Russia invades Ukraine

[najaB]

Is democracy what it’s claimed to be when in America they seem to me to be doing their absolute upmost to jail Trump?

In a word: yes.

If he committed crimes (as it definitely appears based on the evidence), then he should go to jail the same as any other citizen (though it's much more likely to be house-arrest). It's only in dictatorships (like Russia) where the leader is immune from prosecution and their opponents are imprisoned without fair trial.

 

[class ep-09]

sorry, but again I don’t see the relevance here? Ramblings of a mad man to me is the unnecessary comparison of events today to the Roman Empire?

Is that how it started? That’s it? Just like that?

Of course not, and at no point have I said it’s justified, what I’ve said is that it was not unprovoked.

Do you genuinely believe that the west is a benevolent state that does not seek to provoke and undermine Russia?

No, there’s plenty reasons to see provocation if you are open minded to the concept that Russia might not be loving the idea of pro western leaders being installed in countries such as Ukraine with a military organisation which is hostile towards it circling its borders.

Don’t take my word for it, take it from the numerous expert foreign correspondents who have warned for years that it will lead to war.

Which is a BS .
People of Ukraine “installed” by choosing them in democratic elections, its leaders and whether they are pro West or pro NATO is not Russians damn business .

Besides NATO is defence alliance not some invading force , and Putler knows that full well.

Russia should focus on its own problems not look at everyone else.
30% of population of Russia goes to have a dump in to a field because they have no running water or , what we call here , toilets .

 

[Yew]

Would you disagree that NATO inching closer and closer to Russia over the years, despite assurances that they wouldn’t, could be considered a provocation?

Could you provide a source for these assurances to the Russian Federation?

 

[brad465]

Putin doing a Cabinet reshuffle and Shoigu is reported to no longer be Defence Minister:

Putin set to replace Shoigu as defence minister

Russian President Vladimir Putin set to replace long-standing ally Sergei Shoigu as defence minister - reports

www.bbc.com

Russian President Vladimir Putin set to replace long-standing ally Sergei Shoigu as defence minister - reports

 

[Yew]

Do you genuinely believe that the west is a benevolent state that does not seek to provoke and undermine Russia?

Are you seriously suggesting that somehow other nations joining freely joining a defensive alliance justifies Russia invading a sovereign state?

 

[roymunson]

All the countries of central Europe were under Soviet domination for 45 years, and when this ceased in 1990 there was overwhelming popular support for breaking away and turning towards the west. With the exception of Belarus these have since become democracies and still overwhelmingly prefer to be in NATO and the EU. Some are less in favour than others, such as Hungary, and Poland is an interesting case because even though the previous government was less in tune with Western values they were still one of the strongest supporters of Ukraine. Are you suggesting that all these democracies have somehow been forced and duped into pro-Western viewpoints, and the recent re-elections of Putin and Lukashenko are the only ones where popular will has genuinely been expressed?

Nope. Not suggesting that at all

So yes, Russia may not be liking its loss of domination, but if they'd behaved as a peaceful neighbour they might have had more economic and diplomatic influence and less hostility. The democratic Russia that briefly emerged in the 1990s endeavoured to reach accommodation with its neighbours, with Ukraine handing over its nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees from Russia and others. There was even talk of Russia joining NATO. But unfortunately Russia has reverted to autocracy and aggression.

maybe they see NATO expansion as a form of aggression, too?

No country can sustain a war without some level of public support. Even in democracies it's possible for a leader to mislead their people into believing that an aggression is justified - this has happened multiple times in America, most recently with Iraq. The NATO treaty does not bind other countries to support aggression, so for a credible threat to arise to Russia it would have to have support in enough NATO countries to have a chance of succeeding. But there's no evidence of either any other country's leadership wanting to invade Russia, or of a groundswell of public opinion anywhere in support of doing so.

They’ve been invaded in the past, however, noticeably via Ukraine and suffered pretty huge losses to repel Nazi Germany. To me it seems reasonable to assume that America calls the shots and others follow suit… also, America and UK didn’t seek much approval to invade Iraq. I think it’s pretty obvious western leaders want regime change in Russia.

