The Russian Invasion of the Ukraine.

[dudalb]

I am in favor of taking every action against Russia short of Military Action.
TOtal economic Embargo. No American company allowed to do business with Russia, period.
Break Dipolmatic Relations.
Urge the Euros to show some spine and do the same.

 

[dudalb]

And I think it pretty damn clear that Putin is not playing with a full deck.

 

[trustbutverify]

I am waiting for Stephan Cohen to speak up. He is pretty much the biggest Left Wing apologist for Putin in the US.

If you're talking about who I think you're talking about, he's dead.

 

[dudalb]

If you're talking about who I think you're talking about, he's dead.

God, you are right.
Bur he will not be missed as far as I am concerned.

 

[trustbutverify]

God, you are right.
Bur he will not be missed as far as I am concerned.

I haven't missed him. His wife, Katrina Vanden Heuvel (former editor in chief of The Nation) is still alive, and she's been shamelessly carrying Putin's water for ever.

 

[dudalb]

I haven't missed him. His wife, Katrina Vanden Heuvel (former editor in chief of The Nation) is still alive, and she's been shamelessly carrying Putin's water for ever.

True. And to be fair, many on the left have blasted The Nation and VandenHeuval for her todeying up to Putin.

 

[dudalb]

Milla Jovovich is making the rounds on TV raising money to help the Ukranians, and has said some pretty nasty things about Putin. I guess the was sort of inevitible, Jovovich is proablyt the best known Ukrkanian American celebrity.
I would bet a fair amount of money she gets a spot on the upcoming Oscar show.

 

[timhau]

Apparently, Putin asked Kazakhstan to join the invasion, and they said no. They are also refusing to recognize the separatist people's republics.

Is Putin losing even his CSTO allies?

 

[Wildy]

Russia does not have the resources to occupy Ukraine for a prolonged period, regardless of whether there is an insurrection. Being a free Unkrainian may be a bit better than a slightly less free Russian but in my view it is a lot better than being dead or injured in a country that has had its infrastructure devastated.

And if the Ukrainian government knows that then that's probably why they're laying the groundwork for an insurgency.

Just suppose what would have happened if a near neighbour of the US say Mexico or a Caribbean island had wanted to join the Warsaw pact with the threat that nuclear missiles and strategic bombers could be minutes from the US, I bet the US would not have stood for that.

With the exception of "joining the Warsaw Pact" that's basically the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Sweden, Finland, Ireland Switzerland and Austria have all survived despite (and maybe because of) not being in NATO.

Two of those countries, Switzerland and Sweden, have been officially neutral since the 1810s. According to this Austria's neutrality is based on the post-war Austrian State Treaty discussions. Similarly Finnish neutrality is (was?) governed by the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948. At present there's a different treaty in place that doesn't have the same stipulations and can be annulled by either party when it comes up for renewal. And Ireland chose not to join NATO not out of wanting to remain neutral but because they didn't want to be in an alliance with the UK. According to this, NATO would have most likely defended Ireland anyway because NI is there. I also think the strategic value would also have been important.

One thing to note is that four of those five countries are EU members. The Lisbon Treaty requires EU member states to provide assistance in the event that a member state was the victim of armed aggression. There is a question as to whether these states are truly neutral in this day and age. I don't think that the non-neutral EU member states would stand back and watch Finland and Sweden get invaded without putting boots on the ground.

Ukraine might be better to agree to putting neutrality in to its constitution rather than joining NATO. Neutrality can sometimes be an advantage, a neutral Ukraine might be more successful than one committed to joining NATO in a 'permanent' struggle with Russia.

There won't be a neutral Ukraine when the dust settles. Even before this invasion there would be no way Russia would accept neutrality. This entire farce has been designed to do one thing and one thing only, re-orient Ukraine back towards Russia.

Understanding why Russia acted is not the same as approving of it. Russia has acted, I genuinely think that Ukraine's best option is to cut a quick deal resulting in minimal long term impact, minimal damage to infrastructure and minimal deaths both Ukrainian and Russian.

The only deal that Russia will accept now is one where Ukraine either toes the line to whatever Russia wants from now until the end of time, or ceases to be and the lands integrated into Russia.

 

[gnome]

He's cognizant of the risk of escalation.

And will take no end of crap for daring to acknowledge it.

 

[JihadJane]

Squawk Box on CNBC had Farage on he said

"I have felt for 30 years ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall that we have made a huge geopolitical error. We absolutely promised the Russians that we would not extend NATO to the east. But we did,"

He's right. Europe could have remained neutral rather than letting the US wade in with its big ugly jackboots.

 

[The Don]

I agree, I find this strange too. They seem to want to emphasize heroism, rather than efficiency, which doesn't seem good to me.

In view of their difficult situation, facing a powerful invading enemy, they should, it seems to me, quickly move their best and most professional troops from Donbass to the capital Kyiv, and perhaps the U.S. and U.K. should send some of their best generals to serve as military advisors, who should explain how to make the best use of West-supplied technologically advanced weapons, and look after the strategy.

This is the kind of things that Boris Johnson could perhaps explain to president Volodymyr Zelensky when he has his colleague on the phone. It might also not be good for Zelensky to stay too long in Kyiv: he might be captured, and this might not be good for the morale of troops.

