Russian invasion of Ukraine

inbetween said:
But again the year is 2025, not 1939. Do you think that we should ultimately goto war with Russia with the obvious ultimate intent of defeating/removing a dictator who is in charge of nuclear armed country? It's total madness and it will end humanity at least in Europe. Therefore there HAS to be a middle ground surely?

I don't see how simply engaging with Russia is a bad thing and Russia is not going to invade Europe. Anybody who says that is a lunatic and is totally ignorant to the fact that Ukraine was never part of Europe until it decided to change that by force in 2014. That is ultimately what drove Russia to do what it has done (which was obviously wrong of Putin btw).

What has happened in Ukraine is complex and comes down to history. I mean christ the majority of people in the occupied regions of Crimea and many other regions of Ukraine speak Russian because there is considerable shared history with Ukraine and Russia, far more than Europe. There is therefore considerable middle ground to be had.

This isn't about Nazi Germany invading Europe/Poland and we shouldn't go to war just because we think that Ukraine should be brought into the European sphere of influence. The very same argument could be said for Belarus where the difference is they haven't had a anti-dictatorial revolution. So as part of liberating Ukraine should we go to war with the Belarusians to remove Lukashenko too? It's complete stupidity.
Click to expand...

Ukraine is in Europe. This makes it a European country. It is the largest country solely in Europe. Russia spans Europe and Asia.

It is up to the Ukrainian people whether or not they focus westwards and opt to fall under the ‘European sphere of influence’ as you put it. The majority of Ukrainians do want the economic benefits this brings - specifically EU membership and this desire is what this war is about. Russia cannot abide the EU and has no intention of seeing major countries on its borders like Ukraine and Georgia developing economically and prospering like Poland etc.

And this is not just about Ukraine. It is about wider European security which includes our security and the threats to it and how we, as Europeans, face these threats. Europe has to take responsibility for its security and we have to be part of it because, like it or not, we are all in the same boat and we had better learn how to defend that boat without relying on the US.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
I think everybody understands that there has to be some form of negotiation to end this war but I’m trying to understand this piece. Are you saying Ukraine wasn’t part of Europe until Ukraine forced a coup on its own country in 2014?

Trying to understand how this is somehow Ukraine’s fault and why the date?
Click to expand...
It isn't Ukraine's fault at all but I don't think that we can reduce this to Ukraine is a singular state of people who have been invaded by an aggressor out of the blue, there's quite clearly far more to it. Anybody who suggests we should fight Russia is just war-mongering to advocate another kind of empire building within Europe.

Ukraine isn't a huge part of the European sphere, it was only recently a socialist vassel state of the ex-USSR. Would you say that Ukraine has more history and more in common with the UK or Europe than Russia? That's rubbish. Russian is even an official and majority spoken language in Ukraine.

Even a reformer like Gorbachev supported the annexation and subsequent referendum within Crimea because the people of that area have far more history and commonality than Europe. I don't support the annexation but then I am not Crimean and as we can't trust the referendum there's no way of knowing what the Crimean people really wanted.

The irony is we in the west and Europe are not exactly a moral authority on geopolitical meddling, invasions, military interventions and that kind of thing. We should be acting as a mediator because ultimately this is a regional conflict/dispute, it shouldn't be something that Europe dies on the ditch for.
 
Weird debate.
Sovereign countries are sovereign. Sovereign.
International law. Borders are immovable.
Whereas, Law of the stronger is the total opposite.
ruzzia have to leave all Ukrainian territory or have to offer compensation Ukraine would have to agree to. That's how it works and that's what the EU and UK stand for in principle. And it's a basic principle.

People who don't want to live in a country whose majority want to be part of EU and/or NATO are allowed to leave or try to find a different way in that country by democratic means -> majority.

putin has denied Ukraine the right to exist as a state.
What part of that message is so difficult to understand, please?

