activities, among which were Ukrainian translations of Mussolini’s Dottrina del Fascismo ( The Doctrine of Fascism ) and excerpts from Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf .

Dontsov had earlier developed his thesis of “amorality.” According to historian Frank Golczewski, this asserted the obligation “to collaborate with every enemy of Great Russia, regardless of their own political goals.” It “created an ideological justification for the subsequent collaboration with the Germans” and the lineup of Ukrainian nationalists behind the United States during the Cold War. [3]
In 1940, the OUN split into the Bandera (B) and Melnyk (M) factions, which bitterly fought each other. Bandera’s more extreme group was able to attract more followers than Melnyk’s. It began by establishing Ukrainian militia (the Roland and Nightingale Legions) on German-occupied territory in Poland which, in league with the Wehrmacht (German army), invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941.

After the withdrawal of the Red Army from areas conquered by the Germans, the legions and special militias acted as auxiliary troops in countless massacres of Jews. Following the entry of the OUN-B into Lviv on June 29, 1941, the Bandera militias (Nightingale Legion) unleashed murderous pogroms against the Jews lasting several days. Ukrainian militia continued massacring Jews in Ternopil, Stanislau (today Ivano-Fankisk) and other places. Documentary evidence relating to the first few days of the Wehrmacht’s advance reveals that about 140 pogroms were perpetrated in western Ukraine, in which 13,000 to 35,000 Jews were murdered. [4]

On June 30, 1941, Bandera and his deputy head of the OUN-B, Yaroslav Stetsko, proclaimed the independence of Ukraine in Lviv. Stepan Lenkavski, the OUN-B government’s director of propaganda, openly advocated the physical extermination of Ukrainian Jewry.
The Nazis used their Ukrainian collaborators to commit murders and acts of brutality that were too disturbing even for the SS units. For example, SS task force 4a in Ukraine confined itself to “the shooting of adults while commanding its Ukrainian helpers to shoot [the] children.” [5]
Dealing with Ukrainian and other collaborators in the Soviet Union was a controversial issue in the Nazi leadership. While Alfred Rosenberg, one of the main Nazis responsible for the Holocaust, urged greater involvement of local fascist forces, Hitler opposed the nationalists’ so-called independence projects. On Hitler’s orders, the OUN-B leaders were eventually arrested and the Ukrainian legions disarmed and relocated.
From 1942, the Ukrainian militia served the Third Reich in the “anti-partisan campaign” in Belarus, in the “security service,” and as armed personnel in concentration camps. Bandera and Stetsko remained in custody in Sachsenhausen concentration camp until September 1944.
When Hitler’s armies went into retreat after their defeat at Stalingrad, members of the OUN legions returned to Ukraine and formed the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) in 1943. Immediately after his release by the German authorities, Bandera headed back to Ukraine to lead the UPA.
The UPA was supplied with German weapons and attempted to implement an extensive ethnic cleansing program in order to create the conditions for an ethnically pure Ukrainian state. In 1943 and 1944, the UPA organised massacres that claimed the lives of 90,000 Poles and thousands of Jews. It also brutally terrorised, tortured and executed Ukrainian peasants and workers who wanted to join the Soviet Union. The UPA went on to kill some 20,000 Ukrainians before the insurrection was completely crushed in 1953.
To be continued
Notes
[1] Leon Trotsky, “Problem of the Ukraine,” Trotsky Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/04/ukraine.html
[2] Vadim Rogovin: Stalins Kriegskommunismus, Essen 2006, p. 377
[3] Frank Golczewski: Die ukrainische Emigration, (Hrsg.): Geschichte der Ukraine, Göttingen 1993, p. 236
[4] Per Anders Rudling: “The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right. The Case of VO Svoboda,” in: Ruth Wodak, John E. Richardson (ed.): Analyzing Fascist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text, London 2013, pp. 228-255. The article is accessible online.
[5] Quoted in Christopher Simpson: Blowback. America’s Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War, London 1988, p. 25

Both parts of the original can be found at the World Socialist (International Committee of the Fourth International) website https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/20...r_xHb7srTvhApYry0plhNIYCDATfa6RkA0q5QLTGMoql0

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It depends what his exact motives are. What NATO and EU need to ensure is that they don’t inadvertently create fresh incentives for more aggressive expansion.