As to Trump and Biden, recall that Trump used the defence of Ukraine as a bargaining chip to try to obtain political gain over Biden. Gaza is off-topic here but Trump was absolutely pro-Israel when in office and has shown no sign of changing tack since then. Also worth noting that Trump tore up the agreement that was just about keeping Iran in line, and if that hadn't happened it's quite likely that Iran would not now be arming Russia or indeed encouraging agression in the Middle East. While Trump hasn't invaded any country and quite probably wouldn't do so if in office, making him less bad than Putin, if re-elected it's entirely possible he will render NATO impotent and therefore leave it open for Russia to pick off its members one by one.

It’s interesting that you think there is no evidence or appetite for western leaders to invade Russia but that it would be entirely possible for Russia to pick off NATO members one by one

Are you seriously suggesting that somehow other nations joining freely joining a defensive alliance justifies Russia invading a sovereign state?

Nope

In a word: yes.

If he committed crimes (as it definitely appears based on the evidence), then he should go to jail the same as any other citizen (though it's much more likely to be house-arrest). It's only in dictatorships (like Russia) where the leader is immune from prosecution and their opponents are imprisoned without fair trial.

Or Ukraine?

Which is a BS .
People of Ukraine “installed” by choosing them in democratic elections, its leaders and whether they are pro West or pro NATO is not Russians damn business .

But it is when the CIA instigated a regime change and means there are consequences to it?

 

[yorkie]

Wasn’t there some advisor to the Zelenskiy who predicted the war with Russia before it happened, saying a war with Russia is the cost for joining NATO

If you are making a claim, the onus is on you to reference that claim; can you please edit your post to include a link to, and quote from the source you are referring to.

maybe they see NATO expansion as a form of aggression, too?

They’ve been invaded in the past, however, noticeably via Ukraine and suffered pretty huge losses to repel Nazi Germany. To me it seems reasonable to assume that America calls the shots and others follow suit… also, America and UK didn’t seek much approval to invade Iraq. I think it’s pretty obvious western leaders want regime change in Russia.

Do you think Russia wants regime change in any other countries?

It’s interesting that you think there is no evidence or appetite for western leaders to invade Russia but that it would be entirely possible for Russia to pick off NATO members one by one

I think macron said something about boots on the ground recently

Again the onus is on you to link to, and quote from, any sources when making any claims and/or references to anything you read/heard from an external source.

Not justifying it mate, my argument is that it wasn’t unprovoked. Two very different things. None of anything I’ve said is a conspiracy, to my knowledge

Out of interest, have you met anyone from Ukraine?

 

[roymunson]

Do you think Russia wants regime change in any other countries?

Probably

Out of interest, have you met anyone from Ukraine?

Yeah

 

[yorkie]

Probably

OK so what was the point you were trying to make earlier? It doesn't really seem relevant if both 'sides' would like that?

Yeah

And they support Putin's actions, do they?

The Ukrainians I've met have very different views to yours!

Emmanuel Macron backlash after French President hints at boots on ground in Ukraine | World | News | Express.co.uk

Eric Ciotti of the Republicans said the announcement by Mr Macron was 'fraught with terrible consequences' and had been 'made without the slightest parliamentary debate'.

www.express.co.uk

Please can you edit your post to comply with our forum rules; when referring to external sources (and/or videos/images) we do require a quote (or description/summary, as appropriate) to be provided, the quote should be proportionate and contain the relevant information to which you refer.

 

[roymunson]

OK so what was the point you were trying to make earlier? It doesn't really seem relevant if both 'sides' would like that?

My point is I don’t think anyone can say this conflict is unprovoked. That’s very different to suggesting it’s justified, which I am not and have never suggested.

And they support Putin's actions, do they?

The Ukrainians I've met have very different views to yours!

Well Ukraine is a complex country, there was deep division in the east and west so perhaps it depends where they came from.

 

[najaB]

Or Ukraine?

