# Russian Foreign Policy



## Purple

Excellent piece in The New Statesman on Russia, Putin and what informs their foreign policy.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> Excellent piece in The New Statesman on Russia, Putin and what informs their foreign policy.


Very interesting, thanks.


----------



## Baby boomer

Purple said:


> Excellent piece in The New Statesman on Russia, Putin and what informs their foreign policy.


A lot of words to say very little.  Putin is a gangster and his foreign policy is solely devoted to his own enrichment.  This enrichment of himself and a few cronies has impoverished his country, therefore he needs foreign enemies to distract the people.  And he makes plenty of them!  

He also needs to keep the price of oil and gas high.  This requires leverage over Saudi and the Gulf states to "encourage" them to tighten supply.  Hence Syria.  Simple, really.


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> Excellent piece in The New Statesman on Russia, Putin and what informs their foreign policy.


Thanks for the link. I thought the article was a little over-wrought. Power only exists as it combats chaos indeed. Power exists to create and accumulate wealth I would have thought. 

As for Russia having no strategic vision in Syria, nonsense. Russia has a large potentially disaffected Sunni Muslim population in its southern regions. It has long seen allying with Sias further south as an ideal counterweight. Assad’s father was a student in Moscow decades ago.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> A lot of words to say very little.  Putin is a gangster and his foreign policy is solely devoted to his own enrichment.  This enrichment of himself and a few cronies has impoverished his country, therefore he needs foreign enemies to distract the people.  And he makes plenty of them!
> 
> He also needs to keep the price of oil and gas high.  This requires leverage over Saudi and the Gulf states to "encourage" them to tighten supply.  Hence Syria.  Simple, really.


I suppose there is a presumption of an end game in his strategy. What the article suggests is that the strategy is to avoid an end game, to just keep playing the game in perpetuity.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> Thanks for the link. I thought the article was a little over-wrought. Power only exists as it combats chaos indeed. Power exists to create and accumulate wealth I would have thought.


The Orwellian vision of perpetual war being used to justify more centralised power and a lack of democracy is, I think, closer to the mark. The more chaos, the more power can be centralised. 


cremeegg said:


> As for Russia having no strategic vision in Syria, nonsense. Russia has a large potentially disaffected Sunni Muslim population in its southern regions.


Muslims make up close to 20% of Russia's population (the 8.5% figure usually cited is incorrect because Chechnya and Ingushetia were at war when the last census was taken and so are not part of the total given). Islam has been in Russia since the very start of the religion ( a few decades after Mohamed died) and Islamic Intellectuals were encouraged by Catherine the Great. They are nearly all Sunni and most of them live around Moscow and St. Petersburg. 

The populations in the South are relatively small although they can certainly cause problems and yes, they are also predominantly Sunni with many of them being part of the Sufi sect. I find the religious history of the Caucuses and Central Asia in general fascinating.  



cremeegg said:


> It has long seen allying with Sias further south as an ideal counterweight. Assad’s father was a student in Moscow decades ago.


Yep, but the bigger picture is to ensure there is no gas pipeline to Europe through Syria and general instability in the region.


----------



## Leper

The title of that New Statesman piece is:- Is Putin Preparing for War?

1. His might couldn't defeat relatively few rough shod Afghanis even after 10 years of occupation. Russia beat over extended Nazis in Stalingrad and of course that major tank battle at Kursk. Russia would have no chance against a united EU + UK beckoned on by Poland and former Russian states. Putin's planes would have no problem sinking the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth II (a sitting duck), but other than that he'd be wasting his time and would lose more than he'd gain. I haven't even mentioned support from the USA.

2. The gas pipeline to Europe through Syria and general instability in the region are issues. Yes, but these have been issues for 100's of years.

3. The electric car will sort out most of the Middle East in due course. (Personally I can't wait for the day!).

4. Russia is self destructing slowly so no need for too much concern.

5. I'd be more afraid from the Rasputins than the Putins. I wonder how long more he'll be around.


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> The title of that New Statesman piece is:- Is Putin Preparing for War?
> 
> 1. His might couldn't defeat relatively few rough shod Afghanis even after 10 years of occupation. Russia beat over extended Nazis in Stalingrad and of course that major tank battle at Kursk. Russia would have no chance against a united EU + UK beckoned on by Poland and former Russian states. Putin's planes would have no problem sinking the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth II (a sitting duck), but other than that he'd be wasting his time and would lose more than he'd gain. I haven't even mentioned support from the USA.
> 
> 2. The gas pipeline to Europe through Syria and general instability in the region are issues. Yes, but these have been issues for 100's of years.
> 
> 3. The electric car will sort out most of the Middle East in due course. (Personally I can't wait for the day!).
> 
> 4. Russia is self destructing slowly so no need for too much concern.
> 
> 5. I'd be more afraid from the Rasputins than the Putins. I wonder how long more he'll be around.


Russia has nearly 3 times as many main battle tanks as the entire EU. It has more and more modern fighters and can field an army of around 2 million within a few months of mobilisation.  There is no chance the EU could win a war without an 'all in' commitment of US resources and men.


----------



## Leper

Purple said:


> Russia has nearly 3 times as many main battle tanks as the entire EU. It has more and more modern fighters and can field an army of around 2 million within a few months of mobilisation.  There is no chance the EU could win a war without an 'all in' commitment of US resources and men.


Bring it on  . . . ! It'd be the easiest victory for the EU+UK+ USA and even "we" could forego our neutrality. I believe Putin won't be around for too much longer.


----------



## PMU

Purple said:


> Russia has nearly 3 times as many main battle tanks as the entire EU. It has more and more modern fighters and can field an army of around 2 million within a few months of mobilisation.  There is no chance the EU could win a war without an 'all in' commitment of US resources and men.


 
The EU is also exposed in its ability to deliver a nuclear counterattack. Russia has a total of 6,257 nuclear warheads; the EU, i.e. France, has 290.  (Source: Wikipedia). It shows a complete lack of strategic thinking by the EU to let the UK, the only other serious military power in Europe with its arsenal of 225 warheads, to  leave the EU without some plan to replace these weapons, or some mutual defence treaty with the UK.  In any event only the USA with its stock of nuclear weapons provides an adequate deterrent against Russia.  While a nuclear war is probably a low and remote risk at present, it is still a risk and e.g. a consolidation of EU states within NATO, greater cooperation with the USA, etc. are avenues that could be explored.  In the short term, EU member states should address conventional defence measures, such as, Member States being required to up their military expenditure to the NATO recommendeded 2% of GDP, enhance military co-operation through PESCO, improvement in civil defence, etc.


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> Bring it on  . . . ! It'd be the easiest victory for the EU+UK+ USA and even "we" could forego our neutrality. I believe Putin won't be around for too much longer.


If the USA (who spend as much on their armed forces as the next 30 countries combined) are in the fight then we'd win a conventional war but without them and/or their equipment we'd lose.
Remember that the Soviets only beat the Germans with American hardware and technology. And it was the Soviets who beat them, D-Day was aa side show. More combatants were killed on the Eastern Front than in all other theatres of the War combined. The Americans supplied around 16 million tons of equipment to the Russians. To put that in context they only supplied 22 million tons to their own forces in Europe from 1942 to 1945. Russian blood and American Steel won the war. Polish piolets in American planes won the Battle of Britain but that was an even smaller side show. 
If anyone thinks that EU forces (plus the UK) could beat the Russians, with their history and combat experience, is in for a rude awakening.


----------



## michaelm

It seems to me that Russia is a mafia state and a regional nuisance.  Things usually end badly for mafia bosses.  How many nukes do you need as a deterrent (is thousands really that much better than hundreds, would tens of thousands be better again)?  The EU should he steadily weaning itself off Russian oil and gas.


----------



## Leper

michaelm said:


> It seems to me that Russia is a mafia state and a regional nuisance.  Things usually end badly for mafia bosses.  How many nukes do you need as a deterrent (is thousands really that much better than hundreds, would tens of thousands be better again)?  The EU should he steadily weaning itself off Russian oil and gas.


Good point, Michaelm - Hit their pockets and they'll come begging.


----------



## cremeegg

Leper said:


> Bring it on  . . . ! It'd be the easiest victory for the EU+UK+ USA and even "we" could forego our neutrality. I believe Putin won't be around for too much longer.


I hope you don't mean this.


----------



## RetirementPlan

michaelm said:


> It seems to me that Russia is a mafia state and a regional nuisance.  Things usually end badly for mafia bosses.  How many nukes do you need as a deterrent (is thousands really that much better than hundreds, would tens of thousands be better again)?  The EU should he steadily weaning itself off Russian oil and gas.


The EU should he steadily weaning itself off Russian oil and gas.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> I hope you don't mean this.


@Leper is old and will be dead soon and begrudges the young their future. It's a Cork thing.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> If the USA (who spend as much on their armed forces as the next 30 countries combined) are in the fight then we'd win a conventional war but without them and/or their equipment we'd lose.
> Remember that the Soviets only beat the Germans with American hardware and technology. And it was the Soviets who beat them, D-Day was aa side show. More combatants were killed on the Eastern Front than in all other theatres of the War combined. The Americans supplied around 16 million tons of equipment to the Russians. To put that in context they only supplied 22 million tons to their own forces in Europe from 1942 to 1945. Russian blood and American Steel won the war. Polish piolets in American planes won the Battle of Britain but that was an even smaller side show.
> If anyone thinks that EU forces (plus the UK) could beat the Russians, with their history and combat experience, is in for a rude awakening.


There was also the air campaign against Germany and German industry by the US and UK.
This both significantly suppressed German industrial output and diverted it towards the air defence of Germany.
The Russians had to face far fewer tanks and planes and guns because of this.
That should also be considered with the ground forces tied up in France, Italy, Norway and lost in North Africa during the 'in the balance' years of 1941-1944.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> There was also the air campaign against Germany and German industry by the US and UK.
> This both significantly suppressed German industrial output and diverted it towards the air defence of Germany.
> The Russians had to face far fewer tanks and planes and guns because of this.
> That should also be considered with the ground forces tied up in France, Italy, Norway and lost in North Africa during the 'in the balance' years of 1941-1944.


Yes, that all mattered too but Russia did more heavy lifting than everyone else combined. 
The movement of their industrial base over the Ural mountains is one of the most remarkable feats of logistics ever. They moved over 2,500 factories and 12 million people and set it all up again in the Ural and Volga regions as well and Central Asia and Siberia. 
By 1943 they were producing 1300 T34 Tanks a month and in two years they halved the production cost. That's the equivalent of 3 full strength Panzer Divisions a month. It was, by far, the best Tank of the war in that it was the best value and gave the best return on investment.


----------



## Baby boomer

The Soviet Union couldn't have done all that heavy lifting without huge assistance from the USA / UK. This included 12,000 tanks, 8000 other armoured vehicles, 20,000 fighter aircraft, over 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 37,000 motorcycles, 2000 locomotives plus 10,000 cargo carriages.  Plus millions of tyres, spare parts and mobile maintenance workshops with generators, welding equipment, machine tools and raw materials.  And over 8000 radio, radar and sonar sets.  
Then there was 15,000,000 pairs of boots, 1,500,000 blankets, 100,000 tons of cotton, five million tons of food and 3,000,000 tonnes of fuel including over 50% of all aviation fuel used by the Soviets during the war.  
And, to wash it all down, 300,000 litres of alcohol! 

In total, 17,500,000 tonnes of stuff, which compares well with the 22,000,000 tonnes the US delivered to Europe for use by their own forces.  

All free gratis, no money ever changed hands, and at considerable cost in money and lives lost when convoys were attacked and ships torpedoed.  

You'd think that might have bought a little gratitude but instead the Soviets publicly minimized and downplayed it while burnishing the myth of Soviet exceptionalism.  Their sympathisers still do so.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> The Soviet Union couldn't have done all that heavy lifting without huge assistance from the USA / UK. This included 12,000 tanks, 8000 other armoured vehicles, 20,000 fighter aircraft, over 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 37,000 motorcycles, 2000 locomotives plus 10,000 cargo carriages. Plus millions of tyres, spare parts and mobile maintenance workshops with generators, welding equipment, machine tools and raw materials. And over 8000 radio, radar and sonar sets.
> Then there was 15,000,000 pairs of boots, 1,500,000 blankets, 100,000 tons of cotton, five million tons of food and 3,000,000 tonnes of fuel including over 50% of all aviation fuel used by the Soviets during the war.
> And, to wash it all down, 300,000 litres of alcohol!
> 
> In total, 17,500,000 tonnes of stuff, which compares well with the 22,000,000 tonnes the US delivered to Europe for use by their own forces.
> 
> All free gratis, no money ever changed hands, and at considerable cost in money and lives lost when convoys were attacked and ships torpedoed.


Yes, as previously noted;


Purple said:


> The Americans supplied around 16 million tons of equipment to the Russians. To put that in context they only supplied 22 million tons to their own forces in Europe from 1942 to 1945. Russian blood and American Steel won the war.


America gave the same level of support to the British. It was American planes that won the Battle of Britain and the best piolets during that battle were Polish. The British also ignored that. 
The British and the Americans massively downplay the Eastern Front, instead creating the narrative that D-Day was the definitive event that led to the defeat of the Germans and their allies which is, of course, complete nonsense. That's not to say it wasn't important but D-Day was as much about stopping the Russians swallowing Europe as it was about defeating the Germans. They'd lost by then.  



Baby boomer said:


> You'd think that might have bought a little gratitude but instead the Soviets publicly minimized and downplayed it while burnishing the myth of Soviet exceptionalism. Their sympathisers still do so.



Pointing out the facts does not make one a sympathiser. That sort of emotive language is also nonsensical. 
The realpolitik of post-war Europe and the world meant that truth was sacrificed quite quickly. Gratitude was in short supply from people who were pointing Nukes at each other.  With the benefit of 75 years of hindsight we should be able to take a less emotional and jingoistic view of history.


----------



## cremeegg

Ye are all strong on the past. The thread started off talking about the present and the future.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> By 1943 they were producing 1300 T34 Tanks a month and in two years they halved the production cost. That's the equivalent of 3 full strength Panzer Divisions a month. It was, by far, the best Tank of the war in that it was the best value and gave the best return on investment.


You'd wonder how the Russians went from that to this:


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> You'd wonder how the Russians went from that to this:
> 
> View attachment 5945


That's Communism for you. If they made a bags of the Tanks they all died. If they made rubbish cars they all kelp their job. That's what happens when there's no competition and you can't be sacked. The Germans were the competition during the War.


----------



## Baby boomer

Purple said:


> Yes, as previously noted;


Yes, I hadn't noticed that, sorry.


Purple said:


> America gave the same level of support to the British. It was American planes that won the Battle of Britain and the best piolets during that battle were Polish. The British also ignored that.


To a point, that's true.  I think there was a lot of embarrassment on the UK side about how badly the Poles were treated after their heroics in the Battle of Britain, in Italy and elsewhere.  The "Free Poles" were quitely abandoned to Communist tryanny for half a century - particularly ironic when Britain ostensibly went to war for Polish freedom in the first place!



Purple said:


> The British and the Americans massively downplay the Eastern Front,...


Not really, it's just they weren't involved in it.  So there's no folk memory of it, no relatives who were veterans of it, no casualties to be commemorated and so on.  Nations will commemorate what they were involved in - hence the British emphasis on, eg, the desert war in North Africa, which was tiny in the overall context, but which generated a huge British trove of memories, legends and fallen heroes to be treasured.  Nothing unusual about that.

Likewise, for the Americans, WW2 happened mostly in the Pacific, that's where they did most fighting, so that gets remembered and honoured.  Again, nothing unusual or dishonest about that. 



Purple said:


> instead creating the narrative that D-Day was the definitive event that led to the defeat of the Germans and their allies which is, of course, complete nonsense.


D-Day was a massive event, not decisive perhaps, but an essential element in the defeat of Nazism. I'm not so sure it's importance is overstated for jingoistic effect but it remains the largest seaborne invasion ever undertaken.  No mean feat.



Purple said:


> That's not to say it wasn't important but D-Day was as much about stopping the Russians swallowing Europe as it was about defeating the Germans.


Hmmm?  Why then was Stalin pushing so eagerly for D-Day to be brought forward.  He was demanding a "second front" from 1942 onwards and was pushing hard for D-Day to happen in 1943.

And if stopping the Russians swallowing Europe was foremost in the war aims, then why did the Western Allies not push eastwards much faster in 1944/5?  Had they done so, much of Central and Eastern Europe might have been saved from the Soviets.




Purple said:


> They'd lost by then.


True.  Reality is they'd lost once the US entered the war.  From that point on, they were always going to be out-manufactured.  It was only going to be a matter of time.  (Unless they could force a stalemate by developing nuclear weaponry.)



Purple said:


> Pointing out the facts does not make one a sympathiser.


Not you, true!  But many on the left, particularly, still retain romantic notions about communism.  They also have a hostility towards the US and this leads to a mythologizing of the Soviet contribution, a downplaying of the US assistance received, and a complete whitewashing of Soviet atrocities, which were exceeded only by the Nazis themselves.



Purple said:


> That sort of emotive language is also nonsensical.
> The realpolitik of post-war Europe and the world meant that truth was sacrificed quite quickly.


Even during the war, Russian propaganda was downplaying the assistance from the US.  Capitalism was evil, you see, and the truth that it worked had to be hidden from the unfortunate Russians themselves.  Meanwhile, America held its nose, ignored awkward stuff like the Russian invasions of Poland and Finland, the Katyn massacre and huge mass deportations to Central Asia, while presenting Stalin as a cuddly "Uncle Joe" ally.  Needs must, I suppose.



Purple said:


> Gratitude was in short supply from people who were pointing Nukes at each other.  With the benefit of 75 years of hindsight we should be able to take a less emotional and jingoistic view of history.


Jingoistic is saying it was the Russians wot won it.  "Less emotional" is saying the Nazi defeat couldn't have happened without Western industry.  They western Allies *could* have defeated Nazi Germany without Russia.  It would have taken much longer and cost more US and European lives but it would have happened unless Germany developed nuclear weaponry.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> Yes, I hadn't noticed that, sorry.
> 
> To a point, that's true.  I think there was a lot of embarrassment on the UK side about how badly the Poles were treated after their heroics in the Battle of Britain, in Italy and elsewhere.  The "Free Poles" were quitely abandoned to Communist tryanny for half a century - particularly ironic when Britain ostensibly went to war for Polish freedom in the first place!


Very true. We are brilliant at ignoring the bits of our history we don't like and creating villains and bogymen 9Cromwell being aa prime example). 



Baby boomer said:


> Not really, it's just they weren't involved in it.  So there's no folk memory of it, no relatives who were veterans of it, no casualties to be commemorated and so on.  Nations will commemorate what they were involved in - hence the British emphasis on, eg, the desert war in North Africa, which was tiny in the overall context, but which generated a huge British trove of memories, legends and fallen heroes to be treasured.  Nothing unusual about that.
> 
> Likewise, for the Americans, WW2 happened mostly in the Pacific, that's where they did most fighting, so that gets remembered and honoured.  Again, nothing unusual or dishonest about that.


I think there was more to it than that. History books ignored the fact that the Russians did most of the bleeding and dying and, importantly, most of the winning. That was due to the cold war and it was very understandable but there was more to it than just concentrating on "our lads".


Baby boomer said:


> D-Day was a massive event, not decisive perhaps, but an essential element in the defeat of Nazism. I'm not so sure it's importance is overstated for jingoistic effect but it remains the largest seaborne invasion ever undertaken.  No mean feat.


Indeed, the only amphibious invasion that came close was 600 years earlier when the Mongols attempted to invade Japan. In a nice Second World War link their fleet was destroyed by a massive typhoon which the Japanese called the 'Divine Wind' or kamikaze.


Baby boomer said:


> Hmmm?  Why then was Stalin pushing so eagerly for D-Day to be brought forward.  He was demanding a "second front" from 1942 onwards and was pushing hard for D-Day to happen in 1943.
> 
> And if stopping the Russians swallowing Europe was foremost in the war aims, then why did the Western Allies not push eastwards much faster in 1944/5?  Had they done so, much of Central and Eastern Europe might have been saved from the Soviets.


The Americans were happy to let Stalin and Hitler fight it out, that's part of the reason they didn't invade sooner. That and they just weren't ready. Once the writing was on the wall they had to get a move on. They pushed East as fast as they could, hence the race for Berlin, but the Germans fought back hard (the battle of the Bulge etc).


Baby boomer said:


> True.  Reality is they'd lost once the US entered the war.  From that point on, they were always going to be out-manufactured.  It was only going to be a matter of time.  (Unless they could force a stalemate by developing nuclear weaponry.)


True, the same can be said about their invasion of Russia; once that happened they'd lost. The German's just couldn't do logistics. The American's could. There's an argument to be made that their 2-1/2 ton truck was the most important vehicle of the war (they send tens of thousands of them to Russia). 


Baby boomer said:


> Not you, true!  But many on the left, particularly, still retain romantic notions about communism.  They also have a hostility towards the US and this leads to a mythologizing of the Soviet contribution, a downplaying of the US assistance received, and a complete whitewashing of Soviet atrocities, which were exceeded only by the Nazis themselves.
> 
> 
> Even during the war, Russian propaganda was downplaying the assistance from the US.  Capitalism was evil, you see, and the truth that it worked had to be hidden from the unfortunate Russians themselves.  Meanwhile, America held its nose, ignored awkward stuff like the Russian invasions of Poland and Finland, the Katyn massacre and huge mass deportations to Central Asia, while presenting Stalin as a cuddly "Uncle Joe" ally.  Needs must, I suppose.


Yep.


Baby boomer said:


> Jingoistic is saying it was the Russians wot won it.  "Less emotional" is saying the Nazi defeat couldn't have happened without Western industry.


I don't think they could have held Russia one way or the other. They were always going to run out of oil and probably going to run out of steel (and men).


Baby boomer said:


> They western Allies *could* have defeated Nazi Germany without Russia.  It would have taken much longer and cost more US and European lives but it would have happened unless Germany developed nuclear weaponry.


True, assuming that the Americans entered the war at all and when they did they entered on the right side. I'm not sure the American Public would have had the stomach to fight in a Europe against a Germany army fully resourced with what was on the Eastern Front. 
Much and all that D-Day was a remarkable event the Germans only had 58 divisions in the Western Theatre and only 11 of them faced the Allied on D-Day. At the same time the Russians were fighting 228 Divisions.
The real D-Day was June 22, 1944 when the Russians invaded Belarus. On D-Day 175,000 Allied soldiers fought 80,000 Germans (and their allies). Operation Bagration involved 2.4 million Soviet troops and 900,000 Germans. link


----------



## odyssey06

Great post @Baby boomer 

Just on the Mediterranean \ North African campaign, it did have two serendipitous impacts...

There was a delay in launching Barbarossa as German forces were diverted to assist the Italians in the Balkans and Greece.

In 1943, Hitler sent significant reinforcements to North Africa - had they been sent earlier they may have changed the course of the campaign. But by 1943 they were too little too late and 200,000 German troops were captured by the Allies in Tunisia alone.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> True, assuming that the Americans entered the war at all and when they did they entered on the right side. I'm not sure the American Public would have had the stomach to fight in a Europe against a Germany army fully resourced with what was on the Eastern Front.
> Much and all that D-Day was a remarkable event the Germans only had 58 divisions in the Western Theatre and only 11 of them faced the Allied on D-Day. At the same time the Russians were fighting 228 Divisions.
> The real D-Day was June 22, 1944 when the Russians invaded Belarus. On D-Day 175,000 Allied soldiers fought 80,000 Germans (and their allies). Operation Bagration involved 2.4 million Soviet troops and 900,000 Germans.


I agree with the general assumption.

But I think you're getting a distorted view of it by looking only at infantry \ raw numbers of troops.

For aircraft, anti aircraft, radar and similar technological resources the ratios would be reversed between the two. When Operation Bagration was launched, where was the Luftwaffe?

For equipment, you're not considering e.g. tanks that the Western Allies destroyed \ prevented from being built with their air campaign and blockade.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> I agree with the general assumption.
> 
> But I think you're getting a distorted view of it by looking only at infantry \ raw numbers of troops.
> 
> For aircraft, anti aircraft, radar and similar technological resources the ratios would be reversed between the two. When Operation Bagration was launched, where was the Luftwaffe?


Read the link, it's very informative.


> _The initial D-Day landings were made with approximately 175,000 Allied troops against about 80,000 Wehrmacht soldiers. These figures were dwarfed by the strengths on the eastern front, where Operation Bagration, which was launched on June 22, 1944, pitted 2.4 million Russian troops, supported by 36,400 artillery pieces, 5,200 tanks and 5,300 aircraft, against the Germans’ Army Group Centre, which numbered 700,000 men, 900 tanks and 1,350 aircraft.
> The Soviets aimed to retake Byelorussia (now Belarus), and in the process, destroy Army Group Centre.
> 
> Within a month of launching, Bagration had succeeded. In relentless lightning attacks, Soviet forces annihilated 17 German divisions and reduced another 50 to half-strength, which translated into a net German loss of 42 divisions. Army Group Centre was no more. Moreover, the Soviets had punched a hole 400 kilometres wide and 160 kilometres long in the German front. By September, they would be knocking on German-occupied Warsaw’s door.
> Meanwhile, the western Allies, wedded to Montgomery’s unimaginative tactics, were still mired on the Normandy beachhead. Only on July 26, 1944, did their attempts to break out succeed, under Patton’s — not Montgomery’s — leadership.
> 
> Their breakout was aided by the fact that Bagration had forced the Wehrmacht to redeploy 46 divisions, including some from France, to the eastern front. Even then, the western Allies’ failure to close the Falaise pocket in August allowed the retreating Germans to escape. The Soviet juggernaut made no such mistake. Indeed, as Bagration showed, by the time the western Allies got around to launching their second front, which Stalin had been clamouring for since 1941, the Red Army almost didn’t need it._


The reality is that the Russians took the heat off the Western Allies in Normandy, not the other way around. 

I'm not suggesting that the American air campaign and their other actions (supported by their French, British etc allies) didn't play a major role in the war. I'm just pointing out that the Russians did the heavy lifting.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> Read the link, it's very informative.
> 
> The reality is that the Russians took the heat off the Western Allies in Normandy, not the other way around.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that the American air campaign and their other actions (supported by their French, British etc allies) didn't play a major role in the war. I'm just pointing out that the Russians did the heavy lifting.


Well they both took the heat off each other to a certain extent. How much 'heat' is air superiority worth?
Although hard to see how, short of nuclear weapons or willingness to take big casualties, the Western Allies could have invaded 'fortress Europe' if most German troops weren't occupied in the East.

For sure they did the heavy lifting in terms of boots on the ground \ blood shed... but one of the main reasons the weight they had to lift was so heavy was because they
(a) made Germany stronger via the non-aggression pact which meant they were supplying Germany
(b) occupying Baltic States and eastern Poland was meant to give Russia a buffer against German attack, but instead made them more vulnerable as they moved their forces forwards away from their fixed defences.

And interesting counter-factual would be how would a war have played out where Britain seeing the 'Bolsheviks' as the greater threat, sides with the Axis or at least signs a non-aggression pact... steering Germany and Japan towards the Soviets and Italy towards French North Africa. Would Germany have been able to defeat Russia if it had access to supplies from the rest of the world, and wasn't fighting a war on two fronts. Hmm.


----------



## Baby boomer

Agree re the significance of Bagration.  But, and it's a huge but, could it have even happened without US/UK assistance to the Soviets?  Three points are significant.  Much of the materiel used in Bagration was supplied by the West.  Particularly aircraft.  Secondly the Luftwaffe had been defanged by then and that gave a huge advantage to the Russians.  
Thirdly, without the US/UK assistance in 1941/42, when it was desparately needed and before the Russians had geared up their own industry, chances are the front line would have stabilised somewhere around the Urals.  Stalingrad couldn't have been won without Western materiel, nor could Leningrad have been defended, and Moscow might well have fallen in December 1941 without British tanks, artillery and aircraft.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> Agree re the significance of Bagration.  But, and it's a huge but, could it have even happened without US/UK assistance to the Soviets?  Three points are significant.  Much of the materiel used in Bagration was supplied by the West.  Particularly aircraft.  Secondly the Luftwaffe had been defanged by then and that gave a huge advantage to the Russians.
> Thirdly, without the US/UK assistance in 1941/42, when it was desparately needed and before the Russians had geared up their own industry, chances are the front line would have stabilised somewhere around the Urals.  Stalingrad couldn't have been won without Western materiel, nor could Leningrad have been defended, and Moscow might well have fallen in December 1941 without British tanks, artillery and aircraft.


It was US assistance. The UK assistance was tiny. The UK did act as a vital stopping off point for the Americans but the UK was also a massive recipient of US support. In fact the British got almost twice as many Aircraft from the US as the Russians.

It's worth noting that 65% of the German air force was deployed to the East and was never touched by US forces or their allies.  The US bombing campaign over Germany, supported by the RAF (often flying American planes) did deal a massive blow to German war production but even by 1941 they were running out of steel and oil and that of course was one of the main reasons for Operation Barbarossa in the first place. 
In fact the Luftwaffe argued against the Russian campaign as it diverted resources away from Britain which they believed (rightly) was on the brink of collapse (up until the last minute they were unaware of the plan to invade Russia and so had not ramped up production). 
No matter what way you look at it the Russians took the pressure off the UK defensively and from the US once it had invaded from Britain in June 1944.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> It was US assistance. The UK assistance was tiny. The UK did act as a vital stopping off point for the Americans but the UK was also a massive recipient of US support. In fact the British got almost twice as many Aircraft from the US as the Russians.
> 
> It's worth noting that 65% of the German air force was deployed to the East and was never touched by US forces or their allies.  The US bombing campaign over Germany, supported by the RAF (often flying American planes) did deal a massive blow to German war production but even by 1941 they were running out of steel and oil and that of course was one of the main reasons for Operation Barbarossa in the first place.
> In fact the Luftwaffe argued against the Russian campaign as it diverted resources away from Britain which they believed (rightly) was on the brink of collapse (up until the last minute they were unaware of the plan to invade Russia and so had not ramped up production).
> No matter what way you look at it the Russians took the pressure off the UK defensively and from the US once it had invaded from Britain in June 1944.


Russia took the pressure off, but as I said, the UK and then US took the pressure off Russia also, at a time when Germany was threatening a knockout blow. And then basically, held one arm behind Germany's back (and punches to the kidneys) for Russia to land knockout blows.

The UK assistance was small in the overall numbers, bearing in mind the huge increases in production as the war went on, but needs to be looked at in terms of how crucial that assistance was in 1941 in tipping the scales one way or another.

While 65% of Luftwaffe sorties were carried out in the East, it was the Western Allies who were inflicting the main damage on the Luftwaffe, so in a sense they were hitting the Luftwaffe on the eastern front as pilots were being lost and a pilot lost from theatre A was lost to their overall strength. The '65%' isn't static.

The estimates I have seen are that for German air losses 60-70% were in theatres versus Western Allies.
From September 1943, 75% - 80% of Luftwaffe day fighters were deployed in the West.
Without day fighters you don't have air superiority, or a way to stop attacks on your own forces and bases and transport links.
Especially with anti aircraft weapon production needed for defence of the Reich from air attack.
By 1944, an airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East.


----------



## Baby boomer

Purple said:


> It was US assistance. The UK assistance was tiny.


Overall, yes, it was mostly the US.  But, in the critical period of June - December 1941, British assistance was very significant and may have been decisive in halting the German advance on Moscow.  And if Moscow fell, it's probably all over and there never gets to be a Bagration. 


Purple said:


> The UK did act as a vital stopping off point for the Americans but the UK was also a massive recipient of US support. In fact the British got almost twice as many Aircraft from the US as the Russians.


True.


Purple said:


> It's worth noting that 65% of the German air force was deployed to the East and was never touched by US forces or their allies.  The US bombing campaign over Germany, supported by the RAF (often flying American planes) did deal a massive blow to German war production but even by 1941 they were running out of steel and oil...


Not really.  Germany had huge reserves of coal and could manufacture synthetic oil.  It also had access to Romanian oil fields.  Despite massive bombing of refineries, distribution and synthetic production facilities, Germany didn't start running out of oil until after the Romanian oil fields were first bombed and then captured in 1944.



Purple said:


> and that of course was one of the main reasons for Operation Barbarossa in the first place.


I'd say more an atavistic hatred of Slavic peoples and Jews.  Plus a conviction that Nazism and Bolshevikism were destined to fight to the death with only one system surviving.




Purple said:


> In fact the Luftwaffe argued against the Russian campaign as it diverted resources away from Britain which they believed (rightly) was on the brink of collapse (up until the last minute they were unaware of the plan to invade Russia and so had not ramped up production).


True.


Purple said:


> No matter what way you look at it the Russians took the pressure off the UK defensively and from the US once it had invaded from Britain in June 1944.


If the UK and US hadn't taken the pressure off Russia in the first place, June 1944 would have been a different kettle of fish entirely!  There probably wouldn't have been a Russian army left to take the pressure off the US/UK.


----------



## Purple

@Baby boomer , yes, the US and it's allies in the West certainly had a material impact on German resources. That's without doubt. I'm just pointing out that the just majority of the War in Europe was fought on the Eastern Front. In fact as previously pointed out it was bigger than every other theatre of the War in the rest of the world combined.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> The US and it's allies in the West certainly had a material impact on German resources. That's without doubt. I'm just pointing out that the just majority of the War in Europe was fought on the Eastern Front. In fact as previously pointed out it was bigger than every other theatre of the War in the rest of the world combined.


Biggest in terms of troops committed and combat casualties, but is that the only consideration?
What about 'Fighting Power', for want of a better word.

When it comes to naval and aerial warfare (e.g. submarine warfare, air night fighting, strategic bombing) the number of front line personnel is tiny relative to the 'long tail'.

How many men (I don't mean to crew the vessel) is a U-boat 'worth'?
Or a V-2 rocket?
Or an escort carrier?
They are force multipliers.

Two airfleets fighting it out over Berlin, of long range bombers and escort fighters versus defending fighters, flak guns... and the technical battle of radar \ guidance \ navigation versus jamming that goes with it... It seems like a tiny number of men compared to an infantry battle. But not in terms of fighting power and the number of people needed to put them there in position to fight.

Similarly for two carrier fleets in the Pacific, or the contest between U-boats and convoys in the Atlantic.

Is one tank in North Africa the same as one tank in Ukraine?
Considering the resources that went into getting that tank to North Africa, and keeping it operational, and that for every 10 tanks sent there, X number didn't arrive and ended up at the bottom of the ocean.

Every Sherman tank that made it to Normandy in the D-Day invasion had to run the gauntlet of the Battle of the Atlantic.


----------



## Baby boomer

odyssey06 said:


> Biggest in terms of troops committed and combat casualties, but is that the only consideration?
> What about 'Fighting Power', for want of a better word.
> 
> When it comes to naval and aerial warfare (e.g. submarine warfare, air night fighting, strategic bombing) the number of front line personnel is tiny relative to the 'long tail'.
> 
> How many men (I don't mean to crew the vessel) is a U-boat 'worth'?
> Or a V-2 rocket?
> Or an escort carrier?
> They are force multipliers.
> 
> Two airfleets fighting it out over Berlin, of long range bombers and escort fighters versus defending fighters, flak guns... and the technical battle of radar \ guidance \ navigation versus jamming that goes with it... It seems like a tiny number of men compared to an infantry battle. But not in terms of fighting power and the number of people needed to put them there in position to fight.
> 
> Similarly for two carrier fleets in the Pacific, or the contest between U-boats and convoys in the Atlantic.
> 
> Is one tank in North Africa the same as one tank in Ukraine?
> Considering the resources that went into getting that tank to North Africa, and keeping it operational, and that for every 10 tanks sent there, X number didn't arrive and ended up at the bottom of the ocean.
> 
> Every Sherman tank that made it to Normandy in the D-Day invasion had to run the gauntlet of the Battle of the Atlantic.


Good points.  Also the logistics that went into the Pacific War were amazing.  To land and sustain a division on a remote island is far more complicated than doing the same on a continental landmass.


----------



## Baby boomer

Purple said:


> @Baby boomer , yes, the US and it's allies in the West certainly had a material impact on German resources. That's without doubt. I'm just pointing out that the just majority of the War in Europe was fought on the Eastern Front. In fact as previously pointed out it was bigger than every other theatre of the War in the rest of the world combined.


Depends on how you define "bigger" doesn't it?  More people died in the Pacific Theatre than in Europe (including the USSR.) Most of them were Chinese civilians.  But we don't tend to hear about that either.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> Depends on how you define "bigger" doesn't it?  More people died in the Pacific Theatre than in Europe (including the USSR.) Most of them were Chinese civilians.  But we don't tend to hear about that either.


True, if we ignore the Russians killed by Stalin.
Bigger in terms of fighting men and materials. 

All the points about logistics stand, though both sides had the same issues in North Africa and in much of the Pacific.
We are so used to our perspective on the war but there’s no avoiding the fact that militarily Russia were the main players. In terms of industrial output the US were even bigger players as they made a massive contribution to the Russians and, in effect, the armed forces of every other country fighting in the Western European theatre were folded into the US army .


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Biggest in terms of troops committed and combat casualties, but is that the only consideration?
> What about 'Fighting Power', for want of a better word.
> 
> When it comes to naval and aerial warfare (e.g. submarine warfare, air night fighting, strategic bombing) the number of front line personnel is tiny relative to the 'long tail'.
> 
> How many men (I don't mean to crew the vessel) is a U-boat 'worth'?
> Or a V-2 rocket?
> Or an escort carrier?
> They are force multipliers.


I was with you until V2’s. They were a monumental waste of resources (like so much the Germans built). 


odyssey06 said:


> Two airfleets fighting it out over Berlin, of long range bombers and escort fighters versus defending fighters, flak guns... and the technical battle of radar \ guidance \ navigation versus jamming that goes with it... It seems like a tiny number of men compared to an infantry battle. But not in terms of fighting power and the number of people needed to put them there in position to fight.
> 
> Similarly for two carrier fleets in the Pacific, or the contest between U-boats and convoys in the Atlantic.


I see and that and raise you 2500 factories and 11-12 million people moved over a thousand miles to supply the red army. 


odyssey06 said:


> Is one tank in North Africa the same as one tank in Ukraine?


No, Tank in North Africa was worth far less.


odyssey06 said:


> Considering the resources that went into getting that tank to North Africa, and keeping it operational, and that for every 10 tanks sent there, X number didn't arrive and ended up at the bottom of the ocean.
> 
> Every Sherman tank that made it to Normandy in the D-Day invasion had to run the gauntlet of the Battle of the Atlantic.


The vastness of Russia and the harshness of the winter can’t be overstated. The fact that so much  of what Russia used also came from America means they also faced the North Atlantic.


----------



## cremeegg

Baby boomer said:


> D-Day was a massive event, not decisive perhaps, but an essential element in the defeat of Nazism. I'm not so sure it's importance is overstated for jingoistic effect but it remains the largest seaborne invasion ever undertaken.  No mean feat.





Purple said:


> Indeed, the only amphibious invasion that came close was 600 years earlier when the Mongols attempted to invade Japan. In a nice Second World War link their fleet was destroyed by a massive typhoon which the Japanese called the 'Divine Wind' or kamikaze.



*D Day*

156,000 Allied troops by sea and air on five beachheads in Normandy, France.

*2nd Mongol Invasion of Japan*

Kublai Khan's second invasion fleet was a whole lot bigger than the first one. This time, thanks to his recent defeat of the Song and acquisition of their navy, there were 4,400 ships and around 100,000 men, again a mix of Mongol, Chinese, and Korean warriors.

*2nd Persian invasion of Greece*

Herodotus, a contemporary writer, put the Persian army strength as one million and went to great pains to describe how they were counted in groups of ten thousand at a review of the troops. Simonides went as far as to put the Persian number at three million. Today, it is considered to have been much smaller. Scholars report various figures ranging between about 100,000 and 150,000 soldiers. (How modern estimates are considered as reliable as Herodotus' count I do not understand)


----------



## Baby boomer

cremeegg said:


> *D Day*
> 
> 156,000 Allied troops by sea and air on five beachheads in Normandy, France.
> 
> *2nd Mongol Invasion of Japan*
> 
> Kublai Khan's second invasion fleet was a whole lot bigger than the first one. This time, thanks to his recent defeat of the Song and acquisition of their navy, there were 4,400 ships and around 100,000 men, again a mix of Mongol, Chinese, and Korean warriors.
> 
> *2nd Persian invasion of Greece*
> 
> Herodotus, a contemporary writer, put the Persian army strength as one million and went to great pains to describe how they were counted in groups of ten thousand at a review of the troops. Simonides went as far as to put the Persian number at three million. Today, it is considered to have been much smaller. Scholars report various figures ranging between about 100,000 and 150,000 soldiers. (How modern estimates are considered as reliable as Herodotus' count I do not understand)


Very interesting re Mongols and Japan, thanks.  And @Purple too for earlier link. I'd never figured the Mongols as a sea power - thought they were exclusively land based.  

Every day's a schoolday, as they say.


----------



## Purple

@Baby boomer, the Koreans were the biggest ship builders in the world in the 1300’s. They are the biggest ship builders in the world now. 
It’s like China and manufacturing.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Russia took the pressure off, but as I said, the UK and then US took the pressure off Russia also, at a time when Germany was threatening a knockout blow. And then basically, held one arm behind Germany's back (and punches to the kidneys) for Russia to land knockout blows.
> 
> The UK assistance was small in the overall numbers, bearing in mind the huge increases in production as the war went on, but needs to be looked at in terms of how crucial that assistance was in 1941 in tipping the scales one way or another.
> 
> While 65% of Luftwaffe sorties were carried out in the East, it was the Western Allies who were inflicting the main damage on the Luftwaffe, so in a sense they were hitting the Luftwaffe on the eastern front as pilots were being lost and a pilot lost from theatre A was lost to their overall strength. The '65%' isn't static.
> 
> The estimates I have seen are that for German air losses 60-70% were in theatres versus Western Allies.
> From September 1943, 75% - 80% of Luftwaffe day fighters were deployed in the West.
> Without day fighters you don't have air superiority, or a way to stop attacks on your own forces and bases and transport links.
> Especially with anti aircraft weapon production needed for defence of the Reich from air attack.
> By 1944, an airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East.


Just on the issue of production, the Germans actually reached peak production in 1943 and 1944 with 25,000 and 40,000 planes produces respectively. It was only as Germany lost land to Allied forces that they lost their supply chain and then their production facilities and their production collapsed. Therefore the air campaigns were not as successful at knocking out German production as many believe. 
The Americans were producing almost 100,000 planes a year by 1944. 30% of Russia's planes were built in the USA.

