Off Topic Ukraine

You have asked a question about Germany which I will answer. You fail to fifferentiate here betwen an artificially created state which from its beginnings always had linguistic minority areas and one which has become multi cultural through immigration. The parallels in Europe to the first case would be Belgium and Switzerland, neither of which have one national language - in Eastern Europe it would have been Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. How would Belgians react if suddenly French was the only official language there ? Or Swiss German in Switzerland ? Of course in those countries the various linguistic areas are represented in their parliament. Germany only has the one indigenous linguistic area other than German and that is in Schleswig Holstein - the South Schleswig Voters Association (Sudschleswigscher Wahlerverband = SSW) this is a Danish minority party which is the only political party in Germany which is not required to reach the 5% hurdle in order to get into parliament. There are about three and a half million Russian speakers in Germany but they are an immigrant group not an indigenous one. They all have voting rights but the idea of them having official political representation is about the same as saying there should be Pakistani representation in Westminster.

The Ukraine was first created as a state within the USSR in 1953 and, because relations were cordial then, the outer borders of it included indigenous Russian speaking areas - just as Polish and Hungarian - the borders were artificial ones which did not correspond to any natural borders of ethnicity or language. This is a completely different case to Germany .

 

It's 'Ukraine' not 'the Ukraine'.

Ukrainian as a language and a nationality has existed longer than Russian. The mess created by the USSR does not excuse the current actions of Putin.

The 'ethnic' excuse you keep on using is treading a dangerous line. It's the same excuse Hitler used for his actions.

The Russian language is still used by lots of Ukrainians. It was enforced at school during Soviet times. Russia has been meddling and also ruining the country for over a century, I'm not surprised that the Ukrainians want nothing to do with Russia after what they've inflicted on them for over 100 years.

How do you define 'ethnic Russian' by the way? I'm genuinely curious.

 

Good question on ethnicity - I guess anyone who identifies as Russian or who speaks it as their first language and whose parents and grandparents did the same. Ethnicity can be based on common culture, language, religion, shared history or a whole range of things - at any rate ethnic identity can change or be blended. I would not say about those in Ticino (Switzerland) who speak Italian as their first language that they were ethnic Italians. To be honest I've never thought too much about it. I guess that in the Dombass it would mean people who either have some feeling of loyalty to Russia or have a shared loyalty. The reason I've never thought about it is that I don't think I actually have an ethnicity - English, Scottish, Saxon, Celtic a bit of Norman thrown in - no idea really. My mum was a sweaty sock but I don't feel Scottish. Actually maybe I believe in reincarnation - so maybe I've been everything at one time ! At any rate I believe in God - and if he/she/it created a World of variety with countles languages, races,religions, species etc. then we can say he/he/it loves variety and so we should as well. I don't think in terms of race or ethnicity but, if anything, in terms of class !

 

Ukraine was a country that was part of the USSR when Germany invaded in 1941, the vast majority of Ukrainians welcomed the Germans as liberators because of Russian oppression

Nothing much has changed in 81 years apart from the Invaders and the reasons for the invasion

 

I saw this on my Twitter feed. They have vowed never to speak russian again if I recall.

 

So your argument about 'Russian speakers' in the Donbass falls apart. Many Ukrainians consider themselves Ukrainian but speak Russian. Your '8M' is impossible to judge.

Did you see the voting results before Russia started meddling? All of Ukraine voted to stay in Ukraine. The LPR and DPR were formed with Russian money and Russian weapons (with which they shot down MH17). I'd be more concerned with them having weapons.

 

What ''voting results'' are you talking about ? The West voted for a candidate who wanted to orientate the whole country towards the EU and Nato and the East voted for a Russian friendly candidate. Who has ''voted to stay in the Ukraine'' - as far as I am aware the only votes on this theme have been in Putin's bogus referendums.

 

Ukrainian nationalists welcomed the Germans in 1941 and some public figures, church leaders, greeted them as liberators. Some nationalists joined German auxiliary units and in 1943 preparations were made to create a Ukrainian SS battalion within the Waffen-SS. Whether, as you claim, the vast majority welcomed the Nazis is open to debate. At any rate many of these people would have realized their mistake because instead of independence under the Nazis they got martial law. Many Ukrainians helped to round up the Jews in the Ukraine for the Einsatzgruppen (the execution squads) who were mainly German and Romanian. It may well be that there was an anti semitic tendency in the country which naturally tended towards the Nazis. At any rate hardly a recommendation for the country. It was Nazi practice to stir up independence groups in countries which they wanted to invade as a kind of fifth column, with false promises - they did this in Brittany as well, and also tried to forge links with Irish nationalists. They also set up the Ustace puppet state in Croatia. It should also be realized that the invasion of the USSR was carried out by an international force which was only half German - the rest were battalions from mainly Romania, Hungary and Croatia.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum

 

This is from 1991 Toby at a time when Ukraine and Russia were on a friendly footing to each other a completely different ball game to what happened later. History has moved so fast there that I dout whther a 30 year old referendum tells us much.