I'm not sure the 'incentives' are the problem, it's more the opportunity. Putin has made no secret of his desire to aggressively expand and his contempt for democracy. IMO the problem is, because NATO looked weak and unwilling to respond to previous aggression, Putin sensed the opportunity. The lesson is that, if we want to avoid war, as long as people like Putin are around, we should never again wind down our defences and start looking like we're weak and don't have the stomach for a fight.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Mar 2022 ==

Whatever the comparison is, comparisons to WWII are ridiculous frankly. Warfare and the map of the world have changed enormously.

That is very true. Unfortunately, while warfare and the map of the World have changed, the nature of expansionist autocrats has not changed, nor the principle that, usually, the more you appease them, the more they tend to come for more, which means that appeasing them will often lead to a bigger war than the one you were trying to avoid

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Mar 2022 ==

I don't know who this Hodges guy is, but we do not want to do anything that might increase the risk of nuclear conflict.

We've spent the last 20 years increasing the risk of nuclear conflict by continually appeasing Putin and allowing his regime to become more and more powerful unchecked on the basis that we don't want to risk escalation, all the while running down our own defences. Maybe it's time we stopped continually doing the same thing and expecting different results this time, eh? (To be fair, things are changing now, just it seems not fast enough for us to be willing to step in and properly defend Ukraine).

 

[Trackman]

I think Russia may listen to China on this. I really don’t think Putin will want to test his strongest ally.

Also it's not like China to act in this way, there was something on the radio about it the other day about their strict policy on foreign affairs.

 

[adrock1976]

I'm not sure the 'incentives' are the problem, it's more the opportunity. Putin has made no secret of his desire to aggressively expand and his contempt for democracy. IMO the problem is, because NATO looked weak and unwilling to respond to previous aggression, Putin sensed the opportunity. The lesson is that, if we want to avoid war, as long as people like Putin are around, we should never again wind down our defences and start looking like we're weak and don't have the stomach for a fight.

If and when the conflict has ended, all governments across the globe should ask themselves what war and conflict is good for, and work on an international level for demilitarization.

Although not necessary a good example (as the only one I can think of), maybe all governments should look at the constitution of Costa Rica, as since 1949 it mentions that they do not have a military or armed forces mainly due to not having any intentions to invade anyone. At one time, Costa Rica was once part of the Spanish Empire, and they eventually became independent.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

We could defeat Russia in a conventional war fairly easily but that's not the issue. Attacking NATO countries would be a huge escalation and there's no way he would overrun any of them. It's worth remembering that based on what we know Putin expected the invasion of Ukraine to be easy; delusional but there's nothing to say he wanted or expected to find himself at war at all. His constant threats may well in fact be borne out of fear of NATO; if we get involved he knows it's game over.

To my mind, that's exactly the point. By continually refusing to get directly involved because we fear Putin might escalate, we are allowing ourselves to be manipulated in exactly the same way that he has been manipulating us for decades.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Zelensky is urging for a no-fly-zone.

I think other countries are willing to consider other methods, but I certainly think NATO have made their mind up on it, same with sending troops in.

Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskiy says Russia must stop bombing Ukrainian cities before meaningful talks about a ceasefire can begin, Reuters reports.
Speaking in an interview in a heavily guarded government compound, Zelenskiy urged Nato members to impose a no-fly zone to stop the Russian airforce.
He insisted a no-fly zone would be a preventative measure and not intended to drag the Nato alliance into war with Russia.

Key port of Mariupol under siege as IMF and World Bank pledge $3bn for Ukraine – as it happened

US president gives State of the Union address as Russia intensifies bombardment of cities across Ukraine

amp.theguardian.com

 

[GB]

If and when the conflict has ended, all governments across the globe should ask themselves what war and conflict is good for, and work on an international level for GBRfet036Xx.

Although not necessary a good example (as the only one I can think of), maybe all governments should look at the constitution of Costa Rica, as since 1949 it mentions that they do not have a military or armed forces mainly due to not having any intentions to invade anyone. At one time, Costa Rica was once part of the Spanish Empire, and they eventually became independent.

...and what do you do (and what will Costa Rica do) when someone at some point decides they want occupy your country? World demilitarization is a fairy tale.

 

[tommy2215]

To my mind, that's exactly the point. By continually refusing to get directly involved because we fear Putin might escalate, we are allowing ourselves to be manipulated in exactly the same way that he has been manipulating us for decades.

Only when Putin directly attacks a NATO country should we think about retaliating militarily. Before then the risks far far outweigh the benefits.