Nikita Khrushchev once said;
_I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so._

While Russia was a major recipient of US aid the UK received 3 times more than them.


----------



## odyssey06

Yes Ive read that quote... many we read the same books 

Just on the question of German production would we not expect a bigger increase in output of planes tanks equipment? Id expect the bombing to be having a suppression effect.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Yes Ive read that quote... many we read the same books
> 
> Just on the question of German production would we not expect a bigger increase in output of planes tanks equipment? Id expect the bombing to be having a suppression effect.


It was more about running out of materials than running out of factories to build the finished products. The Allied (American) targeting of the rail infrastructure was quite successful but production of the Panzer 3 & 4 all peaked in 1944, as did production of the Panzer 5 (Panther) and the Panzer 6 (Tiger) so they were still doing okay right up to the end but they were never going to match American production form 1943 onwards or indeed Russian production from the same period. 
Ford's Willow Run factory was producing a B-24 Liberator every 63 minutes, American shipyards were launching a liberty ship every day (they could build one on less than a week), in 1944 America produced nearly 100,000 planes. In total America accounted for a little over half of all military materials produced during the War.
So, Russian blood and American Steel. I stand by that comment.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> It was more about running out of materials than running out of factories to build the finished products. The Allied (American) targeting of the rail infrastructure was quite successful but production of the Panzer 3 & 4 all peaked in 1944, as did production of the Panzer 5 (Panther) and the Panzer 6 (Tiger) so they were still doing okay right up to the end but they were never going to match American production form 1943 onwards or indeed Russian production from the same period.
> Ford's Willow Run factory was producing a B-24 Liberator every 63 minutes, American shipyards were launching a liberty ship every day (they could build one on less than a week), in 1944 America produced nearly 100,000 planes. In total America accounted for a little over half of all military materials produced during the War.
> So, Russian blood and American Steel. I stand by that comment.


My point is more what would the peak have been if their industry could work away without air attack and blockade and active denial of resources by the western allies?
They ran out of materials... the Western Allies did not. That was not an accident, it did not come for free of fall into their lap but a reflection of the military collateral the UK and US had in ships, planes, bases, logistics. It had to be defended and then the transport protected.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> My point is more what would the peak have been if their industry could work away without air attack and blockade and active denial of resources by the western allies?


Answered above; the Americans were arming themselves, the British (60% of land lease materials went to the UK) and, to a lesser but still significant extent, the Russians. There is no way that Germany, even if unmolested by American and allied Naval and Air resources, could ever have kept up with American production.   


odyssey06 said:


> They ran out of materials... the Western Allies did not. That was not an accident, it did not come for free of fall into their lap but a reflection of the military collateral the UK and US had in ships, planes, bases, logistics. It had to be defended and then the transport protected.


Agreed, but the Germans were rubbish at logistics so not having the stuff wasn't as big a problem as not being able to get the stuff to where it was needed. The thing that makes a military effective is it's ability to deploy.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> Answered above; the Americans were arming themselves, the British (60% of land lease materials went to the UK) and, to a lesser but still significant extent, the Russians. There is no way that Germany, even if unmolested by American and allied Naval and Air resources, could ever have kept up with American production.
> 
> Agreed, but the Germans were rubbish at logistics so not having the stuff wasn't as big a problem as not being able to get the stuff to where it was needed. The thing that makes a military effective is it's ability to deploy.



The question I have in mind is the balance of German production versus Russian production, where the US (and UK) were not:

Actively suppressing German production with air attacks and blockade
This also had the effect of redirecting key hardware such as fighters to the West

Actively assisting Russia with equipment


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> The question I have in mind is the balance of German production versus Russian production, where the US (and UK) were not:
> 
> Actively suppressing German production with air attacks and blockade
> This also had the effect of redirecting key hardware such as fighters to the West
> 
> Actively assisting Russia with equipment


I think the fist had less of an impact than is commonly thought. 
The second was important but the bulk of German forces, Tanks, Aircraft and materials were engaged in the East. Something like 70-80% of it.
The third was critical. The US supplied the equipment for the UK to maintain its war effort. Without it the British would have run out of everything long before the Germans. The first thing the US did was give them 50 war ships. The British just didn't have the Naval capability to get the stuff it needed, even if much of it was available in the Colonies.


----------



## Baby boomer

odyssey06 said:


> The question I have in mind is the balance of German production versus Russian production, where the US (and UK) were not:
> 
> Actively suppressing German production with air attacks and blockade
> This also had the effect of redirecting key hardware such as fighters to the West
> 
> Actively assisting Russia with equipment


If the US didn't enter the war, and didn't supply Russia (and the UK) with war material, Germany would have prevailed.  If there were any doubt, the Khrushchev quote is ample evidence.  
Japan would probably have taken the opportunity to grab a huge chunk of Siberia and its abundant natural resources.  
The cold war would have been contested between the US and Nazi Germany.  The US would have prevailed for similar reasons as it did against the USSR.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> If the US didn't enter the war, and didn't supply Russia (and the UK) with war material, Germany would have prevailed.  If there were any doubt, the Khrushchev quote is ample evidence.
> Japan would probably have taken the opportunity to grab a huge chunk of Siberia and its abundant natural resources.
> The cold war would have been contested between the US and Nazi Germany.  The US would have prevailed for similar reasons as it did against the USSR.


But the Americans were arming the British and Russians long before they entered the war.
On the Cold War question, both sides would have had Nukes and there was considerable support for Nazi Germany in the US so there's a reasonable chance that there wouldn't have been much of a Cold War and Nazi thinking would have influences and emboldened the Christian Right and White Supremacists in America.


----------



## Baby boomer

Purple said:


> But the Americans were arming the British and Russians long before they entered the war.
> On the Cold War question, both sides would have had Nukes and there was considerable support for Nazi Germany in the US so there's a reasonable chance that there wouldn't have been much of a Cold War and Nazi thinking would have influences and emboldened the Christian Right and White Supremacists in America.


Hmmm, interesting point.  I think that the Cold War fault lines would have developed along ideological and economic differences.  The US being an ultra free enterprise, individual liberty based society and Nazism being a very state-centric, ultra authoritarian system.  (Remember: it was called National *Socialism* for good reason.)

Hitler certainly believed that the US was an enemy with which he would eventually have to be at war.  His biggest strategic error (more than Barbarossa) was declaring war on the US in the days after Pearl Harbor.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> Hmmm, interesting point.  I think that the Cold War fault lines would have developed along ideological and economic differences.  The US being an ultra free enterprise, individual liberty based society and Nazism being a very state-centric, ultra authoritarian system.  (Remember: it was called National *Socialism* for good reason.)
> 
> Hitler certainly believed that the US was an enemy with which he would eventually have to be at war.


Probably, but who knows. Remember that the American Nazi Party enjoyed broad support, with rallied in Madison Square Garden and marches through Manhattan.


Baby boomer said:


> His biggest strategic error (more than Barbarossa) was declaring war on the US in the days after Pearl Harbor.


It was a mistake but I wouldn't say it was bigger than Barbarossa.


----------



## Purple

Back on topic; the Americans and Russians are talking about Ukraine and the EU is not in the room.
Anyone who thinks this is a good thing will, I'm sure, also be against an EU more jointed defence infrastructure. 
Anyone who thinks this is a bad thing should be supporting a more joined up EU defence policy and an increase in defence spending within the EU. It turns out that there are bad players in the world and we actually do need to defend ourselves. When I say "we" I obviously don't mean us specifically. We'll continue to hide behind our fake neutrality and give Russia and China a veto over whether we deploy our Defence Forces.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> Back on topic; the Americans and Russians are talking about Ukraine and the EU is not in the room.
> Anyone who thinks this is a good thing will, I'm sure, also be against an EU more jointed defence infrastructure.
> Anyone who thinks this is a bad thing should be supporting a more joined up EU defence policy and an increase in defence spending within the EU. It turns out that there are bad players in the world and we actually do need to defend ourselves. When I say "we" I obviously don't mean us specifically. We'll continue to hide behind our fake neutrality and give Russia and China a veto over whether we deploy our Defence Forces.


I thought it was American and NATO talking to Russia?

There's no reason why Germany & France couldn't increase defence spending under their own auspices, or under NATO, or some other joint pact - they are the 4th and 7th largest economies in the world. Their voice within NATO would be correspondingly louder.

The general view in Europe is that defence is not a priority, that won't change whether it's under an EU umbrella?









						No Ukraine breakthrough, but NATO and Russia eye more talks
					

The United States and NATO have rejected key Russian security demands for easing tensions over Ukraine




					abcnews.go.com


----------



## Baby boomer

It is beyond time that the EU developed an integrated defence policy.  One combined entity is better than 27 with all the duplication and incompatibilities that brings. 

The EU is probably the most significant supranational political project ever undertaken and it cannot exist indefinitely in a halfway house towards full political integration.  Not least because some of our fellow member states face external threats on their borders, Cyprus and Greece from Turkey, the Baltics and Poland from Russia and its satellites and all member states face threats from cyber-warfare.  Nettles need to be grasped. 

Or alternatively, we can live in splendid isolation out in the Atlantic without the ability to even detect foreign warplanes in our airspace.  Sure the Gulf Stream will protect us from all harm.


----------



## odyssey06

Baby boomer said:


> It is beyond time that the EU developed an integrated defence policy.  One combined entity is better than 27 with all the duplication and incompatibilities that brings.
> 
> The EU is probably the most significant supranational political project ever undertaken and it cannot exist indefinitely in a halfway house towards full political integration.  Not least because some of our fellow member states face external threats on their borders, Cyprus and Greece from Turkey, the Baltics and Poland from Russia and its satellites and all member states face threats from cyber-warfare.  Nettles need to be grasped.
> 
> Or alternatively, we can live in splendid isolation out in the Atlantic without the ability to even detect foreign warplanes in our airspace.  Sure the Gulf Stream will protect us from all harm.


Taking Ireland out of the picture for the moment... what can we do in the EU that we couldn't have done by joining NATO?

Germany and France took defence more seriously in the 1980s, pre EU.
All the major military powers in Europe are in NATO, as are those most concerned about Russia such as Poland and Baltic States.
Under NATO auspices they have co-ordination to minimise duplication and incompatibilities.

It's not Ireland, Sweden, Austria, Finland and Malta holding European defence back and it should be noted that Sweden as a neutral has a substantial military for its size and is increasing defence spending by 40%.


----------



## Baby boomer

odyssey06 said:


> Taking Ireland out of the picture for the moment... what can we do in the EU that we couldn't have done by joining NATO?


Imagine for a moment that the USA had not one, but fifty separate military forces, cooperating closely perhaps, but each under the political control of one of the fifty States.  Fifty different recruitment and training systems.  Fifty different procurement programs.  Fifty different budgeting systems.  Etc, etc. 
Does that answer your question?  



odyssey06 said:


> Germany and France took defence more seriously in the 1980s, pre EU.
> All the major military powers in Europe are in NATO, as are those most concerned about Russia such as Poland and Baltic States.


Sweden and Finland have concerns about Russia!  



odyssey06 said:


> Under NATO auspices they have co-ordination to minimise duplication and incompatibilities.


Yeah, but there's practical limits to that.  Economies of scale and so on.  



odyssey06 said:


> It's not Ireland, Sweden, Austria, Finland and Malta holding European defence back and it should be noted that Sweden as a neutral has a substantial military for its size and is increasing defence spending by 40%.


Proximity to Russia does that!


----------



## odyssey06

Baby boomer said:


> Imagine for a moment that the USA had not one, but fifty separate military forces, cooperating closely perhaps, but each under the political control of one of the fifty States.  Fifty different recruitment and training systems.  Fifty different procurement programs.  Fifty different budgeting systems.  Etc, etc.
> Does that answer your question?
> 
> 
> Sweden and Finland have concerns about Russia!
> 
> 
> Yeah, but there's practical limits to that.  Economies of scale and so on.
> 
> 
> Proximity to Russia does that!


I don't think it does. What matters is how seriously those states treat defence, co-ordination is secondary. Especially as training, procurement are all synchronised under NATO umbrella for all the major EU counties.
Yes, it might be more effectively co-ordinated under a single administration, but that's not the reason for the EU countries lack of military power.
You can only co-ordinate the forces\power that you have, and those EU countries just don't have enough, because they don't commit as much resources to defence as they did in the 1980s.
Sweden have taken independent action to significantly boost their military. Better EU co-ordination isn't going to beat a 40% increase in defence spending. Because of their proximity to Russia and the concerns that come with that. 
Concerns which Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and others don't have to anywhere the same extent. So Irish people don't strongly identify with the concerns of Latvians over Russia, anymore than Latvians (to take a random example) identified with Irish people over Northern Ireland.
It's not "the EU" holding things back, it's that the people of Europe don't identify with each other the way Irish people do, or Americans so, or Italians do, when push comes to shove. If they did, so would EU institutions reflect shared concerns.

And Irish people and Latvians have less in common in terms of ancestry, language, shared experiences than New Englanders had with Virginians pre the American Civil War.


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> We'll continue to hide behind our fake neutrality and give Russia and China a veto over whether we deploy our Defence Forces.


Bring back the Skibbereen Eagle.


----------



## roker

Purple said:


> The Orwellian vision of perpetual war being used to justify more centralised power and a lack of democracy is, I think, closer to the mark. The more chaos, the more power can be centralised.
> 
> Muslims make up close to 20% of Russia's population (the 8.5% figure usually cited is incorrect because Chechnya and Ingushetia were at war when the last census was taken and so are not part of the total given). Islam has been in Russia since the very start of the religion ( a few decades after Mohamed died) and Islamic Intellectuals were encouraged by Catherine the Great. They are nearly all Sunni and most of them live around Moscow and St. Petersburg.
> 
> The populations in the South are relatively small although they can certainly cause problems and yes, they are also predominantly Sunni with many of them being part of the Sufi sect. I find the religious history of the Caucuses and Central Asia in general fascinating.
> 
> 
> Yep, but the bigger picture is to ensure there is no gas pipeline to Europe through Syria and general instability in the region.


Interestingly they have no tolerance for any other religion


----------



## Leper

I have no great grá for Putin or Biden. When you cast out the imponderables and look on facts this is the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse. Russia feels threatened by Ukraine joining NATO. Earlier on RTE radio news I head a Ukraine diplomat to the UK saying that Ukraine "might" give up its wish to join NATO.

If this is what it takes to avoid a dreadful war then fair dues to Ukraine


----------



## Baby boomer

Hmmm, Czechoslovakia was dismembered to avoid another "dreadful war" and deliver peace in our time.

Didn't end well.


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> I have no great grá for Putin or Biden. When you cast out the imponderables and look on facts this is the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse. Russia feels threatened by Ukraine joining NATO. Earlier on RTE radio news I head a Ukraine diplomat to the UK saying that Ukraine "might" give up its wish to join NATO.
> 
> If this is what it takes to avoid a dreadful war then fair dues to Ukraine


The Cuban Missile Crisis was a move by Russia to get the USA to remove its Nuke's from Turkey. Despite the bravado and bluster from Kennedy the Russian's won that hands down.

This is a further attempt to undermine NATO and the broader Western Coalition. If Putin goes in it will be a small force, just small enough to divide the response of NATO members. 

Germany's monumentally stupid decision to abandon Nuclear power means they are reliant on Russia for energy so they are the weak link.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Undermine NATO or simply not want US tanks on their doorstep? I know you wouldn't think so based on our media here but do Russia not have a legitimate concern?


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> Undermine NATO or simply not want US tanks on their doorstep?


Both.


Ceist Beag said:


> I know you wouldn't think so based on our media here but do Russia not have a legitimate concern?


No, the US aren't going to invade Russia. Ukraine wants to be part of the free West, not a satellite State of Russia.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> Germany's monumentally stupid decision to abandon Nuclear power means they are reliant on Russia for energy so they are the weak link.


That was a major blunder by Merkel, and she should have known better.  Hopefully they will now reverse this decision in the interest of energy security.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> That was a major blunder by Merkel, and she should have known better.  Hopefully they will now reverse this decision in the interest of energy security.


And because Nuclear is the only viable alternative to hydrocarbons.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Purple said:


> And because Nuclear is the only viable alternative to hydrocarbons.


It would be if we knew what to do about the waste.


----------



## Baby boomer

Ceist Beag said:


> Undermine NATO or simply not want US tanks on their doorstep? I know you wouldn't think so based on our media here but do Russia not have a legitimate concern?


No.  The states bordering Russia are sovereign independent countries.  They are entitled to enter alliances with other like minded nations, and they are also entitled to station troops and weapons on their own territory.


----------



## Baby boomer

Sophrosyne said:


> It would be if we knew what to do about the waste.


The amount of waste is tiny, a minuscule speck on a very large planet, and capable of easy and secure long term storage.  Besides nuclear fission is only an interim technology, which will be superceded in coming decades by fusion and greater take-up of solar and offshore wind.


----------



## Firefly

As to when the Russians will invade, my money is on the days immediately after the Winter Olympics (20th Feb). Wouldn't be surprised if that's why Vlads went to China recently..


----------



## Sophrosyne

Baby boomer said:


> and capable of easy and secure long term storage.


Scientists are still seeking a solution for long-term storage.


----------



## michaelm

Firefly said:


> As to when the Russians will invade, my money is on the days immediately after the Winter Olympics (20th Feb). Wouldn't be surprised if that's why Vlads went to China recently..


My thinking also.


Sophrosyne said:


> Scientists are still seeking a solution for long-term storage.


The Finns are all over it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYpiK3W-g_0&t=253s


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> It would be if we knew what to do about the waste.


Current Fission technology ()uses existing nuclear waste as a fuel source. The net result is less waste. There is enough stored nuclear waste in the USA to power 80% of the world for the next thousand years.
The TWR is also intrinsically safe; if you cut the power the reaction stops.

Current power plants all use 1950's technology. Imagine how many plane crashes there'd be if we were still using 1950's planes.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> The amount of waste is tiny, a minuscule speck on a very large planet, and capable of easy and secure long term storage.  Besides nuclear fission is only an interim technology, which will be superceded in coming decades by fusion and greater take-up of solar and offshore wind.


We've been 30 years away from Fusion for the last 70 years.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Baby boomer said:


> No.  The states bordering Russia are sovereign independent countries.  They are entitled to enter alliances with other like minded nations, and they are also entitled to station troops and weapons on their own territory.


Of course they are. My point is, aren't Russia entitled to feel threatened by such a move, especially when such a move would allow the US to land on their border? NATO has increased substantially over the years and I can understand why Russia feel threatened by this. The stakes are not purely being racheted up by Russia here, the US are doing nothing to diffuse matters as far as I can see. I think we get a very one sided view of the conflict in our media.


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> Of course they are. My point is, aren't Russia entitled to feel threatened by such a move, especially when such a move would allow the US to land on their border? NATO has increased substantially over the years and I can understand why Russia feel threatened by this. The stakes are not purely being racheted up by Russia here, the US are doing nothing to diffuse matters as far as I can see. I think we get a very one sided view of the conflict in our media.


There are already five NATO members who have a land border with Russia (Norway, Estonia and Latvia, Lithuania, Poland) and three more who border the Black Sea (Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey). They have joined because they fear Russia. NATO exists because countries fear Russia and they have good reason for doing so.

Even Ireland has a formal relationship with NATO since 1999 when we joined the Partnership for Peace.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Baby boomer said:


> No.  The states bordering Russia are sovereign independent countries.  They are entitled to enter alliances with other like minded nations, and they are also entitled to station troops and weapons on their own territory.


Does Cuba have that right?


----------



## Ceist Beag

Purple said:


> There are already five NATO members who have a land border with Russia (Norway, Estonia and Latvia, Lithuania, Poland) and three more who border the Black Sea (Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey). They have joined because they fear Russia. NATO exists because countries fear Russia and they have good reason for doing so.
> 
> Even Ireland has a formal relationship with NATO since 1999 when we joined the Partnership for Peace.


I'm not for a second defending Russia or suggesting they have a right to invade Ukraine here or anything but it is worth considering both sides of the dispute. Fear works both ways. The Ukraine border with Russia almost doubles the combined total of the NATO countries who border it.


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> I'm not for a second defending Russia or suggesting they have a right to invade Ukraine here or anything but it is worth considering both sides of the dispute. Fear works both ways. The Ukraine border with Russia almost doubles the combined total of the NATO countries who border it.


Access to the Black Sea (Their Fleet at Sevastopol) and access to the Atlantic though the Bosporus is far more important. Turkey controls those and they are in NATO. Invading Russia through Ukraine would have little strategic merit.


----------



## odyssey06

Ceist Beag said:


> Of course they are. My point is, aren't Russia entitled to feel threatened by such a move, especially when such a move would allow the US to land on their border? NATO has increased substantially over the years and I can understand why Russia feel threatened by this. The stakes are not purely being racheted up by Russia here, the US are doing nothing to diffuse matters as far as I can see. I think we get a very one sided view of the conflict in our media.


Ukraine signed an agreement with Russia to give up its nuclear weapons it inherited in collapse of USSR and Russia agreed to respect Ukraines territory.
Russia already broke this agreement once invading Crimea.

A one sided view? How do you think the view looks from Ukraine.


----------



## Baby boomer

Purple said:


> We've been 30 years away from Fusion for the last 70 years.


Ha, ha!  Yes, there's an element of truth in that.  However, there has been progress.  It's getting there.....









						Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
					

A lab in Oxfordshire takes a big step towards harnessing the energy source of the stars.



					www.bbc.com


----------



## Baby boomer

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Does Cuba have that right?


It does.  It exercises it regularly.  (Or at least whenever the knackered, Putin-drained Russian economy can afford to send stuff over.)


----------



## Firefly

“We will not invade Ukraine unless we are provoked to do that,” said Vladimir Chizhov, who has represented Russia in Brussels since 2005. “If the Ukrainians launch an attack against Russia, you shouldn’t be surprised if we counterattack. _Or, if they start blatantly killing Russian citizens anywhere – Donbas or wherever_.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-of-right-to-counterattack-in-eastern-ukraine

Will a flase-flag be the result of Russia killing its own people? They do have form as we all know...


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> Ha, ha!  Yes, there's an element of truth in that.  However, there has been progress.  It's getting there.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
> 
> 
> A lab in Oxfordshire takes a big step towards harnessing the energy source of the stars.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com


This is worth a read.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Baby boomer said:


> Ha, ha! Yes, there's an element of truth in that. However, there has been progress. It's getting there.....


From the same link:

"There's huge uncertainty about when fusion power will be ready for commercialisation. One estimate suggests maybe 20 years. Then fusion would need to scale up, which would mean a delay of perhaps another few decades.

And here's the problem: the need for carbon-free energy is urgent - and the government has pledged that all electricity in the UK must be zero emissions by 2035. That means nuclear, renewables and energy storage.

In the words of my colleague Jon Amos: "Fusion is not a solution to get us to 2050 net zero. This is a solution to power society in the second half of this century.""


----------



## Baby boomer

Yes, indeed.  I remember writing an essay in first year engineering in the late 70s on fusion, tokamaks, the JET project and all that.  I think I forecast with youthful certainty that it would be proven to work by 1990 and  certainly operational by 2000!  

BTW, it took days of reading books and journals in the library to get what 30 minutes on the internet would give you today.  So what the hell do students spend their time doing these days?


----------



## joe sod

Purple said:


> Access to the Black Sea (Their Fleet at Sevastopol) and access to the Atlantic though the Bosporus is far more important. Turkey controls those and they are in NATO. Invading Russia through Ukraine would have little strategic merit.


Its amazing that Erdogen another hardman and quasi buddy of Putin's has been very quite through all this. It could be something to do with the huge fall in the Turkish lira and rampant inflation there, maybe he is trying to get back into Biden's good books again by reverting back to Turkey's traditional role in NATO during the cold war. Maybe he is hoping that Putin is about to make a big blunder and he can capitalise by increasing Turkey's role in Syria when Putin is preoccupied with Ukraine


----------



## Purple

joe sod said:


> Its amazing that Erdogen another hardman and quasi buddy of Putin's has been very quite through all this. It could be something to do with the huge fall in the Turkish lira and rampant inflation there, maybe he is trying to get back into Biden's good books again by reverting back to Turkey's traditional role in NATO during the cold war. Maybe he is hoping that Putin is about to make a big blunder and he can capitalise by increasing Turkey's role in Syria when Putin is preoccupied with Ukraine


There's over a half a million automotive jobs in Turkey, Most of those are employed in companies headquartered in NATO countries. Without trade with the West Turkey has no economy.


----------



## joe sod

I think Turkey also sent jets to Poland as part of the NATO response,  putin wouldn't have liked that because it means that even Turkey is also united even if it is just tokenism.  But Turkey responded before Germany did which is telling


----------



## Purple

joe sod said:


> I think Turkey also sent jets to Poland as part of the NATO response,  putin wouldn't have liked that because it means that even Turkey is also united even if it is just tokenism.  But Turkey responded before Germany did which is telling


The optics of German troops marching East wouldn't be good though, would they?


----------



## joe sod

Purple said:


> The optics of German troops marching East wouldn't be good though, would they?


They sent troops and tanks to Lithuania yesterday though but only after alot of pressure and arm twisting from colleagues especially in Eastern Europe.  I think the response by Nato has put putin on the backfoot and also that Ukraine is standing firm and staying calm


----------



## odyssey06

Still on the precipice of war according to Tom Clonan in the Journal









						Tom Clonan: The next 24 hours will be pivotal in the future of peace in Ukraine and Europe
					

The security analyst says a Russian invasion of Ukraine could mean the largest conventional ground offensive in Europe since World War II.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## Purple

Thanks @odyssey06 , very good analysis from Tom Clonan (as usual).


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> very good analysis from Tom Clonan (as usual).


Note for any Trinity graduates, I think he is standing in the by election for the Seanad, although maybe he is of more use elsewhere...


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Note for any Trinity graduates, I think he is standing in the by election for the Seanad, although maybe he is of more use elsewhere...


I'm one of the great unwashed so I am not good enough to participate in that undemocratic process.


----------



## Purple

To put this conflict, and the conventional military resources of Russia and the EU, into context, Russia spends around $65 Billion a year on its military and the EU (post Brexit) spends €270 Billion on its military. Now there is significant duplication within the EU and no command structure outside of NATO but, Ireland and a few others who shirk their responsibilities aside, we have a significant capability to defend ourselves.


----------



## Firefly

A potentially big day in European history today. Russia has invaded Ukraine


----------



## Purple

Watch the EU write a stern letter and prevaricate about sanctions.
Allowing Germany to become reliant on Russia for energy was an act of political and environmental vandalism.


----------



## Baby boomer

Firefly said:


> A potentially big day in European history today. Russia has invaded Ukraine


Russia has had an invasion force in Ukraine since 2014.  It expanded its footprint significantly today.


----------



## Purple

Putin plays a long game and it's not really about Ukraine.


----------



## Purple

If sanctions are put in place by the EU and USA, and they almost certainly will be, then China becomes the key player in all of this. They have their own reasons for having a strong policy in support of State sovereignty but they have also strengthened ties with Russia, don't like America but love Russian resources.
If China puts sanctions in place Russia is screwed economically.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> If sanctions are put in place by the EU and USA, and they almost certainly will be, then China becomes the key player in all of this.


China will be closely monitoring the reaction & sactions imposed by the west...should be very valuable information for them...


----------



## Sunny

Baby boomer said:


> Russia has had an invasion force in Ukraine since 2014.  It expanded its footprint significantly today.



That's just fake news. They are peacekeepers.....!

At least the UN Security Council are on top of things....I heard some great speeches last night.

I am just waiting to see Mick Wallace and Clare Daly think of the situation.....


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> That's just fake news. They are peacekeepers.....!
> 
> At least the UN Security Council are on top of things....I heard some great speeches last night.


We can always count on autocratic police states to do the right thing.



Sunny said:


> I am just waiting to see Mick Wallace and Clare Daly think of the situation.....


Didn't you know that it's a purely defensive invasion.

When people come out with the usual talk of how evil America is I ask them who they'd rather be the most powerful country in the world. Situations like this kind of answer that question for them.
Can you imagine what Russia would be up to if it was as powerful as America?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Good letter from Martin Mansergh in today's IT.  It draws a good analogy between Ireland having achieved its independence from GB and Ukraine having achieved independence from Russia.  No way would Dev have considered the possibility of allowing German troops and military materiel on Irish soil nor entering a treaty with Germany.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Purple said:


> When people come out with the usual talk of how evil America is I ask them who they'd rather be the most powerful country in the world. Situations like this kind of answer that question for them.


Well, Ireland of course.
Fintan the Tool, Mick, Clare and many others would prefer Russia.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Excellent contribution from Martin Kimani, Kenyan ambassador to the UN at the security council meeting on the Ukraine early this morning.


----------



## Baby boomer

Xi really has Putin by the round and tender bits.  All he has to do is squeeze, gently at first, and then more firmly.  Certainly, Mr Putin, we'd love to buy your nice cheap oil.  With Renmenbi.  Actually, that'll be Renmenbi credits, redeemable against our finest industrial products.  Do we have a deal?  Do I have a choice? No!


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Well, Ireland of course.


Do you really want to give the Shinners Nukes?


----------



## Peanuts20

Am I being overly cynical but when you have 750 people a day dying of Covid, less then half the population fully vacinated and an economy over dependent on one product (fossil fuels), invading the next door neighbour is both a great way of keeping fossil fuel prices high and distracting your subjects on the Pandemic?


----------



## Firefly

I can't help but wonder, if Trump was in still in charge? He'd probably be backing Vlads all the way..


----------



## EmmDee

Firefly said:


> I can't help but wonder, if Trump was in still in charge? He'd probably be backing Vlads all the way..



Very fine people on both sides... Or words to that effect


----------



## Purple

Well it's all kicked off properly in Ukraine.
Start digging your bunker and stock up on adult nappies.


----------



## Sunny

Really sad news to wake up to. Just so frightening for people of Ukraine.


----------



## odyssey06

In hindsight, UIkraine's membership to NATO needed to be presented as a fait accompli, with NATO troops in Ukraine during the annoucement - in response to Russia's virtual annexation of Belarus, if not sooner.
This dangling it as a future prospect gave Russia an urgency to attack.
Of course, with Putin in charge, the prospect of a free and prosperous Ukraine next door highlighting the true state of affairs in Russia for the ordinary person may have 'justified' an attack to him regardless of NATO.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Some US commentators expect that Putin will launch a massive cyber-attack which may reach Poland, a NATO country.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> In hindsight, Ukraine's membership to NATO needed to be presented as a fait accompli, with NATO troops in Ukraine during the announcement - in response to Russia's virtual annexation of Belarus, if not sooner.
> This dangling it as a future prospect gave Russia an urgency to attack.
> Of course, with Putin in charge, the prospect of a free and prosperous Ukraine next door highlighting the true state of affairs in Russia for the ordinary person may have 'justified' an attack to him regardless of NATO.


Ukraine was the breadbasket of the USSR. It produces around 10% of the worlds Grain. 

We in the West have to make a decisions about whether we continue to feed the beasts that want to destroy us. 
We have participated in the creation of a Chinese totalitarian police State. We in Europe have done all we can to make us reliant on Russia for energy. Both countries are implacably opposed to the core ideals of our way of life. What on earth are we doing?


----------



## odyssey06

This could be over quickly if Kiev falls... most of the Ukraine army seems to be in the east, and outflanked by Russians troops coming from Belarus and paratroops taking airport near Kiev.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> This could be over quickly if Kiev falls... most of the Ukraine army seems to be in the east, and outflanked by Russians troops coming from Belarus and paratroops taking airport near Kiev.


Will Putin declare the war over on an Aircraft Carrier?


----------



## odyssey06

Heavy fighting around Chernobyl.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> Will Putin declare the war over on an Aircraft Carrier?


I think a train seeing as he seems to want to hark back to 1914 or 1946 borders or their superset.


----------



## Sophrosyne

His aim appears to be to destabilize the west, topple the Ukrainian government and replace it with a puppet controlled by Moscow.

Putin has become very isolated - even in Russia - and surrounds himself only with sycophants.

Let's hope Russia will take some action to remove him.


----------



## Firefly

Reports of the first hospital hit - the Russians really are pathetic











						Fears Moscow plans to encircle and threaten Kyiv – as it happened
					

US secretary of state says Russia plans widespread human rights abuses; Ukrainian spokesman condemns ‘totally pointless attack’




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Firefly

Sophrosyne said:


> His aim appears to be to destabilize the west, topple the Ukrainian government and replace it with a puppet controlled by Moscow.


Maybe he's happy to put up with sanctions until they inevitably ease, before taking the next chunk off the old USSR back into the fold?


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> Reports of the first hospital hit - the Russians really are pathetic


Yea, but their army is far from pathetic.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> Yea, but their army is far from pathetic.


Unfortunately, yes and with 150-160k of them lined up we could be in for a pretty sad few months.


----------



## Peanuts20

Some protests starting to break out across at least 2 cities in Russia, I expect they'll be shut down quite quickly but if the oligarchs assets are seized and the public reaction, when the bodybags start coming in, turns against Putin, then he could run out of domestic allies quickly


----------



## michaelm

The situation is sickening, if predictable.  The West should impose total sanctions now.


----------



## Firefly

Looking at the map of Europe, I think Ukraine is the only country bordering Russia that's not in NATO (apart from Belarus which is already in Putin's control), so you would imagine that if/when Ukraine is taken over, that will be it. But I honestly think Putin has a few screws loose..


----------



## Sunny

Firefly said:


> Looking at the map of Europe, I think Ukraine is the only country bordering Russia that's not in NATO (apart from Belarus which is already in Putin's control), so you would imagine that if/when Ukraine is taken over, that will be it. But I honestly think Putin has a few screws loose..



It won't be it. They don't need force to destabilise countries. I don't think we can delude ourselves anymore. They want the USSR back. Nothing less. A line needs to be drawn in the sand. We need to stop pretending that States like Russia and China are anything but a blight on democracy.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Firefly said:


> Looking at the map of Europe, I think Ukraine is the only country bordering Russia that's not in NATO (apart from Belarus which is already in Putin's control), so you would imagine that if/when Ukraine is taken over, that will be it. But I honestly think Putin has a few screws loose..


NATO forces are already on standby on its borders are being incrementally strengthened.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Firefly said:


> Looking at the map of Europe, I think Ukraine is the only country bordering Russia that's not in NATO (apart from Belarus which is already in Putin's control), so you would imagine that if/when Ukraine is taken over, that will be it. But I honestly think Putin has a few screws loose..


Any country not in NATO is fair game.  I'm glad that we...


----------



## odyssey06

Firefly said:


> Looking at the map of Europe, I think Ukraine is the only country bordering Russia that's not in NATO (apart from Belarus which is already in Putin's control), so you would imagine that if/when Ukraine is taken over, that will be it. But I honestly think Putin has a few screws loose..


Moldova maybe... there is Transnistria issue so on Russian radar


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> The situation is sickening, if predictable.  The West should impose total sanctions now.


The problem is that Ukraine supplies 10%of the world's grain and Russia another good chunk of it. If there are total sanctions it will disproportionately impact on the poorest countries in the world, particularly North African countries which are heavily reliant on that grain. Food makes up around 50% of their CPI basket and with countries like Sudan and Ethiopia already facing famines it would cause a much bigger disaster. Of course the solution is for Middle Eastern Oil Producers to give them money at 0% interest from their oil price bonanza but that's unlikely to happen.

Expelling Russia from the SWIFT banking system will cause them to turn off Europe's gas supply. Given that Ireland has no facility to receive Liquified Gas and we get most of our supply from a single pipeline from outside the EU we are particularly vulnerable.


----------



## Peanuts20

Talking to some Polish colleagues yesterday, lots of family members and friends who are in their military reserve are being called up.


----------



## odyssey06

Talk online that Russia may lay siege to Kiev rather than risk trying to capture it, looking to basically put Ukraine back into vassal status with a puppet regime in charge.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Talk online that Russia may lay siege to Kiev rather than risk trying to capture it, looking to basically put Ukraine back into vassal status with a puppet regime in charge.


I hears an analyst say that Russia will seek to impose a new Federal constitution on Ukraine which contains an explicit statement that they will not join NATO. If they do then the Tanks will roll again.


----------



## Firefly

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Any country not in NATO is fair game.  I'm glad that we...


Northern Ireland is in NATO


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> I hears an analyst say that Russia will seek to impose a new Federal constitution on Ukraine which contains an explicit statement that they will not join NATO. If they do then the Tanks will roll again.


Something along those lines reported by BBC...

a source in Ukrainian counter-intelligence has told Ukrainska Pravda website details of Russia's plan to take control of the city to take control of the country. It's all unconfirmed but this is what they report Russia wants to do:


Seize a major Kyiv airport and air traffic control to allow 10,000 troops to land, distracting the military with attacks on the border
Sabotage Kyiv's electricity and communications to cause panic
Provoke an exodus of refugees to prevent Ukrainian armed forces moving around
Seize government buildings including cabinet and parliament and capture the state leadership, forcing them to sign an agreement on Russian terms
Bring in pro-Russian leaders and split Ukraine into two parts, like East and West Germany


----------



## Firefly

odyssey06 said:


> Something along those lines reported by BBC...
> 
> a source in Ukrainian counter-intelligence has told Ukrainska Pravda website details of Russia's plan to take control of the city to take control of the country. It's all unconfirmed but this is what they report Russia wants to do:
> 
> 
> Seize a major Kyiv airport and air traffic control to allow 10,000 troops to land, distracting the military with attacks on the border
> Sabotage Kyiv's electricity and communications to cause panic
> Provoke an exodus of refugees to prevent Ukrainian armed forces moving around
> Seize government buildings including cabinet and parliament and capture the state leadership, forcing them to sign an agreement on Russian terms
> Bring in pro-Russian leaders and split Ukraine into two parts, like East and West Germany


The Russians are some peace-keepers


----------



## Purple

I'd say China is watching with interest and Taiwan is watching with trepidation.


----------



## Purple

Putin may consider Ukraine part of Russia but the people there don't. 
Even back in the 1990 election for the Soviet Congress of People’s Deputies, back when Gorbachev's reforms had allowed the first semi-free election in their history, Ukraine voted solidly for pro-independence candidates (as did Georgia). 

It's interesting that in the same election Russian Nationalists won enough seats in the Russian Congress of People’s Deputies to narrowly elect Yeltsin as chairman. A few months later that legislature voted for Russian Sovereignty from the USSR. Just like in the UK the Union could survive Nationalism in it's peripheral regions but not at its core. 
Therefore it is Russia, and not Ukraine or anyone else, which caused the collapse of the Russian/Soviet Empire.


----------



## Purple

Is it now time for us to decide if we stand with democracy or continue out cowardly policy of unalignment, often mistakenly referred to as neutrality?


----------



## Leper

Purple said:


> Is it now time for us to decide if we stand with democracy or continue out cowardly policy of unalignment, often mistakenly referred to as neutrality?


I'm sticking to supporting our neutrality. If you don't agree I'm sure Ukraine will be delighted to accept you as a volunteer soldier to fight against Russian might.


----------



## Baby boomer

Leper said:


> I'm sticking to supporting our neutrality.


Why is "neutrality" against evil so meritorious?  Genuine question.  I agree with a lot of your posts but I genuinely don't get this neutrality fetish that a lot of Irish people elevate to the ultimate virtue signal. 



Leper said:


> If you don't agree I'm sure Ukraine will be delighted to accept you as a volunteer soldier to fight against Russian might.


We have already suffered the HSE cyber attack which originated Kremlinside.  Then there's the incursions into Irish controlled civil airspace, and the military exercises in our EEZ.  We simply don't have the option of being neutral.


----------



## johnwilliams

finland also borders russia reports says he is also eyeing there as well .(was part of russia old days) plus there is  strategic island south of sweden (swedish territory)  correct me if i am wrong i think it was called gotland or something like that
see number of countries have banned all fights from russia (aeroflot). actually one  has cancelled all airlines flights from what i hear ,
also hear a lot of sport competitions due to be in russia now withdrawn .russia may have complete control  over what  is broadcast on tv about ukraine  ,but the reason/purpose  for these  cancellations will get out to people quickly i think?
quick question who in belorus is under sanction ,think every  gov Politian there need to be hit with everything we got  including swift,  they might then cause a few problems i use words (red tape delays)  for russian convoys crossing from north


----------



## Leper

Baby boomer said:


> Why is "neutrality" against evil so meritorious?  Genuine question.  I agree with a lot of your posts but I genuinely don't get this neutrality fetish that a lot of Irish people elevate to the ultimate virtue signal.
> 
> 
> We have already suffered the HSE cyber attack which originated Kremlinside.  Then there's the incursions into Irish controlled civil airspace, and the military exercises in our EEZ.  We simply don't have the option of being neutral.


Ireland's Neutrality was hard won. It wasn't given to us and history shows we won it. The sooner other nations copy what we have done regarding wars the sooner we'll have some kind of world peace.

The war in Ukraine like the Middle East conflict, like any African country civil war and Asian difficulties are all about land. No land, even in Belfast, Dublin and Kiev is worth the shedding of a single drop of blood, let alone dying for.

So Putin is extending his territory and being not much different to Hitler, Napoleon, the Brits, the Yanks etc thinks he is doing the right thing. Putin is a terrorist and terrorists in the long run don't win. Putin may not be beaten by military means, but a determined people will make him look stupid and eventually the people of Ukraine will achieve this.

But, here on a good forum (called Ask About Money, no less!) we have some people  thinking Ireland should cease its entitled status of being Neutral. They want to send our army, bit of a navy and air corps to fight Russian Might. Our army has been underpaid for years, treated disgracefully and is a "laugh" in many an Irish town, Our army had to depend on their wives and girlfriends to fight their pay and conditions claims which has taken years and is still ongoing. Some of the female members of our army have waited years to have alleged rape claims from within our forces even to be heard.

And still you want them to fight the might of Russia . . . ask their wives and girlfriends first.


----------



## Leper

johnwilliams said:


> finland also borders russia reports says he is also eyeing there as well .(was part of russia old days) plus there is  strategic island south of sweden (swedish territory)  correct me if i am wrong i think it was called gotland or something like that
> see number of countries have banned all fights from russia (aeroflot). actually one  has cancelled all airlines flights from what i hear ,
> also hear a lot of sport competitions due to be in russia now withdrawn .russia may have complete control  over what  is broadcast on tv about ukraine  ,but the reason/purpose  for these  cancellations will get out to people quickly i think?
> quick question who in belorus is under sanction ,think every  gov Politian there need to be hit with everything we got  including swift,  they might then cause a few problems i use words (red tape delays)  for russian convoys crossing from north


John, Please use a few capital letters, commas, full-stops and divide some paragraphs which will make your post more readable and understandable.