What specific crimes are you suggesting the Ukrainian leadership are getting away with, or what specific opponent has been imprisoned without a fair trial.

But it is when the CIA instigated a regime change and means there are consequences to it?

The CIA can't operate in a vacuum - they can't invent a credible opposition, nor can they create popular support out of thin air. The most they can do is help promote the growth of what already exists in a country - hence why people like Putin and Kim are still in power, despite it being very much in the interest of the USA for them to be replaced.

 

[edwin_m]

maybe they see NATO expansion as a form of aggression, too?

They do, or perhaps they just say they do as a pretext to grab a piece of industrially and agriculturally valuable land. But joining a defensive alliance is in a different league from invading another country.

They’ve been invaded in the past, however, noticeably via Ukraine and suffered pretty huge losses to repel Nazi Germany.

That was in a different era, when Hitler was allowed to forcibly expand his territory due to appeasement by other powers and not least by striking a pact with the Soviets. The spread of genuine democracy in western Europe makes German expansionism inconceivable today.

also, America and UK didn’t seek much approval to invade Iraq. I think it’s pretty obvious western leaders want regime change in Russia.

A massive error by the Bush administration and by the UK in taking part, which has had many bad consequences. But nobody, even in the wilder corners of the Pentagon, was suggesting invasion of Russia. Not least because it would have led to world annihilation.

I think macron said something about boots on the ground recently

Only in Ukraine, and only as a potential response to Russia invading.

Again, do you have any suggestions on what the west might have approached this problem differently? What was the alternative to actions that Russia might see as provocative? If NATO hadn't expanded, would all the former Eastern Bloc states now be looking at being back under Russian control?

 

[roymunson]

They do, or perhaps they just say they do as a pretext to grab a piece of industrially and agriculturally valuable land. But joining a defensive alliance is in a different league from invading another country.

That was in a different era, when Hitler was allowed to forcibly expand his territory due to appeasement by other powers and not least by striking a pact with the Soviets. The spread of genuine democracy in western Europe makes German expansionism inconceivable today.

Of course, although considering the huge numbers of Soviet casualties, circa 27m, I’m sure that it’s left a mark. I’m not saying NATO are going to invade Russia for the record, my whole point is that by circling them it’s an undeniable provocation (from their view)

A massive error by the Bush administration and by the UK in taking part, which has had many bad consequences. But nobody, even in the wilder corners of the Pentagon, was suggesting invasion of Russia. Not least because it would have led to world annihilation.

Might still be on the cards, who knows

Only in Ukraine, and only as a potential response to Russia invading.

Point here is Western leaders are also making threats, takes two to tango

Again, do you have any suggestions on what the west might have approached this problem differently? What was the alternative to actions that Russia might see as provocative? If NATO hadn't expanded, would all the former Eastern Bloc states now be looking at being back under Russian control?

Honestly, I wish I knew. Perhaps making more effort to align or even integrate Russia into NATO when the chance was there, if it ever was. It seems to me that poking the bear as it has been called is inevitably going go lead to one thing. Sadly, through proxy, the Ukrainian people have endured a nightmare, and the worst may be yet to come.

 

[najaB]

Might still be on the cards, who knows

It's not.

Point here is Western leaders are also making threats, takes two to tango

Tell me more, what specific threats are being made?

 

[roymunson]

It's not.

Probably, but people are stupid. How do you feel this conflict ends?

Tell me more, what specific threats are being made?

David Cameron recently suggested Ukraine have a right to use UK weapons to target Russia, all over the news:

Russia calls meeting with UK ambassador after Lord Cameron says Ukraine 'has right' to strike inside Russia with UK weapons

Lord Cameron has said Ukraine "absolutely has the right" to use British-supplied weapons as it wishes, including to strike targets inside Russia, a potential step which the Russian foreign ministry claimed would have "catastrophic" consequences.

news.sky.com

“Russia has warned that Ukrainian strikes on its territory with UK-supplied weapons could bring retaliatory attacks against British military facilities and equipment on Ukrainian soil or elsewhere…”

There’s been threats throughout from both sides, obvious to anyone who’s followed it

 

[yorkie]

Probably, but people are stupid. We’ve all seen Dr Strangelove. How do you feel this conflict ends?