 

[DustyBin]

To my mind, that's exactly the point. By continually refusing to get directly involved because we fear Putin might escalate, we are allowing ourselves to be manipulated in exactly the same way that he has been manipulating us for decades.

I do get where you're coming from with this. I don't however believe Putin will be emboldened by the current situation, probably quite the opposite in fact. Obviously that doesn't help Ukraine, I realise that.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Only when Putin directly attacks a NATO country should we think about retaliating militarily. Before then the risks far far outweigh the benefits.

I think there's a bit of weasel-language going on in that post. If Ukraine asks to impose a no-fly-zone over their own airspace, and NATO countries volunteer to enforce that (with the permission of the Ukrainian Government), that is hardly 'retaliating' - it's defending! If we sent some missiles over to attack targets on Russian soil, *that* would be 'retaliating' - but I'm certainly not arguing for that!

 

[DarloRich]

To my mind, that's exactly the point. By continually refusing to get directly involved because we fear Putin might escalate, we are allowing ourselves to be manipulated in exactly the same way that he has been manipulating us for decades.

But the risk of escalation is simply too great - I don't like to say that but it is reality. We cant touch Russia. We are dealing with a nuclear armed power. That has to create a moment of pause in the debate. This isn't Serbia. We cant simply impose our will on this situation because the other power has the ability to impose theirs in an equal or greater manner. We cant risk tit a for tat journey up the escalatory ladder towards nuclear destruction. Ukraine are not, sadly, in the NATO club.

Personally I think a no fly zone would be utterly foolish and dangerous despite those in the press/media pushing for it. Ukraine is going to be defeated despite their resistance. What comes next is the question

If and when the conflict has ended, all governments across the globe should ask themselves what war and conflict is good for, and work on an international level for demilitarization.

Although not necessary a good example (as the only one I can think of), maybe all governments should look at the constitution of Costa Rica, as since 1949 it mentions that they do not have a military or armed forces mainly due to not having any intentions to invade anyone. At one time, Costa Rica was once part of the Spanish Empire, and they eventually became independent.

Star trek fantasy world stuff. Never going to happen. Look at the benefit of having nuclear weapons. We cant touch Russia because of what might happen. They know that. They also know they cant touch us because of what might happen.

I think there's a bit of weasel-language going on in that post. If Ukraine asks to impose a no-fly-zone over their own airspace, and NATO countries volunteer to enforce that, that is hardly 'retaliating'. It's defending. If sent some missiles over to attack targets on Russian soil, *that* would be 'retaliating' - but I'm certainly not arguing for that!

So what happens when a "defensive" NATO aircraft shoots down a Russian aircraft for breaching the no fly zone? I don't think the Russian would see the philosophical difference between killing their people over Ukraine or killing them in Russia! It is an escalation we cant afford. We have to be realistic here.

 

[adc82140]

I think Russia may listen to China on this. I really don’t think Putin will want to test his strongest ally.

China could end up being the mediator here.

 

[HST274]

Star trek fantasy world stuff. Never going to happen. Look at the benefit of having nuclear weapons. We cant touch Russia because of what might happen. They know that. They also know they cant touch us because of what might happen.

But we could beat them if it came to that- what's stopping us? Nuclear weapons. Besides, who cares if it stops 1000 wars if we are all blown to oblivion. Better a world filled with war and destruction with hope than a world where everything has died from slow radiation posioning and nuclear destruction. I agree we should not intefere but only because of nuclear weapons. Without that I feel it is morally right to back up Ukraine, but like you said the threat is too great, which will only lead to another country in Russia's grasp.

 

[DustyBin]

So what happens when a "defensive" NATO aircraft shoots down a Russian aircraft for breaching the no fly zone? I don't think the Russian would see the philosophical difference between killing their people over Ukraine or killing them in Russia! It is an escalation we cant afford. We have to be realistic here.

This is what I've said previously. When (not if) a Russian plane gets shot down Putin isn't going to say "fair enough we deserved that, best not fly there again" is he? He'll see it as an act of war. Like you I'm far from happy with the situation but it's not a case of weasel words, it's a case of not making a very bad situation into an unmitigated catastrophe.

 

[najaB]

And if they don't withdraw?

There is a *lot* of oil that becomes profitable at $100/bbl. The last prices stayed this high the USA became a net exporter!

 

[brad465]

Also it's not like China to act in this way, there was something on the radio about it the other day about their strict policy on foreign affairs.