I'm not going to attempt to second guess Ukraine's military command who presumably have far more knowledge and experience than I do - not least because they've been fighting Russian forces and Russian-backed extremists in their easternmost regions for at least the last 8 years so I'm guessing they have an idea as to strategy.

Regarding the "citizen defenders", maybe they've taken a leaf out of Churchill's book when the Home Guard were formed. It was anticipated that the professional soldiers would bear the brunt of any invasion but while the Home Guard gave little in terms of military capability, it provided people with a tangible way in which they could feel like they were contributing and not being helpless passengers.

The Ukraine leadership could also be preparing for the post-invasion position where the government has been deposed (and likely whisked away, tried and executed), but where there is a need for a Resistance force to carry on the fight.

 

[Ryokan]

The Ukrainians are giving the Russians more resistance than anyone thought they would, so I think it's best to just ignore the strategy masterminds like Michel H.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

He's right. Europe could have remained neutral rather than letting the US wade in with its big ugly jackboots.

Yes, how dare anyone try to give security against Russian imperialism.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

based on incoming metrics.

I read this phrase as meaning something that measures the amount of incoming [fire].

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Hold up! Soon the Russians will have no chance of victory!



https://www.businessinsider.com/hel...e-en-route-days-after-russian-invasion-2022-2

Now doubt this shipment of German engineering will turn the tide of battle, with Ukranians routing the invaders all the way back to hell hole they crawled out of!

Seriously though, I'm hoping that the Ukrainians do not send someone to pick up those helmets. Accepting this "aid" would be outright humiliating. Germany is really pathetic and outright embarrassing.

Hopefully they aren't the out-of-date models with the spikes on them.

 

[The Don]

Realistically there’s not much ‘everyday’ equipment that NATO countries can send to Ukraine apart from uniforms.
Small arms and ammunition are different, you would have to send enough to eqiuip complete units then set up separate logistics to keep them supplied with ammo, introducing different calibre ammunition to just some units would be a headache.
Then someone would have to train the troops in their operation, stripping and cleaning.
Even the mounts for optics are different so sending telescopic or night sights isn’t that simple.
Shoulder launched AT and AA missiles are being supplied as they are self contained and have simpler logistics.

Thank you for this reality check.

Those of us with no relevant knowledge imagine truckloads of "stuff" turning up and grateful Ukraine soldiers piling in to use it. Of course that makes no sense if it doesn't fit with their existing equipment and/or they don't know how to use it.

Presumably NATO forces have interoperability requirements and undergo training to ensure maximum cooperation between member countries.

So, as the Ukraine president said, the West can help best by hitting Russia hard economically and providing Ukraine with money and (useful) materiel.

 

[Stacyhs]

Squawk Box on CNBC had Farage on he said

"I have felt for 30 years ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall that we have made a huge geopolitical error. We absolutely promised the Russians that we would not extend NATO to the east. But we did,"

Farage is wrong. No such promise or agreement ever existed:

In his address to the Russian Parliament on 18 April 2014, in which President Putin justified the annexation of the Crimea, he stressed the humiliation Russia had suffered due to many broken promises by the West, including the alleged promise not to enlarge NATO beyond the borders of a reunited Germany. Putin touched a responsive chord among his audience. For more than 20 years the narrative of the alleged “broken promise” of not enlarging NATO eastward is part and parcel of Russia’s post-Soviet identity. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that this narrative has resurfaced in the context of the Ukraine crisis. Dwelling on the past remains the most convenient tool to distract from the present.

But is there any truth to these claims? Over recent years countless records and other archival material has become available, allowing historians to go beyond the interviews or autobiographies of those political leaders who were in power during the crucial developments between the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and the Soviet acceptance of a reunified Germany in NATO in July 1990. Yet even these additional sources do not change the fundamental conclusion: there have never been political or legally binding commitments of the West not to extend NATO beyond the borders of a reunified Germany. That such a myth could nevertheless emerge should not come as a surprise, however. The rapid pace of political change at the Cold War’s end produced its fair share of confusion. It was a time where legends could easily emerge.

Former Russian President Gorbachev said in an interview:

The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

When the Berlin Wall fell, various former Warsaw Pact nations revealed first-strike plans for a European war. None have ever surfaced in the case of NATO. Former Soviet states asked for protection in the form of NATO membership knowing that Russia had not changed its stripes, and had only gone broke, biding time. And so it has played out.

Putin is using the nuclear option to cow all opposition. We do not have access to CIA briefs, but it is highly likely they not only show Putin's paranoia but also his narcissism: he is highly unlikely to use nuclear weapons over free Ukraine. But the more important point is that if that threat is successful now, it will forever be a source of conflict.

At any rate, Biden ignored Bush's trick in the case of Georgia, which was to put military planes at the airport to deliver "humanitarian aid", planes which never took off, essentially backing Putin down, and all of non-NATO Georgia was not taken. The "no boots on the ground" has turned out to be a butt wave and offer of vaseline.

Slava Ukraini!

 

[The Don]

Farage is wrong.

Of course he's wrong and he's quite probably also lying - in that he knows what he's saying is wrong. He's trying to stay relevant to keep the flow of Russian money coming.

Boris Johnson has recently been described as a "Pound Shop (dollar store) Chamberlain". Farage is a Pound Shop William Joyce