----------



## Baby boomer

Leper said:


> Ireland's Neutrality was hard won. It wasn't given to us and history shows we won it.


True enough.  We had to, er, go to war against what was then the world's largest empire to win the right to be neutral.  (John Lennon's apt comments on virginity come to mind!)  Or, equally, the right not to be neutral.  They're complementary rights. 



Leper said:


> The sooner other nations copy what we have done regarding wars the sooner we'll have some kind of world peace.


Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya!  Great thought.  Now go sell it to Vlad, Xi, Kim and the approximately 80% of the world's nations that aren't democracies where the military is under civil control.




Leper said:


> The war in Ukraine like the Middle East conflict, like any African country civil war and Asian difficulties are all about land. No land, even in Belfast, Dublin and Kiev is worth the shedding of a single drop of blood, let alone dying for.


That's a pretty extreme pacifist position.  So when the guys with tanks show up and want some of your land, you should just..... give it to them??  Because that's the inescapable logic of your position.  And then, what do you do when they swallow the first bit and demand more.  (Anschluss, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Poland.......)



Leper said:


> So Putin is extending his territory and being not much different to Hitler, Napoleon, the Brits, the Yanks etc thinks he is doing the right thing. Putin is a terrorist and terrorists in the long run don't win.


Actually they do sometimes.  And the long run can be very long indeed.



Leper said:


> Putin may not be beaten by military means, but a determined people will make him look stupid and eventually the people of Ukraine will achieve this.


One can only hope.  Because we've got no better ideas......



Leper said:


> But, here on a good forum (called Ask About Money, no less!) we have some people  thinking Ireland should cease its entitled status of being Neutral. They want to send our army, bit of a navy and air corps to fight Russian Might. Our army has been underpaid for years, treated disgracefully and is a "laugh" in many an Irish town, Our army had to depend on their wives and girlfriends to fight their pay and conditions claims which has taken years and is still ongoing. Some of the female members of our army have waited years to have alleged rape claims from within our forces even to be heard.
> 
> And still you want them to fight the might of Russia . . . ask their wives and girlfriends first.


Very salient points.  We have treated our armed forces disgracefully, and harmed them as individuals and us as a society in so doing.  There's a very instructive article in the Irish Times today about how Finland and Ireland deal with our respective neutralities. Theirs is real. Ours is makey-uppy.  They have a navy of 200 ships.  With territorial waters *thirty times their size,* we have nine.  Not all of which can put to sea for want of crew.  They're about to buy a couple of squadrons of F-35s, the most advanced warplanes ever.  Our only jets are trainers with tiny machine guns mounted.  It's pathetic. 

 Ireland and Finland: Similar countries with vastly different security approaches (via @IrishTimes) https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...astly-different-security-approaches-1.4812357


----------



## Leper

Pacified means will defeat Putin eventually. Ghandi and Fitt are testament to these. Waging an all-out war on Putin is playing into his hands.


----------



## Baby boomer

Leper said:


> Pacified means will defeat Putin eventually. Ghandi and Fitt are testament to these. Waging an all-out war on Putin is playing into his hands.


I wish I had your optimism!  Putin has nibbled away South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia.  And what did the West do?  Deepened trade links, opened NordStream 1 and went to his winter Olympics.  Then he nibbled Crimea and the Donbas.  And we went to his world cup and built NordStream 2.  If you're Putin, you gotta be thinking the West are wimps who'll accept anything from him.  Which is why he's back for Ukraine Mark 2.

What'll be next?  Moldova, perhaps?  What will we do when he invades Lithuania? Does he seem afraid of the consequences?

If you meet bullying with weakness, you get more bullying.  And Gandhi and Fitt were dealing with a democracy where public opinion mattered.


----------



## Leper

Although I have no qualifications in Psychiatry I have no doubt Vladimir Putin is mad. If anybody saw last evening's interview on RTE News at 6.00 pm with the Ambassador to Ireland of Russia you'd have no doubt he is mad also. If he isn't mad then the situation in the Russian Embassy is worse than I thought and the Ambassador is a downright liar. I believe Ireland's first "shot" should be to expel the Russian Ambassador and his entire delegation immediately.

Then our government should press for more sanctions and treat Russia like lepers. We need the EU to row in behind this too. An armed response is futile and is what Putin wants.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Hadn't Fintan the Tool a point?  Putin remembers Napoleon and Hitler. That's what I like about the Tool, he is so capable of thinking outside the box.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Leper said:


> I believe Ireland's first "shot" should be to expel the Russian Ambassador and his entire delegation immediately.


Wouldn't that be rather incompatible with neutrality?
We kept open the German Embassy throughout Hitler's conquest of one innocent country after another and throughout the Holocaust.  Dev offered his condolences to the German Ambassador on the suicide of Adolf.
A bit ironic to expel the Russian Ambassador at the first stages of the de-nazification of Ukraine.


----------



## odyssey06

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Wouldn't that be rather incompatible with neutrality?
> We kept open the German Embassy throughout Hitler's conquest of one innocent country after another and throughout the Holocaust.  Dev offered his condolences to the German Ambassador on the suicide of Adolf.
> A bit ironic to expel the Russian Ambassador at the first stages of the de-nazification of Ukraine.


Did that German ambassador brief the press with disinformation though... I think the Russian ambassador should be expelled for his specific conduct.


----------



## odyssey06

Reports that Turkey will close Black Sea straits to Russian warships, it seems to be more of a symbolic rule as they cannot stop 'returning' ships.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Putin and his lackeys would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to be aware of soaring worldwide revulsion.

Eventually, it will reach ordinary Russians, that the global community want nothing to do with Russia under his leadership or want Russian participation in any international events, regardless of their nature.

The few who do can dictate their own terms.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

odyssey06 said:


> Did that German ambassador brief the press with disinformation though...


You're probably right.  Kept Dev posted on the latest Holocaust count I'm sure, a man whose word you could trust.


----------



## odyssey06

Duke of Marmalade said:


> You're probably right.  Kept Dev posted on the latest Holocaust count I'm sure, a man whose word you could trust.


I don't think the German ambassador had an intelligence section in his basement bunker.


----------



## odyssey06

Not sure how much to read into Ukraine holding up the current Russian advances... it seems like the Russian forces (except maybe the paratroops) aren't the cream \ elite of the Russian army with their latest tanks etc... but in the first wave a lot of the Russian forces seem to be made up Afghanistan era equipment.

Maybe this is a softening up phase... get ukraine to run down defensive weapons on the B team.


----------



## Baby boomer

Leper said:


> Although I have no qualifications in Psychiatry I have no doubt Vladimir Putin is mad.


Yes. So was Hitler.  So what?  Still are evil bastards that need stopping.



Leper said:


> If anybody saw last evening's interview on RTE News at 6.00 pm with the Ambassador to Ireland of Russia you'd have no doubt he is mad also.


An ambassador is a man sent abroad to lie for his country.  Filatov makes a fine ambassador!



Leper said:


> If he isn't mad then the situation in the Russian Embassy is worse than I thought and the Ambassador is a downright liar. I believe Ireland's first "shot" should be to expel the Russian Ambassador and his entire delegation immediately.


Yes, but ideally better done by the EU in a coordinated act.



Leper said:


> Then our government should press for more sanctions and treat Russia like lepers. We need the EU to row in behind this too.


Yes, the sports boycott is a particularly effective tool.  Don't underestimate it's influence on South Africa back in the day.




Leper said:


> An armed response is futile and is what Putin wants.


Agreed.


----------



## odyssey06

Germany and Hungary on board with cutting off Russian banks from SWIFT

Reports that the financial director of Gazprom has been found dead by 'suicide' in St Petersburg


----------



## odyssey06

Ukraine military seems to be hitting 'soft' secondary supply units leaving the spearhead armoured units isolated and short of fuel, resupply etc


----------



## michaelm

I am in awe at the resolve of Ukraine.  The West must continue to turn the sanctions screw and flood weapons and supplies into Ukraine. Sanctions should remain while Putin remains (not just in Ukraine).  Methinks this whole misadventure is the beginning of the end for the increasingly unhinged Putin.  Hopefully he will be hoist with his own petard.  A trip to The Hague would be ideal.


----------



## cremeegg

Baby boomer said:


> Why is "neutrality" against evil so meritorious?  Genuine question.  I agree with a lot of your posts but I genuinely don't get this neutrality fetish that a lot of Irish people elevate to the ultimate virtue signal.


Its a good question with a simple answer.

Before looking at that answer first the wrong answer needs to be gotten out of the way. The wrong answer is that we are/should be neutral because they are both as bad as each other. Lets call that answer the Daly/Wallace answer.

While I do recognise that Russia has genuine concerns and the US is not a disinterested observer, there can be no question that western society is far preferable for all its faults and the invasion of Ukraine is inexcusable. The Daly/Wallace answer is nonsense. Many people seeing that the Daly/Wallace answer is nonsense think that there is no good argument for Irelands neutrality, that's not the case.

The simple answer is Irelands self interest is best served by staying out of the way. My father-in-law was taken as slave labour to a factory in Germany by the Nazis, many of his compatriots fared far worse. My grandfather spent WW2 'eating cabbage and drinking tea' at his pre-war job. Both were citizens of small neutral states, one in the way of the Nazi advance, one from Mayo.

Some people feel it would be more honourable for Ireland to join NATO, carry our share of the Wests defence. That at present we are benefiting from its protection without carrying our share of the load. That is an much nonsense as the Daly/Wallace argument. The RAF doesn't patrol Irish airspace because they love us, they do it for their own security, we gat the benefit. We are benefitting from our geographic location. For once in our history, lucky for us. Not taking advantage of the security benefits of our position would be as foolish as not taking advantage of our beautiful beaches or agricultural potential.

Of course things change.


Baby boomer said:


> We have already suffered the HSE cyber attack which originated Kremlinside.  Then there's the incursions into Irish controlled civil airspace, and the military exercises in our EEZ.  We simply don't have the option of being neutral.


I would absolutely agree that we need to take our cybersecurity seriously. We have no natural advantage there. I would like to see a robust independent Irish cybersecurity system.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@cremeegg I agree that our selfish interests are to hide behind NATO's shield and save the dosh.  Similarly, we should not be top of the class in fighting climate change, we can't make any difference and should piggy back off the big guys.


----------



## Baby boomer

@cremeegg @Duke of Marmalade

Yeah, I see your points.  Sort of anyway.  However, we are in the EU and there's a pretty strong consensus we'll remain.  Now the EU is somewhat more than a collection of independent sovereign states, while also being somewhat less than a unitary federal state.  It is however, heading irrevocably toward the latter rather than the former.  If anything the current crisis will only accelerate this movement.  This is a good thing and we should not fear it - we should embrace it.  The EU is perhaps the most impressive model of supranational political and economic governance ever invented, built as it is on peace, cooperation, democracy, human rights and economic development.  While admittedly not perfect, the EU has been good for the Continent as a whole and EU membership has been good to us and we need to play our part in defending it.  In practice, and until a fully fledged EU army emerges - and it will - that means NATO.  It's the most moral choice we could make.  It's not about aggression, it's about joint deterrence through overwhelming military strength.  We have a (small) part to play.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@Baby boomer  I agree with you on the EU.  I'm no IRexiteer and indeed see the EU as  a  potential bulwark against the loonies taking over here.  The 4 Irish MEPs who voted against an EU resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine were Clare, Mick, Ming and...SF's Chris McManus.
I am not sure of our moral duty to be good EU citizens; we resisted to the very end attempts to curb our tax piracy.


----------



## Itchy

While its logical to examine what our contribution to European security could be in the absence of 'military non-alignment', it is not helpful to the debate to describe a state of 'non-neutrality' as Ireland in NATO, in my opinion. They are not the same. Its a legitimate position to not declare ourselves as neutral and to also not be in NATO. 

We first need to recognise the amorality our so-called 'neutrality' and the futility of the structures that support it (e.g. the triple-lock). We can should make a meaningful contribution to collective defence and security. But the debate at least need to be grounded in the realities of the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.


----------



## Itchy

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @Baby boomer  The 4 Irish MEPs who voted against an EU resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine were Clare, Mick, Ming and...SF's Chris McManus.



To be fair to Ming, he did say that despite almost universal condemnation of the invasion of UA, he thought that his vote could 'possibly make it [the situation] worse'. Which makes you wonder why he votes for anything?

Ironically, the views of those MEPs who shill for Putin and of the "anti-war" movement here and in the UK, have emboldened the actions that will have all but guaranteed the militarisation of the European continent for generations to come.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am not sure of our moral duty to be good EU citizens; we resisted to the very end attempts to curb out tax piracy.


I’ll leave it to others to slug out the neutrality issue, however regarding your point about “tax piracy” what we quite rightly resisted was being wrongly accused, when it was clear that it was and still is, the US tax regime for US multinationals that is the root cause of the problem.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Latest from Putin:

“Senior officials of the leading NATO countries also allow aggressive statements against our country; therefore, I order the minister of Defence and the chief of the general staff [of the Russian armed forces] to transfer the deterrence forces of the Russian army to a special mode of combat duty,” Putin said in televised comments.

“Western countries aren’t only taking unfriendly actions against our country in the economic sphere, but top officials from leading NATO members made aggressive statements regarding our country.”


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Sophrosyne said:


> I’ll leave it to others to slug out the neutrality issue, however regarding your point about “tax piracy” what we quite rightly resisted was being wrongly accused, when it was clear that it was and still is, the US tax regime for US multinationals that is the root cause of the problem.


The whole history of Irish corporation tax and the EU has been one of cute hoorism - and more thanks (I mean it ) to Charlie for bequeathing us that culture.
It started with a differential tax of 12.5% for IFSC companies and 40% for domestic companies.  We knew that was against the spirit if not the letter of the ECC, or whatever it was called, but we made them force us to come into line and left it till we had no option.  By then we realised that the huge wins we were getting from our "tax haven" status would more than compensate for the loss of domestic corporation tax.  Good move, Ireland.  
We have resisted ever since a fairer corporation tax rate base and indeed any move on our predatory rate.  Dragged screaming to be good EU citizens.  Good move, Ireland.

Then we have the VRT on cars.  I know it is not discriminatory, it also applies to Irish manufactured cars.  Good move, Ireland.

Maybe the US is responsible for the sort of situation at Apple but I don't think we have anybody else to blame for the "double Irish".


----------



## odyssey06

The EU - not individual members - is to purchase and send weapons to Ukraine.
This is unprecedented.


----------



## odyssey06

Seen on twitter... @PaulSonne

Russian bank Tinkoff now offering to exchange rubles for dollars at a rate of 171 rubles per dollar. It was 83 before the European/US announcement about targeting the Russian central bank. Currency market formally opens tomorrow. This is brutal.


----------



## odyssey06

Kyiv is now surrounded according to reports from Ukranian side - no evacuation of refugees possible at present.


----------



## odyssey06

*Ireland will not contribute financially to weapons for Ukraine*, after the EU announced it would close its airspace to Russian airlines, fund weapons purchases to Ukraine and ban some pro-Kremlin media outlets.

The country has a longstanding policy of military neutrality.

A Department of Foreign Affairs spokesperson told PA news agency: “The EU Foreign Affairs Council will approve a package of assistance to the Ukrainian armed forces consisting of both lethal and non-lethal military equipment.



> “The latter component will include supplies such as personal protective equipment, medical kits and fuel.





> “In line with the commitment in the Programme for Government, Ireland will constructively abstain from the lethal equipment elements and will not contribute financially to this aspect.


“Instead, we will provide a corresponding contribution to the provision of non-lethal support. Our understanding is that a number of Member States, including Austria and Malta, are likely to take the same approach.”


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> Ireland's Neutrality was hard won.


We aren’t neutral, we are unaligned. We don’t have armed forces to deploy but we are a rich Western country whose security is underpinned by the British, Americans and NATO. It is hypocritical and cowardly to benefit from that investment and risk of human life by others without even contributing financially, or backing those who we ask to fight on our behalf to defend our freedom, with our words or political capital.

Sometimes it’s about right and wrong.
Sometimes you have to pick a side.
This is one of those times.


----------



## michaelm

odyssey06 said:


> Kyiv is now surrounded according to reports from Ukranian side - no evacuation of refugees possible at present.





			https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60542877
		


Not long ago, we reported that Kyiv's mayor had told Associated Press that his city was "encircled" by Russian forces.
Now Vitali Klitschko is saying that is not the case, and it is in fact "disinformation".


----------



## Itchy

odyssey06 said:


> *Ireland will not contribute financially to weapons for Ukraine*, after the EU announced it would close its airspace to Russian airlines, fund weapons purchases to Ukraine and ban some pro-Kremlin media outlets.
> 
> The country has a longstanding policy of military neutrality.
> 
> A Department of Foreign Affairs spokesperson told PA news agency: “The EU Foreign Affairs Council will approve a package of assistance to the Ukrainian armed forces consisting of both lethal and non-lethal military equipment.
> 
> 
> 
> “Instead, we will provide a corresponding contribution to the provision of non-lethal support. Our understanding is that a number of Member States, including Austria and Malta, are likely to take the same approach.”



The Russian economy is going to collapse tomorrow. This will get worse before it gets better. We have equipment that they need: Javelin, SRAAW, RBS 70's. We have a *policy *of military neutrality that no government ever defined and no citizen ever voted for, past or present. A mealy-mouthed cop out.

Neutral Sweden on the other hand:



> Sweden has announced it will send military equipment and other aid to Ukraine.
> 
> Announcing the move, Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson said it would be the first time Sweden had sent weapons to a country in conflict since the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939.
> 
> She said the shipments would include 5,000 single-use anti-tank launchers, 5,000 pieces of body armour, and 5,000 helmets as well as 135,000 ration packs.
> 
> "My conclusion is now that our security is best served by us supporting Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russia," Andersson said. (Source: BBC)



Neutral Finland:



> The Government also granted Estonia a licence to re-export to Ukraine artillery guns and their ammunition, which Estonia had previously purchased from Finland.











						Finland sends additional aid to Ukraine
					






					valtioneuvosto.fi


----------



## odyssey06

Sweden and Finland attended the recent NATO meeting. Sweden has a significant military and Finland could well join NATO as a result of this crisis. Theirs is an armed neutrality.


----------



## Purple

Itchy said:


> Neutral Sweden on the other hand:
> 
> 
> 
> Neutral Finland:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finland sends additional aid to Ukraine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> valtioneuvosto.fi


Neutral but not cowardly. See, it can be done.


----------



## odyssey06

michaelm said:


> https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60542877
> 
> 
> 
> Not long ago, we reported that Kyiv's mayor had told Associated Press that his city was "encircled" by Russian forces.
> Now Vitali Klitschko is saying that is not the case, and it is in fact "disinformation".


Thanks for the clarification... bbc reported it seemed to come from his twitter feed. Was it hacked I wonder.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Sweden and Finland attended the recent NATO meeting. Sweden has a significant military and Finland could well join NATO as a result of this crisis. Theirs is an armed neutrality.


There’s no such thing as an unarmed neutrality.


----------



## Leper

Purple said:


> We aren’t neutral, we are unaligned. We don’t have armed forces to deploy but we are a rich Western country whose security is underpinned by the British, Americans and NATO. It is hypocritical and cowardly to benefit from that investment and risk of human life by others without even contributing financially or backing those who we ask to fight on our behalf to defend our freedom with our words or political capital.
> 
> Sometimes it’s about right and wrong.
> Sometimes you have to pick a side.
> This is one of those times.


Neutral or unaligned - there's no difference except for contrived semantics. and words like "cowardly" are not relevant to us. We are either militarily involved or not militarily involved. There is no "in between" and consequently, we are not militarily obliged to enter any situation. OK! We love Ukraine and we hope the situation there will be resolved asap. We can't choose for whose benefit/loss we can change our neutrality/unalignment. Forget about "sometimes" and our rights and wrongs depend on where we sit and we don't have to pick any side in which we must send military support. We are peace keepers, not belligerents.  That does not mean we are deserting countries like Ukraine.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> There’s no such thing as an unarmed neutrality.


We seem to be trying it here. When it comes to our airspace we are barely armed.


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> Neutral or unaligned - there's no difference except for contrived semantics.


They are completely different. We are unable to defend ourselves so we are not neutral. 


Leper said:


> and words like "cowardly" are not relevant to us.


They are not relevant for those who have no sense of right or wrong, no ethics and no basic human compassion. 


Leper said:


> We are either militarily involved or not militarily involved. There is no "in between" and consequently, we are not militarily obliged to enter any situation.


Of corse there is an in between. We contribute to the EU budget and the EU itself is spending money on weapons so we are already militarily involved. We are cowards in that we won’t directly back that EU position. 


Leper said:


> OK! We love Ukraine and we hope the situation there will be resolved asap. We can't choose for whose benefit/loss we can change our neutrality/unalignment. Forget about "sometimes" and our rights and wrongs depend on where we sit and we don't have to pick any side in which we must send military support.


We don’t have to, we can continue to be cowards, we can continue to be hypocrites. It’s what we should do that I’m talking about. 


Leper said:


> We are peace keepers, not belligerents.


A belligerent is someone who attacks someone else. The person who goes to the aid of the victim is not a belligerent. 


Leper said:


> That does not mean we are deserting countries like Ukraine.


That’s exactly what it means. It is shameful, despicable.


----------



## Purple

I wonder if we’ll accept refugees from Ukraine or we will turn them away like we did the Jews fleeing the Nazis. After all, we are neutral… 
I presume we’ll be safe from the fallout if this turns nuclear, after all we are neutral.


----------



## Itchy

Leper, I'm looking forward to seeing your letter to the Ukrainians, try the editor of the Kyiv Independent Olga Rudenko *olga.kyivindependent at gmail.com*.

Ma'am,



Leper said:


> We are either militarily involved or not militarily involved. There is no "in between" and consequently, we are not militarily obliged to enter any situation. OK! We love Ukraine and we hope the situation there will be resolved asap. We can't choose for whose benefit/loss we can change our neutrality/unalignment. Forget about "sometimes" and our rights and wrongs depend on where we sit and we don't have to pick any side in which we must send military support. We are peace keepers, not belligerents.  That does not mean we are deserting countries like Ukraine.



Best regards,

(Some of) the people of Ireland


----------



## Purple

I’m a child of the 70’s. This is, by far, the most significant political/military event of my lifetime.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Duke of Marmalade said:


> he whole history of Irish corporation tax and the EU has been one of cute hoorism - and more thanks (I mean it ) to Charlie for bequeathing us that culture.
> It started with a differential tax of 12.5% for IFSC companies and 40% for domestic companies.


Not true, but I don't think it is appropriate to discuss it at length on this thread.



Purple said:


> I’m a child of the 70’s. This is, by far, the most significant political/military event of my lifetime.



I am hoping that the Russian people themselves will remove him. He appears to have enjoyed popularity, though it is hard to know for sure, but I think Ukraine will be his Bridge Too Far. There is growing condemnation in Russia.


----------



## Leper

Purple said:


> I’m a child of the 70’s. This is, by far, the most significant political/military event of my lifetime.


It has only just begun and no doubt the Russian army will militarily overwhelm the people of the Ukraine in the short term. It's only then the resistance movements in Ukraine will start to kick in (and mainly passive resistance). Putin will then be on his way to being Communists greatest loser and as Sophrosyne suggested above his own will turn on him and Russia will lose more of its states. The faster this happens the better for Ukraine and Russia.


----------



## cremeegg

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @cremeegg I agree that our selfish interests are to hide behind NATO's shield and save the dosh.  Similarly, we should not be top of the class in fighting climate change, we can't make any difference and should piggy back off the big guys.


Its not only about saving the dosh


Purple said:


> We aren’t neutral, we are unaligned. We don’t have armed forces to deploy but we are a rich Western country whose security is underpinned by the British, Americans and NATO. It is hypocritical and cowardly to benefit from that investment and risk of human life by others without even contributing financially or backing those who we ask to fight on our behalf to defend our freedom with our words or political capital.
> 
> Sometimes it’s about right and wrong.
> Sometimes you have to pick a side.
> This is one of those times.


You and your sons and daughters are welcome to travel to Ukraine to fight for what you believe in. I will admire you for it. 

I have no intention of giving my life for Ukraine and I would discourage my children from doing so.

Now when are you off, or it is just talk.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> You and your sons and daughters are welcome to travel to Ukraine to fight for what you believe in. I will admire you for it.
> 
> I have no intention of giving my life for Ukraine and I would discourage my children from doing so.
> 
> Now when are you off, or it is just talk.


Which country is sending their sons? (Nobody sends their daughters into combat roles)
We are in a position to send arms and we are choosing not to do so in order to remain neutral in a battle between democracy and authoritarianism. If anyone attacked us we'd expect the British and other EU forces to risk their sons to protect us.


----------



## Leper

Purple said:


> Which country is sending their sons? (Nobody sends their daughters into combat roles)
> We are in a position to send arms and we are choosing not to do so in order to remain neutral in a battle between democracy and authoritarianism. If anyone attacked us we'd expect the British and other EU forces to risk their sons to protect us.


We don't have decent equipment for our Irish army and have treated Irish Army personnel with disdain and I'm sure the Ukraine army can get along without Irish military aid. Furthermore, I don't expect anybody to come to our aid even if we were invaded. 

I am involved with the local hurling club at under age level. It was frightening this week to hear  young Irish girls and boys talking about the threat of another  war in europe. Our schools have many eastern european students and this fear will spread.


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> We don't have decent equipment for our Irish army and have treated Irish Army personnel with disdain


True. So what?


Leper said:


> and I'm sure the Ukraine army can get along without Irish military aid.


Yes, as long as other countries do the heavy lifting for us. 


Leper said:


> Furthermore, I don't expect anybody to come to our aid even if we were invaded.


You would though, we all would.


Leper said:


> I am involved with the local hurling club at under age level. It was frightening this week to hear  young Irish girls and boys talking about the threat of another  war in europe. Our schools have many eastern european students and this fear will spread.


Reality can be frightening. That doesn't make it any less real.
If you train any children with Ukrainian family you can let them know that you're happy to let their family die without lifting a finger to help because, like, we're neutral.


----------



## Leper

Purple said:


> True. So what?
> 
> Yes, as long as other countries do the heavy lifting for us.
> 
> You would though, we all would.
> 
> Reality can be frightening. That doesn't make it any less real.
> If you train any children with Ukrainian family you can let them know that you're happy to let their family die without lifting a finger to help because, like, we're neutral.


A little OTT Purple - let's keep the discussion on an even keel, I don't think anybody is happy to let anybody die. You might feel like amending your post. For the record we have several Ukranian members and others from the rest of eastern europe also.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Leper I don't think anyone on here is suggesting we send an army anywhere. What I'm reading on here and I agree with it, is that there are other ways of aligning with other countries in a way that does not affect our neutrality but which very much tells the world what we think of this war. We could and should have contributed to the financial package to purchase and send weapons to Ukraine. I think it is really poor that we did not do so.
It was heartbreaking to watch Ukranian people leaving these shores to return home to fight. We should be doing more to show solidarity with them.


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> A little OTT Purple - let's keep the discussion on an even keel, I don't think anybody is happy to let anybody die. You might feel like amending your post. For the record we have several Ukranian members and others from the rest of eastern europe also.


But you're happy for us to do nothing. Indeed you see it as a virtue. I genuinely can't get my head around that.

I can see why we didn't join NATO in 1948 as partition was a fresh and open wound but we accepted international borders when we joined the EU and we live under the blanket of safety that NATO provide. If anyone was in doubt of that latter point the events of the last few weeks should have clarified things for them.


----------



## Itchy

Leper said:


> We don't have decent equipment for our Irish army and have treated Irish Army personnel with disdain and I'm sure the Ukraine army can get along without Irish military aid.



We have excellent equipment (anti-armour and anti-aircraft), Javelin, AT4-SRAAW, RBS 70's, we just don't have a lot of it. 



Leper said:


> Furthermore, I don't expect anybody to come to our aid even if we were invaded.



Just not credible and a farcical position. 



Leper said:


> I am involved with the local hurling club at under age level. It was frightening this week to hear  young Irish girls and boys talking about the threat of another  war in europe. Our schools have many eastern european students and this fear will spread.



‘A gamble on peace’ – Dorcha Lee on TK Whitaker and defence spending​
Asked why we were underfunding defence in comparison to other EEC member states, he gave an honest and direct reply. This was government policy. The current priority was to modernise agriculture, develop industry and invest in education. He said “on defence we are like an uninsured, untaxed motorist, skimping on car maintenance. So long as we don’t have an accident or are not stopped by the Guards, we will get away with it. As the years go by, all that money that would have been spent on defence would be available to invest in infrastructure, social services and creating employment. It is a gamble, if you like, on peace.”

In the face of all the evidence, wait until those kids learn that Ireland are doubling down.


----------



## Firefly

Letter in today's IT sums it up:

_Sir, – We are not neutral. We are defenceless. – Yours, etc,

M JOHN KENNEDY,

Ranelagh,

Dublin 6._


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> I’m a child of the 70’s. This is, by far, the most significant political/military event of my lifetime.


Yeah, was thinking the same thing on Saturday evening & took out a New York Times subscription.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> Yeah, was thinking the same thing on Saturday evening & took out a New York Times subscription.


We are living through the end of the post Second World War consensus. At the end of the War there were assumptions made that we had learned the lessons of history and that freedom and democracy would inevitably triumph over oppression and authoritarianism. Those assumptions have proven to be incorrect. 
A new world order immerging in which prosperity and freedom do not go hand in hand and we are willing to sacrifice much of our freedom for material comfort. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.


----------



## Firefly

People queuing for cash in Moscow yesterday. I'm not sure if previous Russian dicators had a middle-class to worry about....


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Sophrosyne said:


> Not true, but I don't think it is appropriate to discuss it at length on this thread.


10% and 32%.  
Though I note that Wiki says we had EU approval for the differentiation.  So legitimate cute hoorism, even better.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> View attachment 6117
> 
> People queuing for cash in Moscow yesterday. I'm not sure if previous Russian dicators had a middle-class to worry about....


The Germans boosting military spending by €100 billion is very significant


----------



## Baby boomer

cremeegg said:


> You and your sons and daughters are welcome to travel to Ukraine to fight for what you believe in. I will admire you for it.
> 
> I have no intention of giving my life for Ukraine and I would discourage my children from doing so.
> 
> Now when are you off, or it is just talk.


An unworthy post, I regret to say, and not in line with the normal high standard of posting you exemplify around here.

The Ukrainian people aren't asking us to send our sons and daughters to fight for them. They have shown an absolutely marvellous determination to do their own fighting for their own country.  And they're making a commendably good job of doing so.  Their "ask" from the West is merely that they be given a bit of help in the form of weaponry and munitions.  Is that really too much to expect?


----------



## Purple

We should also remember that Russia has already attacked us. They Beta-tested one of their Cyber Weapons on us last year... Or is anyone naive enough to think that that sort of thing happens without the support and involvement of the Kremlin?


----------



## Peanuts20

I was speaking to some of my Polish team today, based both here and back home. Very scary and they are getting far more information from home as to what is really happening on the ground. What is clear is that given the number of Ukrainians living in Poland (a bit like the Irish in London) is that Poland is also going to need a lot of support to help deal with the numbers of refugees, as will a few other bordering nations


----------



## Baby boomer

Peanuts20 said:


> I was speaking to some of my Polish team today, based both here and back home. Very scary and they are getting far more information from home as to what is really happening on the ground. What is clear is that given the number of Ukrainians living in Poland (a bit like the Irish in London) is that Poland is also going to need a lot of support to help deal with the numbers of refugees, as will a few other bordering nations


That's a really good point.  If ever there was a time to push the boat out and help the people of Ukraine, and the EU frontline states, this is it.  Ukraine will need massive reconstruction for a start, plus formal support for continued development of its democratic institutions.  And of course, it'll need to build up its military capabilities to deter further invasions. 

We should also set up visa free access for Ukrainian nationals, with a pathway to EU single market, customs union, and ultimately, full EU membership.  It is massively in our self interest to have a prosperous, democratic and friendly Ukraine.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> It is massively in our self interest to have a prosperous, democratic and friendly Ukraine.


Particularly as food security becomes more of an issue in the coming years.


----------



## cremeegg

Baby boomer said:


> An unworthy post, I regret to say, and not in line with the normal high standard of posting you exemplify around here.
> 
> The Ukrainian people aren't asking us to send our sons and daughters to fight for them. They have shown an absolutely marvellous determination to do their own fighting for their own country.  And they're making a commendably good job of doing so.  Their "ask" from the West is merely that they be given a bit of help in the form of weaponry and munitions.  Is that really too much to expect?


I am sorry you think so, but it reflects how I feel.

My comments are not directed toward Ukraine but to that part of Irish society which would have us join NATO.

Unless you are happy to see Irish soldiers trooping off to fight on the orders of Donald Trump advocating joining NATO is just a knee jerk reaction.

I like Ukraine, I lived and worked in Kharkiv and Lyviv in the 1990s, I like the Ukrainian people. However I am not willing to fight to put my life on the line for them. If @Purple is willing to do that, he is free to do so and I would admire him from the sidelines. However his proposals would deprive future Irish generations of the CHOICE. That I cannot accept.

For Ireland to join NATO is to create a future where Irishmen and perhaps women could be conscripted to fight NATO’s future wars. Those will be fought on the decisions of US presidents and UK prime ministers.

Anyone advocating joining NATO is writing a blank cheque in Irish lives cashable by, who knows, for what purpose, who knows.

If those people feel so strongly about that why are they not joining this war.


----------



## Itchy

cremeegg said:


> I am sorry you think so, but it reflects how I feel.
> 
> My comments are not directed toward Ukraine but to that part of Irish society which would have us join NATO.
> 
> Unless you are happy to see Irish soldiers trooping off to fight on the orders of Donald Trump advocating joining NATO is just a knee jerk reaction.
> 
> I like Ukraine, I lived and worked in Kharkiv and Lyviv in the 1990s, I like the Ukrainian people. However I am not willing to fight to put my life on the line for them. If @Purple is willing to do that, he is free to do so and I would admire him from the sidelines. However his proposals would deprive future Irish generations of the CHOICE. That I cannot accept.
> 
> For Ireland to join NATO is to create a future where Irishmen and perhaps women could be conscripted to fight NATO’s future wars. Those will be fought on the decisions of US presidents and UK prime ministers.
> 
> Anyone advocating joining NATO is writing a blank cheque in Irish lives cashable by, who knows, for what purpose, who knows.
> 
> If those people feel so strongly about that why are they not joining this war.



On one level i'm glad to see a post like this, its rambling, incoherent, full of misconceptions and insulting to those with opposing views. From Trump to conscription to actually fighting in Ukraine, its off the wall. It reveals the fallacy of our current faux-neutrality, and the absence of a logical rationale to underpin the position. 

Interesting you've a previous connection to Ukraine. I note that the first images of the cluster bombing of Kharkiv are emerging this afternoon, a likely 'crime against humanity'. I think its fair to say nobody is neutral in their views about that.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> I am sorry you think so, but it reflects how I feel.
> 
> My comments are not directed toward Ukraine but to that part of Irish society which would have us join NATO.
> 
> Unless you are happy to see Irish soldiers trooping off to fight on the orders of Donald Trump advocating joining NATO is just a knee jerk reaction.
> 
> I like Ukraine, I lived and worked in Kharkiv and Lyviv in the 1990s, I like the Ukrainian people. However I am not willing to fight to put my life on the line for them. If @Purple is willing to do that, he is free to do so and I would admire him from the sidelines. However his proposals would deprive future Irish generations of the CHOICE. That I cannot accept.


Nobody is proposing that Irish armed forces be deployed in Ukraine. Nobody.


cremeegg said:


> For Ireland to join NATO is to create a future where Irishmen and perhaps women could be conscripted to fight NATO’s future wars. Those will be fought on the decisions of US presidents and UK prime ministers.
> 
> Anyone advocating joining NATO is writing a blank cheque in Irish lives cashable by, who knows, for what purpose, who knows.


At the moment Putin and Xi Jinping have more say over us deploying our Army than our Parliament. I have a problem with that. 
NATO membership does not require conscription. Joining a NATO action is not obligatory unless a NATO member is attacked. That has never happened. If it does happen then we're involved one way or the other.


----------



## Purple

Even the Swiss, the financiers of evil in the world, have now frozen Russian assets.


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> Joining a NATO action is not obligatory unless a NATO member is attacked. That has never happened. If it does happen then we're involved one way or the other.


Article 5 of the NATO treaty requires all member states to come to the aid of any member which has been attacked. It has been invoked once after the 9/11 bombings of the twin towers.

Were Estonia to be attacked by Russia, they would have a clear right to invoke Art 5. Member states would have a duty under the NATO treaty to come to Estonia's aid.

 I would not like to see Ireland militarily involved in such a conflict.


----------



## losttheplot

I think I'd rather Ireland in a European Defence Force instead of NATO. There are some cases where we shouldn't be neutral. I'd have no problem being neutral watching two drunken louts having a go at each other. But would you stand by while a child or vulnerable person was attacked and just turn the other way because you're 'neutral'

Ukraine doesn't need the little bit of military assistance we could give them. So we should make the extra effort on the humanitarian side


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> Even the Swiss, the financiers of evil in the world, have now frozen Russian assets.


Even FIFA now... Russian teams out of all competitions...


----------



## cremeegg

Itchy said:


> On one level i'm glad to see a post like this, its rambling, incoherent, full of misconceptions and insulting to those with opposing views. From Trump to conscription to actually fighting in Ukraine, its off the wall. It reveals the fallacy of our current faux-neutrality, and the absence of a logical rationale to underpin the position.
> 
> Interesting you've a previous connection to Ukraine. I note that the first images of the cluster bombing of Kharkiv are emerging this afternoon, a likely 'crime against humanity'. I think its fair to say nobody is neutral in their views about that.


Thanks for the personal remarks, but if you are actually interested in ‘a  logical rational to underpin’ Irish neutrality feel free to respond to my effort at post #167.


----------



## Itchy

I understand your view about NATO Article 5. It's fair and likely shared by a large number of Irish people. It's a key component of the organisation and all members are bound by it. It's not surprising that poeple would be fearful about it. However, as an argument you have invented a story about Trump and conscription that is very confused and unclear? It is also a total side show to what is actually happening today and absolutely nothing to with Irish neutrality. NATO is a totally different conversation.

Apart from your very kind comments about Daly/Wallace (!), I have tried to understand your key arguments, in bold. The sum of which amounts to "It's not my job...". Others who advocate for our version of neutrality at least argue that it materially improves our humanitarian contribution, our diplomacy, our soft power, it opens doors for Ireland? Nothing to with values, nothing to do with advancing our interests abroad, nothing to do with pacifism? As regards our history, I don't think there was ever a stage of our history where trouble didn't come to the island!



cremeegg said:


> Its a good question with a simple answer.
> 
> Before looking at that answer first the wrong answer needs to be gotten out of the way. The wrong answer is that we are/should be neutral because they are both as bad as each other. Lets call that answer the Daly/Wallace answer.
> 
> While I do recognise that Russia has genuine concerns and the US is not a disinterested observer, there can be no question that western society is far preferable for all its faults and the invasion of Ukraine is inexcusable. The Daly/Wallace answer is nonsense. Many people seeing that the Daly/Wallace answer is nonsense think that there is no good argument for Irelands neutrality, that's not the case.
> 
> The simple answer is* Irelands self interest is best served by staying out of the way*. My father-in-law was taken as slave labour to a factory in Germany by the Nazis, many of his compatriots fared far worse. My grandfather spent WW2 'eating cabbage and drinking tea' at his pre-war job. Both were citizens of small neutral states, one in the way of the Nazi advance, one from Mayo.
> 
> Some people feel it would be more honourable for Ireland to join NATO, carry our share of the Wests defence. That at present we are benefiting from its protection without carrying our share of the load. That is an much nonsense as the Daly/Wallace argument. The RAF doesn't patrol Irish airspace because they love us, they do it for their own security, we gat the benefit. *We are benefitting from our geographic location. For once in our history, lucky for us. Not taking advantage of the security benefits of our position would be as foolish *as not taking advantage of our beautiful beaches or agricultural potential.
> 
> Of course things change.
> 
> I would absolutely agree that we need to take our cybersecurity seriously. We have no natural advantage there. *I would like to see a robust independent Irish cybersecurity system.*


----------



## Itchy

losttheplot said:


> Ukraine doesn't need the little bit of military assistance we could give them. So we should make the extra effort on the humanitarian side



Were not sending our own stocks exactly, EU MS who _wish _to purchase kit are doing so. Why shouldn't we do both?

The EU resolution to condemn the actions of Russia didn't _need _Ming's vote given the overwhelming majority expressed their view in favour but it still would have been nice if he had been on the right side of history.


----------



## odyssey06

Expert and sobering assessment of the military situation so far.
Russia taking time to regroup and reorganise. Next wave will be in numbers and not so easily picked off:


			https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael/status/1498381975022940167


----------



## odyssey06

Itchy said:


> Were not sending our own stocks exactly, EU MS who _wish _to purchase kit are doing so. Why shouldn't we do both?


I think what we have done is consistent with our in EU as a neutral position.
Finland have one foot in the door with NATO. Sweden have a significant military. We do not.

You can argue that position needs to change but unless we are going to beef up our military and / or join a European or NATO military pact then I think we should be staying in the box we put ourselves in but not holding back rest of EU.


----------



## Itchy

odyssey06 said:


> I think what we have done is consistent with our in EU as a neutral position.



I understand the sentiment. I understand the reservations but there's no actual policy. It's a self-licking lollipop used to justify whatever you're having yourself.

Decades and centuries of diplomatic and military tradition have been torn up in the past 48 hours, in multiple countries in Europe such is the revulsion at what is happening. We can't even produce a sheet of paper that explains to a non-Irish person, what exactly the position is.



odyssey06 said:


> Finland have one foot in the door with NATO. Sweden have a significant military. We do not.


That fair. Those countries are not _neutral _but do declare themselves neutral, like us.



odyssey06 said:


> You can argue that position needs to change but unless we are going to beef up our military and / or join a European or NATO military pact then I think we should be staying in the box we put ourselves in but not holding back rest of EU.


There's a totally valid argument there that our vulnerabilities could be exploited should we put our head above the parapet. It's a risk, we could pay for it. I would argue that, we already are.