I wonder if this in part China realising that with things not going well for Russia, and the rest of the world united in opposition to Russia (bar a few), that it's in their best interests to join in with the opposition, even if to a lesser extent than the West.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Mar 2022 ==

There is a *lot* of oil that becomes profitable at $100/bbl. The last prices stayed this high the USA became a net exporter!

Including of course the Tar Sands in Canada, the subject country cutting off Russian supplies.

In the long term high oil prices make renewable energy more affordable/profitable, so I expect investment in them to surge higher, and hopefully also some innovation and expansion in energy storage capability.

 

[GS250]

Out of interest...purely hypothetical...if there were no nuclear weapons....would engaging in a war with Russia be far more palatable? Accepting that they could still use long range conventional weapons to attack Western targets?

It's a pie in the sky question...and I guess geopolitics would be totally different anyway if it wasn't for the 'bomb'.

And if not messing with Russia is purely down to their atomic arsenal. Should the same not apply to them in their views of Britain, France and the USA? Or do they have a greater appetite for the risk/rewards of nuclear conflict?

 

[nw1]

Personally I think a no fly zone would be utterly foolish and dangerous despite those in the press/media pushing for it.

The comforting thing is that in this sort of situation (unlike some others), governments and the military are not going to listen to self-important windbag journalists with moronic opinions.

 

[najaB]

Out of interest...purely hypothetical...if there were no nuclear weapons....would engaging in a war with Russia be far more palatable? Accepting that they could still use long range conventional weapons to attack Western targets?

If Russia didn't have a sizable nuclear arsenal they wouldn't be in Ukraine right now. They (Putin) knows that his c 3,500 warheads make him relatively untouchable.

 

[Iskra]

This is what I've said previously. When (not if) a Russian plane gets shot down Putin isn't going to say "fair enough we deserved that, best not fly there again" is he? He'll see it as an act of war. Like you I'm far from happy with the situation but it's not a case of weasel words, it's a case of not making a very bad situation into an unmitigated catastrophe.

If it's an aircraft painted in yellow and blue, where's the escalation? If you can't beat them, join them.

*probably don't send aircraft as that would require non-native pilots, but you'd think the US has probably got some pretty potent and relatively inexpensive drones they can keep supplying that wouldn't be as much of a smoking gun. Sell them to Ukraine for a dollar a piece.

- - - - - - -

To me, the shelling of residential areas is a) disgusting and b) escalation, so we're at a point where our own morality should no longer be a barrier.

 

[DustyBin]

Out of interest...purely hypothetical...if there were no nuclear weapons....would engaging in a war with Russia be far more palatable? Accepting that they could still use long range conventional weapons to attack Western targets?

It's a pie in the sky question...and I guess geopolitics would be totally different anyway if it wasn't for the 'bomb'.

For me, if there was no nuclear threat I'd be supportive of taking military action. NATO could certainly remove them from Ukraine in short order. If they were stupid enough to attack other countries in response they'd find themselves on the receiving end of an even bigger pasting and probably find their military capabilities severely degraded for years to come.

And if not messing with Russia is purely down to their atomic arsenal. Should the same not apply to them in their views of Britain, France and the USA? Or do they have a greater appetite for the risk/rewards of nuclear conflict?

I think Putin has more appetite for the risk/reward of nuclear threats. In the event of actual conflict there are no rewards and even he knows that. I really don't think he wants a conflict with NATO as he can't win; the "best" he could hope for would be to take everybody else down with him. This is why I don't buy into the "Poland next" rhetoric; that's a red line and he knows it. In my opinion he's bitten off more than he can chew in Ukraine but now can't stop chewing and that's the problem. Had he known how it would play out I'm not entirely convinced he would have invaded in the first place; the problem was that he believed Ukraine would more-or-less roll over and everybody would look the other way. Whilst clearly delusional it explains the decision to invade and the shambolic performance of Russia's forces subsequently.

 

[najaB]

probably don't send aircraft as that would require non-native pilots, but you'd think the US has probably got some pretty potent and relatively inexpensive drones they can keep supplying that wouldn't be as much of a smoking gun. Sell them to Ukraine for a dollar a piece.

I'm not so sure that this isn't already happening. You would've thought that the Russians would have destroyed most/all the RQ-11s but they still seem to have plenty of them.

A sufficient supply of TB-2s as well.

