Off Topic Ukraine

I thought we ought to have a separate thread for this, as we have been posting elsewhere and it’s getting a bit messy.

 

We see at times like this that 'propaganda' is, apparently, used only by the other side Are the Americans really in the position of being able to criticize the invasion of another countries sovereignty after Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya and several others ? Why do we understand that Israel feels threatened by enemies on all sides and can, proactively strike in all directions in the interests of national security - yet when Russia does it that is different ? Where are the calls for a complete boycot of American or Israeli products as there are now with Russia ? Did the World community spend billions in arming Iraq against US aggression ? Were there no civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Yugoslavia ? Thousands of civilian casualties of US drone attacks, Palestinian hospitals struck by Israeli attacks ? What a selective memory we have. Do we expect Russia to sit comfortably when Nato has crept up to its doorstep - against all promises made to Gorbachov all those years ago. Is it really so hard to understand that Russia wants its neighbours to be neutral ? Maybe if we had paid more attention to some of the details of the Dombass war which has been raging since 2014, unobserved by Western media then we would understand that there are no straightforward 'goodies' and 'baddies' today. Having said all of that I don't condone Russia's invasion and we will be doing our bit to help the thousands who are arriving at Berlin central station on a daily basis (my in laws have taken a Ukrainian woman and her 3 children into their adjoining apartment in Berlin). My town of Engelskirchen is also preparing accomodation and the necessary medical checks for new arrivals. Medical checks are necessary because, apart from Covid 19, Tuberculosis is still not uncommon in Ukraine. Notable however is how 'welcoming' the reception is compared to all those refugees from places like Yemen and Syria etc. As if we now have refugees first and second class based on ethnicity.

 

That is exactly where I stand on all this.

 

Of course we can point the finger at all the conflicts that are caused by self interest rather than trying to build a better world. NATO should not be a problem as it is an organisation for defence, not first line attack, so it really shouldn't matter where the boundaries are if you do not intend to attack a member state. The money spent on arms is quite obscene when governments around the world could use that money for the good of their own people. My daughter will tell you of the ridiculous amount of money spent on holding arms exhibitions in the UK where companies show off their latest means of destruction, and to suggest that you cannot stop because it will have a damaging effect on the economy shows a lack of basic humanity if you think about what these weapons can do.
Glad to say that here as throughout Europe, with one exception, help for people fleeing this war is unconditional. Free accommodation, travel and medicines provided by the government, but the relief organisations coordinating placement of refugees are doing their bit. Lists of available properties, or families willing to provide food and shelter have sprung up in often very small villages and hamlets. My supermarket was asking for donations for the Red Cross to be added to your bill yesterday, which where possible people were more than happy to do.
Maybe the response in Europe has been what it has because it is right on its own doorstep, rather than what is perceived to be far away where the "second class" refugees were living. It has been seen that vaccines against covid were thrown away rather than assisting the poorer nations to beat down on the infection, which to my mind is a part of the, blow you, I am alright mentality that exists in far too many countries.

 

Sorry Frenchie but do you really think Nato is a purely defensive organization ? It has an extremely expansive global mission. The USA has found Nato extremely usefull to create legitimacy for wars when the UN wouldn't authorize them as with the bombing of Serbia in 1999 and Libya in 2011. Nato served to make these acts appear 'multilateral' as opposed to unilateral acts of the USA. Russia does not peceive Nato as being a neutral force for World peace, and a lot of the evidence on display indicates that they aren't. Looking at the flip side of this - would the USA tolerate it if one of their neighbours entered into a military pact with Russia and placed missiles on their doorstep - have they shown such tolerance in the past ?

 

I think that Nato has shown considerable restraint over Ukraine. It could with its resources have blasted the Russian troops before they even got started, yet the results might have been unthinkable with Putin in charge. If you do not hit me, then I am the last person to attack you. It follows then that you have nothing to fear if you keep your fists down no matter how close we are standing together. When you read that countries such as Finland and indeed Ukraine are asking to be allowed to join Nato, that is because they wish to obtain some protection against the Russian bully. They know that it will be a greater deterrence against Russia imposing its expansive desires which they clearly don't want. Let Putin stay inside Russia, keep his fists down, and Nato will do the same.

 

Nato has shown restraint because Russia has nuclear weapons Frenchie, and that is the only reason - neither Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Serbia had these (despite lies which claimed the contrary in the first of these). Count up how many countries the Americans have gone into since 1945 and then tell me who are the expansionists.