Its a fallacy to think that we have some kind of special immunity from Russian aggression. We have been 100% complicit in crippling the Russian economy, destroying their currency and bankrupting one bank so far, possibly their state airline. Their central bank is not looking good, sovereign immunity has been torn up. Industry will be crippled, there will be mass unemployment in the coming months, serious economic pain on a largely innocent population. The only people who think we're neutral is us. We're not neutral. It's a farce, is it not? And if not, why not?


----------



## odyssey06

odyssey06 said:


> Expert and sobering assessment of the military situation so far.
> Russia taking time to regroup and reorganise. Next wave will be in numbers and not so easily picked off:
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael/status/1498381975022940167


Tom Clonan with a shorter version, but broadly similar in the grim assessment of what is to come:








						Tom Clonan: Putin is waging a 1942 war in 2022, causing untold suffering and destruction
					

The security expert says the Russian leader has employed similar tactics in Grozny in Chechnya.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## odyssey06

Interesting use of social media... people are leaving reviews on google etc for Russian shops, bars, restaurants with anti war messages and information on what's really happening in ukraine.


----------



## Purple

Itchy said:


> Its a fallacy to think that we have some kind of special immunity from Russian aggression. We have been 100% complicit in crippling the Russian economy, destroying their currency and bankrupting one bank so far, possibly their state airline. Their central bank is not looking good, sovereign immunity has been torn up. Industry will be crippled, there will be mass unemployment in the coming months, serious economic pain on a largely innocent population. The only people who think we're neutral is us. We're not neutral. It's a farce, is it not? And if not, why not?


We are unaligned. We are not neutral.
We are also the base for a very large number of leased commercial aircraft that we are now taking back from Russia under EU agreement. I suppose we couldn't oppose that without it impacting our commercial interests.

I'm not in favour of Irish Troops going to Ukraine, obviously as that would be a stupid idea since we've nothing to contribute and we'd need someone to bring them there, taking up spaces for real soldiers.
I'm not particularly gone on joining NATO, but I am in favour of an EU army with us as a contributing member.
What we should be doing now is directly contributing to the purchase of arms for Ukraine. It would be a statement that we are part of the community of free democratic States and we are willing to help defend the values that underpin our way of life. So far we've not done that.


----------



## Ceist Beag

A question to those more familiar with the history of wars. Although nobody is directly getting involved in the war in terms of bodies/armies, there has been, what appears to me at least, a very quick and very united response to this either through sanctions, support or breaking up any relationships with Russian companies. Governments are coming together very quickly to impose multiple rounds of sanctions and offering support and financial aid. Companies are terminating agreements with Russian companies. Sporting organisations are suspending Russian teams. Hell even the Swiss banks are freezing assets which seems unheard of! All of this seems like a good thing btw, am just curious about the nature of it.
So my question is, is this a post pandemic world reaction? Or is it a result of the influence of social media? Or is it simply the nature of this particular war that is causing this? Is it very different this time around?


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> A question to those more familiar with the history of wars. Although nobody is directly getting involved in the war in terms of bodies/armies, there has been, what appears to me at least, a very quick and very united response to this either through sanctions, support or breaking up any relationships with Russian companies. Governments are coming together very quickly to impose multiple rounds of sanctions and offering support and financial aid. Companies are terminating agreements with Russian companies. Sporting organisations are suspending Russian teams. Hell even the Swiss banks are freezing assets which seems unheard of! All of this seems like a good thing btw, am just curious about the nature of it.
> So my question is, is this a post pandemic world reaction? Or is it a result of the influence of social media? Or is it simply the nature of this particular war that is causing this? Is it very different this time around?


I think it's that in a globalised world the actions of governments, companies and banks are more obvious. The Swiss would be up to their usual trick of funding terrorism, oppression and murder all over the world if it wasn't for the changes that were force upon them by America after 9/11. Banks and companies are frightened of being on the wrong side of the USA or the EU so in short yes, it's as you said above.

The fact that Ukraine is in Europe and the people there are white is also a factor.


----------



## Leper

Ceist Beag said:


> A question to those more familiar with the history of wars. Although nobody is directly getting involved in the war in terms of bodies/armies, there has been, what appears to me at least, a very quick and very united response to this either through sanctions, support or breaking up any relationships with Russian companies. Governments are coming together very quickly to impose multiple rounds of sanctions and offering support and financial aid. Companies are terminating agreements with Russian companies. Sporting organisations are suspending Russian teams. Hell even the Swiss banks are freezing assets which seems unheard of! All of this seems like a good thing btw, am just curious about the nature of it.
> So my question is, is this a post pandemic world reaction? Or is it a result of the influence of social media? Or is it simply the nature of this particular war that is causing this? Is it very different this time around?


Some good point there Ceist Beag. Neutrality (let's not get involved in words like unaligned) is sacred. The Swiss were always a cool and steady race of people looking calculated at everything especially inward and what is good for Switzerland. I see nothing wrong with that. But, even on this ultra conservative membership forum we have people calling for Ireland to relinquish its neutrality. Neutrality is neutrality not half neutrality half belligerence.

Even Winston Churchill scoffed at Ireland's neutrality at the end of WW2 and received a stinging response from E de Valera. While I have the greatest sympathy of people from Ukraine, the bottom line is that they are not an EU country. There were/are wars in other non EU countries ongoing for years and nobody is calling for any kind of Irish involvement. The further away from war and destruction we keep the better. Let's look after ourselves more for a change and let others learn from our neutrality.


----------



## Itchy

Purple said:


> We are unaligned. We are not neutral.


Of course. I am using the word neutral in the Irish sense of the word! 

Neither are credible though.



Purple said:


> What we should be doing now is directly contributing to the purchase of arms for Ukraine. It would be a statement that we are part of the community of free democratic States and we are willing to help defend the values that underpin our way of life. So far we've not done that.


By purchasing arms, do you think that changes the 'unaligned' status? 

I think offering visa free travel is a meaningful action on our part, it makes it vastly less painful for people than enforcing the asylum process. 



Purple said:


> I'm not in favour of Irish Troops going to Ukraine, obviously as that would be a stupid idea as *we've nothing to contribute* and we'd need someone to bring them there, taking up spaced for *real soldiers*.


I'm not sure of your substantive point here given the derogatory tone.

In fact, we have significant capabilities that could be useful in this conflict. I'm presuming its this _phase _of the conflict that you wouldn't dispatch troops to i.e. direct hostilities. However, the situation will change. There will be a humanitarian crisis that will emerge. This may require action in Ukraine while hostilities are ongoing for example. There will be medical, engineering and logistical knowledge and know-how required. There is a chance we will see chemical and radiological impacts. They will need people who can operate in that environment. If its widespread (which is not unimaginable) there will be a need for maximum contribution. We have trained people and equipment. We don't have alot of it/them but we have them. But its a mistake to conflate a lack of resources with a lack of professionalism. 

In terms of getting there, unlike other conflicts, this time we can drive there! 

In another recent incident where we were caught with our pants down (militarily speaking), we tried to evacuate some of our citizens from Kabul in a rapidly deteriorating situation. It was the Ukrainians who offered the Irish seats on their transport. 



Purple said:


> I'm not particularly gone on joining NATO, but I am in favour of an EU army with us as a contributing member.



Of course everyone has their view and reasons which is fine. We're so obsessed with NATO that we're failing to see the wood for the trees. In this situation today for example, NATO has strategically 'marked' Putin. It has ensured that Putin's nuclear threats are, more than likely, to remain just that. It has put a 'back stop' in place to ensure his ambitions are contained (lucky for Ireland, may not be lucky for neutral Moldova). 

The key point for Ireland is that warfare has moved on. It is now hybrid warfare which combines all facets of economic, diplomatic, information, military and political actions. These actions take place in all domains land, sea, air and cyber. There is a spectrum of conflict that has a significant grey zone where actions cannot be directly attributed as e.g. as a hostile action by a State actor, but is in fact a 

Its naïve to think that state sponsored hacking of Ukraine in the last number of years, was anything other than preparation for this moment. The question for Ireland is, why was the HSE targeted? We might find out thanks to NATO countries are who are now targeting the conti group at the moment.

We are now being left behind in the defence and security conversation in Europe. Those discussions are now happening in the EU not in NATO.

In terms of taking collective action (like now), there is no distinction between taking an economic action and a military action which are designed to achieve as strategic outcome, especially when in a direct conflict. The actions of the EU have superseded NATO. The actions of a political/economic bloc have pushed the military alliance to the background. 

And as we are arguing about putting our names on bombs and bullets but at the same time contributing to the economic devastation of Russia, we are losing credibility by the day.


----------



## Itchy

Ceist Beag said:


> A question to those more familiar with the history of wars. Although nobody is directly getting involved in the war in terms of bodies/armies, there has been, what appears to me at least, a very quick and very united response to this either through sanctions, support or breaking up any relationships with Russian companies. Governments are coming together very quickly to impose multiple rounds of sanctions and offering support and financial aid. Companies are terminating agreements with Russian companies. Sporting organisations are suspending Russian teams. Hell even the Swiss banks are freezing assets which seems unheard of! All of this seems like a good thing btw, am just curious about the nature of it.
> So my question is, is this a post pandemic world reaction? Or is it a result of the influence of social media? Or is it simply the nature of this particular war that is causing this? Is it very different this time around?


This is unprecedented. This is a seminal moment. Last Friday Russia was a functional country. On Monday it was North Korea.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Ceist Beag said:


> So my question is, is this a post pandemic world reaction? Or is it a result of the influence of social media? Or is it simply the nature of this particular war that is causing this? Is it very different this time around?


The difference is the very real threat of nuclear war.


----------



## Firefly

Ceist Beag said:


> A question to those more familiar with the history of wars. Although nobody is directly getting involved in the war in terms of bodies/armies, there has been, what appears to me at least, a very quick and very united response to this either through sanctions, support or breaking up any relationships with Russian companies. Governments are coming together very quickly to impose multiple rounds of sanctions and offering support and financial aid. Companies are terminating agreements with Russian companies. Sporting organisations are suspending Russian teams. Hell even the Swiss banks are freezing assets which seems unheard of! All of this seems like a good thing btw, am just curious about the nature of it.
> So my question is, is this a post pandemic world reaction? Or is it a result of the influence of social media? Or is it simply the nature of this particular war that is causing this? Is it very different this time around?


I think that this time round, those close to the current Russian dictator are all incredibly wealthy & powerful. By severely limiting them in these ways, surely the West are aiming for discontent. Who knows, someone might even knock off Vlads ... maybe these fine fellas could help


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I see The Tool is feigning being anti Russian in today's IT.  But we will never forget his smart ass comment that NATO vs Putin was not a binary.
As for our 4 leftie MEPs who rejected the anti Russian motion in December resulting in Irish MEPs being 46% in support versus the norm of 82% in support.
This is not because our lefties are more leftie than France's.  It is a reflection of a deep anti American streak in sections of our body politic, though I suppose the French are not particular Yankee lovers either.
This is a strange situation given that Ireland is second only to Germany in European countries claiming US ancestry and third only to Mexico overall.
Perhaps it is because, as someone once said, we are divided by a common language.


----------



## Purple

Itchy said:


> By purchasing arms, do you think that changes the 'unaligned' status?


No. Unaligned meant that we weren't in NATO or the Warsaw Pact (and by it's original definition that made is a 3rd world country).


Itchy said:


> I'm not sure of your substantive point here given the derogatory tone.


We have well trained professional soldiers but we don't have a real army so in that context they aren't real soldiers.


Itchy said:


> In fact, we have significant capabilities that could be useful in this conflict. I'm presuming its this _phase _of the conflict that you wouldn't dispatch troops to i.e. direct hostilities. However, the situation will change. There will be a humanitarian crisis that will emerge. This may require action in Ukraine while hostilities are ongoing for example. There will be medical, engineering and logistical knowledge and know-how required.


Yes, we have very limited capabilities which may be useful after the conflict but in the context of what an Army is for (fighting) we have nothing to offer. 


Itchy said:


> There is a chance we will see chemical and radiological impacts.


Will we round up the Iodine Tablets? I'm not sure where mine are. 


Itchy said:


> They will need people who can operate in that environment. If its widespread (which is not unimaginable) there will be a need for maximum contribution. We have trained people and equipment. We don't have alot of it/them but we have them.


The tiny resources we have to offer would be more than cancelled out by the resources or other armies we'd take up getting us there and folding us into a command structure we have zero experience of. 


Itchy said:


> But its a mistake to conflate a lack of resources with a lack of professionalism.


I agree. 


Itchy said:


> The key point for Ireland is that warfare has moved on. It is now hybrid warfare which combines all facets of economic, diplomatic, information, military and political actions. These actions take place in all domains land, sea, air and cyber. There is a spectrum of conflict that has a significant grey zone where actions cannot be directly attributed as e.g. as a hostile action by a State actor, but is in fact its naïve to think that state sponsored hacking of Ukraine in the last number of years, was anything other than preparation for this moment. The question for Ireland is, why was the HSE targeted? We might find out thanks to NATO countries are who are now targeting the conti group at the moment.


An important point. I mentioned above that we've already been attacked by Russia. They Beta-tested their Cyber weapons on us last year. Expect more in the coming months. 


Itchy said:


> We are now being left behind in the defence and security conversation in Europe. Those discussions are now happening in the EU not in NATO.


Yep, which is why we need to sit at the table and be part of the conversation. 


Itchy said:


> And as we are arguing about putting our names on bombs and bullets but at the same time contributing to the economic devastation of Russia, we are losing credibility by the day.


Exactly. We are applying a policy from 1948 to the world of 2022.


----------



## Firefly

Discontent from some of Vlad's posse?

_Oleg Deripaska, a sanctioned metals tycoon close to the Kremlin, wrote on social media that he wanted to know “who’s really going to pay for this whole party.” 

Vyacheslav Markhayev, a lawmaker from Siberia, declared that the Kremlin “hid plans to start a full-scale war against our closest neighbor.”

“Countries should spend money on treating people, on research to defeat cancer, and not on war,” Oleg Tinkov, the billionaire founder of one of Russia’s biggest consumer banks, wrote on Instagram._









						As Sanctions Batter Economy, Russians Face the Anxieties of a Costly War
					

The ruble plunged, the stock market was shuttered and foreign investors shed holdings in Russian companies, deepening the concern among citizens who had become accustomed to the perks of globalization.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I see The Tool is feigning being anti Russian in today's IT.  But we will never forget his smart ass comment that NATO vs Putin was not a binary.
> As for our 4 leftie MEPs who rejected the anti Russian motion in December resulting in Irish MEPs being 46% in support versus the norm of 82% in support.
> This is not because our lefties are more leftie than France's.  It is a reflection of a deep anti American streak in sections of our body politic, though I suppose the French are not particular Yankee lovers either.
> This is a strange situation given that Ireland is second only to Germany in European countries claiming US ancestry and third only to Mexico overall.


Given the traditional antisemitism of the left here maybe it's because the President of Ukraine is Jewish. 


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Perhaps it is because, as someone once said, we are divided by a common language.


I think it's more to do with childish anti-Americanism and a romanticised view of totalitarianism with a red hue.


----------



## Itchy

Purple said:


> ...folding us into a command structure we have zero experience of


Thanks to NATO standarisation of equipment, operational and planning processes we're fully interoperable!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Purple said:


> I think it's more to do with childish anti-Americanism and a romanticised view of totalitarianism with a red hue.


I think the common language thing is relevant and not just a smart ass comment.
I am sure that some sections of, let's say Romanian society, are obnoxious but we wouldn't really get a feel for that.  But we know exactly what Trump is saying and his various dog whistles.


----------



## Purple

Itchy said:


> Thanks to NATO standarisation of equipment, operational and planning processes we're fully interoperable!


We use the same ammunition but we aren't part of their battlefield system. That's what I meant.

It's worth noting that Irish Troops operated under NATO command in Bosnia in 1998. Just sayin'. UN authorised multinational Stabilisation Force (SFOR).


----------



## Baby boomer

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I see The Tool is feigning being anti Russian in today's IT.  But we will never forget his smart ass comment that NATO vs Putin was not a binary.


I don't know O'Toole personally, but I do know a few guys of a similar age who are friends with him all the way back to his college days.  They would be part of the Worker's Party / Democratic Left / "sticky" tendency that did the long march through Irish Media and academia in the1980s and 1990s.  Although AFAIK, O'Tool himself wasn't officially (see what I did there) a "stick" he certainly moved in those circles.  The sticks had a number of core beliefs and convictions which could be summarized as follows:
1.  They were intellectually a cut above everyone else (a vanguard?) and definitely saw themselves as the smartest guys in the room.  
2.  They absolutely detested SF / IRA to the point of adopting a pro-unionist stance and condoning British human rights violations in Northern Ireland.  
3.  They had a sneaking regard for the Soviet bloc and particularly East Germany for some reason.  One of them told me that it was a pity the Wall came down when it did, as the East Germans were on the point of renewing their entire housing stock and if it had lasted a few more years, they'd have needed a wall to keep people from the West out! 
4.  They hated Israel and saw all Palestinian terrorism as fully justified and moral form of resistance.
5.  They absolutely despised and hated the USA and American culture.  Largely, I think, because its very existence as a successful and prosperous society - and a magnet for emigrants all over the world, including Ireland - acted as a demonstrable rebuke and refutation of their own politics.  

This is the milieu O'Toole emerged from.  All their instincts would scream out that Russia can't be wrong and NATO can't be right.  Thus the Tool's mealy mouthed effort today.  In other words, if Russia is wrong, it's our fault for encouraging them to be like that!  



Duke of Marmalade said:


> As for our 4 leftie MEPs who rejected the anti Russian motion in December resulting in Irish MEPs being 46% in support versus the norm of 82% in support.


Interesting that the Shinner MEP joined the Mick-n-Ming-n-Claire freak show to make up the quartet.  Also interesting that the Shinners voted against the EU - Ukraine Association Agreement in the Dáil and European Parliament back in 2017.  And Mary Lou now has the utter hypocrisy to express crocadile tears for the Ukrainian people!  



Duke of Marmalade said:


> This is not because our lefties are more leftie than France's.  It is a reflection of a deep anti American streak in sections of our body politic, though I suppose the French are not particular Yankee lovers either.


It's also a Francophone thing. But both countries leftist "intellectuals" do indeed share a visceral knee-jerk anti-Americanism.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> This is a strange situation given that Ireland is second only to Germany in European countries claiming US ancestry and third only to Mexico overall.
> Perhaps it is because, as someone once said, we are divided by a common language.


....or a resentment of the Irish-American success story?   The phrase "Returned Yank" was an insult of the highest order in my youth.


----------



## Itchy

Purple said:


> We use the same ammunition but we aren't part of their battlefield system. That's what I meant.



I don't think that's strictly accurate. We're not in the command structure but we do participate in the Partnership Interoperability Initiative the talking shop, the Planning and Review Process and Operational Capabilities Concept which is the practical standardisation.


----------



## Firefly

Some excellent analysis here for anyone interested in the financial side of things









						Chartbook
					

A newsletter on economics, geopolitics and history from Adam Tooze. More substantial than the twitter feed. More freewheeling than what you might read from me in FT, Foreign Policy, New Statesman. Click to read Chartbook, by Adam Tooze, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of readers.




					adamtooze.substack.com


----------



## odyssey06

Update on the military situation from the BBC.

Close analysis of the latest satellite images by McKenzie Intelligence Services reveals the following:

The convoy is not 40 miles long, it’s a series of logistical ‘packets’ strung out along a major highway from the Belarus border, aiming to link up with Russian units on the northern outskirts of Kyiv.
The convoy appears to be hampered in several places by broken down vehicles.
The column consists of some armour (tanks) and infantry fighting vehicles but mainly logistical vehicles, implying plans for more than just a brief battle.
Separately, the imagery examined by McKenzie Intelligence Services shows a Russian parachute battalion dug in to the area of Hostomel airfield - Ukraine's most important international cargo airport and a key military airbase near Kyiv. But their artillery is assessed to be outside the range of most of the capital.


----------



## michaelm

odyssey06 said:


> The convoy is not 40 miles long, it’s a series of logistical ‘packets’ strung out along a major highway from the Belarus border, aiming to link up with Russian units on the northern outskirts of Kyiv.


That sounds more plausible.  A 40 mile long convoy sounded a bit made up; such might have many thousands of vehicles.


----------



## Baby boomer

A big convoy like that might be vulnerable to UAW drone strikes.  The Ukrainian Army could be given the drones by NATO forces and who's to say who exactly is piloting them afterwards.  Could be Ukrainian operators on the ground.  Could equally be NATO remote pilots thousands of miles away.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Baby boomer said:


> I don't know O'Toole personally, but I do know a few guys of a similar age who are friends with him all the way back to his college days.  They would be part of the Worker's Party / Democratic Left / "sticky" tendency that did the long march through Irish Media and academia in the1980s and 1990s.  Although AFAIK, O'Tool himself wasn't officially (see what I did there) a "stick" he certainly moved in those circles.  The sticks had a number of core beliefs and convictions which could be summarized as follows:
> 1.  They were intellectually a cut above everyone else (a vanguard?) and definitely saw themselves as the smartest guys in the room.
> 2.  They absolutely detested SF / IRA to the point of adopting a pro-unionist stance and condoning British human rights violations in Northern Ireland.
> 3.  They had a sneaking regard for the Soviet bloc and particularly East Germany for some reason.  One of them told me that it was a pity the Wall came down when it did, as the East Germans were on the point of renewing their entire housing stock and if it had lasted a few more years, they'd have needed a wall to keep people from the West out!
> 4.  They hated Israel and saw all Palestinian terrorism as fully justified and moral form of resistance.
> 5.  They absolutely despised and hated the USA and American culture.  Largely, I think, because its very existence as a successful and prosperous society - and a magnet for emigrants all over the world, including Ireland - acted as a demonstrable rebuke and refutation of their own politics.
> 
> This is the milieu O'Toole emerged from.  All their instincts would scream out that Russia can't be wrong and NATO can't be right.  Thus the Tool's mealy mouthed effort today.  In other words, if Russia is wrong, it's our fault for encouraging them to be like that!
> 
> 
> Interesting that the Shinner MEP joined the Mick-n-Ming-n-Claire freak show to make up the quartet.  Also interesting that the Shinners voted against the EU - Ukraine Association Agreement in the Dáil and European Parliament back in 2017.  And Mary Lou now has the utter hypocrisy to express crocadile tears for the Ukrainian people!
> 
> 
> It's also a Francophone thing. But both countries leftist "intellectuals" do indeed share a visceral knee-jerk anti-Americanism.
> 
> 
> ....or a resentment of the Irish-American success story?   The phrase "Returned Yank" was an insult of the highest order in my youth.


A lot of that rings true to me.  Also from my NI RC background I noted an identification of America with heathen Protestantism - movie stars as serial divorcers etc.  JFK was regarded as a saint.


----------



## Purple

There's an excellent letter in today's Irish Times which sums up the problem with our 1948 non-aligned policy in the 21st century.


----------



## Leper

Purple said:


> There's ab excellent letter in today's Irish Times which sums up the problem with our 1948 non-aligned policy in the 21st century.


Karl Martin's and James O'Hagan's letters to the Irish Times were well written. The former talked about our need to have a well equipped army to defend us and the latter was mainly about TD's and MP's showing up in their respective parliament and not listening to anything.

Our neutrality is in the hands of these guys!


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> Our neutrality is in the hands of these guys!


No, we are not neutral, we are unaligned.
Our Parliament doesn't get to decide if we deploy our troops, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping do, along with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

A letter in today's IT from the Peace and Neutrality Alliance suggests that the West should give Putin everything he is currently asking for.
Just because it didn't work in 1938 doesn't mean it won't work now.


----------



## Itchy

Duke of Marmalade said:


> A letter in today's IT from the Peace and Neutrality Alliance suggests that the west should give Putin everything he is currently asking for.
> Just because it didn't work in 1938 doesn't mean it won't work now.



A truly sickening piece.


----------



## Baby boomer

Duke of Marmalade said:


> A letter in today's IT from the Peace and Neutrality Alliance suggests that the west should give Putin everything he is currently asking for.
> Just because it didn't work in 1938 doesn't mean it won't work now.


That is the most sickening piece of garbage I have ever read.  What on Earth are these so-called Peace and Neutrality idiots thinking?  Are they really, really that mind numbingly stupid?  Or is it something more sinister?


----------



## Sophrosyne

International Atomic Agency says Ukraine has requested help safeguarding nuclear plants

“The request came as Russia notified the IAEA that its forces have taken control of the territory around Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said Tuesday. The Russian letter to the IAEA said personnel at the plant continued their “work on providing nuclear safety and monitoring radiation in normal mode of operation. The radiation levels remain normal.”

Social media video footage verified by CNN Wednesday showed workers at the NPP blocking access roads to the plant, one of the largest nuclear power plants in Europe.

Russian forces seized control of the Chernobyl power plant in northern Ukraine, the site of the world's worst nuclear disaster, last week.

The IAEA said Grossi will be holding consultations and maintaining contacts in order to address Ukraine's request.

The agency added: "The Director General has repeatedly stressed that any military or other action that could threaten the safety or security of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants must be avoided. He also said that operating staff must be able to fulfil their safety and security duties and have the capacity to make decisions free of undue pressure."


----------



## Sunny

Baby boomer said:


> That is the most sickening piece of garbage I have ever read.  What on Earth are these so-called Peace and Neutrality idiots thinking?  Are they really, really that mind numbingly stupid?  Or is it something more sinister?



I think they are mind numbingly stupid......


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> That is the most sickening piece of garbage I have ever read.  What on Earth are these so-called Peace and Neutrality idiots thinking?  Are they really, really that mind numbingly stupid?  Or is it something more sinister?


Yep, basically Roger Cole wants President Biden and Vladimir Putin to come to an agreement which prevents the people of democratic States expressing their sovereign rights.


----------



## Firefly

Abramovich is selling UK properties and putting Chelsea up for sale. He clearly has links to Putin. Why hasn't he been sanctioned & his assets frozen?









						Roman Abramovich hastily selling UK properties, MP claims
					

Chris Bryant says UK moving too slowly to impose sanctions on people allegedly linked to Vladimir Putin




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Itchy

The MEP's for Moscow have responded. Unprovoked aggression and the threat of nuclear war is trumped by strengthening european defences and fracked gas. Seems legit.


----------



## Itchy

Taoiseach: ‘Neutrality is a policy issue that can change at any time’


> “And it’s under pressure from authoritarian regimes like Russia, and it would be naive in the extreme not to reflect on that.”
> 
> He said: “post-this war we do need to reflect on all of that, and how do we preserve what’s best about democracies, about the European Union, where we along with other like-minded states share common values.”
> 
> He said: “I think this naked aggression has really exposed the vulnerability at the heart of the European Union and its project because people are not playing by the same rules at all.”



A potentially expanded EU (Ukraine, possibly Moldova and Kosovo) and an expanded NATO (Sweden, Finland, possibly Ukraine if Russia gets rinsed from this campaign or Vlad gets the good news). Catastrophic geo-strategic failure for Putin.


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> Neutrality (let's not get involved in words like unaligned) is sacred.


Yes, and remember what happens to sacred cows (even if they are not cows but everyone insists on calling them cows).


Leper said:


> The Swiss were always a cool and steady race of people looking calculated at everything especially inward and what is good for Switzerland. I see nothing wrong with that.


You see nothing wrong with being the financiers of fascists, terrorists, dictators, drug dealers and the most vile scum in the world? Wow.


Leper said:


> But, even on this ultra conservative membership forum we have people calling for Ireland to relinquish its neutrality. Neutrality is neutrality not half neutrality half belligerence.


Who here is ultra conservative?
Conservatives are more likely to be isolationist and not care about what happens to their fellow man. I know who fits better into that camp.


Leper said:


> Even Winston Churchill scoffed at Ireland's neutrality at the end of WW2 and received a stinging response from E de Valera.


That was nearly 80 years ago. Ireland was an backward, poor, isolated and ecumenically under developed country. We are now one of the richest countries in the world (much of that due to very ethically questionable activities), with a highly developed economy and we are members of the EU.



Leper said:


> While I have the greatest sympathy of people from Ukraine, the bottom line is that they are not an EU country.


No, you have a very limited amount of sympathy for the people of Ukraine, certainly not enough to  be in favour of us helping them to fight an invading dictator.


Leper said:


> There were/are wars in other non EU countries ongoing for years and nobody is calling for any kind of Irish involvement. The further away from war and destruction we keep the better.


We had troops operating under NATO command in Europe in 1998.
If Ukraine was in the EU would you be in favour of us funding military equipment for them?


Leper said:


> Let's look after ourselves more for a change and let others learn from our neutrality.


If other countries copied us then the world would be a far worse place.


----------



## Purple

Itchy said:


> The MEP's for Moscow have responded. Unprovoked aggression and the threat of nuclear war is trumped by strengthening european defences and fracked gas. Seems legit.


From your post above @Itchy,.
He said:_ “I think this naked aggression has really exposed the vulnerability at the heart of the European Union and its project *because people are not playing by the same rules at all*.”_

Wallace and his ilk are wilfully ignorant of reality.
Diplomacy won't stop a Tank.


----------



## Peanuts20

Personally, I'm struggling to understand why anyone is taking the commentary from a tax dodging failed Irish builder who badly needs a haircut and his conspiracy theory left wing looney sidekick serious. Far too much going on in the world to even give them publicity.


----------



## Purple

Peanuts20 said:


> Personally, I'm struggling to understand why anyone is taking the commentary from a tax dodging failed Irish builder who badly needs a haircut and his conspiracy theory left wing looney sidekick serious. Far too much going on in the world to even give them publicity.


It wasn't just tax dodging, there was the employee pensions too but I agree with you. Though he hadn't shot or blown up any children so he's a step up from the Shinners.


----------



## Purple

The German are sending Russian built anti-tank weapons to the Ukrainians. What lovely irony.


----------



## Itchy

Putin's aggression towards neutral countries continues. Demands security guarantees from Sweden and Finland. Initiates invasion of another country and Russia demands security guarantees?! He needs political wins now. 

Yesterday, Lukashenko's invasion map purports to show the invasion of Moldova. 



Itchy said:


> Taoiseach: ‘Neutrality is a policy issue that can change at any time’



Varadkar starts the neutrality discussion. 



Itchy said:


> A potentially expanded EU (Ukraine, possibly Moldova and Kosovo) and an expanded NATO (Sweden, Finland, possibly Ukraine if Russia gets rinsed from this campaign or Vlad gets the good news). Catastrophic geo-strategic failure for Putin.


I forgot Georgia!









						EU set to receive membership bids from Georgia, Moldova -EU official
					

The European Union is about to receive membership applications from Georgia and Moldova, an EU official said on Thursday.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## odyssey06

I'm really not sure about Georgia... both for NATO and EU.
It's not connected to any other EU country.
From a NATO perspective, it's indefensible, only borders Turkey I think and a remote part of Turkey at that.

Moldova... should there not be some NATO \ EU rapid reaction force going in there to help with the refugee crisis and forestall any Russian action from Transnistria? They aren't in NATO but they are in discussions.


----------



## odyssey06

Russia refusing to release 500 aircraft its airlines have leased from Western companies... sth like 4 billion euros worth from Ireland based companies

Lloyds end cover for Russian airlines.


----------



## Itchy

odyssey06 said:


> I'm really not sure about Georgia... both for NATO and EU.
> It's not connected to any other EU country.
> From a NATO perspective, it's indefensible, only borders Turkey I think and a remote part of Turkey at that.
> 
> Moldova... should there not be some NATO \ EU rapid reaction force going in there to help with the refugee crisis and forestall any Russian action from Transnistria? They aren't in NATO but they are in discussions.


Georgia are making hay fair play to them! No, NATO is not an option for them. 

NATO response force were activated to Romania today (which includes elements of the Swedish Armed Forces by the way!). That will temper ambitions for Moldova but they are by no means out of the woods. 



odyssey06 said:


> Russia refusing to release 500 aircraft its airlines have leased from Western companies... sth like 4 billion euros worth from Ireland based companies
> 
> Lloyds end cover for Russian airlines.



Big numbers. Those aircraft will be worthless in 6 months, as they will either have been flying around Russia without being serviced or sitting on the ground, not being serviced. Ikea closed in Russia today, 15000 jobs. Renault car manufacturing, 35,000 jobs gone. JP Morgan forecasts a 35% contraction in GDP this year.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

The difference between Adolf and Vlad is that Adolf had genuine prospects of conquering Europe.  Would have achieved it if he had dropped his obsession against the commies.  Vlad would be committing suicide to attempt that thanks to the Yanks having him completely surrounded.  My guess is that a nuke war would see 50 million Americans killed and Russia wiped out.
Probably not this time, but who would bet on humanity not self destructing in the next 100 years? Makes action against climate change seem so presumptuous.
Stock up on bitcoin.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Probably not this time, but who would bet on humanity not self destructing in the next 100 years?


That's exactly the conversation myself and Mrs Beag had yesterday. This has opened our eyes from the very comfortable and peaceful life we have been living and tbh it has never been easier for one madman to destroy the world if he so chooses. This morning we wake up to hear they have been bombing around a nuclear site in Ukraine. Thankfully it doesn't appear that radiation levels have increased .... this time. The rest of the world seriously needs to look at how this lunatic can be taken out.


----------



## Purple

Itchy said:


> Georgia are making hay fair play to them! No, NATO is not an option for them.


The Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 following the declarations of independence by the ethnically Russia regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia was a military success for the Russians. They routed the Georgian army in a few days with around 1000 mostly civilian casualties. It is probably what emboldened Putin and gave him an expectation that his invasion of Ukraine would go the same way.

Interesting historical note, Georgia was the first place wine was produced.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

The BBC list 5 possible scenarios.  I am not sure what order of probability they give but I think this is it.

1.  Long war Afghanistan style with Russia withdrawing after say 10 years
2.  Short war as Russia significantly increases its attack as it did in Chechnya.  Russia win of course but Ukrainian insurgency ever present.
3.  Diplomatic result with maybe Ukraine conceding Crimea, parts of Donbas but getting independence from Russia and freedom to Westernise.
4.  European War which let’s face it means nuclear WWIII.
5.  The Oligarchs get rid of Putin and move to 3 above.

Or a mixture of these.


----------



## Firefly

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The BBC list 5 possible scenarios.  I am not sure what order of probability they give but I think this is it.
> 
> 1.  Long war Afghanistan style with Russia withdrawing after say 10 years
> 2.  Short war as Russia significantly increases its attack as it did in Chechnya.  Russia win of course but Ukrainian insurgency ever present.
> 3.  Diplomatic result with maybe Ukraine conceding Crimea, parts of Donbas but getting independence from Russia and freedom to Westernise.
> 4.  European War which let’s face it means nuclear WWIII.
> 5.  The Oligarchs get rid of Putin and move to 3 above.
> 
> Or a mixture of these.


I think Russia might take eastern Ukraine (not sure from where) and block it off from western Ukraine, with possibly a wall. Russia could install a puppet government and use the space as a buffer between Russia and the west. I am hoping that sanctions against Russia last as long as Putin is still calling the shots & hopefully one of rich & powerful people in Russia realise soon that life would be a lot better without Putin...


----------



## michaelm

Unlikely as it is to happen, the West should strongly consider a no-fly zone given the attacks on civilian areas and nuclear facilities.  The Russian economy should be suffocated and it should be made clear that measures will remain in place until there is regime change in Russia.  This might spur internal actors to action.  Putin has destroyed what could have been a great European country (Russia) but perhaps just cant see it.


----------



## Sunny

michaelm said:


> Unlikely as it is to happen, the West should strongly consider a no-fly zone given the attacks on civilian areas and nuclear facilities.  The Russian economy should be suffocated and it should be made clear that measures will remain in place until there is regime change in Russia.  This might spur internal actors to action.  Putin has destroyed what could have been a great European country (Russia) but perhaps just cant see it.



Putin wants Nato to engage. I know it seems unbelievably cruel but Putin is trying to drag NATO into the conflict so he say Russia was right. NATO is attacking us. It wouldn't stop at simply enforcing a no fly zone which would have limited impact anyway considering the conflict on the ground. They are right not to engage. As much I hate saying that. But unfortunately, this is not same as the Balkan war.

It is not just Russia and their cronies that need to start feeling pain. Countries like India, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia need to start seeing some consequences too.

Oh and Credit Suisse should be closed down...









						Credit Suisse caught trying to shred evidence of loans to Russian oligarchs backed by superyachts and private jets
					

The scandal-ridden bank lands in the headlines once more just a week after Suisse Secrets leaks show lender's history of deals to shady individuals.




					fortune.com


----------



## Ceist Beag

Sunny said:


> It is not just Russia and their cronies that need to start feeling pain. Countries like India, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia need to start seeing some consequences too.


Premier League: China's rights holder will not show games over Ukraine support


----------



## Firefly

Ceist Beag said:


> Premier League: China's rights holder will not show games over Ukraine support


Absolutely disgraceful.


----------



## michaelm

Firefly said:


> Absolutely disgraceful.


Yes, albeit predictable.  Hopefully the sanctions and other measures will devastate the Russian regime and mark China's card.  Once all this is resolved the West must stop feeding the dragon.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

There are so many echoes of WWII.  That was a war between the democracies and the dictatorships Germany, Italy and Japan.  And once again we have the bad guys Putin, Xi and Rocket Man being pals.  This time though Germany and Japan are on the side of the good guys.


----------



## Leper

China is watching the situation in Europe and for them it's win/win and not a drop of Chinese blood will be spilled - Leave Russia fight it out with Ukraine and possibly draw some more European countries into the conflict. This is likely to continue for years. North Korea suddenly looks to be another extra-rising threat with the USA busy in the West. Suddenly, nobody's talking about the Hong Kong issues. Some of the former eastern bloc countries will be fast-tracked into the EU and sooner than we think there will be an EU army. Make no mistake about it Irish neutrality will be cast aside and not many will be too concerned until the body bags start arriving back. We have a real possibility of a nuclear war with defences in space involved along with the most modern means of attack. Then who shall inherit the Earth? - Certainly not humans!


----------



## Firefly

Duke of Marmalade said:


> There are so many echoes of WWII.  That was a war between the democracies and the dictatorships Germany, Italy and Japan.  And once again we have the bad guys Putin and Xi being pals.  This time though Germany and Japan are on the side of the good guys.


Very true. We now have nuclear weapons to worry about, but also social media which may help against the propaganda machines..

Also....anyone else notice how quiet the resident AAM Comrade has been of late?


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> Premier League: China's rights holder will not show games over Ukraine support


Police States sticking together.


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> Make no mistake about it Irish neutrality will be cast aside and not many will be too concerned until the body bags start arriving back.


If this goes Nuclear our policy of being unaligned (not neutral) won't help us. 
In the struggle between democratic freedom and totalitarian dictatorship no one should be neutral.


----------



## Leper

Purple said:


> If this goes Nuclear our policy of being unaligned (not neutral) won't help us.
> In the struggle between democratic freedom and totalitarian dictatorship no one should be neutral.


If this goes Nuclear, Mr Purple there'll be no struggle - But, the next war after will be fought with sticks and stones.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Firefly said:


> Also....anyone else notice how quiet the resident AAM Comrade has been of late?


I think s/he was finally cancelled.  I don't spot any reincarnation.  Note that I had originally forgotten Rocket Man in the new Axis of Evil.


----------



## Leper

Just a side issue:- Many children will have watched the television news lately and some will have friends in class who are from the eastern bloc. The television pictures don't look good. Kids get frightened with what's happening (I'm frightened too!) - It might do good to speak to your kids (in my case grandkids) just to reassure them.


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> Just a side issue:- Many children will have watched the television news lately and some will have friends in class who are from the eastern bloc. The television pictures don't look good. Kids get frightened with what's happening (I'm frightened too!) - It might do good to speak to your kids (in my case grandkids) just to reassure them.


My 12 year old daughter, in her usual dry tone, said "If it goes nuclear we'll be fine, sure we've flat 7Up."


----------



## Firefly

Leper said:


> Just a side issue:- Many children will have watched the television news lately and some will have friends in class who are from the eastern bloc. The television pictures don't look good. Kids get frightened with what's happening (I'm frightened too!) - It might do good to speak to your kids (in my case grandkids) just to reassure them.


I remember a moment like this in the early 80s. My mother was on the phone talking about the Cold War (it was the a heightened time). I was pretending to play with toys on the floor but was petrified.


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> If this goes Nuclear, Mr Purple there'll be no struggle - But, the next war after will be fought with sticks and stones.


Yep, and we should be doing all we can to actively make sure it doesn't go nuclear. That means standing up and being counted.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> I remember a moment like this in the early 80s. My mother was on the phone talking about the Cold War (it was the a heightened time). I was pretending to play with toys on the floor but was petrified.


And we are closer to nuclear war now than at any time in history.
Nobody should be under any illusions to the contrary.


----------



## Itchy

Leper said:


> Just a side issue:- Many children will have watched the television news lately and some will have friends in class who are from the eastern bloc. The television pictures don't look good. Kids get frightened with what's happening (I'm frightened too!) - It might do good to speak to your kids (in my case grandkids) just to reassure them.





Purple said:


> And we are closer to nuclear war now than at any time in history.
> Nobody should be under any illusions to the contrary.



People are scared. Things are dangerous at the moment. But just like modern times are, you will be fed images and video straight from the battlefield (I watched the livestream of the shelling of the nuclear power plant last night!!), you will get immediate reaction from commentators that are ill-considered and the media will still be looking for those clicks. The truth is no one knows how it will play out. Especially the powers to be! There is so much about this situation that is brand new.

Yes we are closer to nuclear war than we have been but we are NOT close to nuclear war. There are lots of decision points between here and there. We are nowhere near the brink! Its a risk at the moment, it is no where near being a favorable course of action. No need to lose sleep worrying about this.

Keep some perspective on the situation, its still early days. This will likely go on for a long time, it could be a decade before any sort of normality returns to Ukraine. Don't stress yourself out. We are just at the start of the humanitarian crisis. Already a million refugees, we will likely host 2% of whatever the ultimate number is. We can have a human impact here in Ireland, by helping them. If you're worried, thats where you should focus your energies, not the news/twitter or whatever.


----------



## Itchy

Powerful interview on Pat Kenny this morning. I thought it was going to be armchair warrior but he gave a very sincere and sober take on the situation. He knows exactly what he is heading over to meet. 