To make a few points clear - the fact that I have used issues like the nato expansion as having escalated us to the present crisis does not excuse Russia's invasion - any more than the injustices of the Verseilles treaty were an excuse for the emergence of Hitler. I have never condoned the Russian invasion - whilst some of their aims are valid ie. fear of Nato being on their doorstep, their methods I condemn. Where we diverge is this: You need to ask the question - ''Do we seek a way to end the conflict, or Russia's defeat ? Are these questions one and the same ?'' because the difference could be important. Some others on here have talked about wanting a negotiated setlement to all this - but negotiation means give and take on both sides - it means allowing both sides to go away with some dignity even though one side may not deserve that. The dilemma has always been, for the West, how to beat Putin but, at the same time allow him a way out. Much as some of the hounds may bay at me for saying this Putin has to go away with something. Rusia is not going away anywhere - it will still exist, it will still be the biggest country in the World with huge resources and still the biggest nuclear arsenal in the World. Do we want a wounded bear on our doorstep after this and the beginning of a new arms race ? Geopolitically it makes no sense to isolate Russia from the so called civilized World - because China would step into that void and the last thing the West needs is such a fusion. The Chinese would probably not back Russia in a military sense but they are not worried who they do business with and would love to move into the Russian market and mineral resources. We are moving into a different global order which may challenge Western values. Instead of trying to make the World in its image, a post hegemonic West should fortify a model the rest of the World wants to emulate.

I admit that I am sceptical about much of the information coming out of Ukraine - I believe this to be a natural scepticism because it is all coming from Ukrainian sources which (in order to maintain the support of the West) has an interest in magnifying stories of their own bravery, successes,. and also of the brutality of the enemy. It is not Putin who is appearing on large screens at every major conference in the West but Selenskiy who, as a trained actor, well knows how to utilize this media power.

My final question to you, and others, is what - in the event of a negotiated settlement what concessions can be made on our side (bearing in mund that Ukraine would have to agree on them). The only concession I can think of which doesn't involve the cooperation of Ukraine is the assurance from the West that they will never be admitted to Nato and never have American missiles based on Russia's doorstep. This, I believe, is the most important point for Russia.

 

Have you seen a map of the World? NATO is already 'on Russia's doorstep', they even have a (sort of) border with the US. Land-based missiles make very little difference in 21st century warfare. Ukraine has not started any wars and would never have attacked Russia, Putin's imperalist dreams are the cause for this conflict, he said so himself.

The only solution for Ukraine to be at peace is for them to reclaim all their lands, including Crimea, and joining NATO. Russian promises are worthless.

You may be sceptical of the reports coming from Ukraine, as you haven't seen any footage or followed the conflict closely. Some of the things I've seen, released by Russian soldiers on Russian social media, would probably change your opinion. The latest one being one of their own Wagner POWs (the nazi militia run by Putin's mate) being executed by crushing his skull with a slegehammer. He made the mistake of surrendering and being exchanged in a prisoner swap deal. There are many more...Just look at Mariupol if you think Russia are trying to 'save' Russian speakers in Ukraine.

Zelensky is using all means available to him to save his country. He didn't run and hide, he regularly visits the front line to meet soldiers and you can tell he genuinely cares.

On the subject of nuclear weapons, in no way does Russia have the largest arsenal. The levels of corruption there combined with the cost of maintenance (which is many times higher than their yearly defence spending) shows that it's just bluff. China have also warned Putin not to use them, the chances of a single nuke being launched are unbelievably low.

Putin needs to end up in The Hague, simple as that. Doing a Sudetenland deal with him is pointless, he'll be back as soon as they're ready for more destruction. Try listening to his speeches or watching some of the Government-scripted state TV channels to see what their plans are, Germany were apparently next in line. Guess you'll be happy to be in a NATO country then

 