If some argue 'bbbbut Eastern Ukraine is quite russian', we would go the same route in the future for any other part of Ukraine til it's gone.
That's obvious and easy to predict.

putin has told us what he wants in detail. Look it up.
 
inbetween said:
It isn't Ukraine's fault at all but I don't think that we can reduce this to Ukraine is a singular state of people who have been invaded by an aggressor out of the blue, there's quite clearly far more to it. Anybody who suggests we should fight Russia is just war-mongering to advocate another kind of empire building within Europe.

Ukraine isn't a huge part of the European sphere, it was only recently a socialist vassel state of the ex-USSR. Would you say that Ukraine has more history and more in common with the UK or Europe than Russia? That's rubbish. Russian is even an official and majority spoken language in Ukraine.

Even a reformer like Gorbachev supported the annexation and subsequent referendum within Crimea because the people of that area have far more history and commonality than Europe. I don't support the annexation but then I am not Crimean and as we can't trust the referendum there's no way of knowing what the Crimean people really wanted.

The irony is we in the west and Europe are not exactly a moral authority on geopolitical meddling, invasions, military interventions and that kind of thing. We should be acting as a mediator because ultimately this is a regional conflict/dispute, it shouldn't be something that Europe dies on the ditch for.
Click to expand...
I think the fact that Crimea was forcibly taken tells us all we need to know, don't you?

You refer to "empire building within Europe" but conveniently ignore the fact that this is what Putin is trying to do, and has wanted to do for quite some time.
 
BlueAnorak said:
I see A member of the US administration has said that F35s in Europe can't be flown without US permission.
Bullying on another level.
Does Trumpy know how badly hit US arms manufacturers would be if that came to pass.
Dark times indeed.
Click to expand...
They are delaying F-35 deliveries,which in turn,stops the delivery of F-16s to Ukraine.

Slava Ukraini.
 
inbetween said:
But again the year is 2025, not 1939. Do you think that we should ultimately goto war with Russia with the obvious ultimate intent of defeating/removing a dictator who is in charge of nuclear armed country? It's total madness and it will end humanity at least in Europe. Therefore there HAS to be a middle ground surely?

I don't see how simply engaging with Russia is a bad thing and Russia is not going to invade Europe. Anybody who says that is a lunatic and is totally ignorant to the fact that Ukraine was never part of Europe until it decided to change that by force in 2014. That is ultimately what drove Russia to do what it has done (which was obviously wrong of Putin btw).

What has happened in Ukraine is complex and comes down to history. I mean christ the majority of people in the occupied regions of Crimea and many other regions of Ukraine speak Russian because there is considerable shared history with Ukraine and Russia, far more than Europe. There is therefore considerable middle ground to be had.

This isn't about Nazi Germany invading Europe/Poland and we shouldn't go to war just because we think that Ukraine should be brought into the European sphere of influence. The very same argument could be said for Belarus where the difference is they haven't had a anti-dictatorial revolution. So as part of liberating Ukraine should we go to war with the Belarusians to remove Lukashenko too? It's complete stupidity.
Click to expand...
Engaging with Russia is not a bad thing.
Surrendering on the other hand is absolutely the worst thing possible. Now that would lead to world war 3 because Putin would attack Moldiva and/or a Baltic state.
Or haven't you see the way Putin operates over the last 25 years?
Also freezing the conflict without real guarantees for Ukraine is also fucking awful as Putin would simply rearm and go again. He has never stuck by a treaty ever!
 
inbetween said:
It isn't Ukraine's fault at all but I don't think that we can reduce this to Ukraine is a singular state of people who have been invaded by an aggressor out of the blue, there's quite clearly far more to it. Anybody who suggests we should fight Russia is just war-mongering to advocate another kind of empire building within Europe.

Ukraine isn't a huge part of the European sphere, it was only recently a socialist vassel state of the ex-USSR. Would you say that Ukraine has more history and more in common with the UK or Europe than Russia? That's rubbish. Russian is even an official and majority spoken language in Ukraine.

Even a reformer like Gorbachev supported the annexation and subsequent referendum within Crimea because the people of that area have far more history and commonality than Europe. I don't support the annexation but then I am not Crimean and as we can't trust the referendum there's no way of knowing what the Crimean people really wanted.