						Irish man going to fight in Ukraine: 'It's an important moment to step up'
					

Ivan Farina will leave Ireland on Saturday and arrive in Ukraine on Sunday




					www.newstalk.com


----------



## Itchy

On the markets side, the price of wheat has increased significantly. Both Ukraine and Russia being large producers. Two potential impacts 1) the price of wheat was a factor in the Arab spring. 2) Syria has stopped exports of foodstuffs and Russia has stopped financial support to Syria. There is a real risk of famine occurring in Syria.

Article here


----------



## Sunny

Even in the darkest of times, this made me laugh......Better than closing them down

*Latvian capital to rename Russian embassy address to Independent Ukraine street*

The party coalition governing Latvia's capital Riga has agreed to change the name of the street where Russia's embassy is located to Independent Ukraine Street, a statement said.

The move followed an announcement that Vilnius in neighboring Lithuania will change the name of a street where the Russian embassy is located to Heroes of Ukraine Street.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Itchy said:


> There is so much about this situation that is brand new.


And there is so much that is old as the hills.

We are watching the anatomy of tyrants in the person of Putin. It is formulaic.

First, complete repression and elimination of dissenting or opposing voices in their own countries, then the twin demonization of peoples and excuse of civilizing the savages as a pretext for invading other countries, then the cruel and inhuman disdain for the suffering of their victims.


----------



## joe sod

I don't see this being a long drawn out war, I think it is escalating fast and I think the West will not be able to sit this out. Putin is under huge pressure now the best way to force change is to keep ramping up the pressure by increasing substantially military aid to Ukraine. The only reason he is using nuclear threats is because he is afraid of his life and to cause the west to pull back from backing up Ukraine. Because Putin has crossed so many red lines already and told blatant lies we shouldn't think that he will put great importance on another red line

As regards Irish neutrality it's a complete joke and means nothing now. When you see Sweden s neutral country now supplying substantial arms to Ukraine you know that everything has changed now


----------



## johnwilliams

as has been said above if this get bad and article 5 is invoked with a clash between putin and nato ,then nukes will fly at some point .remember that there is an nuclear bullseye on you ,so you won't have to worry about neutrality.
  question heard about fundraisers lately some of  which is could be  going toward buying military equipment bodyarmor  etc
where do we stand legally about this ,has our gov said its ok to do so ( i am comparing it to lisa smith transfer of funds to isis)?


----------



## johnwilliams

hearing now that russian goverment has passed a new law where  protesters against the war could now face up to 15 years in jail, it just has to be signed off by putin


----------



## odyssey06

johnwilliams said:


> hearing now that russian goverment has passed a new law where  protesters against the war could now face up to 15 years in jail, it just has to be signed off by putin


What war... its a peacekeeping mission.

Is it a sign they were expecting protests?


----------



## joe sod

Just shows you Putin was a gambler and bluffer all along, another thing when the west was so consumed with the reality TV show of the Trump presidency they ignored the real danger in plain sight. But in fairness nobody knew this was going to happen even in the Kremlin.
The strange thing is why did Putin only go rogue now he has been there for 22 years and he is almost 70 now.
Hitler was making shapes from the beginning but Putin was ultra modern and progressive at the start ( unless this was just an act)
I think it could be because hitler.had charisma , Stalin had charisma but Putin had no charisma, all he had was the hard man strong man thing.
I remember at the very beginning of Putin the sinking of the Kursk submarine happened, Putin looked very vulnerable then , Putin was forced by public pressure and the families of the submariners to allow Norwegian and British divers to dive down to the Kursk and open the hatch. Russia did not have the expertise to do it then
But even though Putin hated allowing the west to open the hatch of their sunken submarine he was forced into it by that very modern thing, public opinion, this strong man thing is actually only an affectation


----------



## Purple

Putin did nothing for the first few years other than take control of most of the media. Without a free Press there can be no freedom. Once he’d done that he could do almost anything.


----------



## joe sod

Purple said:


> Putin did nothing for the first few years other than take control of most of the media. Without a free Press there can be no freedom. Once he’d done that he could do almost anything.


But Putin looked very weak at the start, he only got that position because of Yeltsin who actually had loads of charisma, but Putin has none, that's why he is so aftaid of zelensky who is now actually leading Europe


----------



## Leper

joe sod said:


> But Putin looked very weak at the start, he only got that position because of Yeltsin who actually had loads of charisma, but Putin has none, that's why he is so aftaid of zelensky who is now actually leading Europe


1. The Russian invasion of Ukraine continues. But, it has been delayed towards Kyiv because of the destruction of an important bridge by the Ukranians plus breakdowns of the convoy, fuel shortage and some demoralisation of troops. It is a racing certainty that this convoy will eventually get to the other side of the river.
2. A Ukranian sniper has killed an important Russian general who in a normal war wouldn't have come with thirty miles of the killing fields.
3. In the south Russia has made some gains and Kerson although encircled is still fighting. It has no electricity, no water, probably little food and temperatures are freezing.
4. Nuclear plants are always a danger especially in war.
5. New laws have been passed in Russia to ensure its media has sole use by Putin. Anybody who suggests anti Putin information could be jailed for up to 15 years.
6. Putin has all Russian schools informed that there is no invasion happening and it's just a strategic military peace keeping operation.
7. Television pictures indicate there is much anti war protest in Russia and demonstrators are being arrested.
8. NATO has reiterated that it will not send troops into Ukraine and neither will it have Ukraine air space policed by NATO fighter jets.
9. EU and USA leaders are throwing shapes and it appears could escalate at any time.
10. In the meantime many Ukranian women and children can be seen crossing the boarder to safety at several points. We are informed this could increase from one to four million shortly.

Putin is a mad dictator and in his recent interview with Macron indicates he wants Russia restored to include countries that have ceased "membership" of Russia.  Along with Latvia, Lithuania, Poland etc it appears Finland is included. Casualties are being understated by the Russians. However, it's only when the body bags are sent back the ordinary people of Russia will learn the truth. Putin has underestimated the resilience of Ukraine and I feel Russian aggression will be increased within days if not hours.

Putin seems to be losing the media war while his Ukraine counterpart Zelensky is using the media well. Putin appears to be a cold blooded killer and war criminal (which he is). He has removed internet access within Russia, but people find ways to access internet from other countries. This minute the English language is working in Ukraine's favour. Many Russians speak English too and the truth is being picked up slowly but surely. Each day this war is prolonged is giving rise to the possibility that Putin will be removed from within. He is a mass murderer and he knows this. Let's hope it happens soon.


----------



## odyssey06

joe sod said:


> Just shows you Putin was a gambler and bluffer all along, another thing when the west was so consumed with the reality TV show of the Trump presidency they ignored the real danger in plain sight. But in fairness nobody knew this was going to happen even in the Kremlin.
> The strange thing is why did Putin only go rogue now he has been there for 22 years and he is almost 70 now.
> Hitler was making shapes from the beginning but Putin was ultra modern and progressive at the start ( unless this was just an act)
> I think it could be because hitler.had charisma , Stalin had charisma but Putin had no charisma, all he had was the hard man strong man thing.
> I remember at the very beginning of Putin the sinking of the Kursk submarine happened, Putin looked very vulnerable then , Putin was forced by public pressure and the families of the submariners to allow Norwegian and British divers to dive down to the Kursk and open the hatch. Russia did not have the expertise to do it then
> But even though Putin hated allowing the west to open the hatch of their sunken submarine he was forced into it by that very modern thing, public opinion, this strong man thing is actually only an affectation


Well remember Hitler was also bluffing to a large degree in the mid 30s, was militarily and financially very weak but figured Britain. France, USSR didn't want to fight.


----------



## joe sod

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The difference between Adolf and Vlad is that Adolf had genuine prospects of conquering Europe.  Would have achieved it if he had dropped his obsession against the commies.  Vlad would be committing suicide to attempt that thanks to the Yanks having him completely surrounded.  My guess is that a nuke war would see 50 million Americans killed and Russia wiped out.
> Probably not this time, but who would bet on humanity not self destructing in the next 100 years? Makes action against climate change seem so presumptuous.
> Stock up on bitcoin.


Good point about climate change, all this focus on the "climate emergency" to the exclusion of everything else was complete lunacy. In many ways the focus by Europe especially Germany on renewables has made it so dependent on Russian gas . Now in order to get off Russian gas they are talking about reopening coal fired power stations and reversing course on nuclear energy.
How much carbon has been released in Ukraine with this war, surely the real emergency was not the climate but a nuclear emergency.
The new German chancellor sholz has really stepped up to the plate and is providing real leadership, I'm afraid Angela merkels legacy is well shot now after this Ukraine war, she was the architect of Germany's dependence on Russian gas, the closure of nuclear and coal powered stations and her all too cosy relationship with Putin


----------



## michaelm

joe sod said:


> I remember at the very beginning of Putin the sinking of the Kursk submarine happened, Putin looked very vulnerable then


I remember seeing, on TV, Kursk family members drugged by the regime at a public meeting https://youtu.be/jFBOfIiqW0o?t=51

Chilling.


----------



## Itchy

Leper said:


> Each day this war is prolonged is giving rise to the possibility that Putin will be removed from within. He is a mass murderer and he knows this. Let's hope it happens soon.


You'd have to agree then, that it's more in our interest than not, that the Russian military is delayed/prevented from achieving Putin's political objectives in Ukraine?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

One good thing to come out of this (which is a terrible thing to say given the civilian slaughter) is that our dependence on America is enormously emphasised.  The looney left (Wallace, Daly etc.) and the looney intelligentsia (O'Toole etc.) are put firmly in their box.  The nuclear club is as follows:
Russia 1,456
US  1,357
France 280
UK 120
China unknown but small

We now know how absolutely reliant we are on the US umbrella.
Putin calls sanctions a declaration of war.  Can anybody doubt that absent the US he would mean it.  He would take out the whole of Europe at the cost of a few 10s of millions of his own citizens.
But the US is not just a match in numbers, strategically it would overwhelm Russia, thanks to Nato.  How right JFK was to prevent Cuba being a launch pad for a Russian nuclear attack.
This is an enormous strategic mistake by Putin.  He was doing well in undermining American influence by getting his sycophant Trump in charge but that has all utterly changed.
The only fly in this ointment is that in desperation the madman may completely miscalculate.


----------



## odyssey06

Duke of Marmalade said:


> One good thing to come out of this (which is a terrible thing to say given the civilian slaughter) is that our dependence on America is enormously emphasised.  The looney left (Wallace, Daly etc.) and the looney intelligentsia (O'Toole etc.) are put firmly in their box.  The nuclear club is as follows:
> Russia 1,456
> US  1,357
> France 280
> UK 120
> China unknown but small
> 
> We now know how absolutely reliant we are on the US umbrella.
> Putin calls sanctions a declaration of war.  Can anybody doubt that absent the US he would mean it.  He would take out the whole of Europe at the cost of a few 10s of millions of his own citizens.
> But the US is not just a match in numbers, strategically it would overwhelm Russia, thanks to Nato.  How right JFK was to prevent Cuba being a launch pad for a Russian nuclear attack.
> This is an enormous strategic mistake by Putin.  He was doing well in undermining American influence by getting his sycophant Trump in charge but that has all utterly changed.
> The only fly in this ointment is that in desperation the madman may completely miscalculate.


It seems like Germany was also undermined... Schroeder appears to have been compromised and maybe others. German military became a joke. Hugely dependent on Russia for energy. Trump was all over the shop but he called that right. NATO relying on US for nuclear umbrella is one thing, but its European members shouldnt need US for energy or conventional defence.


----------



## Purple

As I said earlier Germany’s decision to close its Nuclear power plants after the Fukushima non-disaster was a disaster, politically, environmentally and strategically. 

A cornered Putin is more dangerous than ever. 

The best realistic short term global strategic outcome is a slow bloody intractable war which turns the Russian public against Putin. 
The question is which side is willing to bleed more. That’s usually the side that is fighting for their own soil.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> As I said earlier Germany’s decision to close its Nuclear power plants after the Fukushima non-disaster was a disaster, politically, environmentally and strategically.
> 
> A cornered Putin is more dangerous than ever.
> 
> The best realistic short term global strategic outcome is a slow bloody intractable war which turns the Russian public against Putin.
> The question is which side is willing to bleed more. That’s usually the side that is fighting for their own soil.


These ceasefires to allow evacuation could be a prelude to the Russians then treating them as warzone and pulverising them. On the other hand I think Russia wanted functioning Ukraine as a prize but maybe now its plan B time.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I am absolutely convinced who the bad guys are in this.
But I get slightly concerned when every single bit of news is about another diabolical Russian act.
They say that truth is the first casualty of war.
I suspect there is more than one side of the story on the Russian attack on a nuclear power plant and also on the humanitarian corridors.
I know I am going to be put in the Wallace/Daly sin bin for such heretical thoughts.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Not that easy to fake nowadays when most news channels carry out verification checks such as footage of the bombing of Hostomel airport 25 kilometres from Kyiv, which was verified by CNN.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> Not that easy to fake nowadays when most news channels carry out verification checks such as footage of the bombing of Hostomel airport 25 kilometres from Kyiv, which was verified by CNN.


Storyful were one of the first companies doing this. It was founded by Mark Little, formerly of RTE. It was bought by News Corporation in 2013 (3 years after it was founded) for €25 million. I'm sure there was VC money in there but Mark would have made a few bob out of it. The Irish CNN journalist who covered the Capital Insurrection in Washington Donie O'Sullivan cut his teeth there.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Agree with you Duke, however we're hearing this morning that these humanitarian corridors are in to Belarus and Russia only! That's either true or false, there cannot be any bias apportioned to it. If true that is as good as saying we are not prepared to offer any humantarian corridors out for civilians. What is he going to do next, offer to run trains to aid the evacuation and say they're being brought to special camps?


----------



## Firefly

Firefly said:


> I think Russia might take eastern Ukraine (not sure from where) and block it off from western Ukraine, with possibly a wall. Russia could install a puppet government and use the space as a buffer between Russia and the west. I am hoping that sanctions against Russia last as long as Putin is still calling the shots & hopefully one of rich & powerful people in Russia realise soon that life would be a lot better without Putin...


I'm going to revise my prediction based a little. I wonder is Vlad going t use this captured part of Ukraine use it as a buffer area between Russia and Europe and install missiles on it. Also, with the potential of millions of Ukraine citizens moving west, is Vlad also orchestrating a migration crises in Europe?


----------



## Purple

Interesting interview with the former commander of the US Special Operations Command in Europe.
He concludes with,


> I think the Western liberal democracies have both a moral obligation and a political imperative to support a nation fighting for its independence and the pursuit of a liberal political order in the Western tradition. If not here, where will we take a stand against autocratic and revisionist forces? What should Georgia and Azerbaijan conclude from our timidity in the face of evil? Surely Taiwan is next.
> 
> I believe Russia's assault on Ukraine is the leading edge of militarily strong states preying upon weaker ones. Few of us thought we would be here, but so it is. What are we going to do now?
> 
> History has been unkind to nations when they tolerate or appease such aggression. The concepts of territorial integrity and democracy cannot end at NATO's borders. Is the rest of the world to be left to the wolves while there is but one island of security? Russia's attack on Ukraine cannot succeed if we hope to build and sustain the benefits of democracy beyond NATO's borders.


----------



## michaelm

Duke of Marmalade said:


> They say that truth is the first casualty of war.


That notwithstanding, pronouncements of the Russian regime are not credible.  I expect that Ukrainian claims are much closer to the truth.  The Russian media is just propaganda whereas the Western media seem to be trying to report the facts on the ground.  

I really hope that the West is doing much more that we are aware of, providing intelligence and offensive weapons.  Provide fighter jets, drones, anything they can use, now.



Purple said:


> Interesting interview with the former commander of the US Special Operations Command in Europe.


I think the former commander's take is spot on.  Putin will not win but the price Ukraine will have to pay will only grow as the West fiddles.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> I really hope that the West is doing much more that we are aware of, providing intelligence and offensive weapons.  Provide fighter jets, drones, anything they can use, now.


The former commander had some insights there too. ref NATO countries getting their act together.


michaelm said:


> I think the former commander's take is spot on.  Putin will not win but the price Ukraine will have to pay will only grow as the West fiddles.


Yes, but the best realistic outcome might be for Russia to bleed out. Death by a thousand cuts. The price for Ukraine will be devastating.


----------



## Itchy

Ireland is now an 'unfriendly' state to Russia. Interesting that we have been bucketed with the EU. 



> The list includes the United States and Canada, *the EU states*, the UK...





			https://tass.com/politics/1418197


----------



## Sunny

They get to pay their foreign creditors in rubles......Oh look we do pay our debts even if it is magic beans....


----------



## Firefly

This whole thing really is a no-win for anyone. I think in the long run, Russia will lose out the most. Probably putting the country back 20 years


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Firefly said:


> This whole thing really is a no-win for anyone. I think in the long run, Russia will lose out the most. Probably putting *putin *the country back 20 years


----------



## odyssey06

Man arrested after truck driven through the gates of Russian embassy in Dublin... seems to have reversed into the gates rather than an attempt to storm it.








						Man arrested after truck driven through the gates of Russian embassy in Dublin
					

The man was arrested after the truck reversed into the gates at the embassy.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## Firefly

odyssey06 said:


> Man arrested after truck driven through the gates of Russian embassy in Dublin... seems to have reversed into the gates rather than an attempt to storm it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man arrested after truck driven through the gates of Russian embassy in Dublin
> 
> 
> The man was arrested after the truck reversed into the gates at the embassy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thejournal.ie


He was never going to get away in that though was he?


----------



## Purple

Itchy said:


> Ireland is now an 'unfriendly' state to Russia. Interesting that we have been bucketed with the EU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://tass.com/politics/1418197


Well we are in the EU so why wouldn't we.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> He was never going to get away in that though was he?
> 
> View attachment 6131


Gate-gate. Better than Golf-gate.


----------



## odyssey06

Firefly said:


> He was never going to get away in that though was he?



Engage Russian diplomat mode: "The truck is there for the protection of Russian people against attacks. They are now safe from car bomb attack."


----------



## Purple

Thankfully we are behaving better towards the refugees from this war prosecuted by Russia than we have been in the other war they are prosecuting in Syria. Then again Ukrainians are white.


----------



## odyssey06

Russia to legalize some software piracy as a way to get around sanctions... I think this means they will hack/steal the updates if not supplied.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> Then again Ukrainians are white.


Perhaps a bit more to it than that but sure every silver lining has its cloud.


----------



## Baby boomer

Purple said:


> Thankfully we are behaving better towards the refugees from this war prosecuted by Russia than we have been in the other war they are prosecuting in Syria. Then again Ukrainians are white.


As @michaelm said, there's a bit more to it than that.  Of course, there's an affinity, hardwired in human nature, towards people that are culturally similar and look similar to us.  Maybe there shouldn't be, but that's human beings for you.
Secondly, the Ukrainian refugees are a very impressive bunch.  The men are staying behind and fighting ferociously, while the refugees are the women, children, aged and sick.  (There are even many Ukrainian men here already who are going back to Ukraine to fight.) With many other refugee groups, the gender balance is the other way around, with groups of young men making up the bulk.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> Thankfully we are behaving better towards the refugees from this war prosecuted by Russia than we have been in the other war they are prosecuting in Syria. Then again Ukrainians are white.


It is a war in Europe, bordering countries we are in a deep and formal political association with - and Ukraine may one day join EU.
There are more interactions culturally and sporting - Ireland played in European soccer championships in 2012 in Poland \ Ukraine.
I would expect countries in the middle east feel differently about a war in Syria to one in Europe.


----------



## Leo

Baby boomer said:


> The men are staying behind and fighting ferociously, while the refugees are the women, children, aged and sick. (There are even many Ukrainian men here already who are going back to Ukraine to fight.) With many other refugee groups, the gender balance is the other way around, with groups of young men making up the bulk.


18-60 year old men have been ordered under martial law to remain in Ukraine and either sign-up or face conscription


----------



## Baby boomer

Leo said:


> 18-60 year old men have been ordered under martial law to remain in Ukraine and either sign-up or face conscription


Indeed, and they seem to be willingly complying.  As I said, even the Ukrainian men of military age already outside Ukraine want to get back and do their bit.  Quite the contrast with other refugee groups, I'd have said.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> Indeed, and they seem to be willingly complying.  As I said, even the Ukrainian men of military age already outside Ukraine want to get back and do their bit.  Quite the contrast with other refugee groups, I'd have said.


There is a difference between a Civil War and an invasion. In Syria it's the bad guys fighting the other bad guys. In Ukraine it's more clean cut.


----------



## Firefly

Is Putin creating a pretext to deploy chemical or biological weapons? That would just be so evil...









						One more thing to worry about: Putin may be paving the way to use chemical weapons in Ukraine
					

"Clearly, they see value in inflicting terror on the population."




					www.motherjones.com


----------



## RetirementPlan

odyssey06 said:


> Russia to legalize some software piracy as a way to get around sanctions... I think this means they will hack/steal the updates if not supplied.


What's new?


----------



## Firefly

RetirementPlan said:


> What's new?


True, they're at this for years, NK too. A lot easier than actually creating something themselves


----------



## Sophrosyne

I was watching a BBC studio newscaster this morning, who interviewed a Ukrainian general.

She asked him about their supplies  – as in ordnance - what they had and how they were getting to them. He sidestepped her questions several times but due to her persistence had to say that is _secret information_.

As people of my age are wont to do, I was almost shouting at the TV - _loose lips sink ships._

I also suspect that Ukraine would have received the Mig-29s by now if some bigmouth hadn’t made the plans public.


----------



## odyssey06

Sophrosyne said:


> I was watching a BBC studio newscaster this morning, who interviewed a Ukrainian general.
> 
> She asked him about their supplies  – as in ordnance - what they had and how they were getting to them. He sidestepped her questions several times but due to her persistence had to say that is _secret information_.
> 
> As people of my age are wont to do, I was almost shouting at the TV - _loose lips sink ships._
> 
> I also suspect that Ukraine would have received the Mig-29s by now if some bigmouth hadn’t made the plans public.


I am kinda hoping that the MIGs are coming in slowly already to replace lost MIGs and this is a smokescreen. But not sure...
Dropping them all at once would be obvious.


----------



## EmmDee

odyssey06 said:


> I am kinda hoping that the MIGs are coming in slowly already to replace lost MIGs and this is a smokescreen. But not sure...
> Dropping them all at once would be obvious.



If Russia see a plane fly to Ukraine from a NATO country you can be pretty sure they will declare it an act of war by NATO - they are classified as offensive rather than defensive weapons (such as missiles)


----------



## odyssey06

EmmDee said:


> If Russia see a plane fly to Ukraine from a NATO country you can be pretty sure they will declare it an act of war by NATO - they are classified as offensive rather than defensive weapons (such as missiles)


If they see it flying... could it fly low to evade radar? Or em be driven \ towed along a road... possibly crazy ideas


----------



## Firefly

_Fitch Ratings said a default on Russia’s sovereign debt was “imminent.”_









						Russia’s ruble continues its slide as new curbs restrict access to foreign currency.
					

As the currency loses purchasing power, Russia’s central bank is trying to support the ruble with expanded rules preventing exchanges into dollars.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## michaelm

odyssey06 said:


> Or em be driven \ towed along a road... possibly crazy ideas


Old school https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL41oesVh9o


----------



## Baby boomer

Interesting article from the Jerusalem Post about the realpolitik of bringing an end to the whole horrible business.  Once the war is finished I think there will have to be an EU "Marshall Plan" programme to fortify Ukrainian civil society and build trade, cultural, educational links as well as offering enhanced migration opportunities into EU countries.  

One silver lining that has already emerged has been the ability of the EU to move at warp speed when its back is against the wall.   To my mind, that needs to be baked in and given more prominence.  I'm also detecting a certain (unspoken) regret from some of the Brexiteers that, well, the European project isn't all that bad and just maybe removing Britain's armed forces from the EU bloc wasn't the smartest move.


----------



## peemac

Baby boomer said:


> Interesting article from the Jerusalem Post about the realpolitik of bringing an end to the whole horrible business.  Once the war is finished I think there will have to be an EU "Marshall Plan" programme to fortify Ukrainian civil society and build trade, cultural, educational links as well as offering enhanced migration opportunities into EU countries.
> 
> One silver lining that has already emerged has been the ability of the EU to move at warp speed when its back is against the wall.   To my mind, that needs to be baked in and given more prominence.  I'm also detecting a certain (unspoken) regret from some of the Brexiteers that, well, the European project isn't all that bad and just maybe removing Britain's armed forces from the EU bloc wasn't the smartest move.


And another silver lining is the cementing of EU internal relations. 
Poland in particular seems to very suddenly become very pro-Eu with seeing what is happening on their doorstep.

You also get a feeling that some communication is going on in the background with markets turning positive and oil prices falling.

Possibly this may not be as protracted as we fear


----------



## joe sod

Baby boomer said:


> One silver lining that has already emerged has been the ability of the EU to move at warp speed when its back is against the wall. To my mind, that needs to be baked in and given more prominence. I'm also detecting a certain (unspoken) regret from some of the Brexiteers that, well, the European project isn't all that bad and just maybe removing Britain's armed forces from the EU bloc wasn't the smartest move.


yea thats very true, the EU has moved very fast this time but only because Zelensky has put the EU full square at the centre of this war . It is the personality and charisma of Zelensky the no1 target of Putin putting his life in danger for the ideals of the EU against the tyranny of Putins regime that is the stand out from all this. Another standout is the bravery and courage of Poland in going further than anyone else in backing up Ukraine and Zelensky despite Putin's threats.


----------



## Itchy

EmmDee said:


> If Russia see a plane fly to Ukraine from a NATO country you can be pretty sure they will declare it an act of war by NATO - they are classified as offensive rather than defensive weapons (such as missiles)



I don't think Russia would be as quick to declare war on NATO, especially the way things are going for them at the moment. 

I think there will be restraint if there is any accident, NATO don't want to get sucked in (they don't need to at the moment as the Russians STILL don't have air superiority). Remember Turkey shot down Russian jets in Syria and US special Forces killed Russian soldiers at Deir ez Zor and other clashes. Not as clear as Ukraine but still not as simple as 'declare war' at first sight either. You can be damn sure the Ukrainians are getting direction on the ground also. They are showing quite advanced tactics in some areas, they seem to be trying to fix the Russians in place, prevent manoeuvrability but also not annihilating stationary units either, trying to prevent the destruction of as much infrastructure as possible.


----------



## Firefly

Well this could get interesting...

_Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich added to list of Russian oligarchs under sanction in UK_









						UK government 'open' to sale of Chelsea as long as Roman Abramovich does not profit
					

The UK government remains "open" to the sale of Chelsea despite imposing asset-freezing sanctions on owner Roman Abramovich.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## Firefly

More blatant lies from the Russians:

Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, tells a Turkish reporter: “We are not planning to attack other countries. _We didn’t attack Ukraine, either_.”









						What Happened on Day 15 of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine
					

At least three cities in western and central Ukraine were hit. In besieged Mariupol, bodies are now being buried in trenches. President Biden will call for suspending normal trade relations with Russia.




					www.nytimes.com
				




Honestly, do they think we are all blind & stupid or something?


----------



## odyssey06

Firefly said:


> More blatant lies from the Russians:
> 
> Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, tells a Turkish reporter: “We are not planning to attack other countries. _We didn’t attack Ukraine, either_.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Happened on Day 15 of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine
> 
> 
> At least three cities in western and central Ukraine were hit. In besieged Mariupol, bodies are now being buried in trenches. President Biden will call for suspending normal trade relations with Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, do they think we are all blind & stupid or something?


They have no plausible legitimate reason for the invasion \ war they have to resort to the 'big lie'.
The lie has to be so big you have to accept it as *a test of loyalty*. No even pretence about it so that you could comfort yourself with well it might be true... Straight from the totalitarian Nazi \ Soviet \ Orwellian (ahem Orwell Road) state playbook.


----------



## Sophrosyne

odyssey06 said:


> Straight from the totalitarian Nazi \ Soviet \ Orwellian (ahem Orwell Road) state playbook.


Let's not forget Trump.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

The news continues to be unrelentingly that the Russians are demonic.


Itchy said:


> I don't think Russia would be as quick to declare war on NATO, especially the way things are going for them at the moment.
> 
> I think there will be restraint if there is any accident, NATO don't want to get sucked in (they don't need to at the moment as the Russians STILL don't have air superiority). Remember Turkey shot down Russian jets in Syria and US special Forces killed Russian soldiers at Deir ez Zor and other clashes. Not as clear as Ukraine but still not as simple as 'declare war' at first sight either. You can be damn sure the Ukrainians are getting direction on the ground also. They are showing quite advanced tactics in some areas, they seem to be trying to fix the Russians in place, prevent manoeuvrability but also not annihilating stationary units either, trying to prevent the destruction of as much infrastructure as possible.


I think it is possible for two nuclear powers to militarily engage with each other without going all-in.  Haven't India and Pakistan done it several times?  Still, there would be queues to make your last confession.


----------



## odyssey06

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The news continues to be unrelentingly that the Russians are demonic.
> 
> I think it is possible for two nuclear powers to militarily engage with each other without going all-in.  Haven't India and Pakistan done it several times?  Still, there would be queues to make your last confession.


In theory yes, especially if no attacks were made on targets inside each other's territory and all combat occurred in\over Ukraine. Assuming both sides have some concept of limitation and rules of engagement. Limit to conventional warfare in those borders.

Modern air defence systems may complicate that though... do missiles fired from inside NATO \ Russian territory count?


----------



## Sophrosyne

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The news continues to be unrelentingly that the Russians are demonic.



Putin is not what he was. He has become increasingly isolated and trusts no one, not even his generals or the head of the Russian spy service, whom he humiliated publicly. He has taken personal control of the invasion, though his background is KGB rather than military.

The main fear expressed by NATO is that they are not dealing with a rational actor, hence the extreme caution.


----------



## Purple

Posters may find it interesting to re-read the New Stateman article that I linked to in the first post on this thread. It informative on Putin's mindset and motives in this conflict.
Russia still has a substantial military commitment in Syria, where they tested the weapons and tactics they are now using in Europe.


----------



## Firefly

_Bodies were buried in a mass grave on Wednesday on the outskirts of Mariupol, Ukraine
Maloletka/Associated Press_

I find it too disturbing to post the photo but it can be viewed here:

This gives me hope...


----------



## odyssey06

Putin will never end up in the ICC. Russia dont recognise it and that wont change soon. More likely is he meets with an accident helped by some upcoming colleagues.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Putin will never end up in the ICC. Russia dont recognise it and that wont change soon. More likely is he meets with an accident helped by some upcoming colleagues.


Either do the Americans, at least they won't let their people be tried their, which is ironic since it was set up by the American Ben Ferencz. He was also the youngest prosecuting lawyer in Nuremberg.  
.


----------



## Firefly

Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, tells a Turkish reporter: “We are not planning to attack other countries. _We didn’t attack Ukraine, either_.”


----------



## Sophrosyne

Just a word of thanks for the bravery of the free press on the ground in Ukraine – and all war zones – who put themselves in harm’s way to bear witness.

Reporters shot, shelled, robbed while covering Russian invasion of Ukraine


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> Just a word of thanks for the bravery of the free press on the ground in Ukraine – and all war zones – who put themselves in harm’s way to bear witness.
> 
> Reporters shot, shelled, robbed while covering Russian invasion of Ukraine


The footage of the Sky News Crew being shot was shocking.


----------



## Firefly

Sophrosyne said:


> Just a word of thanks for the bravery of the free press on the ground in Ukraine – and all war zones – who put themselves in harm’s way to bear witness.
> 
> Reporters shot, shelled, robbed while covering Russian invasion of Ukraine


We take it for granted here don't we? Can't help but thinking we could be on our way down this very road if/when SF get into power....


----------



## Sophrosyne

Firefly said:


> Can't help but thinking we could be on our way down this very road if/when SF get into power....


I think not.

If Sinn Fein got into power, it would quickly discover, like every other government, that despite its aspirations it would be constrained by the budget.

We have excellent reporters here.


----------



## Firefly

Sophrosyne said:


> I think not.
> 
> If Sinn Fein got into power, it would quickly discover, like every other government, that despite its aspirations it would be constrained by the budget.
> 
> We have excellent reporters here.


I hope you're right, but just like the Russians, I wouldn't trust them with a bargepole


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> I hope you're right, but just like the Russians, I wouldn't trust them with a bargepole


I share your concerns.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> I share your concerns.


See you in Sing Sing buddy


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> I think not.
> 
> If Sinn Fein got into power, it would quickly discover, like every other government, that despite its aspirations it would be constrained by the budget.


Not when you can borrow as much as you want. 


Sophrosyne said:


> We have excellent reporters here.


Really? I think the standard of reporting in our media on economic issues is appalling. Some of the newspaper journalists are good at it but the majority don't even try. It's non-existent on TV and Radio.

We've got hand-wringing opinion piece writers who are up there with the best in the world but we're not great at actual journalism grounded in (all of the) facts, figures and details. Our media take reports from vested interest groups and report them as fact without contextualising or fact checking them. We're not at the level of the Russians, or anything close, but we're a long way from having excellent reporters.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> See you in Sing Sing buddy


Yep, we'll both be in Chinese style re-education camps soon.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Purple said:


> Not when you can borrow as much as you want.


My point is that it is easy for an opposition party to bark and grumble when it has never experienced the practical constraints of being the Government, including restraints on borrowing.

I don’t share your opinion on Irish journalism.


----------



## losttheplot

I wonder would we be better agreeing with Putin and actually start to help him. NATO decides Putin was right all along, there's Nazis in the Ukraine. NATO wants to get rid of the Nazis and since Russia is struggling, NATO troops could be in Kyiv quicker and the rest of the country, and drive out the Nazis. NATO would also be willing to stay incase the Nazis came back.

Alternatively, what if the Ukraine were to attack Poland and Romania, would NATO be obliged to respond.


----------



## odyssey06

losttheplot said:


> I wonder would we be better agreeing with Putin and actually start to help him. NATO decides Putin was right all along, there's Nazis in the Ukraine. NATO wants to get rid of the Nazis and since Russia is struggling, NATO troops could be in Kyiv quicker and the rest of the country, and drive out the Nazis. NATO would also be willing to stay incase the Nazis came back.
> 
> Alternatively, what if the Ukraine were to attack Poland and Romania, would NATO be obliged to respond.


I was thinking time for Poland to reclaim its lost territory in Ukraine


----------



## Delboy

Russian state TV guests make rare public criticism of Kremlin - Extra.ie
					

Signs public support for the war in Ukraine may be wavering emerged after there was open criticism of the invasion on Russian State TV.



					extra.ie
				



Is there finally some kick back coming from within Russia


----------



## cremeegg

Excellent background article here.









						Is there any justification for Putin’s war?
					

Nato invasion, genocide and drug-addled neo-Nazi’s: we assess whether any of Russia’s claims are valid




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Purple

I see the Shinner Spokesperson seconded to the Irish Times has reiterated their pro-Neutrality position. 
In what reads like an interrupted first-year student debating society speech from the late 1970's that she really really really wanted to get out of her system we hear about FG populism and American "warplanes" and how, in the face of the invasion of a European democracy by a totalitarian dictatorship the right (correct) thing to do is to reassert our neutrality (even though we are not, and have never been, neutral). 
If one of my kids wrote that guff for a school project I'd be embarrassed for them.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> I see the Shinner Spokesperson seconded to the Irish Times has reiterated their pro-Neutrality position.
> In what reads like an interrupted first-year student debating society speech from the late 1970's that she really really really wanted to get out of her system we hear about FG populism and American "warplanes" and how, in the face of the invasion of a European democracy by a totalitarian dictatorship the right (correct) thing to do is to reassert our neutrality (even though we are not, and have never been, neutral).
> If one of my kids wrote that guff for a school project I'd be embarrassed for them.


Apparently they have deleted a decade's worth of media statements from their website... including previous wishy washy guff about Russia and\or whataboutery.

Meanwhile US sources are reporting that the Russian advance is stalled and they don't have enough troops to encircle Kyiv. Scouring the middle east and Chechnya for the dregs of the mercenary world. Belarus on verge of economic collapse and needs bailout from Russia.


----------



## Baby boomer

Purple said:


> I see the Shinner Spokesperson seconded to the Irish Times has reiterated their pro-Neutrality position.
> In what reads like an interrupted first-year student debating society speech from the late 1970's that she really really really wanted to get out of her system we hear about FG populism and American "warplanes" and how, in the face of the invasion of a European democracy by a totalitarian dictatorship the right (correct) thing to do is to reassert our neutrality (even though we are not, and have never been, neutral).
> If one of my kids wrote that guff for a school project I'd be embarrassed for them.


I don't mind reading stuff with which I disagree.  In fact it sharpens up the thought processes and can help clarify one's own thinking.  But yeah, Una Mullally's columns are banal, inconsistent and badly thought out.  Not to mention blatantly pro Shinner.
It really doesn't reflect well at all on the Irish Times that she's given such a prestige weekly slot.


----------



## odyssey06

Lot of rumours flying that China considering Russian request for weapons (ft.com)


----------



## odyssey06

Good summary of military state of play...









						Russian advances remain stalled as Ukraine targets supply efforts
					

Nearly all Russian advances in Ukraine remain stalled due in part to “creative” strikes from the Ukrainians limiting the ability of Kremlin forces to resupply, a senior U.S. defense official said M…



					thehill.com


----------



## cremeegg

Baby boomer said:


> I don't mind reading stuff with which I disagree.  In fact it sharpens up the thought processes and can help clarify one's own thinking.


This died in Ireland when Kevin Myers was put out to grass. I never agreed with him about anything (except Golf) but explaining to myself why he was wrong was the intellectual equivalent of weightlifting. I never followed him to the Indo however, too much sludge there.


----------



## Sophrosyne

If you’re not part of NATO, you’re pretty much on your own regardless of atrocities perpetrated against you.

However, if you are part of NATO and have nuclear capacity, you can carry on to your liking against non-Nato countries..


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> Una Mullally's columns are banal, inconsistent and badly thought out. Not to mention blatantly pro Shinner.


Is it possible to be pro Shinner and have opinions that are not be inconsistent and badly thought out?


----------



## odyssey06

In a brave act of of solidarity... The prime ministers of Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia are due to travel to Kyiv later to meet Ukranian President Zelensky


----------



## odyssey06

Some rather sobering analysis from retired Australian general, that Russia is in the process of switching to Plan C after being frustrating in their initial plans by the Ukranian military response:

_Plan C might be described as: hold current gains, long range firepower on cities, foreign fighters as cannon fodder, destroy as much infrastructure and manufacturing capacity as possible, expand the war to the west to deter foreign volunteers & aid providers.
This will permit the Russians to economise in personnel, trickle in replacements (and foreign mercenaries), while expending large amounts of cheap artillery and rockets in the hope they can terrorise Ukrainian civilians to force a political accommodation._



			https://twitter.com/WarintheFuture/status/1503499716209754115


----------



## Sophrosyne

“Irish aircraft lessors moved a step closer to the possible write-off of billions of euro worth of airplanes leased to Russian airlines after the Kremlin passed a law re-registering foreign-owned aircraft in Russia.

In a move interpreted as retaliatory against EU sanctions on Moscow over its war in Ukraine, Russian president Vladimir Putin signed a Bill to allow Russian airlines continue flying leased aircraft by putting airplanes leased from Irish and other foreign companies on Russia’s aircraft register.

The value of the Irish-owned aircraft leased to Russian airlines is estimated to be between €3.5 billion and €4.5 billion, making the Irish industry one of the worst-affected by the crisis.”


----------



## odyssey06

Sophrosyne said:


> “Irish aircraft lessors moved a step closer to the possible write-off of billions of euro worth of airplanes leased to Russian airlines after the Kremlin passed a law re-registering foreign-owned aircraft in Russia.
> 
> In a move interpreted as retaliatory against EU sanctions on Moscow over its war in Ukraine, Russian president Vladimir Putin signed a Bill to allow Russian airlines continue flying leased aircraft by putting airplanes leased from Irish and other foreign companies on Russia’s aircraft register.
> 
> The value of the Irish-owned aircraft leased to Russian airlines is estimated to be between €3.5 billion and €4.5 billion, making the Irish industry one of the worst-affected by the crisis.”


Hmm... could here be a restitution fund for these loss scenarios using frozen Russian assets.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Perhaps, but the Russian Bill is dumb short-termism. 

It can only fly the planes in Russia & perhaps its few "friendly" countries as it cannot get international safety certificates.

How long could it keep the planes flying if it can't get spare parts?

What happens when the Ukraine war is over?


----------



## Ceist Beag

A chap was on the radio this morning and said what Russia are doing here is akin to them taking an Irish citizen working in Russia and claiming s/he is no longer an Irish citizen and is a Russian citizen and thereby denying them access to the Irish embassy or any aid from Ireland!
It's incredibly short termism (not to mention illegal) and further illustrates the desperation of the Russians. The nose is well and truly cut off at this stage!


----------



## Firefly

Sophrosyne said:


> How long could it keep the planes flying if it can't get spare parts?


Won't matter a jot...they'll continue to fly them even when they're falling out of the sky


----------



## odyssey06

Sophrosyne said:


> Perhaps, but the Russian Bill is dumb short-termism.
> 
> It can only fly the planes in Russia & perhaps its few "friendly" countries as it cannot get international safety certificates.
> 
> How long could it keep the planes flying if it can't get spare parts?
> 
> What happens when the Ukraine war is over?


It's even worse than that. It puts even the planes they do own in jeopardy if it means companies refuse to provide parts etc for them too.


----------



## Purple

What happens to Irish/EU businesses who had goods made and ready to ship to Russia?


----------



## Baby boomer

Purple said:


> Is it possible to be pro Shinner and have opinions that are not be inconsistent and badly thought out?


One could, I suppose, think that the Shinners were the best of a bad lot and one might well regard some of their policies as verging on quite sensible.  ( I don't, BTW!) 
But if you go full on for the entire Shinner package, I don't think it's possible to avoid the inconsistencies and bad politics.


----------



## odyssey06

Possible signs of a deal... Zelensky says Russian demands are becoming more realistic, talk of a special neutral status for Ukraine similar to Sweden or Austria. An armed neutral rather than a demilitarised one. And it suggests like those countries it would not rule out eu membership.


----------



## Firefly

odyssey06 said:


> Possible signs of a deal... Zelensky says Russian demands are becoming more realistic, talk of a special neutral status for Ukraine similar to Sweden or Austria. An armed neutral rather than a demilitarised one. And it suggests like those countries it would not rule out eu membership.


Putin will claim it as a win, which it will be.... he's flattened his neighbour and will probably get to keep even more land. A few sort years he'll go again and things to really escalate then. Sanctions should remain until he coughs up 100bn+ to rebuild what he's destroyed.