Firstly I would very much like evidence of any speech he has made regarding Germany - because you can bet if any such speech had been made then it would have got onto German media channels which hasn't been the case - so proof of that statement please. Secondly the argument that the Ukraine is fighting for the entire western World and we are next on the list is countered by the same propaganda which also tells us how inept and disfunctioning the Russian army is ie. no threat to anyone. Indeed Russia has always been useless at offensive wars anywere other than on their own territory. History showed us that they lost a war against Finland and then defended themselves against the Wehrmacht - on their own ground they are an entirely different proposition. Your assumption that I am not keeping up with events is also faulty though I do not search for Youtube videos the whole time which support my case. I am well aware of what the Russians do to their deserters - but are other armies different ? Try deserting from the French Foreign Legion and see what happens !. How do you propose that Putin would end up in Den Haag ? Do you not also think that George Bush and several other presidents of the USA belong there as well ? Of all presidents of that country since the war Jimmy Carter was the only one who didn't order US troops into some country where they didn't belong. As for nuclear weapons they have more than the USA does - their maintainance may not be the best but there are still enough to cause armagedon even if few of them arrived. Nato missiles in the Ukraine are a real problem - yes I know they can also be fired from the South Pacific but the closer they are to Moscow the less warning time there is. Psychologically as a result of history and the trauma of 20 million dead in World War 2 they have grown up to think they need neutral buffer zones between them and the enemy.

 

You misread my post. Putin didn't make the speech, his mouthpieces on State television did. I will find the link later.

Russia would not have stopped at Ukraine if the West hadn't helped. Moldavia would have been next (Lukashenko even shared a picture accidentally of their next phase). On paper Russia should have been capable of defeating Ukraine, decades of fraud and embezzlement have ruined their army. They're now doing another round of forced mobilisation, more meat for the grinder. Their tactic seems to be to send waves of expendable soldiers to waste Ukrainian ammunition. This makes your 'Putin cares about Russian speakers in Donbas' reasoning ludicrous, if he did he wouldn't be sacrificing over 100k men and levelling cities you claim he cares about.

I don't search for any Youtube videos. I read reports from the people on the front line and translate Telegram chats and tactical analysis of battles/troop movements.

This was not a deserter. It was a solider that was captured and returned in a prisoner swap. There's a big difference. Yet more proof the Russians don't care about Russians. Why would anyone want to live under Russian rules. The French Foreign Legion don't execute deserters too by the way.

Of course Bush and Blair should be in the Hague. Hating Russia doesn't make me a US fanboy, whereas you seem so full of hatred of the US you seem to need to defend Putin's actions.

The NATO excuse is not logical. Missiles closer to Moscow make no difference, 21st century warfare renders them obsolete. Submarines/bombers/warships can carry plenty of missiles. If NATO really wanted to wipe Russia off the map it'd have happened a long time ago, and the whole thing would be over in days instead of months.

Funny that you asked me for proof and I can provide an actual video whereas all I got was a link to some thinktank's website that didn't even contradict my claim.



https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=Russia state tv germany&src=typed_query

Plenty more there by the way. This is on the main State TV channel and these people repeat Kremlin messaging.

 

I thought Ukrainians were meant to be the Nazis?

 

This is proof that a Russian said these things on TV. The Russian concerned here is the TV presenter, writer and propagandist Vladimir Solovyov on the TV show 'Evening with Vladimir Solovyov'. He is not a government spokesman and has said various contradictory things on Russian TV dependent on his level of alcohol consumption previously. On another occasion he said ''And why do you need Crimea ? It was legitimately transferred (to Ukraine) by Kruschev. How many Ukrainian and Russian lives are you ready to lay down in order to take Crimea'' ? Doesn't sound to me much like a mouthpiece for the Kremlin but rather a drunken Russian who says different things at different times. You will also notice that there appears to be resistance to him in the audience which would also be unusual if this was the 'echo from the Kremlin'. Just another drunken Russian - but one who is a controversial character. By the way I do not hate the USA - I have certainly never used the word scum about the whole nation as you have about the Russians.

Do you imagine that if Mexico were to do a military deal with China and have missiles along the Texas border, and then the Chinese were to say ''these are only for defence'' that Washington would do nothing ? Another minor point there is a difference between normal deserters from the Legion (lots do that) and those who do it at the front line. Also a Legionnaire can only surrender as a result of an order from his officer - anything else is treated as desertion, and this may also be the case in the Wagner regiment (at any rate monsters but you find them on all sides).

 

I know who he is. Do you genuinely think he's speaking without Putin's approval on State TV?

 

What lovely people

 

Some more lovely Russians

 

"People will die, but they'll die anyway"

Esther McVey, Priti Patel and Iain Duncan Smith rolled into one.

 

I think texts carry more weight than videos these days Toby. At least with a text you can check on the authenticity and on who wrote it. There have been so many proven faked videos coming out from both sides that it's difficult to trust them. You need to ask who the interviewer was, where was it, who took the video, and how did it get all the way to your front room, and who had an interest in doing that ?