I've got no idea who Dr Strangelove is; the onus is on you to fully explain any references.

Well I’d just mentioned boots on the ground as suggested by Macron in a previous post, with a link attached. It was all over the news at the time.

You need to provide a hyperlink, as well as a quote (in quote tags) and a comment of your own; the quote should be of a suitable section of text (with appropriate context), not just the title. Please ensure you edit your post to fully comply with the rules before you submit any further posts.

David Cameron recently suggested Ukraine have a right to use UK weapons to target Russia, all over the news

Russia calls meeting with UK ambassador after Lord Cameron says Ukraine 'has right' to strike inside Russia with UK weapons

Lord Cameron has said Ukraine "absolutely has the right" to use British-supplied weapons as it wishes, including to strike targets inside Russia, a potential step which the Russian foreign ministry claimed would have "catastrophic" consequences.

news.sky.com

Lord Cameron has said Ukraine "absolutely has the right" to use British-supplied weapons as it wishes, including to strike targets inside Russia, a potential step which the Russian foreign ministry claimed would have "catastrophic" consequences.

There’s been threats throughout from both sides, obvious to anyone who’s followed it

It's unclear which part of the above is the quote, and which is your own comment (or if it's just one or the other); again you need to edit your post to ensure that a suitable proportion of text is quoted; this quote should be within quote tags (using the quote button). It should be separate to, and in addition to, a suitable comment of your own.

 

[najaB]

David Cameron recently suggested Ukraine have a right to use UK weapons to target Russia, all over the news

I don't think that the foreign secretary saying that Ukraine have the right to use weapons to target the country that they're currently at war with quite meets the standard of:

Western leaders are also making threats

 

[roymunson]

I don't think that the foreign secretary saying that Ukraine have the right to use weapons to target the country that they're currently at war with quite meets the standard of:

UK weapons*

 

[najaB]

UK weapons*

UK made. Once we give them to Ukraine / Ukraine buys them then they're theirs to use as they see fit.

 

[edwin_m]

Macron's and Cameron's statements mentioned above came after the invasion and in response to it. So they cannot be reasons Russia might have been "provoked" into invading.

 

[roymunson]

Really depends on what you would consider to be a provocation. I’m repeating myself and I’m aware that there are some folk who cannot fathom that this proxy war may have been decades in the making. Some might say a CIA instigated overthrow of government to install a pro west puppet could be considered as provocation with NATO flirting with the idea of Ukraine joining when it’s well known this is considered a red line to Russia. Russia weren’t going to accept a NATO base on Crimea, for example. You can argue if that’s right or wrong but I’ve said all I have to say now and am tired of being messaged by moderators to edit my posts.

There is a documentary by Oliver Stone called ‘Ukraine on Fire’ which dissects the 2014 events in Ukraine and CIA involvement, for anyone interested in an alternative view.

 

[najaB]

Some might say a CIA instigated overthrow of government to install a pro west puppet could be considered as provocation with NATO flirting with the idea of Ukraine joining when it’s well known this is considered a red line to Russia.

As above, the CIA aren't wizards and witches - they can only accelerate a ball that's already rolling, they can't create an opposition that doesn't exist, nor drum up support that doesn't already exist. And there were no plans for Ukraine to join NATO prior to the Russian invasion of 2022, it had been categorically ruled out even after the Russian takeover of Crimea.

 

[roymunson]

Please disregard anything I’ve written and I retract and apologise to anyone who has read them and disagrees with them.

 

[najaB]

Please disregard anything I’ve written and I retract and apologise to anyone who has read them and disagrees with them.

There's no need to apologise for holding a viewpoint. All we ask is that claims are supported by evidence and that people clearly distinguish between fact and opinion.

 

[roymunson]

There's no need to apologise for holding a viewpoint.

Thanks, my views are my own.