The irony is we in the west and Europe are not exactly a moral authority on geopolitical meddling, invasions, military interventions and that kind of thing. We should be acting as a mediator because ultimately this is a regional conflict/dispute, it shouldn't be something that Europe dies on the ditch for.
Click to expand...
So we let them have Ukraine then he pushes into a NATO country by a couple of miles, this invokes article 5 or do we just appease him and say oh it’s only a couple of miles we can spare it, then it’s a few more, see where this is going? These two twats need standing upto and it could cost us short term but we will be a lot worse off log term. Article 5 under Trump is effectively over I reckon so Putin will test that at the earliest opportunity, that’s why now we make a stand and turn from the USA I’d say on a permanent basis purely because if it all changes in 4 years what happens in 8 years if another nutter gets in.
 
Gkdjse9XcAEJaJZ
 
Blue Maverick said:
So we let them have Ukraine then he pushes into a NATO country by a couple of miles, this invokes article 5 or do we just appease him and say oh it’s only a couple of miles we can spare it, then it’s a few more, see where this is going? These two twats need standing upto and it could cost us short term but we will be a lot worse off log term. Article 5 under Trump is effectively over I reckon so Putin will test that at the earliest opportunity, that’s why now we make a stand and turn from the USA I’d say on a permanent basis purely because if it all changes in 4 years what happens in 8 years if another nutter gets in.
Click to expand...
Don't be ridiculous and read what you've said and ask yourself the question why on earth would Putin invade a NATO country? For what reason? There is literally no reason so what is your logic? It could happen but then China could invade Europe too so what's our defence against that?

The US are either way irrelevant to European defence whilst Europe posseses nuclear weapons. European militaries are already very capable of deterring a Russian attack and in the end we could quite easily wipe out Moscow from a submarine parked anywhere on the planet. So again why on earth would Russia enter a NATO country? It's nonsense.
 
inbetween said:
Don't be ridiculous and read what you've said and ask yourself the question why on earth would Putin invade a NATO country? For what reason? There is literally no reason
Click to expand...
Oh thats great news, perhaps you should tell Latvia that, perhaps Estonia too? Or any other state that once fell under the influence of the Soviet Union in the same manner Ukraine did.
 
flook said:
Oh thats great news, perhaps you should tell Latvia that, perhaps Estonia too? Or any other state that once fell under the influence of the Soviet Union in the same manner Ukraine did.
Click to expand...
Estonia is in NATO and Latvia is in NATO. There is therefore zero threat to these two countries. Unfortunately Ukraine is in the position it is because until 2014 it was essentially still a Russian vassel state. The reason for that is not that Putin is Hitler, it's geography and history. The Ukrainians wanted to move away from that towards the west and Putin didn't like it which ultimately sums it up. I don't see how this fact poses a huge threat to the rest of Europe.

It's just complicated and to forgo that is missing the point of what has happened in the past and why a crossroads came to exist for Ukraine over the last 15 years. Gorbachev died in 2022, he was mourned and well thought of in the west and yet even he was in favour of the annexation of Crimea. Was Gorbachev Hitler?

I'm not in favour of Russia's occupation or annexation but I'm not from those places so I don't know and neither are Europeans so I don't see why we can get involved in what is really a far-reaching regional dispute. The only way to know is to find out however whether we can trust elections for example in those places is another thing.
 
inbetween said:
Estonia is in NATO and Latvia is in NATO. There is therefore zero threat to these two countries. Unfortunately Ukraine is in the position it is because until 2014 it was essentially still a Russian vassel state. The reason for that is not that Putin is Hitler, it's geography and history. The Ukrainians wanted to move away from that towards the west and Putin didn't like it which ultimately sums it up. I don't see how this fact poses a huge threat to the rest of Europe.

It's just complicated and to forgo that is missing the point of what has happened in the past and why a crossroads came to exist for Ukraine over the last 15 years. Gorbachev died in 2022, he was mourned and well thought of in the west and yet even he was in favour of the annexation of Crimea. Was Gorbachev Hitler?