 

I did say that cologne. With someone like Putin having access to those nuclear weapons, the results could be unthinkable. How many countries have entered others, not by force, but by economic means?

 

Putin has had his claws into the repugnikkkan party in the U.S.since Barack Obama was voted in. Of course the Americans have stuck their fingers into far too many pies over the years since WWII than was welcome, necessary, or benevolent.
Putin is playing an altogether different game. He is an imperialist, an expansionist, basically a Soviet without the belief in the State of Russia but towards himself. He doesn't care about the average Russian any more that tRump does about the average American or de piffle / rees mogg / farage does about anyone here in Britain.
Patriotism is more than flag waving, chest beating, belligerence laced with xenophobia and racism which is what all of the above (President Obama aside) seem to think it is.

 

The point to all of that is that this particular conflict is entirely down to putin. His man in Ukraine got voted out and he didn't like it. Not being able to control Ukraine from within he has set about razing it to the stone age. No amount of whataboutism will change that.

 

'Man's inhumanity to man...'

There is NO justification for the wanton slaughter of ordinary people and the razing of a country to the ground.

Anywhere on the planet........................

 

There has been plenty of comment about how slow to act the UK government has been against Russia. Indeed legislation passed this week giving them a loophole, so that a person with a dubious background can avoid sanctions if thought to be of economic benefit to the country. Why is Johnson so set against acting against the Russian government quickly? He was denied full security clearance when Foreign Secretary, and now serious questions are being aired, as in this article.

https://bylinetimes.com/2022/03/12/boris-johnson-evgeny-lebedev-russia-ukraine-kgb-evening-standard/

 

It reeks eh..................

 

This. Coupled with we did the same to get our hands on Iraqi and Libyan oil.

 

Whatabout Libya, that state that supported terrorism across the world, shot our police, blew up planes over Scotland? Nothing to do with Ukraine.
Whatabout Iraq, that state that supported terrorism across the Middle East, used chemical weapons in its war with Iran (another stand up state) and on its own people, particularly the Kurds, and, like putin, invaded a neighbouring sovereign state.
No, Ukraine is all about putin. This thread is all about Ukraine. Let's keep it that way, a whataboutism free zone.

 

James O'Brien on point. Yet again.

 

The chemical weapons which Iraq used against Iran were given to them by the USA for exactly that purpose Fez (do you remember the embraces between Rumsfeld and Saddam at the time ? Iran - a 'stand up state' - when have they invaded anyone ? Is there any evidence that Iraq supported terrorism across the Middle East ? I agree that you would like to deal only with Ukraine and Putin here but you cannot brush under the carpet the fact that the USA has invaded more countries sovereignty since 1945 than any other country has, and the accumulated negative effects which this has had on World security.

 

Not brushing anything under the carpet... "Of course the Americans have stuck their fingers into far too many pies over the years since WWII than was welcome, necessary, or benevolent." to quote my earlier post. America serves American interests, always has up until tRump; and Rumsfeld was part of a repugnikkkan government under Dubbya, the man who convinced certain parties about WMDs, a man who said that tRump had "appointed good people" and to "cut him some slack". These guys are in cahoots with putin, dubbya aside.
Iran, of course, underpin a whole raft of mischief across the ME... who have they invaded? Seriously?
Enough of the whataboutism and let's stick to the Ukraine.

 

I am far more worried about what is happening in the here and now, especially regarding just how much the UK has been compromised by Russia. The Daily Telegraph accepting £500,000 p.a. from the Russian news agency to print nice friendly pieces about how the country is changed and wishes to be a part of the international community. Not surprising the DT has removed them this week from their website.
Funding to destabilise elections in the UK that had the effect of splitting the country in two. And where does GB news get their funding from to pay people like Farage who support Putin?
A PM who is hopelessly involved with Russian money and patronage; Frightening to read comments like these. "We are now beyond the stage of debating whether the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is beholden to Russian influence, we are now debating the level of that influence."
Why when other countries are able to impose sanctions with immediate effect the UK needs to spend a few weeks or months to impose them? The list goes on and on leaving an impression that the UK is half hearted.
Always believed in UK being amidst the leaders in international relations, with some total misjudgements, throughout my lifetime, however I cannot see that is any longer the case with this government.