All we ask is that claims are supported by evidence and that people clearly distinguish between fact and opinion.

like you did when you stated Ukraine joining NATO had ‘categorically’ been ruled out?

 

[JamesT]

UK made. Once we give them to Ukraine / Ukraine buys them then they're theirs to use as they see fit.

Mostly.
Arms exports are usually performed under a licence from the government, which may include restrictions on how they're used. Though in practice there's nothing to stop them being used contrary to those conditions, it would tend to preclude repeat exports.

 

[najaB]

like you did when you stated Ukraine joining NATO had ‘categorically’ been ruled out?

I think it was pretty clear that was being stated as fact rather than opinion, yes.

As for evidence, while Ukraine had a stated intention to join NATO, from 2008 onwards NATO's position was that while Ukraine would eventually be in a position to join the alliance, it wasn't yet in state where it was able to do so and that completing the MAP was a necessary step before application could be considered (see point #69 here: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm), so membership had been ruled out for at least 20 years.

Separately, both NATO and EU had stated that they expected the alignment processes to take anything up to 20 years or more before Ukraine was in a position to join either organisation: https://www.rferl.org/a/juncker-says-ukraine-not-likely-join-eu-nato-for-20-25-years/27588682.html

 

[ainsworth74]

I think it was pretty clear that was being stated as fact rather than opinion, yes.

As for evidence, while Ukraine had a stated intention to join NATO, from 2008 onwards NATO's position was that while Ukraine would eventually be in a position to join the alliance, it wasn't yet in state where it was able to do so and that completing the MAP was a necessary step before application could be considered (see point #69 here: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm), so membership had been ruled out for at least 20 years.

Separately, both NATO and EU had stated that they expected the alignment processes to take anything up to 20 years or more before Ukraine was in a position to join either organisation: https://www.rferl.org/a/juncker-says-ukraine-not-likely-join-eu-nato-for-20-25-years/27588682.html

It is of course an irony that the Russian invasion has accelerated that timeline, certainly for EU accession and potentially for NATO accession, whereas without an invasion no-one would be talking about Ukraine joining either organisation anytime soon. See also Sweden and Finland abandoning decades of neutrality...

 

[najaB]

Not to mention that conflating "NATO expansion" and "Western threats" to Russia ignores completely the fact that the only reason countries like Ukraine want to join NATO is precisely because they didn't feel safe with Russia as a neighbour. Which says a lot more about Russia than the west, IMO.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Judging by Zelensky's previous comments, I can't see Ukraine accepting this ceasefire unless Ukraine is on the brink of collapse which they're not.

Vladimir Putin is ready to halt the war in Ukraine with a ceasefire that recognises the current battlefield lines, four Russian sources have told the Reuters news agency.

Three of the sources claimed that the Russian leader had expressed frustration about what he views as Western-backed attempts to hinder ceasefire negotiations.

"Putin can fight for as long as it takes, but Putin is also ready for a ceasefire - to freeze the war," a senior Russian source who has reportedly worked with Mr Putin and has knowledge of top-level conversations in the Kremlin, told Reuters.

The Russian president later told a press conference on Friday that peace talks with Ukraine need to be renewed, but they "must reflect realities on the ground".

Sources said freezing the conflict along current lines is a non-negotiable, as it would leave Russia in possession of substantial chunks of four Ukrainian regions, but without full control of any.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly ruled out the possibility of a ceasefire, going so far as to sign a decree in 2022 that formally declared any talks with Mr Putin "impossible".He reiterated this view at the beginning of the year, saying any pause in fighting would "play into [Russia's] hands" and "might crush us afterwards".

Both Mr Putin and Mr Zelenskyy also rejected a proposal put forward by French President Emmanuel Macron earlier this month, for a temporary ceasefire to be held during the Olympic Games, between 26 July-11 August.

Vladimir Putin ready to 'freeze' war in Ukraine with ceasefire recognising recent Russian gains, sources say

Vladimir Putin reportedly views recent gains in the war as enough to sell a victory to the Russian people, saving him from making unpopular decisions like spending more money and mobilising more people.

news.sky.com