I'm not in favour of Russia's occupation or annexation but I'm not from those places so I don't know and neither are Europeans so I don't see why we can get involved in what is really a far-reaching regional dispute. The only way to know is to find out however whether we can trust elections for example in those places is another thing.
Click to expand...
Russia won't invade.
They will destabilise Estonia and Latvia from within.
They will corrupt elections, target the police and army and use social media to discredit anything and everything.
Then a Russian puppet will be elected. He will seek help from russia to stop insurgents and we will do nothing as they effectively take control.
 
inbetween said:
Estonia is in NATO and Latvia is in NATO. There is therefore zero threat to these two countries. Unfortunately Ukraine is in the position it is because until 2014 it was essentially still a Russian vassel state. The reason for that is not that Putin is Hitler, it's geography and history. The Ukrainians wanted to move away from that towards the west and Putin didn't like it which ultimately sums it up. I don't see how this fact poses a huge threat to the rest of Europe.

It's just complicated and to forgo that is missing the point of what has happened in the past and why a crossroads came to exist for Ukraine over the last 15 years. Gorbachev died in 2022, he was mourned and well thought of in the west and yet even he was in favour of the annexation of Crimea. Was Gorbachev Hitler?

I'm not in favour of Russia's occupation or annexation but I'm not from those places so I don't know and neither are Europeans so I don't see why we can get involved in what is really a far-reaching regional dispute. The only way to know is to find out however whether we can trust elections for example in those places is another thing.
Click to expand...
I’m still waiting for a response to what you’d do with the sanctions.
 
Why is anyone suprised by Americas actions ?
On the 25th October 1983 America invaded Greneda.
The United Nations General Assembly condemned it as a 'flagrant violation of international law'

America said it invaded to protect its citizens.

Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014. I've no doubt the United Nations similarly condemned it.
Russia said it invaded to protect its citizens.
 
Last edited:
Blue Maverick said:
So we let them have Ukraine then he pushes into a NATO country by a couple of miles, this invokes article 5 or do we just appease him and say oh it’s only a couple of miles we can spare it, then it’s a few more, see where this is going? These two twats need standing upto and it could cost us short term but we will be a lot worse off log term. Article 5 under Trump is effectively over I reckon so Putin will test that at the earliest opportunity, that’s why now we make a stand and turn from the USA I’d say on a permanent basis purely because if it all changes in 4 years what happens in 8 years if another nutter gets in.
Click to expand...

It’s becoming increasingly clear the old order no longer applies, appease Putin at our peril. We have to fight with everything we have Europe must use money, weapons and diplomacy more sanctions because if we don’t Ukraine will fall. :(
I think the nuclear weapon that no one dare use isn’t protection because only Putin uses it as a threat.
 
inbetween said:
It isn't Ukraine's fault at all but I don't think that we can reduce this to Ukraine is a singular state of people who have been invaded by an aggressor out of the blue, there's quite clearly far more to it. Anybody who suggests we should fight Russia is just war-mongering to advocate another kind of empire building within Europe.

Ukraine isn't a huge part of the European sphere, it was only recently a socialist vassel state of the ex-USSR. Would you say that Ukraine has more history and more in common with the UK or Europe than Russia? That's rubbish. Russian is even an official and majority spoken language in Ukraine.

Even a reformer like Gorbachev supported the annexation and subsequent referendum within Crimea because the people of that area have far more history and commonality than Europe. I don't support the annexation but then I am not Crimean and as we can't trust the referendum there's no way of knowing what the Crimean people really wanted.

The irony is we in the west and Europe are not exactly a moral authority on geopolitical meddling, invasions, military interventions and that kind of thing. We should be acting as a mediator because ultimately this is a regional conflict/dispute, it shouldn't be something that Europe dies on the ditch for.
Click to expand...
Unsure where you’re trying to go with this, my query was quite specific. Ukraine has been part of Europe for a long time, not just since 2014, and how was it seen as Ukraine forcing a coup when it’s well documented that Russia tried to takeover a sovereign state?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top