----------



## odyssey06

Firefly said:


> Putin will claim it as a win, which it will be.... he's flattened his neighbour and will probably get to keep even more land. A few sort years he'll go again and things to really escalate then. Sanctions should remain until he coughs up 100bn+ to rebuild what he's destroyed.


Well I think there has to enough in it for Putin to claim a victory of sorts. Mission Accomplished.
But is it really a win at the cost it came with?
The intention was to bring Ukraine back into Russia's orbit like Belarus, with a blitz coup d'etat, expecting the government to collapse with little or no resistance. Instead the Russian military has been shown up, a large modern army - the modern part isn't large and the large part isn't modern. After several weeks fighting looking for mercenaries from Middle East and supplies from China.
The EU taking measures to remove its dependency on Russia, sanctions, possible reparations, crippling Russia's ability to rearm.

The people of Ukraine won't accept a Russian puppet like in the past, so Ukraine as a grudgingly willing member of the Russian economic zone is gone.

I'm sure Zelensky is thinking along the same lines re: it just being a truce. So while not being in NATO if they are in EU or accepted as part of the mutual defence clause that might be enough to deter Russia. Austria takes its weapons from NATO system even though it is not in NATO.


----------



## Firefly

The two sides are discussing “a whole range of issues regarding the size of the Ukrainian Army,” Vladimir R. Medinsky, the head of the Russian delegation, said in televised remarks on Wednesday. He said Russia needed “_a peaceful, free, independent Ukraine, neutral, not a member of military blocs, not a member of NATO._”









						Ukraine Live Updates: Zelensky Implores Congress for More Weapons and Sanctions
					

After the Ukrainian leader’s video address to lawmakers, President Biden is expected to approve $800 million in new military aid. Ukrainian forces launched a counteroffensive as cease-fire talks between Kyiv and Moscow continued.




					www.nytimes.com
				




That's what Ukraine IS, Vlad


----------



## michaelm

Putin and Russia are losers in all of this.  Ukraine will recover much sooner than Russia.  The Russians must be doing even worse than it seems if they are seriously negotiating.  The maniacal little tsar may have to settle for a few fig leaves.


----------



## Sophrosyne

I wonder whether not just Putin but Russia itself will be a spent force when things settle.

It recently signed a “Friendship between the two States has no limits” pact with China. This is more significant than previous pacts between the two in that it is just short of a formal alliance against the West.

It is more of a master slave relationship, with Russia being very much the slave.

Commentators have likened Russia to the “canary in the coalmine” for China.

Ukraine and its charismatic President have both challenged and galvanised the West and may force a sea change.


----------



## Firefly

_Grand slam champion Daniil Medvedev may have to jump through a few diplomatic hoops if he wants to compete at Wimbledon later this year._









						Daniil Medvedev: UK government wants assurances that Russian tennis star is not a supporter of Vladimir Putin | CNN
					

Grand slam champion Daniil Medvedev may have to jump through a few diplomatic hoops if he wants to compete at Wimbledon later this year.




					edition.cnn.com


----------



## Sophrosyne

For the day that’s in it - solidarity with the people of Ukraine and people everywhere in crisis.


----------



## odyssey06

So Biden (wearing a green tie and shamrock) just called Putin a murderous thug, flanked by the American and Irish flags... 
_
The President emphasized the strength of the relationship between Ireland -- which has never joined NATO -- and the United States, saying during the luncheon that the relationship was "taking on an even more intense and cooperative forum than it ever has because of Ireland's neutrality."
Biden said Ireland is "stepping up" in the face of Russian aggression against Ukraine.
"Ireland and the United States and working together for the first time now," Biden said. "They're on the United Nations Security Council ... and the European Union. And Putin is paying a big price for his aggression, and they are part of the reason the cost is going so high."
"Everybody talks about how Germany having stepped up and changed their notions about being more leaning forward, and they have," he continued. "And so has Ireland. A neutral country, Ireland has stepped up, and they're taking the hit for what they're doing."_


----------



## Baby boomer

Looks like the US wants us in NATO.  Perhaps a huge naval base and airbase at Shannon / Foynes.  Think of the employment opportunities.


----------



## frankde

Good Video from Arnold  Schwarzenegger to Russia









						Terminator Arnold Schwarzenegger's emotional message to Russian People & Soldiers on Ukraine war
					

‎@Arnold Schwarzenegger #russiaukraineconflict #VolodymyrZelenskyy #Russian #EU #EuropeanUnion #PutinsWar #нетвойне #schwarzenegger #terminator




					www.youtube.com


----------



## Leper

Baby boomer said:


> Looks like the US wants us in NATO.  Perhaps a huge naval base and airbase at Shannon / Foynes.  Think of the employment opportunities..


. . . and don't forget Knock Airport too.


----------



## Baby boomer

Leper said:


> . . . and don't forget Knock Airport too.


Too remote and no facility for a joint air naval base.


----------



## Firefly

frankde said:


> Good Video from Arnold  Schwarzenegger to Russia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terminator Arnold Schwarzenegger's emotional message to Russian People & Soldiers on Ukraine war
> 
> 
> ‎@Arnold Schwarzenegger #russiaukraineconflict #VolodymyrZelenskyy #Russian #EU #EuropeanUnion #PutinsWar #нетвойне #schwarzenegger #terminator
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.youtube.com


Interesting video. The Russians have been lied to for decades so hopefully they will see this. However, given the lockdown on free speech in Russia I'd have my doubts. Makes me thankful I don't live in such a regime


----------



## michaelm

Firefly said:


> Interesting video.


Deft and measured.  Lands softly, like snow.  Hopefully this manages to circulate inside Russia and within the Russian ranks.  Putin must be on borrowed time at this point.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> Interesting video. The Russians have been lied to for decades so hopefully they will see this. However, given the lockdown on free speech in Russia I'd have my doubts. Makes me thankful I don't live in such a regime


I'm a big fan of Arnie. His videos to/on Trump were excellent.


----------



## odyssey06

Interesting Twitter thread from retired US army officer on why Russian casualties are so high.

In a nutshell - their armoured vehicles can be taken out by Ukranian infantry. The Russians don't have the medical infrastructure to save many wounded soldiers.



			https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1505890299163381764?t=CCiC0UQxd0_GlPHGDUyCZg&s=19


----------



## Purple

Excellent stuff @odyssey06, very informative.


----------



## Firefly

More coverups by Russia....hopefully enough people saw the article before it was deleted...

_Russia’s ministry of defence appeared to accidentally reveal that nearly 10,000 of its soldiers have been killed in Ukraine.

The figure was contained in a report on March 20 by the pro-Kremlin Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper, which has since been deleted from the paper’s website.

Before it was removed, the article quoted the Russian defence ministry as saying that 9,861 Russian soldiers had been killed, and 16,153 were injured, in more than three weeks of fighting.

Previously, the Russian military had only admitted that around 500 soldiers had been killed.

The article was taken down from the paper’s website and replaced with a version not including casualty numbers._









						Ukraine: Russia ‘accidentally reveals’ 10,000 of its soldiers have been killed, as Biden warns Putin considering using chemical weapons
					

Ukrainian forces fought off continuing Russian efforts to occupy Mariupol and claimed to have retaken a strategic suburb of Kyiv, mounting a defense so dogged that it is stoking fears Russia’s Vladimir Putin will escalate the war to new heights.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## michaelm

The website could have been hacked.  I only believe half of Ukraine's claims and almost no Russian claims in the propaganda war.


----------



## peemac

Interesting angle talking to a Ukrainian.

He reckons 75% of Russian people would back Putin because they are conditioned that way.

Here we see each other as equal. We generally respect others and have a high regard for life.

In Russia and many parts of Asia they are told that the common good trumps life.

So if I said that killing those 20 people across the street would mean a better outcome for others, that would be accepted.

Too many see it through the eyes of what we are used to. 

It was a superb insight.


----------



## Sophrosyne

CNN’s Christian Amanpour interviewed Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s press secretary yesterday.

The drivel really means that Putin doesn’t recognize the sovereignty of any former USSR State and will invent any pretext to recover those States for “The Motherland”.


----------



## odyssey06

Sophrosyne said:


> CNN’s Christian Amanpour interviewed Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s press secretary yesterday.
> 
> The drivel really means that Putin doesn’t recognize the sovereignty of any former USSR State and will invent any pretext to recover those States for “The Motherland”.


That was pretty much the gist of what Putin said the week before the invasion, anything that was ever USSR or Russian empire he still sees them having some claim on.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Yes, pretty much!
I wonder whether we are allowing Putin to dictate red lines.
Surely we need to get ahead of him regarding red lines.


----------



## odyssey06

Sophrosyne said:


> Yes, pretty much!
> I wonder whether we are allowing Putin to dictate red lines.
> Surely we need to get ahead of him regarding red lines.


Yes I think need to be more pro-active, say with Moldova.
If the Baltic States weren't already in eu \ nato I imagine they'd have de-stabilised by Russia now.


----------



## Baby boomer

Sophrosyne said:


> Yes, pretty much!
> I wonder whether we are allowing Putin to dictate red lines.
> Surely we need to get ahead of him regarding red lines.


I agree.  But a major problem is that Obama declared the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a red line.  And when Putin crossed it, Obama did..... absolutely nothing.  
It's only a red line if you're going to enforce it.


----------



## Purple

Good to see Zelensky call out Ireland specifically for our snivelling cowardice. 
I just about heard it over the noise of us clapping ourselves on the back for taking in a few refugees and talking about maybe wagging our finger at Russia.


----------



## Peanuts20

Purple said:


> Good to see Zelensky call out Ireland specifically for our snivelling cowardice.
> I just about heard it over the noise of us clapping ourselves on the back for taking in a few refugees and talking about maybe wagging our finger at Russia.


Ukraine rolled back from that in a major way over the last few days, their foreign minister said Ireland is is "at the forefront within the EU and beyond providing essential support for Ukraine in all possible ways."  

At the end of the day, we can't even find enough sailors to travel to New Zealand to pick up 2 new ships for our navy, there is little practical military assistance we can provide.


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> Good to see Zelensky call out Ireland specifically for our snivelling cowardice.
> I just about heard it over the noise of us clapping ourselves on the back for taking in a few refugees and talking about maybe wagging our finger at Russia.



And yet the Russians call us out for being at forefront of Anti-Russian Sentiment in Europe.... Neutrality is tough!

Found the reaction to that speech very bizarre. He didn't exactly give ringing endorsements for Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Romania, Greece, Cyprus, Malta, France. And certainly not Hungary. And yet we seem to be the only Country that spent time looking for praise/getting insulted....

I think the context was more to do with getting membership of the EU rather than any military assistance. I think Ireland has supported that but doesn't think it can be done immediately...


----------



## Purple

Peanuts20 said:


> Ukraine rolled back from that in a major way over the last few days, their foreign minister said Ireland is is "at the forefront within the EU and beyond providing essential support for Ukraine in all possible ways."
> 
> At the end of the day, we can't even find enough sailors to travel to New Zealand to pick up 2 new ships for our navy, there is little practical military assistance we can provide.


Again, nobody is suggesting that we send troops to Ukraine, nobody is suggesting that we join NATO. Ukraine is fighting a war. They need weapons. That have asked for weapons. We are refusing to give them weapons or money to but weapons.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Baby boomer said:


> I agree. But a major problem is that Obama declared the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a red line. And when Putin crossed it, Obama did..... absolutely nothing.
> It's only a red line if you're going to enforce it.


Yes, I agree and this has been mentioned repeatedly by politicians and the press.

Also mentioned is the US disorderly withdrawal from Afghanistan.

While the West ruminates about what Putin thinks or what he might do, Ukrainian citizens are being slaughtered and their cities, towns and villages reduced to rubble by persistent and indiscriminate aerial bombardment.

However, there is a groundswell of opinion that fear of being provocative should not dictate what military hardware is provided to Ukraine to enable it to defend itself.

Putin is the aggressor and has already crossed several red lines. It has to be made clear to him that it is not up to him to control who helps Ukraine or the nature of that help.


----------



## Firefly

Very interesting article on Putin here









						The Making of Vladimir Putin
					

Tracing Putin’s 22-year slide from statesman to tyrant.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Found the reaction to that speech very bizarre. He didn't exactly give ringing endorsements for Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Romania, Greece, Cyprus, Malta, France. And certainly not Hungary. And yet we seem to be the only Country that spent time looking for praise/getting insulted....


We've like an insecure teenager, the most important thing for us is to be liked. That's why when famous people come here we fawn over them and ask them if they like us and if they think we're great. If they say yes we love them.


----------



## Firefly

Hey Vlads, found any Nazis yet?


----------



## tecate

Glenn Greenwald's take on this perilous mess.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> Glenn Greenwald's take on this perilous mess.


He's entitled to his opinion and luckily he can express one without the risk of going to jail for 15 years!


----------



## Sophrosyne

Firefly said:


> He's entitled to his opinion and luckily he can express one without the risk of going to jail for 15 years!



Exactly - and going all around the moon to say nothing!


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> He's entitled to his opinion and luckily he can express one without the risk of going to jail for 15 years!


I remember you raising the concept of 'whataboutism' in the not so distant past. 
I guess we can ignore the US orchastrating this whole thing back in 2014 - and just go with the onesided media slant on all of this (and no, I'm not in any way shape or form a Putin supporter).



Sophrosyne said:


> Exactly - and going all around the moon to say nothing!


To say nothing (or maybe notions that are unpalateable to you) - or to say a whole host of very important and relevant things (given the one-sided take on this mess)? To me, it's the latter.


----------



## Sophrosyne

tecate said:


> To say nothing (or maybe notions that are unpalateable to you) - or to say a whole host of very important and relevant things (given the one-sided take on this mess)? To me, it's the latter.


Such as ...?


----------



## tecate

Sophrosyne said:


> Such as ...?


Practically everything in that article - and given the discourse on here (which has only come from one slant), I would say its pretty much essential reading for anyone to balance up their understanding.

The first casualty in war is truth - it's reasonable to expect that there are a whole host of untruths emmanating from both sides.


----------



## Sophrosyne

That's not an answer though.


----------



## tecate

Sophrosyne said:


> That's not an answer though.


Given that's my opinion and view, it's very much an answer. Now if you'd like to disagree with any of what Greenwald raised, you could do so if you wanted to....or you can just denigrate it without going into it at all. Whatever works.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> (and no, I'm not in any way shape or form a Putin supporter).


Hi tecate,

Do you think the Russian actions in Ukraine are in anyway justified?

Firefly.


----------



## Purple

tecate said:


> Given that's my opinion and view, it's very much an answer. Now if you'd like to disagree with any of what Greenwald raised, you could do so if you wanted to....or you can just denigrate it without going into it at all. Whatever works.


The link you posted is blocked by my computer. Can you give a summary?

Of course there is a long history in the region and Ukraine is far from a liberal Western society (though that is what they are trying to be) but what matters is that a dictator has used his army to invade another country in an attempt to remove their democratically elected government, the democratic rights of its citizens and their fundamental rights as laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's a god read if for any reason you are unsure who the good guys and bad guys are here.


----------



## Sophrosyne

tecate said:


> Given that's my opinion and view, it's very much an answer. Now if you'd like to disagree with any of what Greenwald raised, you could do so if you wanted to....or you can just denigrate it without going into it at all. Whatever works.


I am familiar with Glen Greenwald’s career and writings over the years.

If assume you had a reason for posting a link to one of his works and therefore it is not unreasonable to question why you think it is valuable.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> The link you posted is blocked by my computer.


Get on to your IT guys fella, it's a reputable site


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> Get on to your IT guys fella, it's a reputable site


Yea, it look "Fair and Balanced".


----------



## tecate

Purple said:


> The link you posted is blocked by my computer. Can you give a summary?
> 
> Of course there is a long history in the region and Ukraine is far from a liberal Western society (though that is what they are trying to be) but what matters is that a dictator has used his army to invade another country in an attempt to remove their democratically elected government, the democratic rights of its citizens and their fundamental rights as laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's a god read if for any reason you are unsure who the good guys and bad guys are here.


Try this alternate link here instead.
I'm well aware who the good and bad guys are here - there aren't any (albeit some are likely to be worse than others).



Sophrosyne said:


> If assume you had a reason for posting a link to one of his works and therefore it is not unreasonable to question why you think it is valuable.


I did - and I stated what it was - i.e. that Greenwald puts across a completely different point of view - which I'd suggest that this thread is most definitely lacking. You asked the question - I gave you an answer. I don't want to single out any one part of it - because Greenwald's take in its entirety is relevant as far as I'm concerned and anyone that is approaching this from a polar opposite point of view should give themselves the opportunity to tune into a completely different take. It's healthy in terms of coming to a more balanced and better formed view.
By the same token as the point you made, you too could expand on why he says 'nothing' in that piece. I can't fathom how anyone could come to that conclusion. I can understand if someone simply didn't agree with any of the points he made but he most certainly isn't saying nothing.



Firefly said:


> Get on to your IT guys fella, it's a reputable site


Relevance? Glen Greenwald is a highly regarded journalist. Zerohedge has re-published his substack article. Your views on Zerohedge are entirely beside the point.


----------



## tecate

Purple said:


> Yea, it look "Fair and Balanced".


Right - you can say that without having read a word of the article? That's an amazing ability! lol.


----------



## Firefly

Hi tecate,

Just in case you missed my earlier question (post #439), as I see you've subsequently posted in this thread : 

_Do you think the Russian actions in Ukraine are in anyway justified?_

Firefly.


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> _Do you think the Russian actions in Ukraine are in anyway justified?_


I believe that these things are far more complex than a determination of good guys and bad guys - because this sort of thing is filthy - and you can be sure that there are no good guys in this (albeit that's not what the mass media is churning out). In this context, I'd roll in right behind this from Greenwald:
_"Instead, the emotions deliberately stoked by the relentless media attention to the horrors of this war — horrors which, contrary to the West's media propaganda, are common to all wars, including its own"_

Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan? I'd say the narrative has been bent quite differently - and that's what Greenwald is alluding to.

I'd also consider Greenwald's consideration of US meddling in Ukraine circa 2014 as highly relevant to what happened back then and what is happening now.

No side is going to tell the truth here - and to listen to just one side of it is a mistake in my view. However, I'm sure the guys at Northrop and Lockheed aren't all too unhappy. They had a gap in scheduling after the curtain came down on the crap-show in Afghanistan.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> I believe that these things are far more complex than a determination of good guys and bad guys - because this sort of thing is filthy - and you can be sure that there are no good guys in this (albeit that's not what the mass media is churning out). In this context, I'd roll in right behind this from Greenwald:
> _"Instead, the emotions deliberately stoked by the relentless media attention to the horrors of this war — horrors which, contrary to the West's media propaganda, are common to all wars, including its own"_
> 
> Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan? I'd say the narritive has been bent quite differently - and that's what Greenwald is aluding to.
> 
> I'd also consider Greenwald's consideration of US meddling in Ukraine circa 2014 as highly relevant to what happened back then and what is happening now.
> 
> No side is going to tell the truth here - and to listen to just one side of it is a mistake in my view. However, I'm sure the guys at Northrop and Lockheed aren't all too unhappy. They had a gap in scheduling after the curtain came down on the crap-show in Afghanistan.


Thanks for that, but it's not the question I asked. The question is "_Do you think the Russian actions in Ukraine are in anyway justified?_" I would expect something along the lines of "_Yes, because.._" or "_No, because.._"


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> Thanks for that, but it's not the question I asked. The question is "_Do you think the Russian actions in Ukraine are in anyway justified?_" I would expect something along the lines of "_Yes, because.._" or "_No, because.._"


Again, I've given you my answer. You might 'expect' a yes or no answer but the answer is mine to give - not yours. There's greater complexity in all of this than the mass media is portraying.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

When we read the truth that @tecate has helpfully brought to us one of the really frightening things is how the World has been duped by the US.  I don't know the numbers off hand but something like 130 nations supported the UN motion condemning the Russian special operation, 30 abstained and only a handful like Belarus had the wisdom of @tecate to see through the wickedness of the West with its corrupt central bankers etc.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> When we read the truth that @tecate has helpfully brought to us one of the really frightening things is how the World has been duped by the US.  I don't know the numbers off hand but something like 130 nations supported the UN motion condemning the Russian special operation, 30 abstained and only a handful like Belarus had the wisdom of @tecate to see through the wickedness of the West with its corrupt central bankers etc.


Yes, stick to the simple narratives and talking points that you're being drip fed Duke if that makes it easier for you to digest. I mean, I would expect that some would welcome a consideration of a more nuanced view - although most definitely the majority don't want to step out of simple narratives - that's an inconvenience.
You could have taken another approach altogether - which is to consider the many counter-points that Greenwald makes and engage positively with that (although nobody else has either) - and thus the subject -  rather than find fault with me - but that would have been an optimistic expectation on my part.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate according to Greenwald I am having my nose shoved in the trough rather than being drip fed.  There was no nuance whatsoever in his piece.  Clearly he agrees with Belarus, NK, Eritrea, and Syria, the only countries at the UN to back Russia's special operation.  Even El Salvador abstained and god knows they're a basket case.
I like how in our society contrarians are not officially repressed but I do despise a certain constituency who bask in their contrarian theories as evidence of how much more enlightened they are than the rest of us gullible plebs.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate according to Greenwald I am having my nose shoved in the trough rather than being drip fed.  There was no nuance whatsoever in his piece.  Clearly he agrees with Belarus, NK, Eritrea, and Syria, the only countries at the UN to back Russia's special operation.


You must have read a different article to the one I did. Where does he say that he agrees with Belarus, etc?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I like how in our society contrarians are not officially repressed but I do despise a certain constituency who bask in their contrarian theories as evidence of how much more enlightened they are than the rest of us gullible plebs.


You mean your theories and theories contrary to your views where participants won't acknowledge the possiblity that they might be wrong - however unlikely they find that? Those ninconpoops? I agree entirely - albeit I don't 'despise' them - I just think its very unfortunate that they don't afford the opportunity to open their minds to other possibilities and outcomes. Wouldn't make sense to despise someone disadvantaging themself. I don't despise them  although I am curious about the mindset that belies such an approach.


----------



## Sophrosyne

tecate said:


> You could have taken another approach altogether


And so could you.
Perhaps you would let us have the benefit of your perspicacity rather than citing complexity as an excuse not to explain.


----------



## tecate

Sophrosyne said:


> And so could you.
> Perhaps you would let us have the benefit of your perspicacity rather than citing complexity as an excuse not to explain.


There's no need. I don't need to pick out single points from his article - it, in its entirety - makes a lot of sense to me. Therefore, if you'd like to comment on any of what he had to say, have at it.  That was the whole point of posting the article - because I thought his perspective is interesting - and adds something completely different to the discussion.


----------



## Sophrosyne

tecate said:


> There's no need.


Says it all


----------



## tecate

Sophrosyne said:


> Says it all


Indeed it does. It clearly demonstrates that all the views that Greenwald has expressed in that thoughtful piece - and which I have said to my mind/in my opinion make sense to me - you are not inclined to comment on - because I won't pick out single points from his article.

That does indeed _say it all._


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> You must have read a different article to the one I did. Where does he say that he agrees with Belarus, etc?


Did I read wrongly, but was it not this enlightened view that the US or in particular the Democrats stirred this all up out of revenge for losing the 2016 election and now want it to drag on. 
At least you will have to hand it to the US that they do accommodate the alternative view,  The Donald is a real Russiaphile who thinks Putin is a "really smart guy".  The alternative view in Russia seems to involve 15 years in prison, if you're lucky to survive a poisoning.


----------



## odyssey06

tecate said:


> Indeed it does. It clearly demonstrates that all the views that Greenwald has expressed in that thoughtful piece - and which I have said to my mind/in my opinion make sense to me - you are not inclined to comment on - because I won't pick out single points from his article.
> 
> That does indeed _say it all._


The other alternative view is that he spouts so much nonsense and twists and distorts language and words trying to argue against his points is like trying to pin jellyfish to a wall.

This is the same guy who declared there would be no invasion of Ukraine... that the US would distort reports of Russian military activity to turn it into an invasion. When is an invasion not a real invasion?








						Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald Have Reacted With Admirable Humility to Getting the Ukraine Crisis Wrong (Just Kidding)
					

Time to pivot!




					slate.com
				




So remind me... has Ukraine been invaded? Come on.

Who spreads false rumours about bio weapons.








						How U.S. Bioweapons in Ukraine Became Russia’s New Big Lie
					

A viral conspiracy theory could be used to justify an attack, the United States says.




					foreignpolicy.com
				




How do you respond to someone who talks about "mandated consensus,” “united trans-ideological consensus,”
Except to say the emperor has no clothes?

He has no credibility.


----------



## Sophrosyne

tecate said:


> It clearly demonstrates that all the views that Greenwald has expressed in that thoughtful piece - and which I have said to my mind/in my opinion make sense to me


His representation of the Ukraine war concentrates exclusively on his particular view of US politics and its media.

Perhaps he should, like other journalists, bother to travel to Ukraine and report the Ukrainian viewpoint which might open his mind to "other possibilities and outcomes".


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Did I read wrongly, but was it not this enlightened view that the US or in particular the Democrats stirred this all up out of revenge for losing the 2016 election and now want it to drag on.


You said that he agrees with Belarus - again, I don't see where you read that - and the point you make above is not relevant to that.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> At least you will have to hand it to the US that they do accommodate the alternative view,  The Donald is a real Russiaphile who thinks Putin is a "really smart guy".  The alternative view in Russia seems to involve 15 years in prison, if you're lucky to survive a poisoning.


So if you deem Russia to be the offender, we don't need to think for ourselves and hold other stakeholders (inclusive of the US) to account for their actions/inactions? Any comment I've made here is not in support of Putin or Russia (just so there's no misunderstanding. To think that one party can't possibly be adding to this mess just because they have a more democratic system doesn't seem like something we should assume. There is always room for improvement.



odyssey06 said:


> This is the same guy who declared there would be no invasion of Ukraine... that the US would distort reports of Russian military activity to turn it into an invasion. When is an invasion not a real invasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald Have Reacted With Admirable Humility to Getting the Ukraine Crisis Wrong (Just Kidding)
> 
> 
> Time to pivot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So remind me... has Ukraine been invaded? Come on.


So if he made that speculative call and was wrong, so what? Many people speculated on that - coming down on either side of it. Furthermore, we still don't know what the decision making process was going into it - whether it was planned from day one - or whether Russia/Putin felt that they had no choice but to go down that road - as it progressed. 
Either way, if he was wrong in his speculation doesn't in any way discount any other view he expresses. 




odyssey06 said:


> Who spreads false rumours about bio weapons.


Why? Because there are those with an opposing view? I can't say that I'm right up to speed on the subject but my understanding is that Victoria Nuland referred to such a program.




odyssey06 said:


> He has no credibility.


In your opinion. Ed Snowden would most likely disagree with you  - and beyond that, countless others. I'm not saying his view is right/wrong but I am saying that he certainly has plenty of credibility as a journalist.


----------



## tecate

Sophrosyne said:


> His representation of the Ukraine war concentrates exclusively on his particular view of US politics and its media.



There is NO opinion without inherrent bias. It's interesting that in this echo chamber, no other media which has beeen posted here has beeen challenged on this basis. Go figure.




Sophrosyne said:


> Perhaps he should, like other journalists, bother to travel to Ukraine and report the Ukrainian viewpoint which might open his mind to "other possibilities and outcomes".


That may or may not be a factor - what he has written about is largely at a higher level. You can't say that being there necessarily guarantees that he has a better hold of the subject - although it may well play into it. You could have a journo imbedded with one side or another and that would have the opposite outcome ( a skewed take).

I've been to Ukraine several times - should I claim to know more about it and whats going on right now on that basis than you do? Of course not.


----------



## odyssey06

tecate said:


> You said that he agrees with Belarus - again, I don't see where you read that - and the point you make above is not relevant to that.
> 
> 
> 
> So if you deem Russia to be the offender, we don't need to think for ourselves and hold other stakeholders (inclusive of the US) to account for their actions/inactions? Any comment I've made here is not in support of Putin or Russia (just so there's no misunderstanding. To think that one party can't possibly be adding to this mess just because they have a more democratic system doesn't seem like something we should assume. There is always room for improvement.
> 
> 
> So if he made that speculative call and was wrong, so what? Many people speculated on that - coming down on either side of it. Furthermore, we still don't know what the decision making process was going into it - whether it was planned from day one - or whether Russia/Putin felt that they had no choice but to go down that road - as it progressed.
> Either way, if he was wrong in his speculation doesn't in any way discount any other view he expresses.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because there are those with an opposing view? I can't say that I'm right up to speed on the subject but my understanding is that Victoria Nuland referred to such a program.
> 
> 
> 
> In your opinion. Ed Snowden would most likely disagree with you  - and beyond that, countless others. I'm not saying his view is right/wrong but I am saying that he certainly has plenty of credibility as a journalist.


He has no credibility. He lies twists and distorts language. He is both wrong and wrong for the wrong reasons. He abuses and assaults language and truth.

You said nobody had a response.

I linked to the article showing why his claims about bio labs are false and have been debunked and you respond with weasel words about not having looked into it in detail. But yet you will retain your confidence in him no matter how many 'speculative calls' he gets wrong. They werent speculative calls. They were fake news.

Yeah thats how these con artists work spreading plausible lies that he knows there will be an audience eager to lap up without question. He is just telling you what you want to hear.

And you wont even read the article that might puncture the balloon.

Says it all.

Is the invasion of Ukraine a real invasion?
Yes.

You need to engage your fake news detectors otherwise you will fall for his next 'speculative call'.

The comments you have made here are in support of Russia. Repeating this fake news to spread relativity and the US culpable is exactly what Russia want right now.

Russia did not invade Ukraine because of NATO. Look at the list of demands they had - change of government, no EU membership, demilitarization, annexation of regions. Russia does not have the right to treat Ukraine as a colony. Russia invaded in 2014 not when Ukraine made moves to join NATO but rather the EU.
It was after that unprovoked invasion support for joining Nato increased in Ukraine. So if Russia was so concerned about Ukraine staying neutral why did it make Ukraine its enemy.

These are not legitimate demands and go far beyond Russia concerns about nuclear missiles which ring hollow given what they have in Kalingrad.


----------



## Sophrosyne

tecate said:


> what he has written about is largely at a higher level.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@tecate is your real name Wallace or Daly? “Don’t get me wrong I don’t support Putin, but the US Democrat party is ultimately to blame for it all.”
The fact that you have visited Ukraine does give you a greater right than me to comment on the situation.  Did you spot any swastikas whilst you were there?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

> It continues to baffle how much intense, reflexive left-wing hostility there is to Bitcoin given its potential. Greenwald


I should have guessed Greenwald is a cultist.


----------



## tecate

odyssey06 said:


> He has no credibility. He lies twists and distorts language. He is both wrong and wrong for the wrong reasons. He abuses and assaults language and truth.


So you claimed already - but you seem a tad confused - thats your opinion and nothing more. He's an award winnning journalist. Is he beyond reproach? Certainly not. But is your hatchet job credible - no it isn't - although you're entitled to hold whatever opinion you want.



odyssey06 said:


> You said nobody had a response.


Quite rightly I did. I introduced an entirely different viewpoint into this discussion echochamber via his article prior to you posting. Yet nobody would focus on that.



odyssey06 said:


> I linked to the article showing why his claims about bio labs are false and have been debunked and you respond with weasel words about not having looked into it in detail. They werent speculative calls. They were fake news.


Weasel words? Odyssey06 - you can take your ignorant, misguided sentiment and shuve it up yer jacksie! Mind your manners. That's first and foremost.
Secondly, what I said was honest - and I suppose given your response we're to assume that your sky news informed view makes you an expert on the subject? I've read through this thread - the cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.
I recall clearly that there was a lot of speculation (and yes, it is speculation - or opinion/best guess - based on speculation) as regards whether these were manoeuvers, a ramping up with a view towards negotiating a settlement, or plans from the get go to invade. Yes, the Russians crossed the border but all the while, there is no earthly way that you could know at what point Putin made that decision. Neither you nor Greenwald or anyone else - even if Greenwald's best guess was that it wouldn't happen and the outcome was otherwise. You'll be aware that as part of what he wrote in the article I linked to, he questioned to what extent the Americans had made efforts to negotiate agreement/consensus.
As for your 'fake news' conspiracy - you're presenting here with nothing of substance to dispell any such concerns. I read your article  - it's just a hatchet job which dispells nothing. All the while, we have Nuland confirming that there were/are biolabs in Ukraine. If there are, who the hell was/is running them? Last time I visited Ukraine, it was a country scant on resources - yet they can finance biolabs? - Figure that one out!



odyssey06 said:


> But yet you will retain your confidence in him no matter how many 'speculative calls' he gets wrong.


So you're going to tell me how I will think in the future now? That's impressive.



odyssey06 said:


> Yeah thats how these con artists work spreading plausible lies that he knows there will be an audience eager to lap up without question. He is just telling you what you want to hear.


From your reaction and your hatchet job, it appears that this is not about 'what I want to hear' (as I'm wary of all stakeholders in this mess) - it's more about your own beliefs relative to this mess.



odyssey06 said:


> And you wont even read the article that might puncture the balloon.


Firstly, kindly don't make claims that you can't back up. Secondly, I read your hatchet job article - it didn't serve to dispell any concerns about biolabs.

And now we can talk in more detail about biolabs and 'fake news'!
 where it clarifies that emails attributed to Hunter Biden were suppressed and passed off as Russian disinformation and fake news. It turns out that they're real and credible all the while...and those emails link the Presidents son in the funding of US biolabs in Ukraine. By the way, the Washington Post is NO friend of far right conservatives in the US and McArdle concludes the article with this:

_"An actual solution will require the recognition that we in *the mainstream media are part of the problem: We are not trusted because we are not entirely trustworthy.* That is not the only thing that will have to be fixed to heal our epistemic divide. But it would make a very good start."_

I've been calling this out for an age on another subject - this wayward notion because some legacy media title carries something, it means we can assume it to be correct. We can't and we shouldn't - we shouldn't assume anything to be correct - from anyone and nobody is beyond reproach.

And yet here you are screaming about 'fake news' relative to biolabs in Ukraine...



odyssey06 said:


> Says it all.


Yeah, right back at you.




odyssey06 said:


> Is the invasion of Ukraine a real invasion?
> Yes.


Have you taken to arguing with yourself because I don't see anyone claiming that Russia hasn't invaded Ukraine on this thread?



odyssey06 said:


> You need to engage your fake news detectors otherwise you will fall for his next 'speculative call'.


In a thread where fault is found with one stakeholder in this mess and nobody else has been found to be anything but angels, I believe that it's more a case of you needing to overcome some natural bias you hold on the subject. You don't need to worry about my 'fake news' detection because my default is to be naturally sceptical of ALL news media - you should try it some time.



odyssey06 said:


> The comments you have made here are in support of Russia.



I see you also peddle fake news yourself. I most certainly have not made any comments in support of Russia - and I've gone out of my way to point that out. However, what's remarkable is the level of cognitive dissonance here - because whilst I haven't, I've suggested that there are no clean hands - and that's been enough to try to push me into suggesting I support Russia (when I don't).



odyssey06 said:


> Russia did not invade Ukraine because of NATO. Look at the list of demands they had - change of government, no EU membership, demilitarization, annexation of regions. Russia does not have the right to treat Ukraine as a colony. Russia invaded in 2014 not when Ukraine made moves to join NATO but rather the EU. It was after that unprovoked invasion support for joining Nato increased in Ukraine. So if Russia was so concerned about Ukraine staying neutral why did it make Ukraine its enemy.


According to you? I'm to take your word for it? Nato expansion is very much at the heart of this -  It's been an issue forever and a day. The Russians were given assurances after the fall of the Soviet Union that there would be no Nato expansion into the east. And it has been very much an issue ever since.

Are you also claiming that there was no interference in 2014 in Ukraine by the US led by Nuland?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate is your real name Wallace or Daly?


What was it you said? That you 'despise a certain constituency'?  I couldn't care less who you despise (even if that includes me on the basis of an untruthful claim you made a couple of posts ago). See a counsellor for that maybe?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> “Don’t get me wrong I don’t support Putin, but the US Democrat party is ultimately to blame for it all.”


Let me add words to your mindset here:
This is an echochamber view  in which nobody dares question whether there might be fault on a number of sides and not just one side.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I should have guessed Greenwald is a cultist.


I guess you must be a socialist then! That's hilarious.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Let me get this str8.  Putin amasses an army of 130,000 on Ukraine’s borders and then invades, as the US military said they would; trust the experts not the armchair generals.
And then the Greenwalds have the nerve to question who was responsible for the invasion which they said would never happen.  Did Putin really intend all along to invade or was he just bluffing?  They clearly imply that he was bluffing but that the US goaded him into carrying out his bluff.  Or if the West had just fed Putin a wee bit to feed his bluff he would have retreated in glory.  Even if true does this really shift the blame from Putin to the US Democrat Party?
It is worth reflecting that only one year after his man had been cheated out of the White House, Putin goes on this insane escapade.
@tecate you didn’t answer my question.  Let us accept your thesis that I can trust none of the news coming out of Ukraine.  Well you were on the ground.  Did you see ranks of goose stepping Hail Zelensky supporters wearing swastika arm bands?


----------



## odyssey06

@tecate you are repeating conspiracy theory garbage about bioweapons labs. They are not bioweapons labs. It is all dealt with and debunked n the article which you refuse to engage with- biolabs are not bioweapons labs. You give cover to russian propaganda repeating this fake news. Shouting 'hatchet job' is not engaging with its points. The claim has zero credibility. Any claim made by this con artist has zero credibility. It's rather telling how you think we are in an echochamber but you accept conspiracy theory nonsense from this con artist without question.  You don't get to link to conspiracy theory nonsense and then when challenged on it, say you haven't looked into it in detail. That's just a blank cheque for conspiracy theorists and con artists to write that you are cashing when you post this fake news on AAM.
So when you say you subject media to scrutiny, well obviously you don't. By your admission. 
It was only when prompted on this thread.

More fact checks debunking this fake news:








						Ukraine war: Fact-checking Russia's biological weapons claims
					

The BBC finds no evidence for Russian claims that Ukraine is developing biological weapons with US support.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine when Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons.
Can you find me any assurances in that treaty that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO or military alliance?
Can you find me the security and territorial guarantees in that treaty which Russia has repeatedly violated?
Can you find me any treaty between NATO and Russia saying ex USSR countries wouldn't be admitted?
Russia agreed to this with the NATO Russia Founding Act in 1996.








						Russia’s belief in Nato ‘betrayal’ – and why it matters today
					

The idea that the Soviet Union was tricked in 1989-90 is at the heart of Russia’s confrontation with the west




					www.theguardian.com
				




Russia invaded Ukraine when the Ukranian people and its parliament threw out a Russian stooge who wanted to veto a treaty with the EU which had overwhelming democratic mandate. Nothing to do with NATO.

Why if it's all about NATO is Russia annexing parts of Ukraine? Why was it insisting on demilitarization not merely neutrality or defensive weapons?
Why was it insisting on removal of Ukraine's democratically elected leader?
Those were its opening demands for surrender.

Was Belarus about to join NATO? Then why did Russia annex it in conjunction with its corrupt dictator?

So it's not all about NATO. So the choices faced by the West were:
Do nothing and see Ukraine fight Russia unaided.
Do nothing and see Ukraine fall and become a Russian colony like Belarus, divided up and partitioned into puppet states.
Aid Ukraine as a democratic country which has a political and trade treaty with the EU to be able to defend itself against Russian aggression, if it chooses to fight, and preserve its sovereignty and territorial core.

Russia is in the wrong here. All you are doing here is engaging in deliberate muddying of the waters "no cleans hands", "just asking questions", meaningless language like "cognitive dissonance" and peddling conspiracy theories. These actions have the effect of giving cover and support to Russia.


----------



## Purple

tecate said:


> Try this alternate link here instead.
> I'm well aware who the good and bad guys are here - there aren't any (albeit some are likely to be worse than others).



My view on which side we should support is that, notwithstanding the deep flaws in Ukrainian civil and political society, we support the side that is a democracy and oppose the side which is the aggressor and is a police state and opposes democracy and the core values our society is built on. I'm surprised you don't agree.
Okay, so, after a brief comment about how using the term "Bad Guys" is adolescent Greenwald moved on to some specific, if badly framed, points.
He States that America went "all in" in support of Ukraine and frames his entire discussion in that context. Unfortunately for him he is totally incorrect and America didn't go anywhere close to "all in". They haven't sent troops, they haven't sent fighter jets, they haven't imposed a No Fly Zone (and they could, easily, have no doubt about that).

He points out that Ukraine is within Russia's sphere of influence and not within Americas. I don't subscribe to that imperialistic world view in which military and economic strength are justification for subjugation. 130 Nations agree with me, 30 aren't sure and a small number disagree.

He then talks about the de facto expansion of NATO into Ukraine. It is common for countries to provide that level of support and training to each other and if a sovereign democracy asks another sovereign democracy for help in protecting itself from a neighbour which is a police state and has already invaded and annexed part of its territory that is a reasonable thing to do.

His basic accusation is that the US is waging a proxy war against Russia. That is one of the most stupid things I've read in years. The US and Russia have been waging proxy wars against each other for most of the last 70 years. It is part of the ongoing struggle between democracy and totalitarianism. It is a struggle we should all support.

If he'd argued that Russia had a reasonable historical, political and cultural claim for Crimea then I'd agree with him.

If he said that Yeltsin's incompetence is the root cause of this because Crimea and Donbass could have been returned to Russia during the break-up of the Soviet Union then I'd agree with him.

Instead he has an ill informed childish whine about America being mean to Russia and how they should have thrown Ukraine to the wolves, as if this was 1884 and they were at the Berlin Conference, carving up Africa into colonies. His hypothesis is disgusting and the subtext of it is morally reprehensible.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> He States that America went "all in" in support of Ukraine and frames his entire discussion in that context. Unfortunately for his he is totally incorrect and America didn't go anywhere close to "all in". They haven't sent troops, they haven't sent fighter jets, they haven't imposed a No Fly Zone (and they could, easily, have no doubt about that).


The article criticises the US for escalating the crisis, and yet also criticises the US for not doing enough to help Ukraine win! That they want to prolong but not end the war. 
How would that not be seen as real escalation by Russia?
The US has been clear it will give defensive weapons only. They could have done more but it would certainly have been seen by Russia as an escalation.
The article is not coherent, consistent with itself.

It presents no alternative narrative \ coherent explanation of the consequences of the US doing nothing, of throwing Ukraine to the wolves.
It does not consider what that would mean for future Russian actions in the region, for the security of other NATO members, or the Ukranian people.