 

[brad465]

Some more of this would be very handy:

US says Russian progress on Kyiv ‘stalled’ with units ‘surrendering without a fight’

Defence official says some Russian units are running out of food and fuel and are ‘surrendering without a fight’

www.independent.co.uk

Russia’s assault on Kyiv has “stalled” with some units “surrendering without a fight” to Ukrainian troops, according to a senior US defence official.

The official, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity on Tuesday, said that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s forces have come up against several logistical issues as they continue to struggle to take control of the Ukrainian capital.

Some units are running out of food and fuel while there are also challenges of a lack of experience among troops who never even knew they were being sent into combat, the official said.

As a result, the advance on the capital remains stuck “where it was yesterday” with some troops said to be surrendering to the Ukrainian military and civilians who have fought back to defend their country.

“You’ve seen it on the ground, where units are surrendering, sometimes without a fight,” the official said.

The official said that Russian forces are showing some signs of “risk averse behaviour” among troops as the invasion continues into its sixth day.

“There has been in the last six days evidence of a certain risk averse behaviour by the Russian military,” the official said, according to CNN.

“And they’ve got, a lot of these soldiers are conscripts, never been in combat before, some of whom we believe weren’t even told they were going to be in combat.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Mar 2022 ==

Regardless of whether or not Liz Truss is performing well at the moment, this Spectator headline is very poor taste:

Liz Truss is having a good war

Liz Truss gave a striking statement in the Commons this afternoon on the action the government was taking to respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It contrasted to the approach taken by some of her colleagues, because it contained a number of admissions about the impact of this action. For...

www.spectator.co.uk

Liz Truss gave a striking statement in the Commons this afternoon on the action the government was taking to respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It contrasted to the approach taken by some of her colleagues, because it contained a number of admissions about the impact of this action.

For the first time, the Foreign Secretary stated that Britain would 'have to undergo some economic hardship as a result of our sanctions'. This has been implicit over the past few days, but Truss was the first to say it clearly. She added that 'our hardships are nothing compared to those endured by the people of Ukraine', and also warned that the war could last months or years. But her statement was not a downbeat one: she underlined that Putin had made a miscalculation in assuming Ukraine would be easy to conquer. The bar was set high for western success, saying 'Putin must lose' because if he managed to invade a sovereign country without consequences, it could happen anywhere. 'However long it takes, we will not rest until Ukraine's sovereignty is restored,' she said.

Many MPs seemed to think that Putin's miscalculation was so serious that it could cost him power
The emphasis on unity meant that David Lammy's response from the Labour benches wasn't full of shouting, but support and questions about details and whether the government could go further. The shadow foreign secretary had a smart line that 'Putin is not just facing a united West, he is facing a truly United Kingdom'. This was echoed by SNP spokesman Alyn Smith, who told Truss that 'this is too serious' for his party to do anything other than support the government and urge it to go further too.
Truss revealed new sanctions, including a full asset freeze on three more Russian banks — VEB, Sovcombank and Otkritie — within the next few days, and new powers to prevent Russian banks from clearing payments in sterling, which would 'damage Russia's ability to trade with the world'. She also said she had a growing 'hit list' of oligarchs who she was targeting, telling Labour's Ben Bradshaw that threatening letters from the law firms representing them merely encouraged her to target such individuals. 'They are on our list,' she said firmly.

It was striking that many MPs seemed to think that Putin's miscalculation was so serious that it could cost him power. Foreign Affairs Committee chair Tom Tugendhat suggested an international fund to hold the money seized from oligarchs that could one day be returned to the Russian public from whom it had been stolen in the first place. He suggested that the money held in this fund could then be returned 'when this criminal conspiracy that laughably calls itself a government falls'. Truss said she would look into this idea, which was indeed interesting, but almost as important was the implicit assumption in Tugendhat's line about 'when' the Russian government falls. A strong narrative is growing among western politicians that Putin won't just lose this war but that he will also lose his job. That's a lot to assume after just five days of fighting.

Truss replaced Dominic Raab as Foreign Secretary after he embarrassed himself and the government with his handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Not only did she strike a contrast with the defensive way Raab dealt with the Afghan crisis, but she was also quite different in her approach to her current colleague Priti Patel, who was also on the back foot when she gave a mini-statement earlier in the Chamber about Ukrainian refugees.

Truss has carefully built a brand for herself involving slightly intense and bizarre Instagram posts and a number of staged (and expensive) photographs of her arriving in various foreign capitals. But this is her first real test as a politician. So far she is passing it.