----------



## Sunny

And Bitcoin is still worthless...


----------



## Firefly

Sunny said:


> And Bitcoin is still worthless...


Actually, I think we are witnessing the first, genuinely positive use for Bitcoin -> it is facilitating people all over the world to provide financial assistance to Ukraine against the invasion and destruction by Russia. @tecate you must be delighted with this development


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I Wiki'd this Greenwald guy.  Besides being the ultimate capitalist conspiracy theorist and bitcoin cultist he also supports anti vaxers*.  On the positive side, he and his Brazilian husband are a thorn in Bolsonaro's side.

_* In the interests of the whole truth he is actually a "Don't get me wrong, I myself am vaccinated, but..."_


----------



## Purple

I think it's really bad form that Zelenskyy hasn't made a statement about the Will Smith/Chris Rock incident. I know he's a busy guy but does he not keep up to date with the really important things going on in the world?


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> I think it's really bad form that Zelenskyy hasn't made a statement about the Will Smith/Chris Rock incident. I know he's a busy guy but does he not keep up to date with the really important things going on in the world?


I believe that these things are far more complex than a determination of good guys and bad guys - because this sort of thing is filthy - and you can be sure that there are no good guys in this


----------



## Purple

On the broader issue of how we frame who the good guys and the bad guys are it is important to step back from the gritty details on conflict and look at what is being fought for.
During the Second World War the Western Allies and the USSR were the good guys. In the 1-2 years after the war ended the good guys committed the greatest act of mass rape in recorded history on German women. Well over a million women were raped, some up to 100 times. An estimated 250,000 died as a result of this mass crime. The Russians were by far the biggest culprits but the British and American forces were neck-deep in it too. 

Does that mean that there were really no good guys or bad guys during the War? No, of course it doesn't.


----------



## tecate

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Let me get this str8.  Putin amasses an army of 130,000 on Ukraine’s borders and then invades, as the US military said they would; trust the experts not the armchair generals.


Ah, yes - we should trust them! Give them free license and don't hold them to account. Brilliant Duke. And you say this and you still have no notion at what point Putin decided to invade.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> And then the Greenwalds have the nerve to question who was responsible for the invasion which they said would never happen.


Imagine anyone questioning anything - as there has been no questioning of anything in this echo chamber.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Did Putin really intend all along to invade or was he just bluffing?  They clearly imply that he was bluffing but that the US goaded him into carrying out his bluff.


There are many commentators who believe that to be the case.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> Or if the West had just fed Putin a wee bit to feed his bluff he would have retreated in glory.  Even if true does this really shift the blame from Putin to the US Democrat Party?


You think if a war could have been avoided and wasn't, that's reasonable?



Duke of Marmalade said:


> @tecate you didn’t answer my question.


I think you've got this the wrong way round. The question I asked you was where did Greenwald say he agreed with Belarus - as you claimed?



odyssey06 said:


> @tecate you are repeating conspiracy theory garbage about bioweapons labs. They are not bioweapons labs. It is all dealt with and debunked n the article which you refuse to engage with- biolabs are not bioweapons labs.


The article that 'I won;t engage with'? I read your article - there is nothing substantive in it in disspelling the claim re. bioweapons labs. And other than that, you're telling me that the WaPo is now a publication that acts on behalf of Russia and that they're 'repeating conspiracy theories' - despite the bulk of their readership having similar views to yourself? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Tell me, what career did Hunter Biden have that involved Biolabs? What compulsion is there for US companies to place Biolabs in Ukraine? Why did they lie about it?




odyssey06 said:


> You give cover to russian propaganda repeating this fake news. ... The claim has zero credibility.


The WaPo article is now Russian propaganda alongside Greenwalds? Is that what you're claiming now?



odyssey06 said:


> Shouting 'hatchet job' is not engaging with its points.


Citing an article that doesn't contain anything substantive in dispelling the claim re. biolabs - and that otherwise waffles about the counter-claim being false? You want me to 'engage' with that? I have done - by identifying it as a hatchet job.



odyssey06 said:


> The claim has zero credibility. Any claim made by this con artist has zero credibility.


You're repeating yourself. That is your opinion. It's most certainly not mine - the guy is not beyond reproach but he is an award winning journalist. You can repeat yourself again if you wish - and I'll come back and provide the very same clarification.



odyssey06 said:


> It's rather telling how you think we are in an echochamber but you accept conspiracy theory nonsense from this con artist without question.


Is there a question over it being an echo chamber - because I can't imagine how anyone could come to any other conclusion. You all agree - Russia bad and USA! USA! USA! That's what it boils down to.
As regards Greenwald, who said I accept his views without question? I introduced that article of his to add perspective here. And as for conspiracy theories, other than the biolab issue (which in no way can you dismiss summarily like you're trying to do), what other 'conspiracy theory' does he present? He presents his opinion and like yours and everyone elses, there's an inherrent bias in his opinion.



odyssey06 said:


> It was only when prompted on this thread.


BS. See above.



odyssey06 said:


> Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine when Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons.
> Can you find me any assurances in that treaty that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO or military alliance?
> Can you find me the security and territorial guarantees in that treaty which Russia has repeatedly violated?
> Can you find me any treaty between NATO and Russia saying ex USSR countries wouldn't be admitted?
> Russia agreed to this with the NATO Russia Founding Act in 1996.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s belief in Nato ‘betrayal’ – and why it matters today
> 
> 
> The idea that the Soviet Union was tricked in 1989-90 is at the heart of Russia’s confrontation with the west
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com


The Americans gave assurrances that there would be no encroachment of NATO to the east after the fall of the Soviet Union. Bush explicitly gave such an assurance. Meanwhile, you think if there were missiles pointed at the US from Mexico, they'd be ok with it? Well we know that they would lose their bloody minds ( Cuban missile crisis ) - and take us to the brink of nuclear war.
Many have been warning that this was an issue - over years. It takes two to tango - but apparently according to all that have posted on this thread, it's much more simple - one party can do no wrong and another can do no right.




odyssey06 said:


> Russia invaded Ukraine when the Ukranian people and its parliament threw out a Russian stooge who wanted to veto a treaty with the EU which had overwhelming democratic mandate. Nothing to do with NATO.


And that happened without US interference? Is that what you're claiming?


odyssey06 said:


> Russia is in the wrong here. All you are doing here is engaging in deliberate muddying of the waters "no cleans hands", "just asking questions", meaningless language like "cognitive dissonance" and peddling conspiracy theories. These actions have the effect of giving cover and support to Russia.


You're wildly oversimplfying something that's far more complex. Other than that, the suggestion that anything that isn't wildly in favour of the US government approach to this whole thing - is in support of Russia - that's absolutely ridiculous. You'd have loved McCarthyism!



Purple said:


> He points out that Ukraine is within Russia's sphere of influence and not within Americas. I don't subscribe to that imperialistic world view in which military and economic strength are justification for subjugation.


It doesn't matter whether you subscribe to it or not. That is the reality. There's a whole history behind it.



Firefly said:


> Actually, I think we are witnessing the first, genuinely positive use for Bitcoin -> it is facilitating people all over the world to provide financial assistance to Ukraine against the invasion and destruction by Russia. @tecate you must be delighted with this development


Last I checked, over $100 million of BTC had been raised for Ukraine. And yes, I'm happy that ordinary people can move funds unhindered. It has also assisted ordinary Ukrainians who were cut off in cases from remittances because of irrational sanctions - that impacted irrational banking practice...and ordinary Russians who were more explicitly exposed to sanctions. Because making ordinary people suffer is justified, right?


Duke of Marmalade said:


> I Wiki'd this Greenwald guy.  Besides being the ultimate capitalist conspiracy theorist and bitcoin cultist he also supports anti vaxers*.  On the positive side, he and his Brazilian husband are a thorn in Bolsonaro's side.
> 
> _* In the interests of the whole truth he is actually a "Don't get me wrong, I myself am vaccinated, but..."_


Yes, the usual tar and feathering - like his sexual orientation or views on vaccination have anything to do with this. I'd expect nothing less from you Duke.



Firefly said:


> I believe that these things are far more complex than a determination of good guys and bad guys - because this sort of thing is filthy - and you can be sure that there are no good guys in this


You can act the jester all you wish and engage with the cognitive dissonance love-in that's on display here all you want, Firefly. I'll leave you with the words of US Senator Hiram Johnson:

"The first casualty of war is truth"


----------



## Purple

tecate said:


> It doesn't matter whether you subscribe to it or not. That is the reality. There's a whole history behind it.


There is a whole history behind many abhorrent things. That doesn't mean we should form current geopolitical policy based on them. 

We, the liberal democratic West,  have moved away from colonialism. I bring you back to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and how it is the baseline from which policy in these matters should be set.  
You and Greenwald may think that countries should be pawns of the board of colonial powers but the Free World disagrees with you and has done for over 70 years.
You may think that Russia's war is a latter day version of taking up the Whiteman's Burden but Kipling's racism and imperialism is no longer in fashion. As Irish people we should be happy about that.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> "The first casualty of war is truth"


It does seem to be the case alright, no more so than in Russia, where you can end up in jail for 15 years for spreading what it described as "fake" information about the military. Of course, "fake" means anything going against the party line. International and local journalists have shut up shop, leaving the poor Russian people with only state-controlled propaganda for their "news".


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> Ah, yes - we should trust them! Give them free license and don't hold them to account. Brilliant Duke. And you say this and you still have no notion at what point Putin decided to invade.


So you think it reduces Putin's guilt if he was only intending to throw his weight around but took the hump at Western goading?  Unbelievable moral compass there.


tecate said:


> You think if a war could have been avoided and wasn't, that's reasonable?


Givuz a break!  Apologies for Godwin's Law but WWII would have been avoided if only they kept appeasing the Fuhrer.


tecate said:


> I think you've got this the wrong way round. The question I asked you was where did Greenwald say he agreed with Belarus - as you claimed?


He believes this situation has come about because the Democrats are seeking revenge for the 2016 election result.  In conscience he would be bound to support the Russian special mission along with Belarus, NK, Eritrea and Syria.  But you are right, these beauts probably made their vote for different reasons than any conspiracy theory around the 2016 election.  Anyway, I am taking it that your on the ground experience did not reveal any Nazi activity, but you may correct that if I have it wrong.


tecate said:


> Yes, the usual tar and feathering - like his sexual orientation or views on vaccination have anything to do with this. I'd expect nothing less from you Duke.


His sexual orientation is very relevant in the context of the courageous stand they are both taking against Bolsonaro.  I was trying to show how open minded I was.


tecate said:


> "The first casualty of war is truth"


I believe Greenwald's lies and conspiracy theories pre-date this war.


----------



## Firefly

_The deputy mayor of Mariupol, Sergiy Orlov, describes people sheltering in basements trying to survive without food, medicine or a power supply, and drinking melted snow because the water has been cut off. In Chernihiv, March 16, a line of 10 civilians queuing for bread outside a grocery shop were killed by Russian troops.
Ukrainian intelligence reports indiscriminate shelling and targeting of agricultural machinery, fields and grain stores; and civilians are being blocked from leaving besieged towns and cities or killed whilst fleeing. This is a playbook familiar to any monitoring similar starvation crimes in Syria, Yemen, Tigray or South Sudan._









						Russia could be guilty of starvation crimes in Ukraine. We must act | Alex de Waal and Catriona Murdoch
					

The absence, to date, of mass death from hunger doesn’t mean that Russian forces are innocent of the war crime of starvation




					www.theguardian.com
				




Not too difficult to see who the bad guys are in this awful tragedy


----------



## odyssey06

tecate said:


> The article that 'I won;t engage with'? I read your article - there is nothing substantive in it in disspelling the claim re. bioweapons labs. And other than that, you're telling me that the WaPo is now a publication that acts on behalf of Russia and that they're 'repeating conspiracy theories' - despite the bulk of their readership having similar views to yourself? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
> 
> As regards Greenwald, who said I accept his views without question? I introduced that article of his to add perspective here. And as for conspiracy theories, other than the biolab issue (which in no way can you dismiss summarily like you're trying to do), what other 'conspiracy theory' does he present? He presents his opinion and like yours and everyone elses, there's an inherrent bias in his opinion.


Hold on. You are one peddling conspiracy theories about bioweapons. I have linked to multiple articles debunking them, and your response is they contain nothing substantive!
You have nothing substantive full stop to back up your conspiracy theories Nothing. Nada. Zero. Just rumours and lies.
You introduced an article containing fake news. Do you accept the contents of the article? What parts do you disagree with? What scrutiny did you subject his bioweapons claim to - none it appears, therefore you are peddling his fake news here without scrutiny.
You spread fake news and then look for negatives to be disproved.


----------



## odyssey06

tecate said:


> The Americans gave assurrances that there would be no encroachment of NATO to the east after the fall of the Soviet Union. Bush explicitly gave such an assurance. Meanwhile, you think if there were missiles pointed at the US from Mexico, they'd be ok with it? Well we know that they would lose their bloody minds ( Cuban missile crisis ) - and take us to the brink of nuclear war.
> Many have been warning that this was an issue - over years. It takes two to tango - but apparently according to all that have posted on this thread, it's much more simple - one party can do no wrong and another can do no right.


Saying there must be a division of blame in all cases is as wrong as saying in all cases only one party in the wrong.

Russia agreed to the expansion of NATO in the NATO-Russia founding treaty.
*Where does that text state Ukraine or any other country cannot join NATO?*
Russia and Ukraine signed a treaty whereby Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons.
*Where does that text state Ukraine cannot join NATO?*

Those are not verbal assurances given at a point in time that were overtaken by events. Those were considered signed agreements.
This is all covered in my previous reply and linked article, which you refused to engage with.
Ukraine in NATO doesn't have to mean nuclear weapons there. You know where does have nuclear missiles close to european capitals? Kalingrad. Go figure.


----------



## Firefly

_The first sign of progress emerged in peace talks between Ukraine and Russia on Tuesday as a deputy Russian defense minister said Russia would sharply “reduce military activity” near Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, and the northern city of Chernihiv._









						Live Updates: As Talks Progress, Russia Says It Will Reduce Attacks in Northern Ukraine
					

The gains in negotiations came as Ukrainian troops appeared to push back Russian forces around Kyiv. Russia said a meeting between President Vladimir V. Putin and President Volodymyr Zelensky could occur once a draft peace agreement was ready.




					www.nytimes.com
				




Looks promising, of course if you can believe that Russia is sincere. Based on the lies they spread so far, I wouldn't hold my breath


----------



## tecate

Purple said:


> You and Greenwald may think that countries should be pawns of the board of colonial powers but the Free World disagrees with you and has done for over 70 years.


You're making an assumption that this is something that I want. It's not - but it's the reality. And it's always been the reality when it comes to dominant powers. Pull up a list of wars and you'll see how many of them have been proxy wars - as is this one.

You've made the same suggestion about Greenwald but I don't see where in  his article there's a suggestion that he wants this - although he recognises it as the reality.


Firefly said:


> It does seem to be the case alright, no more so than in Russia, where you can end up in jail for 15 years for spreading what it described as "fake" information about the military. Of course, "fake" means anything going against the party line. International and local journalists have shut up shop, leaving the poor Russian people with only state-controlled propaganda for their "news".


whataboutism?  It's not good enough to give one party a free license without any question or concern because the governance in place relative to the other party is abhorrent.
As regards state controlled media, I agree - RTE should have been disbanded years ago although their patron keeps funding them. There is no such thing as media without bias. That's exactly the point.  That Russia doesn't veil that and takes it to an authoritarian extreme doesn't mean that there isn't misinformation elsewhere. Afterall, you did agree with the statement -> 'The first casualty of war is truth'.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> So you think it reduces Putin's guilt if he was only intending to throw his weight around but took the hump at Western goading?  Unbelievable moral compass there.


I've never commented on Putin's guilt. Time and time again, you and others are trying to suggest that I present here as pro-Putin and pro-Russia - that's not the case. Many commentators suggested that the build up was part of tactics to negotiate agreement. Whatever you think of Putin, it makes complete sense that there would be some attempts for parties to reach consensus.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Givuz a break!  Apologies for Godwin's Law but WWII would have been avoided if only they kept appeasing the Fuhrer.


I have no intention of giving you a break. You have no notion of matters being as clearcut as you (and the rest of them here) present them to be. NATO has always been about facing off against Russia. Assurances were given by the Americans that they wouldn't expand eastwards. They lied/chose to disregard that commitment. It's been flagged for years as an issue - it's been discussed for years as an issue. It seems Bidens policy was to continue that expansion - and this is the result.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> He believes this situation has come about because the Democrats are seeking revenge for the 2016 election result. In conscience he would be bound to support the Russian special mission along with Belarus, NK, Eritrea and Syria. But you are right, these beauts probably made their vote for different reasons than any conspiracy theory around the 2016 election.


BS. You're twisting what he wrote to meet your own narrative. He never said that he supports Belarus.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> His sexual orientation is very relevant in the context of the courageous stand they are both taking against Bolsonaro. I was trying to show how open minded I was.


Someone else may be buying the horsecrap you're selling but I certainly am not. There is no context in which it was relevant to bring that up.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I believe Greenwald's lies and conspiracy theories pre-date this war.


Translation - the questions this guy poses are inconvenient to my beliefs here - let me scavange and come back with whatever dirt I can to discredit him - ah, he's gay - that will probably trigger someones bias.




Firefly said:


> Not too difficult to see who the bad guys are in this awful tragedy


A couple of things:
1. That atrocities are carried out by one party doesn't mean that we give an automatic free pass to the other party, never holding them to account for their actions.
2. The media that you're all triggered by are pasting this heart-wrenching coverage across all media channels. Where was that in relation to ...
IRAQ
LIbya
Afghanistan

Where are your posts that take the very same stance against the aggressors in those conflicts?  (anyone else participating in this discussion can go searching for said posts also).


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> As regards state controlled media, I agree - RTE should have been disbanded years ago although their patron keeps funding them.


I'm not much of a fan of RTE but are you suggesting it is under anyway near the same level of control as Russian state media?



tecate said:


> That Russia doesn't veil that and takes it to an authoritarian extreme doesn't mean that there isn't misinformation elsewhere.


Nobody else is invading another country at the moment and pretending they are going after Nazis!



tecate said:


> Afterall, you did agree with the statement -> 'The first casualty of war is truth'.


Lies & restricting the truth, so far from Russia, that I can think of:

Denying it was going to invade Ukraine
Denouncing the United States and its NATO allies for stoking panic and anti-Russian hatred
Denying it is a war with “special military operation” double-speak
Drug-addled neo-Nazis
Genocide
American biological weapons factories
Birds trained to carry pathogens into Russia
Ukrainian forces bombing their own cities
15 year prison sentences for anyone not towing the party line 
Facebook, Twitter, TikTok & Instagram has also been severed inside Russia


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> A couple of things:
> 1. That atrocities are carried out by one party doesn't mean that we give an automatic free pass to the other party, never holding them to account for their actions.


I agree, but why not start another thread on it?



tecate said:


> 2. The media that you're all triggered by are pasting this heart-wrenching coverage across all media channels. Where was that in relation to ...
> 
> IRAQ
> LIbya
> Afghanistan


Firstly, this "_pasting this heart-wrenching coverage across all media channels_" is people being slaughtered by Russia and their homes & cities destroyed.
Secondly, I notice the absense of Syria in your list, which is unusual as it's quite recent


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> I've never commented on Putin's guilt. Time and time again, you and others are trying to suggest that I present here as pro-Putin and pro-Russia - that's not the case.


True, apologies.  I meant Greenwald.  So you are only posting his deranged conspiracy theories to stir up the "echo chamber" as you call it.  I won't come all self righteous and accuse you of making a plaything of a deadly serious situation.  I suppose I should be glad that you don't identify with his mad cap theories, excepting of course his views on bitcoin.


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> I agree, but why not start another thread on it?


I'm not getting how this all doesn't fit together under the same topic. 



Firefly said:


> Firstly, this "_pasting this heart-wrenching coverage across all media channels_" is people being slaughtered by Russia and their homes & cities destroyed.
> Secondly, I notice the absense of Syria in your list, which is unusual as it's quite recent


You make my point for me. Greenwald made exactly the same point when he stated this:

"the emotions deliberately stoked by the relentless media attention to the horrors of this war — horrors which, contrary to the West's media propaganda, are common to all wars, *including its own*."

He's right on the money.  There is no way in the world that the narrative was this graphic in its portrayal as previous recent wars....yet the horrors were equally as bad.




Firefly said:


> Secondly, I notice the absense of Syria in your list, which is unusual as it's quite recent


Eureka! It was much better covered. I wonder why! Have a think about it and come back to me.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> Time and time again, you and others are trying to suggest that I present here as pro-Putin and pro-Russia - that's not the case.


I thought you only posted on Bitcon & cryptos...where is anyone "time and time again" try to suggest that you are pro-Russia????


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> I'm not much of a fan of RTE but are you suggesting it is under anyway near the same level of control as Russian state media?


I'm not. What I am doing is going out of my way to get it across to you that bias exists in all media - and that bias will go up the way if said media is under the direct control of someone or beholden to them financially in order to exist.




Firefly said:


> Lies & restricting the truth, so far from Russia, that I can think of:


Yes, and the inferrence here is that we don't need to consider this any further  - give the US free license to do whatever they want, disregard what they might have stoked back in 2014, disregard their expansionist policies via NATO, disregard Hunter Biden's biolabs, disregard everything and lose all ability to look at this thing objectively. That seems to me to be what everyone is going on with here.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> So you are only posting his deranged conspiracy theories to stir up the "echo chamber" as you call it.  I won't come all self righteous and accuse you of making a plaything of a deadly serious situation.  I suppose I should be glad that you don't identify with his mad cap theories, excepting of course his views on bitcoin.


I'll ignore the unproven allegations against Greenwald. As regards 'stirring up' the echo chamber, I guess I'm not the brightest spark. In my innocence I thought that another perspective would be welcomed here. I should have known better.


----------



## tecate

Firefly said:


> I thought you only posted on Bitcon & cryptos...where is anyone "time and time again" try to suggest that you are pro-Russia????


Time and time again within this thread - post after post.


----------



## odyssey06

...


tecate said:


> Firstly, I asked you to comment on the WaPo article that found that the US public was being lied to about this specific issue. That's now verified after months and months of lies. Address that!
> As regards your 'debunking' article - it's no different than a post from you saying "there are no biolabs". What else did it provide? By contrast, the WaPo article confirms evidence of deceit in relation to the issue.
> YOU started with the 'fake news' claims. The WaPo article states that it - and other mainstream media have to take responsibility for disinformation. Respond to that please.
> 
> 
> Firstly, nobody said that there 'must' be a division of blame - but more often than not, there is. Governments responsibilities to people as a very basic should be to prevent war in the first place.
> On formal agreements, they're fine Odyssey06 when they suit the narrative and not so when they don't. Are you denying that the US provided assurances that there would be no expansion into eastern  europe?  Answer that before we go any further.
> Secondly, you think if tomorrow, Russia got together with Mexico and decided to put in various weaponry that there wouldn't be a problem?  We already know the answer to that because on that occasion, it put us on the brink of nuclear war. It's double standards.


The claims about bioweapons in ukraine are without foundation. You have nothing to substantiate them.
The articles explain what the labs are doing. There are not developing bioweapons. There is no article that will satisfy you as you have now locked in on a conspiracy theory and refuse any evidence to the contrary, despite having no actual evidence in support of bioweapons labs!
And I repeat, you posted all this here and only when challenged on this thread did you subject the claims to any scrutiny!
Not much scrutiny really seeing as any article provided explaining what the labs do and why they are not bioweapons you dismiss.
Provide some actual evidence of bioweapons labs or stop peddling fake news.
You don't have any evidence so instead your resort to disinformation and muddying the waters about he said she said.
I have linked to articles from reputable media sites explaining why the claims are fake news.
It is your claim about bioweapons, is is up to your to substantiate why it isn't fake news.
Nobody reading this thread is buying what you are selling.

The Guardian article I linked re: verbal assurances explains the situation, which is why I linked to it.
A signed agreement between the countries \ parties that occured after the verbal assurances, signed agreements which occurred over 20 years ago. Something which obviously trumps verbal assurances given at an earlier point in time.
But hey, that doesn't matter, because you just dodge that by saying they are fine when they suit the narrative! 
So the verbal assurances are irrelevent. Whether they were or were not given it would not change anything today.

*But remind me, where in the agreements between NATO, Ukraine and Russia does it say Ukraine cannot join NATO?*
If it is such a red line for Russia.

Russia wouldn't get together with Mexico because the US hasn't recently invaded Mexico multiple times in the last decade and so hasn't driven its neutral neighbour into looking for defensive alliances.
You are referencing something that happened in the 1960s in Cuba. Cuba is still there, not nuked.
Kalingrad is there beside NATO capitals, with nuclear missiles.


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> I'm not. What I am doing is going out of my way to get it across to you that bias exists in all media - and that bias will go up the way if said media is under the direct control of someone or beholden to them financially in order to exist.
> 
> Yes, and the inferrence here is that we don't need to consider this any further  - give the US free license to do whatever they want, disregard what they might have stoked back in 2014, disregard their expansionist policies via NATO, disregard Hunter Biden's biolabs, disregard everything and lose all ability to look at this thing objectively. That seems to me to be what everyone is going on with here.


I think you're too far gone, old friend. As I've said before, it may not be perfect, but I thank my lucky stars I live many miles west of Russian influence


----------



## Firefly

tecate said:


> Time and time again within this thread - post after post.


Right


----------



## tecate

@odyssey06 : There are a couple of outstanding matters before we go any further - queries that remain unanswered:
1. Address the WaPo article. Were lies told or not? Is this article from the WaPo 'fake news'.
2. Was the US meddling in Ukraine in 2014?
3. Did the US give assurances repeatedly that there would be no expansion of NATO into eastern Europe?

Answer those and we can continue.



Firefly said:


> I think you're too far gone, old friend. As I've said before, it may not be perfect, but I thank my lucky stars I live many miles west of Russian influence


You're missinterpreting my view. All day long I'm not down with an authoritative regime. However, we shouldn't let that allow everyone to lose complete perspective....or to hand a free license to someone to do what they want.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I have given too much time to Greenwald's crazy conspiracy theories; no way does Hilary Clinton share any of the blame for this outrage.  I don't begrudge @tecate the little tease.
So shifting tack, I just wonder why Russia/Putin have launched what looks like a wholly unprovoked attack.  Ukraine was never, ever going to be a military threat to Russia.  But I think I see it in the economy, stupid.  It is not membership of NATO that worries the Olies it is membership of the EU.  These are some relevant GDP per capita  figures.
Russia 11,654
Latvia 21,489
Lithuania 22,412
Estonia 29,735
Ireland 102,394
EU 44,303
Unless you are an Olie, if you live in Russia you live in a basket case economy.  IMHO the Soviet Union actually fell apart because the economic model just didn't come near that of its Cold War opposites, they simply couldn't afford to keep their empire.  The Olies fear that eventually modern day Russia will collapse from within for similar economic reasons.  A successful Ukraine would be the nail in the coffin.


----------



## tecate

Duke, I disagree. Russia has a rubbish economy and I believe that's not going to change any day soon. However, they occupy a giant land mass - within which exists all manner of natural resources. They'll continue to exist off the back of those resources for many years to come.
How would piling in to Ukraine change their economy anyway?  Their economy is a basket case as they're not a fully open economy and they're simply not at the races in terms of competing internationally.


----------



## odyssey06

tecate said:


> @odyssey06 : There are a couple of outstanding matters before we go any further - queries that remain unanswered:
> 1. Address the WaPo article. Were lies told or not? Is this article from the WaPo 'fake news'.
> 2. Was the US meddling in Ukraine in 2014?
> 3. Did the US give assurances repeatedly that there would be no expansion of NATO into eastern Europe?
> 
> Answer those and we can continue


Rubbish. I reject your trap. Pointless continuing with someone who deals in muddying the waters, red herrings and sideshows and nothing more. They establish nothing.

These are the points that matters not your sideshow questions.

Your claims about bioweapons have been shown to be fake news by reputable media outlets. The big lie is there are bioweapons labs in ukraine funded by US to develop weapons.

The invasion of Ukraine is a real invasion.

The written agreements between NATO Russia and Ukraine are a matter of public record. Nowhere does it state Ukraine or Poland for that matter cannot join NATO. The NATO agreement establish the principle that ex USSR / Warsaw Pact countries can join NATO.
Russia agreed to respect Ukraines territorial integrity.
These signed agreements have been violated by Russia only.
You can be sure if one of those agreements obliged Ukraine to stay neutral it would be the only thing we would hear about.

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 when Ukraine signed a treaty with the EU, after the people of Ukraine ran the Russian stooge out of town for trying to stop that deal which had democratic mandate. Alignment with the West is democratic will of Ukranian people. The Maidan revolution was Ukranian movement. The US couldnt trigger such an event even if it wanted to.


----------



## tecate

odyssey06 said:


> Rubbish. I reject your trap. Pointless continuing with someone who deals in muddying the waters, red herrings and sideshows and nothing more. They establish nothing.


My trap!? Yes, very devious of me - to insist that you respond to points that are highly relevant to the overall topic given that you have glossed over them.



odyssey06 said:


> These are the points that matters not your sideshow questions.


Of course they are what 'matters' because you have installed yourself as the arbitrar of what matters and what doesn't apparently.


________________________

_EDIT - I see this notification below -> "*You have insufficient privileges to reply here"*

...so with that I can't respond to any post from #502 onwards. Vlad, is that you? It must be you Vlad - you're the only one that runs this type of censorship. Everyone else is pure as snow. If it's not you, I'm a lucky sod. You'd throw me in the gulags for sure - AAM admin will just prevent me from free speech. They're much nicer than you, Vlad - you brute! 
We should overlook their cognitive dissonance as clearly they engage in or enable censorship in a far more gentlemanly way. I guess that's why they support regime change in a gentlemanly way, meddling in the affairs of other nations in a gentlemanly way and facilitating slaughter in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. A lifetime of accepting agenda-driven mainstream media narrative unquestioningly means the ( cognitive dissonance ) force is strong with them.

*However, it's the greatest compliment of all - the fact that the only way you can attempt to get the upper hand is to opt for the unethical censorship option. *

_________________________


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

tecate said:


> Duke, I disagree. Russia has a rubbish economy and I believe that's not going to change any day soon. However, they occupy a giant land mass - within which exists all manner of natural resources. They'll continue to exist off the back of those resources for many years to come.
> How would piling in to Ukraine change their economy anyway?  Their economy is a basket case as they're not a fully open economy and they're simply not at the races in terms of competing internationally.


Ahh!  You're missing my point.  Possibly a bit nuanced.   The only threat to the Olies is from within.  It must be quite alarming for them to see how EU membership has been so beneficial to the Baltic states.  But if Ukraine became a successful economic model then the internal rumblings in Russia could become irresistible.  I think they expected a 1956 Hungary or 1968 Czechoslavakia, a one day bloodless mission to bring them into line.


----------



## odyssey06

If you are on Twitter this is an interesting account to follow... a mix of spoof Putin tweets and nail on the head tweets eg

"Day 33 of my 3 day war. It's going so well I had to prove my defense minister hasn't been executed for botching the war. I remain a master strategist."

"The West humiliated Russia in post cold war years by treating our former colonies as actual countries, not as buffer states with limited sovereignty who have to ask Russia for permission in their foreign affairs. This is not imperialist."



			https://mobile.twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB


----------



## Firefly

_Across the European Union and Britain, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is reshaping state spending priorities and forcing governments to prepare for threats thought to have been long buried. 

The result is a sudden reshuffling of budgets as military spending, humanitarian assistance and essentials like agriculture and energy are shoved to the front of the line, with other pressing needs like education and social services likely to be downgraded._


Nicolae Ciuca, a retired general from Romania:
_“We never thought we’d need to go back to the Cold War and consider potassium iodine again,”_









						Live Updates: As Talks Progress, Russia Says It Will Reduce Attacks in Northern Ukraine
					

The gains in negotiations came as Ukrainian troops appeared to push back Russian forces around Kyiv. Russia said a meeting between President Vladimir V. Putin and President Volodymyr Zelensky could occur once a draft peace agreement was ready.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## odyssey06

Firefly said:


> _Across the European Union and Britain, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is reshaping state spending priorities and forcing governments to prepare for threats thought to have been long buried.
> 
> The result is a sudden reshuffling of budgets as military spending, humanitarian assistance and essentials like agriculture and energy are shoved to the front of the line, with other pressing needs like education and social services likely to be downgraded._


NATO was withering on the vine until this. To imagine there was some master plot to threaten Russia using Ukraine when all Putin had to do was not rock the boat and NATO in Europe would be a paper tiger in a decade. Look at the German military and how few US troops were based east of Germany until Russia started its invasions.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Also America had lost its significance exemplified by The Donald.  It wasn’t just Wallace and Daly who were anti US. We suddenly are reminded that our whole way of life relies on American protection.


----------



## Purple

tecate said:


> You're making an assumption that this is something that I want. It's not - but it's the reality. And it's always been the reality when it comes to dominant powers. Pull up a list of wars and you'll see how many of them have been proxy wars - as is this one.
> 
> You've made the same suggestion about Greenwald but I don't see where in his article there's a suggestion that he wants this - although he recognises it as the reality.


I've made numerous substantive points and you have chosen not to reply to most of them. You are of course perfectly entitled not to but there's very little point in me replying to any more of your posts.

Your tactic it to get bogged down in small vague points based on some sort of moral relativity as a way of deflecting from the larger issue of right and wrong, who is the protagonist and what is being fought for.

The fact is that Russia is the protagonist in what is a war between democracy and totalitarianism. The rest is irrelevant within that broader context. 

The fact that larger countries have historically invaded their neighbours and imposed their will on them is a reality. Such actions are morally wrong and against the law. That is also a reality. We did not worry that the UK would invade us because we chose not to leave the EU when thy did. That's the way it should be. That's the way it is between free countries in the free world. That is the context of Russia's war against Ukraine. 

The argument that an expression of collective free will by the people of Ukraine is a justification for Russia's invasion is nonsense. I would respectfully suggest to other posters that getting dragged into the mire by you deflects from that overarching point and adds nothing to the discussion.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Well said. To my embarrassment I think my contact rate with @tecate is higher than any other contributor but you are spot on about his evasive and selective engagement.  I should learn.


----------



## Firefly

Interesting article here, suggesting that Putin didn't miscalculate the invasion of Ukraine and "_never intended to conquer all of Ukraine: that, from the beginning, his real targets were the energy riches of Ukraine’s east, which contain Europe’s second-largest known reserves of natural gas (after Norway’s)_."









						Opinion | What if Putin Didn’t Miscalculate?
					

It’s always wiser to treat an adversary as a canny fox, not a crazy fool.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> The fact is that Russia is the protagonist in what is a war between democracy and totalitarianism. The rest is irrelevant within that broader context.


Being a fan of brevity, for me, the quote above gets to the nub of the situation.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> Interesting article here, suggesting that Putin didn't miscalculate the invasion of Ukraine and "_never intended to conquer all of Ukraine: that, from the beginning, his real targets were the energy riches of Ukraine’s east, which contain Europe’s second-largest known reserves of natural gas (after Norway’s)_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | What if Putin Didn’t Miscalculate?
> 
> 
> It’s always wiser to treat an adversary as a canny fox, not a crazy fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com


Given that Russia has no real trading economy outside primary products that seems like a very rational plan and in that context the Wests plan of support for Ukraine without escalation plays into Putin's hands. 
He has to keep energy hungry Europe starved of alternative supplies. His strategy in Syria is quite obviously informed by that need. Why would his war in Ukraine be any different?

An alternative large supply of Natural Gas to Europe is an existential threat to the existence of Russia in anything close to it's present form.


----------



## Firefly

The top UN human rights official Michelle _"..Bachelet said that her office, which deploys nearly 60 UN human rights monitors in Ukraine, had verified 77 incidents in which medical facilities were damaged, including 50 hospitals."

“Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited under international humanitarian law and may amount to war crimes,” she said._









						Russia may be committing war crimes in Ukraine, UN human rights chief says
					

Michelle Bachelet says destruction of civilian infrastructure indicates rules of war have ‘not been sufficiently adhered to’




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Leper

I hear on RTE's radio news today that Putin is not being advised of the true situation regarding losses in the invasion. Apparently, even his military advisors are afraid to fall foul of him. 

Add the Russian propaganda machine to that and we have a conflict that likely will last a long time. 

War Crimes:- It will be difficult to indict him. Furthermore, his henchmen in war crimes might never face The Hague either as Putin will not extradite them (Source BBC news). But, potential war criminals can be arrested in airports outside of Russia if they are travelling.

Let's not get hung up on posters here supplying different points of view. To be honest, I find some of the Ukraine claims difficult to believe. But, I believe Zelensky over Putin. The former plays the media and the latter runs his media.


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> I hear on RTE's radio news today that Putin is not being advised of the true situation regarding losses in the invasion. Apparently, even his military advisors are afraid to fall foul of him.


I find that hard to believe. There's a strong attempt to frame Putin as Hitler in the Führerbunker in 1945. It doesn't serve the truth to do so.


Leper said:


> War Crimes:- It will be difficult to indict him. Furthermore, his henchmen in war crimes might never face The Hague either as Putin will not extradite them (Source BBC news). But, potential war criminals can be arrested in airports outside of Russia if they are travelling.


There's almost no chance that he will face War Crimes charges. The American's can't really make an issue of it since they don't and won't send their people to the Hague. 


Leper said:


> To be honest, I find some of the Ukraine claims difficult to believe. But, I believe Zelensky over Putin. The former plays the media and the latter runs his media.


Well said.


----------



## Purple

tecate said:


> _EDIT - I see this notification below -> "*You have insufficient privileges to reply here"*
> 
> ...so with that I can't respond to any post from #502 onwards. Vlad, is that you? It must be you Vlad - you're the only one that runs this type of censorship. Everyone else is pure as snow. If it's not you, I'm a lucky sod. You'd throw me in the gulags for sure - AAM admin will just prevent me from free speech. They're much nicer than you, Vlad - you brute!
> We should overlook their cognitive dissonance as clearly they engage in or enable censorship in a far more gentlemanly way. I guess that's why they support regime change in a gentlemanly way, meddling in the affairs of other nations in a gentlemanly way and facilitating slaughter in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. A lifetime of accepting agenda-driven mainstream media narrative unquestioningly means the ( cognitive dissonance ) force is strong with them.
> 
> *However, it's the greatest compliment of all - the fact that the only way you can attempt to get the upper hand is to opt for the unethical censorship option. *
> 
> _________________________


I find it hard to take people seriously who use the phrase "mainstream media". 
It's just the media. Someone ranting on Twitter or YouTube or Facebook or whatever is not a comparable source. "The media" is made up of organisations with Editors and Journalists and Editorial Boards who are liable under the law for what they say and publish. 
You can watch CNN and Sky News and Aljazeera and between them all you'll get the truth. You can read the New York Times and the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian and a few more and between them you'll get the truth. 

One of the positives to come out of this conflict is the reframing of our relationship with the USA. The whiny immature man-children who still have posters of terrorists like Che Guevara  and Fidel Castro on their walls, who admire murdering terrorist organisations like the PLO and Hamas and adopt a blindly anti-American and anti-Israeli stance have been shown to be the complete idiots that they are. 
For all its many faults, and despite all of the appalling things they have done, I am very glad that America is the most powerful country in the world and is willing to bleed to protect our freedom, despite the fact that we aren't.


----------



## Firefly

Leper said:


> War Crimes:- It will be difficult to indict him. Furthermore, his henchmen in war crimes might never face The Hague either as Putin will not extradite them (Source BBC news). But, potential war criminals can be arrested in airports outside of Russia if they are travelling.


I don't think Putin will ever face the Hague, but it will probably mean he will be a pariah on the international stage long after this war ends and sanctions are eased


----------



## Firefly

_BRUSSELS — Despite Russian statements that it would radically reduce its military activity around Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, to concentrate on the war in eastern Ukraine, Western governments see little evidence of that, Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary-general, told a news conference on Thursday.

“According to our intelligence, Russian units are not withdrawing but repositioning,” he said, echoing the views of the U.S. and British governments. “Russia is trying to regroup, resupply and reinforce its offensive in the Donbas region” in eastern Ukraine, Mr. Stoltenberg said.

“At the same time, Russia maintains pressure on Kyiv and other cities, so, we can expect additional offensive actions, bringing even more suffering,” he said.
Mr. Stoltenberg cautioned skepticism about Russian statements about its plans. “Russia has repeatedly lied about its intentions,” he said. “So we can only judge Russia on its actions, not on its words.”_









						What Happened on Day 36 of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine
					

Humanitarian officials were trying to organize an evacuation from Mariupol. U.S. officials said Russia was running its military campaign out of Moscow, with no central war commander in Ukraine to call the shots.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## odyssey06

Reports that Russians soldiers pulling back from Chernobyl and some have been taken for radiation treatment... Darwin awards incoming.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Finn McRedmond of the IT echoes the Tool today in saying we should not demonise Russian artists.  Fair enough, but the fact remains that Putin is the most popular leader amongst his people in Europe and his popularity has soared since the invasion.  Somewhat similar to a moustachioed Austrian gent in the 1930s.  The populace can’t be exonerated of all blame.


----------



## odyssey06

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Finn McRedmond of the IT echoes the Tool today in saying we should not demonise Russian artists.  Fair enough, but the fact remains that Putin is the most popular leader amongst his people in Europe and his popularity has soared since the invasion.  Somewhat similar to a moustachioed Austrian gent in the 1930s.  The populace can’t be exonerated of all blame.


There has to be consequences for Russian people in all this. Not demonised but they need to get the message.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

@Purple the title of this thread is somewhat euphemistic.  How about changing it to “Russia’s imperialist war strategy”?


----------



## Sophrosyne

“Aggressively silent majority”

Stanislav Kucher, a long-time former Russian TV host, explains the mindset of the Russian people after an independent pollster finds Russian President Vladimir Putin's approval rating to be over 80%.

He says that while some fear Putin’s wrath the majority support him.


----------



## Leper

The first casualty of every war is The Truth. The conflict in Ukraine is no exception.

But, two stories (from RTE television news) of real reality:-

(i) Yesterday schoolchildren from Ukraine while visiting Dublin Zoo  became visibly and audibly frightened by over flying planes to/from Dublin Airport.
(ii) Tonight's News showed a surrogate mother from Ukraine spending time in the Co Wicklow home of the family for which she was surrogate. She brought her own children from Ukraine to live with the Co Wicklow family. (This segment alone made me very proud to be Irish).

It isn't often my emotions get the better of me (a hardened leper), but on both occasions I could not let go of the real truth.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> There has to be consequences for Russian people in all this. Not demonised but they need to get the message.


There is no free press in Russia. The USA has a free press and about 30% of the electorate think that Trump really won the last election. Ireland has a free press and 40% of the people think that the Shinners will solve the housing crisis and taxing the rich will fix everything. I wouldn't be too hard on the Russians.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> There is no press press in Russia. The USA has a free press and about 30% of the electorate think that Trump really won the last election. Ireland has a free press and 40% of the people think that the Shinners will solve the housing crisis and taxing the rich will fix everything. I wouldn't be too hard on the Russians.


They can't be the only ones to not experience impacts from this, given what is happening in Ukraine.
They need to see empty shelves. They need to ask questions about why they were thrown out of the world cup. Why their currency is losing value. Why they can't travel etc etc
Especially because they don't have a free press who won't ask those questions of the government directly.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> They can't be the only ones to not experience impacts from this, given what is happening in Ukraine.
> They need to see empty shelves. They need to ask questions about why they were thrown out of the world cup. Why their currency is losing value. Why they can't travel etc etc
> Especially because they don't have a free press who won't ask those questions of the government directly.


Look at America and Trump and the working poor who vote for the Party that serves the super rich.
Look at Brexit and the poor who voted out of the EU.
Look at Ireland where the people who are priced out of the housing market support the Party which wants to abolish Property Tax.
All that in countries with a free press. People are smart but the mob is stupid.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> Look at America and Trump and the working poor who vote for the Party that serves the super rich.
> Look at Brexit and the poor who voted out of the EU.
> Look at Ireland where the people who are priced out of the housing market support the Party which wants to abolish Property Tax.
> All that in countries with a free press. People are smart but the mob is stupid.


People there remember the empty shelves and queuing for food in the 1980s. Putin was supposed to have banished all that.
Things like that eat away at the regime.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> People there remember the empty shelves and queuing for food in the 1980s. Putin was supposed to have banished all that.
> Things like that eat away at the regime.


That's very true but he can blame the West. There's nothing like a wold at the door to unite people. There's nothing like fear to motivate people to surrender their rights.  Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." It wasn't said in this context but nevertheless it is very apt in this context. Interestingly it was a pro-taxation, pro-government point but that's a different discussion.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

At risk of going down a rabbit hole, how does paying for gas in roubles help Putin?  He already insists that Gazprom exchanges 80% of its foreign revenue into roubles.  If Russia has monopolistic control of gas to EU/Germany why not just put up the price.


			
				Purple said:
			
		

> People are smart but the mob is stupid.


Nice one, @Purple.  Is that one of your own, or is it Shakespeare?


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> At risk of going down a rabbit hole, how does paying for gas in roubles help Putin?  He already insists that Gazprom exchanges 80% of its foreign revenue into roubles.  If Russia has monopolistic control of gas to EU/Germany why not just put up the price.


It means EU countries have to buy Roubles to pay for the gas which props up the currency.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> Nice one, @Purple.  Is that one of your own, or is it Shakespeare?


I've very few original thoughts so I probably lifted it from somewhere. I also have an exceptionally bad memory so I can't remember from where.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Purple said:


> Look at America and Trump and the working poor who vote for the Party that serves the super rich.
> Look at Brexit and the poor who voted out of the EU.
> Look at Ireland where the people who are priced out of the housing market support the Party which wants to abolish Property Tax.


But that’s not quite the same thing as denying a war on their doorstep.

"Ukrainian woman on pain and heartache of Russian family who 'don’t believe war is happening'

‘My mother says I am betraying Russia’: Putin’s invasion divides the generations"


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> But that’s not quite the same thing as denying a war on their doorstep.
> 
> "Ukrainian woman on pain and heartache of Russian family who 'don’t believe war is happening'
> 
> ‘My mother says I am betraying Russia’: Putin’s invasion divides the generations"


My point is that people believe all sorts of rubbish even when the facts are freely available. Believing rubbish when all you have is rubbish is, therefore, not that surprising.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Purple said:


> It means EU countries have to buy Roubles to pay for the gas which props up the currency.


Might deserve a new thread, rabbit hole country here.
 1 euro = 100 roubles
Today Germany pays Gazprom 100 euro for a bushel of gas;  Gazprom pays the Russian Central Bank 100 euro for 10k roubles
Under new rules Germany pays Russian CB 100 euro for 10k roubles and then pays Gazprom 10k roubles for a bushel of gas
What's the diff?


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Might deserve a new thread, rabbit hole country here.
> 1 euro = 100 roubles
> Today Germany pays Gazprom 100 euro for a bushel of gas;  Gazprom pays the Russian Central Bank 100 euro for 10k roubles
> Under new rules Germany pays Russian CB 100 euro for 10k roubles and then pays Gazprom 10k roubles for a bushel of gas
> What's the diff?


It means that the Rouble becomes the reserve currency for Russian gas so its value is tied to the value of gas, not the Russian economy.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Purple said:


> It means that the Rouble becomes the reserve currency for Russian gas so its value is tied to the value of gas, not the Russian economy.


Maybe, I read something of the sort in my Googles but I am finding my economics very rusty, anyway 'nuff said.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> It means that the Rouble becomes the reserve currency for Russian gas so its value is tied to the value of gas, not the Russian economy.


Maybe that's the Brucy Bonus that Valds is hoping for, to knock the mighty Greenback off it pedestal as the reserve currecy for oil & gas payments??


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> Maybe that's the Brucy Bonus that Valds is hoping for, to knock the mighty Greenback off it pedestal as the reserve currecy for oil & gas payments??


The Iraqis tried to sell oil in Euro, shortly before the Americans mistakenly thought that had WMD's and Venezuela talked about it shortly before there happened to be a Coup attempt.


----------



## cremeegg

Firefly said:


> He's entitled to his opinion and luckily he can express one without the risk of going to jail for 15 years!


Not too familiar with Greenwald's story I think.









						Miranda ruling conflates journalism with terrorism
					

Opinion: The UK government has yet to offer evidence that stories published on back of Snowden material endangered life




					www.irishtimes.com
				




or according to Wikipedia

In January 2020, Greenwald was charged by Brazilian prosecutors with cybercrimes, in a move that Trevor Timm in _The Guardian_ described as retaliation for his reporting

Or the _The Washington Post_


----------



## Sophrosyne

Doesn’t excuse an unprovoked invasion of a neighbouring country, regardless of what Greenwald thinks.


----------



## Firefly

Civilians killed Bucha, some with heir hands bound behind their backs
Dead bodies, including Russian soldiers, left strewn on streets
Land mines left for those trying to escape

It's always the same with Russia...no respect for human life. I hope the sanctions are increased & remain long after this war has finished.


----------



## Firefly

Russian lies about dead bodies in Bucha debunked...

_When images emerged over the weekend of the bodies of dead civilians lying on the streets of Bucha — some with their hands bound, some with gunshot wounds to the head — Russia’s Ministry of Defense denied responsibility.
..
Satellite images provided to The Times by Maxar Technologies show that at least 11 of those had been on the street since March 11, when Russia, by its own account, occupied the town._









						Live Updates: U.N. Security Council to Meet as Evidence of War Crimes Mounts
					

China and Russia are unlikely to support any measures that France, the U.S. and Britain propose. European leaders sought to impose more sanctions, but were divided on whether to ban Russian natural gas.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## Sophrosyne

This has gone way beyond deniability. Satellite images prove that.

God knows what will be discovered in Mariupol.

You know, I cannot think of a word low enough to describe a man who would stand over these atrocities or an even lower one to describe his vile and cowardly enablers.


----------



## MOB

Purple said:


> I've very few original thoughts so I probably lifted it from somewhere. I also have an exceptionally bad memory so I can't remember from where.


It's Tommy Lee Jones from the film Men In Black.   But kudos for retaining it.









						Men in Black - Bench scene
					

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the univ...




					youtu.be


----------



## Baby boomer

Sophrosyne said:


> ...an even lower one to describe his vile and cowardly enablers.


I'm sure Mick and Claire can put it in a proper context and help us understand why it's all really NATO's fault for making poor Vlad do it.


----------



## Firefly

Maybe the Russians think that we will all fall for their lies & propaganda as they are so used to peddling the same at home. But there is just too much footage in these modern times. The Russians just left the dead cyclist below on the streets for weeks - no value on human life whatsoever. Shame on Russia.









						Ukraine Live Updates: Europe Considers Cutting Off Russian Coal as Moscow Denies War Crimes
					

The measures will require unanimous approval and are expected to go to a vote on Wednesday. The escalation in economic pressure came after President Volodymyr Zelensky delivered a fiery speech to the U.N. Security Council.




					www.nytimes.com
				




_New video has emerged that adds to mounting evidence of atrocities carried out while Russia’s military occupied the suburban town of Bucha, northwest of Kyiv.

The video shows a cyclist moving along a street in Bucha, dismounting and walking a bicycle around the corner onto a street occupied by Russian soldiers. As soon as the cyclist rounds the turn, a Russian armored vehicle fires several high-caliber rounds along the thoroughfare. A second armored vehicle fires two rounds in the direction of the cyclist. A plume of dust and smoke rises from the scene.

The video is aerial footage recorded by Ukraine’s military in late February, when Russian forces still held the town. It has been independently verified by The New York Times.

Weeks later, after Russia withdrew from Bucha, a body in civilian clothes was filmed beside a bicycle in this precise location in a second video verified by The Times. The body, with one leg mangled, lies behind a concrete utility pillar that has collapsed from an apparent strike. The damage to the pillar is consistent with high-caliber ammunition. The person’s clothing — a dark blue top and lighter pants — matches the cyclist’s attire._


----------



## Sophrosyne

Baby boomer said:


> I'm sure Mick and Claire can put it in a proper context and help us understand why it's all really NATO's fault for making poor Vlad do it.


I'm sure I never think about either of those personages.


----------



## Purple

MOB said:


> It's Tommy Lee Jones from the film Men In Black.   But kudos for retaining it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men in Black - Bench scene
> 
> 
> "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the univ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youtu.be


I think it was said by someone in Gladiator.


----------



## Peanuts20

Sophrosyne said:


> This has gone way beyond deniability. Satellite images prove that.
> 
> God knows what will be discovered in Mariupol.
> 
> You know, I cannot think of a word low enough to describe a man who would stand over these atrocities or an even lower one to describe his vile and cowardly enablers.


Trouble is, where do you draw a line on this. ? 

For example, Obama's USA carried out over 1800 drone strikes and depending on what report you read, between 100 and 900 civilians were killed. Trump upped the ante and had carried out over 2000 drone strikes in his first 2 years, Biden's airforce has bombed a wedding.  I guess the only positive thing to say there is that at least the US for the most parts owns up. 

Bashir has used poison gas, Yemen is being systematically destroyed in a war funded by a country that, amongst other things, part owns Disney. Ethiopia is buying weapons from Turkey to use in the Tigray civil war, the list goes on and on and on. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not underplaying Ukraine and it is more relevant to us since as Europeans, it is on our doorstep. However sadly, it is far from unique.


----------



## odyssey06

The siege of the Russian embassy deepens... they must be down to their last tin of caviar and bottle of vodka... the world's smallest orchestra is playing somewhere in sympathy:









						Russian Embassy makes plea for help as it faces fuel shortages | BreakingNews.ie
					

Tánaiste Leo Varadkar said, while he does not have sympathy for the situation, there are rules for hosting international diplomats.




					www.breakingnews.ie


----------



## Sophrosyne

Peanuts20 said:


> Trouble is, where do you draw a line on this. ?
> 
> For example, Obama's USA carried out over 1800 drone strikes and depending on what report you read, between 100 and 900 civilians were killed. Trump upped the ante and had carried out over 2000 drone strikes in his first 2 years, Biden's airforce has bombed a wedding. I guess the only positive thing to say there is that at least the US for the most parts owns up.
> 
> Bashir has used poison gas, Yemen is being systematically destroyed in a war funded by a country that, amongst other things, part owns Disney. Ethiopia is buying weapons from Turkey to use in the Tigray civil war, the list goes on and on and on.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not underplaying Ukraine and it is more relevant to us since as Europeans, it is on our doorstep. However sadly, it is far from unique.


Well, you never draw the line on condemning atrocities wherever they occur, or you never take the endurance of democracy for granted.

I think the reason why Ukraine is more meaningful to us, apart from the fact that it is European, is that democracy is under attack.

Generally, the Middle East is not democratic and not united. There are a few “democratic” states but not what we would recognize as democracy. And there is constant inherited conflict. Syria is typical of the confusing array of actors and complex interrelated and clashing struggles.

Who is the arbiter of peace among undemocratic States?

The US is condemned if it becomes involved in their conflicts and condemned if it doesn’t.

The EU had its origin in States coming together to trade in peace and to try to avert the insanity of constant warfare in Europe.

Therefore, Ukraine is more clear-cut. It is a democratic European State that suffered an unprovoked attack by a totalitarian regime, which thinks it has no right to exist.

Ireland as a democratic European country, completely unable to defend itself against a similar attack, saw laid bare the frailty of democracy and the need to stand together with other democracies.

We don’t and probably never will have military capabilities to speak of but we are not without influence.


----------



## Firefly

odyssey06 said:


> The siege of the Russian embassy deepens... they must be down to their last tin of caviar and bottle of vodka... the world's smallest orchestra is playing somewhere in sympathy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russian Embassy makes plea for help as it faces fuel shortages | BreakingNews.ie
> 
> 
> Tánaiste Leo Varadkar said, while he does not have sympathy for the situation, there are rules for hosting international diplomats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breakingnews.ie


Make them pay in Punts!


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> Well, you never draw the line on condemning atrocities wherever they occur,


The Shinners are in aa bit of a bind here though aren't they. I mean they can hardly condemn the Russians for murdering children since they were gung-ho at it for 30 years.


----------



## Baby boomer

Peanuts20 said:


> Trouble is, where do you draw a line on this. ?


This is a really important question.  Fortunately, the answer is relatively clear...


Peanuts20 said:


> For example, Obama's USA carried out over 1800 drone strikes and depending on what report you read, between 100 and 900 civilians were killed.


It's obvious from those ratios that the primary purpose of those drone strikes was NOT to inflict civilian casualties.  If it was the civilian death toll would be much higher.  A belligerent army may target military targets even though civilian casualties (so-called collateral damage) will almost certainly be inflicted too.  There has to be an element of proportionality, so you can't blow up an entire apartment block because one soldier took shelter there.  Equally, military combatants can't take shelter or locate military equipment in civilian areas to try and set up a human shield scenario.  





Peanuts20 said:


> Trump upped the ante and had carried out over 2000 drone strikes in his first 2 years, Biden's airforce has bombed a wedding.  I guess the only positive thing to say there is that at least the US for the most parts owns up.


By and large, they do.  But more importantly, they don't (with very few exceptions) deliberately target civilian targets.  There will be the odd mistake in 2000 drone strikes - as long as there's a reasonable effort to avoid civilian casualties, that's permissible.  That's a world away from the deliberate targeting of civilians that Russia has done in Ukraine (and in Syria and Chechnya too.)



Peanuts20 said:


> Bashir has used poison gas, Yemen is being systematically destroyed in a war funded by a country that, amongst other things, part owns Disney. Ethiopia is buying weapons from Turkey to use in the Tigray civil war, the list goes on and on and on.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not underplaying Ukraine and it is more relevant to us since as Europeans, it is on our doorstep. However sadly, it is far from unique.


It isn't of course unique.  It is, though, hugely different from anything that the US, UK, NATO or Western nations in general have engaged in recently.  It is quite disingenuous to draw such parallels as PBP did in the Dáil today.


----------



## Baby boomer

Purple said:


> The Shinners are in aa bit of a bind here though aren't they. I mean they can hardly condemn the Russians for murdering children since they were gung-ho at it for 30 years.


That's exactly what Mary Lou did, quite shamelessly, in the Dáil this morning!  She condemned Russia for murdering civilians, for shooting people after tying their hands behind their backs and for its violence towards women and children.   Perhaps she could look closer to home if she wants to condemn that sort of thing.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> That's exactly what Mary Lou did, quite shamelessly, in the Dáil this morning!  She condemned Russia for murdering civilians, for shooting people after tying their hands behind their backs and for its violence towards women and children.   Perhaps she could look closer to home if she wants to condemn that sort of thing.


At least the Russians had the decency to leave the bodies in the street rather than bury them in a bog or sand dune.


----------



## odyssey06

DarthPutinKGB on Twitter:

_"We dictators don't do propaganda to make you believe something. We do it to make you believe nothing. So you will do nothing."_


----------



## odyssey06

Some military analysis on next phase of conflict in the East from Mark Hertling on Twitter.

_RU hopes to conduct frontal attacks in the Donbas while attempting to surround URK's forces from N & S.   They'll have trouble executing this plan._

https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1511725313415340032


----------



## odyssey06

US resurrects Lend Lease to make it easier to send weapons to Ukraine








						How Joe Biden's Lend-Lease for Ukraine Could Turn the Tide of War
					

The Lend-Lease program was a crucial component in the fight against Nazi Germany during World War II.




					www.newsweek.com


----------



## michaelm

About time; shouldn't have taken seven six weeks to get to Lend-Lease.


----------



## Firefly

Russian rocket strike on Kramatorsk railway station in east Ukraine killed at least 39 people and wounded 87 others. *The station was being used for civilian evacuations*

_A Russian strike on a crowded train station in eastern Ukraine on Friday morning left at least 39 people dead and nearly 90 wounded, Ukrainian officials said, in what appeared to be a major attack on a main point of evacuation for the many trying to flee before an expected stepped-up offensive.

Photos provided by Ukrainian officials showed people splayed on the ground, surrounded by scattered luggage and debris. In a video from the scene, a woman screams, “There are so many corpses, there are children, there are just children!”_









						Live Updates: At Least 39 Killed in Strike on Train Station, Ukraine Says, as Thousands Flee From East
					

The station in the eastern city of Kramatorsk had been a main point of evacuation as the region braced for a scaling up of Russia’s offensive. The European Union formally approved a new set of sanctions against Russia, including a ban on coal imports.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## odyssey06

DarthPutinKGB ...

"Day 44 of my 3 day war. My offensive in east Ukraine will succeed by using exact same tactics that lead to our victorious defeat at Kiev. I remain a master strategist."


----------



## cremeegg

Baby boomer said:


> This is a really important question.  Fortunately, the answer is relatively clear...
> 
> It's obvious from those ratios that the primary purpose of those drone strikes was NOT to inflict civilian casualties.  If it was the civilian death toll would be much higher.


This is equivocating in the face of dead children and you should be ashamed.


----------



## cremeegg

Peanuts20 said:


> Trouble is, where do you draw a line on this. ?
> 
> For example, Obama's USA carried out over 1800 drone strikes and depending on what report you read, between 100 and 900 civilians were killed. Trump upped the ante and had carried out over 2000 drone strikes in his first 2 years, Biden's airforce has bombed a wedding.  I guess the only positive thing to say there is that at least the US for the most parts owns up.
> 
> Bashir has used poison gas, Yemen is being systematically destroyed in a war funded by a country that, amongst other things, part owns Disney. Ethiopia is buying weapons from Turkey to use in the Tigray civil war, the list goes on and on and on.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not underplaying Ukraine and it is more relevant to us since as Europeans, it is on our doorstep. However sadly, it is far from unique.





Peanuts20 said:


> Trouble is, where do you draw a line on this. ?


For me the first place to look, if not draw a line is at the actions of 'our side'. It is easy to see the mote in the eye of the other.

The attack on Iraq was launched by The US, the UK, Australia and Poland. These are countries with which we have much in common, where our young people travel to live and work. Whose politicians often boast of their Irish Heritage. We allowed US planes to refuel in Shannon on their way to bomb Iraq.

These are 'our side' in a way that Russia is not. Calling out the abominations off Russia is easy, but hypocritical from a country that didn't protest when our side was bombing civilians.

But hey lets join NATO


----------



## Baby boomer

cremeegg said:


> This is equivocating in the face of dead children and you should be ashamed.


Absolutely not.  I doubt if there ever has been a war that didn't result in dead children.  That doesn't mean that all wars are equally moral/immoral because they (almost inevitably) kill children.  There is a world of difference between the deliberate targeting of civilians that we've seen from Russia in recent weeks, and drone strikes on military targets that may also -* as an unintended effect* - kill small numbers of civilians.  

One approach seeks to maximize civilian casualties as a deliberate, intimidatory tactic of war.  The other seeks to minimize civilian casualties.  (Admittedly, perhaps with an eye on PR but still a huge difference.)


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> Absolutely not.  I doubt if there ever has been a war that didn't result in dead children.  That doesn't mean that all wars are equally moral/immoral because they (almost inevitably) kill children.  There is a world of difference between the deliberate targeting of civilians that we've seen from Russia in recent weeks, and drone strikes on military targets that may also -* as an unintended effect* - kill small numbers of civilians.
> 
> One approach seeks to maximize civilian casualties as a deliberate, intimidatory tactic of war.  The other seeks to minimize civilian casualties.  (Admittedly, perhaps with an eye on PR but still a huge difference.)


The Allies killed 60,000 French civilians during the Second World War. They were not targeting civilians. If they were targeting civilians then the 600,000 tonnes of bombs they dropped would have been dropped on different targets.

American Friendly Fire killed more British troops during the First Gulf War than the Iraqis did. That was not the intention of the Americans. The net effect was almost certainly fewer British deaths as Americas overwhelming firepower shortened the war considerably.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> Calling out the abominations off Russia is easy, but hypocritical from a country that didn't protest when our side was bombing civilians.


They were not bombing civilians. Civilians were killed when they were bombing other primary targets.
There were certainly incidents where civilians were killed by accident. The Haska Meyna incident in 2008 in which 3 American bombs killed 47 members of a wedding party, including the bride and a large number of children, sticks in my memory.


----------



## Itchy

cremeegg said:


> For me the first place to look, if not draw a line is at the actions of 'our side'. It is easy to see the mote in the eye of the other.
> 
> The attack on Iraq was launched by The US, the UK, Australia and Poland. These are countries with which we have much in common, where our young people travel to live and work. Whose politicians often boast of their Irish Heritage. We allowed US planes to refuel in Shannon on their way to bomb Iraq.
> 
> These are 'our side' in a way that Russia is not. Calling out the abominations off Russia is easy, but hypocritical from a country that didn't protest when our side was bombing civilians.
> 
> But hey lets join NATO



Certainly, the impotent are pure.


----------



## joe sod

Remember at the start of this war putin tried to justify it by saying that ukraine was not a real nation and was really part of russia.  He blamed the bolsheviks and Lenin for giving ukraine statehood . In fact he blamed a lot of things that he didn't like on the communists. However what he seemed to overlook is how would this dissing of Lenin and communism be received in China.
I doubt the Chinese are too impressed with that seen as communism and Lenin are still the basis of the Chinese system . Didn't they used to have the infamous communist banners featuring Mao, marx and Lenin?
Putin so consumed in his imperialist justification never thought about that


----------



## odyssey06

More sobering analysis of the military situation from Tom Clonan in the Journal.

All hinges on the upcoming battles in the east.









						Tom Clonan: Russia has pivoted to regenerate a major offensive on the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts
					

Security analyst Tom Clonan writes about how the Russian forces have taken out their frustrations on the civilian population.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## odyssey06

The U.S. has given #Ukraine 7,000 Javelin ATGMs in recent months -- which is 1/3 of the entire American stock & will take 1+yr to replace. Also 2,000 Stingers -- 1/4 of the U.S. inventory, which'll take 5yrs to replace. Is this supply sustainable?



			https://mobile.twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1513928788987596801


----------



## Baby boomer

odyssey06 said:


> The U.S. has given #Ukraine 7,000 Javelin ATGMs in recent months -- which is 1/3 of the entire American stock & will take 1+yr to replace. Also 2,000 Stingers -- 1/4 of the U.S. inventory, which'll take 5yrs to replace. Is this supply sustainable?
> 
> 
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1513928788987596801


Surely production can be ramped up rapidly.  It must have occurred to both the military, and their suppliers, that a war would deplete stocks and that urgent replacements would be required.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> Surely production can be ramped up rapidly.  It must have occurred to both the military, and their suppliers, that a war would deplete stocks and that urgent replacements would be required.


Every precision engineering company and PCB manufacturer in the world is extremely busy, raw materials are in short supply and international supply chains are still severely disrupted since Covid. The US can commandeer whatever resources they need internally in times of war but they aren't at war. I'm sure they can ramp up production but it won't be easy or fast.


----------



## odyssey06

Baby boomer said:


> Surely production can be ramped up rapidly.  It must have occurred to both the military, and their suppliers, that a war would deplete stocks and that urgent replacements would be required.


Yes but let's hope it doesn't get stuck in bureaucratic \ supply chain limbo









						Pentagon scrambles to replenish weapons stocks sent to Ukraine
					

Lawmakers want the U.S. to make more missiles, but companies will wait until they have contracts before cranking up production.




					www.politico.com


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Yes but let's hope it doesn't get stuck in bureaucratic \ supply chain limbo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon scrambles to replenish weapons stocks sent to Ukraine
> 
> 
> Lawmakers want the U.S. to make more missiles, but companies will wait until they have contracts before cranking up production.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com


A supplier is not going to drop existing customers with whom they have long term relationship and revenue streams in order to facilitate one-off orders. Not only would it be bad business but it would be unethical.


----------



## Peanuts20

Purple said:


> Every precision engineering company and PCB manufacturer in the world is extremely busy, raw materials are in short supply and international supply chains are still severely disrupted since Covid. The US can commandeer whatever resources they need internally in times of war but they aren't at war. I'm sure they can ramp up production but it won't be easy or fast.


and guess where a lot of standard components (such as chips) are made, China !


----------



## Leo

Peanuts20 said:


> and guess where a lot of standard components (such as chips) are made, China !


All the big US defence contractors manufacture their own components. For 'sensitive' military equipment, suppliers must use accredited foundries, all of which are on-shore in the US.


----------



## Baby boomer

Leo said:


> All the big US defence contractors manufacture their own components. For 'sensitive' military equipment, suppliers must use accredited foundries, all of which are on-shore in the US.


I guess we can rely on the good old "military-industrial complex" to be well on top of that!  Grist to their mill, and just as well too.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> I guess we can rely on the good old "military-industrial complex" to be well on top of that!  Grist to their mill, and just as well too.


Unfortunately they rely on a vast web of subcontractors who also supply industrial, medical and consumer customers. As they are currently operating at capacity then it will mean less medical equipment or other products being manufactured.


----------



## Itchy

> _Without additional weaponry, this war will become an endless bloodbath, spreading misery, suffering, and destruction. Mariupol, Bucha, Kramatorsk – the list will be continued. Nobody will stop Russia except Ukraine with Heavy Weapons._





			https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1514242356949704709?s=20&t=AXx6Z50bbGrcYuwq7NIYDQ
		


Zelenskyy's tweet today. For a neutrality denier this a hard watch. We have weapons and ammunition expiring. It's like having a neighbour go through a famine and we are watching our food reserve slowly go bad.


----------



## Purple

Itchy said:


> https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1514242356949704709?s=20&t=AXx6Z50bbGrcYuwq7NIYDQ
> 
> 
> 
> Zelenskyy's tweet today. For a neutrality denier this a hard watch. We have weapons and ammunition expiring. It's like having a neighbour go through a famine and we are watching our food reserve slowly go bad.


Yes, but we've taken in a few Ukrainians, just look at all the feel-good "sure aren't we great and sure making tea is just the same as fighting or giving them what they actually need" stories on RTE. 
It's usually only the teachers who have to tell everyone how great they are all the time but now it's becoming a national pastime. Maybe if we congratulate ourselves loudly enough we won't hear the voice in the back of our mind pointing out our hypocrisy and moral vacuousness. 

Other countries are sending their weapons and taking in vast amounts of refugees. We're moaning about the government not giving us sweeties to insulate us from the economic effects of a war between totalitarianism and freedom which is being fought on our doorstep.


----------



## Firefly

Harrowing story of the sexual violence perpetrated by Russian soldiers in Bucha. It's really just pathetic at this stage and totally pointless. I think we all fear the worst for the weeks ahead. How anyone can defend Russian actions I cannot understand. They really are the bad guys in all of this and will be for decades to come I think.


----------



## odyssey06

Ukraine seem to have sunk \ severely damaged (TBD) the flagship cruiser of the Russian Black Sea fleet using a Ukranian produced 'Neptune' anti ship missile attack. This was the ship that attacked Snake Island at the start of the war.

A drone may have been used to distract the ship's defence systems.

Update according to Turkish sources it has sunk.
correction - Pentagon spokesman John Kirby just said on CNN that the warship Moskva is still afloat but clearly damaged. He said it remains unclear whether the damage was caused by Ukraine missile attack. Russia claims that a fire onboard caused ammunition to explode.









						Ukraine war: Russia tows Black Sea flagship back to port as Ukrainians claim missile attack
					

Russia says the missile cruiser was badly damaged after a fire sparked ammunition to detonate, but did not give details on the cause of the flames.




					news.sky.com


----------



## Firefly

odyssey06 said:


> Ukraine seem to have sunk \ severely damaged (TBD) the flagship cruiser of the Russian Black Sea fleet using a Ukranian produced 'Neptune' anti ship missile attack. This was the ship that attacked Snake Island at the start of the war.
> 
> *Russia claims that a fire onboard caused ammunition to explode.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ukraine war: Russia tows Black Sea flagship back to port as Ukrainians claim missile attack
> 
> 
> Russia says the missile cruiser was badly damaged after a fire sparked ammunition to detonate, but did not give details on the cause of the flames.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.sky.com


Yeah right


----------



## odyssey06

Firefly said:


> Yeah right


There was a fire onboard... but what started it


----------



## odyssey06

Seems confirmed to have sunk - if it hadnt been for a pesky storm!

"Russia's defence ministry said the missile cruiser Moskva, the flagship of Russia's Black Sea fleet, sank as it was towed back to port in stormy weather following an explosion and fire, Russian news agencies reported have reported."









						Russia says flagship missile warship Moskva has sunk
					

Russia's guided missile cruiser Moskva has sunk in the Black Sea after being damaged during the military operation in Ukraine, Russia's defence ministry said.




					www.rte.ie


----------



## Baby boomer

Why are the Russians telling the truth for once?  Standard operating procedure would be to deny that the ship had even been hit and dismiss any reports to the contrary as misinformation and propaganda.  Any video of a sinking or burning ship would of course be a product of US/NATO/Hollywood special effects.


----------



## joe sod

Yes amazing really first major warship sunk since the falklands and the first russian warship sunk since WW2. Putin is getting his legacy alright but for all the wrong reasons . The repurcussions for Russia when this is over , maybe Belarus will try to topple Lukashenko and break free from Russia encouraged by the successes happening in Ukraine, also possibly Georgia and Chechnia will agitate again


----------



## odyssey06

Baby boomer said:


> Why are the Russians telling the truth for once?  Standard operating procedure would be to deny that the ship had even been hit and dismiss any reports to the contrary as misinformation and propaganda.  Any video of a sinking or burning ship would of course be a product of US/NATO/Hollywood special effects.


It is strange but maybe this one is hard to cover up...
I'm reading reports online that a civilian ship (Romania or Turkish) rescued some of the crew... dunno whether to believe that.


----------



## Baby boomer

The ship didn't sink.  It was a special military submersion.


----------



## odyssey06

The Russians can't just send in new ships as Turkey have closed access to warships entering the Black Sea (or any nation)








						How Turkey Blocking Russia From The Black Sea Harms Neutral States
					

Turkey has implemented an international law to block Russian warships from entering the Black Sea. But it's blocking neutral warships too—and its actions could ignite tensions in the region.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## johnwilliams

will turkey fire on a russian warship that try's to enter the black sea?


----------



## odyssey06

johnwilliams said:


> will turkey fire on a russian warship that try's to enter the black sea?


They shot down a Russian warplane that strayed into its airspace few years back, so I think yes they would.









						2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Baby boomer

How Clare Daly and Mick Wallace became stars of authoritarian state media (via @IrishTimes) https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...-stars-of-authoritarian-state-media-1.4854028

More muppetry from Ireland's leading muppets.  Are there no depths left to plumb?


----------



## cremeegg

Baby boomer said:


> Absolutely not.  I doubt if there ever has been a war that didn't result in dead children.  That doesn't mean that all wars are equally moral/immoral because they (almost inevitably) kill children.


It does mean that the justification for any war must be such that it justifies the deaths of children which will result from it. However I agree that not all wars are equally immoral.

The WMD, which Sadam didn't have, didn't justify the bombing in which civilians were accidentally killed.

Iraq's support for Al Qaeda, Iraq never supported Al Qaeda, didn't justify the bombing in which civilians were accidentally killed.

Did Bush Jr's need to finish what his father started, or the war industries profits justify the bombing in which civilians were accidentally killed.

But hey the killings were accidental.

The point of this is that Russia's horrors in Ukraine should not prompt Ireland to join NATO, which also has an appalling record of war crimes.


----------



## Sophrosyne

cremeegg said:


> The point of this is that Russia's horrors in Ukraine should not prompt Ireland to join NATO, which also has an appalling record of war crimes.


Is there some political party advocating full membership of NATO for Ireland?


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> The point of this is that Russia's horrors in Ukraine should not prompt Ireland to join NATO, which also has an appalling record of war crimes.


Is it enough to remove Russia’s veto over the deployment of our army?
Is it enough for us to actually have a proper army?
Is it enough for us to have ground based radar and actually know who is in our airspace?
Is it enough for us to stop making a virtue of a 70 year old policy that was based on local politics and economics and was never based on morality?


----------



## PMU

Sophrosyne said:


> Is there some political party advocating full membership of NATO for Ireland?


What makes you think we would be given any choice in the matter?

21 EU members States are also members of NATO. Four EU Candidate states are members of NATO.  2 European states (Iceland and Norway) are members of NATO and not the EU, but participate in the EU Single Market.  Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden are the 6 EU member states that are not members of NATO.  Both Finland and Sweden have jointly announced they are considering joining NATO.  Finland and Sweden take major step towards joining Nato | Nato | The Guardian  Of these, Sweden is the key player.  It has massive military forces but has had a long standing policy of neutrality.  If SE joins NATO, NATO will become the de facto organization for the provision of collective security and territorial defence in Europe.  It's a short step from there to expect / require each member state to participate actively in EU defence, most likely by joining NATO.  After all, if you believe in something, i.e. the EU, and profit from being a member of it, why would you not defend it?


----------



## Sophrosyne

PMU said:


> What makes you think we would be given any choice in the matter?



Perhaps you are right, though I thought application for full membership would involve some sort of plebiscite.

@Purple is right in that our neutrality had more to do with UK relations rather than any moral imperative.

It is self-satisfying to take the high moral ground living in the ivory tower of neutrality, while at the same time expecting the free ride of protection by so-called “war criminals”.


----------



## cremeegg

Sophrosyne said:


> It is self-satisfying to take the high moral ground living in the ivory tower of neutrality, while at the same time expecting the free ride of protection by so-called “war criminals”.


I am not sure who is trying to take taking the moral high ground. I believe that Ireland's decision making should be informed by Ireland's self-interest. As far as I can see there is no moral high ground. 

Ireland's self interest is best served by staying as far as possible from any and all military entanglements.

Building a military defence capability would be meaningless, who would we attack? whose attack could we defend against.

The one attack that has occurred here recently was the cyberattack against the HSE. I would certainly like to see us improving our cyber defences. We could conceivably become world leaders in that. It is something that we might be able to do adequately, and we would not have to build a war machine to do it.


----------



## Baby boomer

cremeegg said:


> I am not sure who is trying to take taking the moral high ground. I believe that Ireland's decision making should be informed by Ireland's self-interest. As far as I can see there is no moral high ground.


A neutral country has been invaded without just cause, civilians are being deliberately slaughtered, towns and cities are being levelled, women are being raped and you think there's no moral high ground.  Right, fair enough so.  As a matter of interest, what exactly would it take to establish a moral high ground in your eyes?  



cremeegg said:


> Ireland's self interest is best served by staying as far as possible from any and all military entanglements.


I'm sure Ukraine thought that too.  Problem is it's not up to Ireland.  Military entanglements might not stay away from us.



cremeegg said:


> Building a military defence capability would be meaningless, who would we attack? whose attack could we defend against.


As Finland has amply demonstrated, a country of our size and wealth can build a defence capability against any potential aggressor.  In their case, Russia; in our case, take your pick from a range of potential aggressors.  



cremeegg said:


> The one attack that has occurred here recently was the cyberattack against the HSE. I would certainly like to see us improving our cyber defences. We could conceivably become world leaders in that. It is something that we might be able to do adequately, and we would not have to build a war machine to do it.


How would that world-leading cyber defence fair against an aggressor who used submarines to cut every fibre optic cable that comes into this island?  As Russia, for instance, could easily do.  Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel and become a world leader in cyber defence, might it not be better to cooperate with a range of countries and together build the world's leading cyber defence system.  Now, if only there was an alliance of like minded democracies, led and chiefly funded by the world's richest country, which already has the best resourced IT capability, that we could join.......
Oh, wait!


----------



## odyssey06

I would prefer an EU military pact, in the absence of that, then we need to seriously think about NATO membership.

NATO isn't perfect, well, one could take a pure self interest on it and say all the more reason to make sure you are in the biggest gang.

Unless you think we are 'too pure' for NATO? Really? Better than who exactly? Every other proper country in the EU?
Better than Canada? Better than Denmark? Better than the Netherlands? Seriously?
Too holier than thou more like it.

What is this perfect country which does not rely on NATO members to ultimately defend it without getting their hands dirty??? Please name them. You could have said Sweden but now they are seriously looking at NATO membership. Switzerland's dirty banking secrets invalidate it as a candidate.
What is this other Utopia?

It's Skibbereen Eagle territory.

It really isn't beyond Russia or some other actor to hit us as the weak link when the EU takes a stand. We've seen Russia doesn't give the slightest damn for morality or previous treaties or established norms of political conduct. On the global stage even the USSR had some respect for that as it tried to appeal to non aligned states even if it treated its own citizens as serfs.

We have negligible defence capacity. If we want ourselves and the EU to be able to play a role on the world stage opposing evil regimes like Russia, then we need to beef up our defence capabilities - and going it alone would be a lot more expensive.


----------



## PMU

odyssey06 said:


> I would prefer an EU military pact, in the absence of that, then we need to seriously think about NATO membership.
> 
> NATO isn't perfect, well, one could take a pure self interest on it and say all the more reason to make sure you are in the biggest gang.


There is PESCO of which we are a member https://www.pesco.europa.eu/, but it's more a co-operation project than a coordinated defence organization.  But, as SE and FI, also PESCO members, are looking towards NATO, I think this indicates the direction EU territorial defence will take.


----------



## odyssey06

This tweet sums up German shenanigans with promising \ not actually helping Ukraine with weapons:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1516545893805273091


----------



## cremeegg

Baby boomer said:


> A neutral country has been invaded without just cause, civilians are being deliberately slaughtered, towns and cities are being levelled, women are being raped and you think there's no moral high ground.  Right, fair enough so.  As a matter of interest, what exactly would it take to establish a moral high ground in your eyes?


For 4 NATO members not to have bombed Iraq on a very similar justification as Russia has invaded Ukraine. Flimsy (or in Iraq's case non existent) notions of security concerns, accusations of Nazi or Islamist politics. But hey you knew that, you just wanted a cheap pop.



Baby boomer said:


> I'm sure Ukraine thought that too.  Problem is it's not up to Ireland.  Military entanglements might not stay away from us.


Our geographical location is very favourable in this regard.



Baby boomer said:


> As Finland has amply demonstrated, a country of our size and wealth can build a defence capability against any potential aggressor.  In their case, Russia; in our case, take your pick from a range of potential aggressors.


I would like to know who these potential aggressors might be before Irish taxpayers hand over €7bn a year to the arms industry.



Baby boomer said:


> How would that world-leading cyber defence fair against an aggressor who used submarines to cut every fibre optic cable that comes into this island?


I am not proposing military defence of the US/Europe network that passes our shores. Let those who installed it do that. (I used to work briefly for Global Crossing, I sometimes feel like Forrest Gump)



Baby boomer said:


> Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel and become a world leader in cyber defence, might it not be better to cooperate with a range of countries and together build the world's leading cyber defence system.  Now, if only there was an alliance of like minded democracies, led and chiefly funded by the world's richest country, which already has the best resourced IT capability, that we could join.......
> Oh, wait!


I would like to see Ireland having an independent capacity in this regard, and I would be very uncomfortable getting involved with the US or UK security establishment.


----------



## cremeegg

odyssey06 said:


> I would prefer an EU military pact, in the absence of that, then we need to seriously think about NATO membership.
> 
> NATO isn't perfect, well, one could take a pure self interest on it and say all the more reason to make sure you are in the biggest gang.
> 
> Unless you think we are 'too pure' for NATO? Really? Better than who exactly? Every other proper country in the EU?
> Better than Canada? Better than Denmark? Better than the Netherlands? Seriously?


Better than he Netherlands ? You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

The Netherlands campaign (with some British help) to reoccupy Indonesia after WW2 was appalling. They gathered villages together and burned the people en masse.

According to a Dutch government inquiry in 2022, the Dutch had resorted to systematic extreme violence, including torture and murder and this conduct had been sanctioned at the highest levels of government.

The army was “frequently and structurally” guilty of “extrajudicial executions, ill-treatment and torture, detention under inhumane conditions, arson of houses and villages, and often arbitrary mass arrests and internments”, the report’s researchers said. Rape was not normally condoned but it was lightly punished, if at all.

[broken link removed]

The naivety of some Irish people about our 'civilised' European neighbours is unreasonable.


----------



## odyssey06

cremeegg said:


> Better than he Netherlands ? You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> The Netherlands campaign (with some British help) to reoccupy Indonesia after WW2 was appalling. They gathered villages together and burned the people en masse.
> 
> According to a Dutch government inquiry in 2022, the Dutch had resorted to systematic extreme violence, including torture and murder and this conduct had been sanctioned at the highest levels of government.
> 
> The army was “frequently and structurally” guilty of “extrajudicial executions, ill-treatment and torture, detention under inhumane conditions, arson of houses and villages, and often arbitrary mass arrests and internments”, the report’s researchers said. Rape was not normally condoned but it was lightly punished, if at all.
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> The naivety of some Irish people about our 'civilised' European neighbours is unreasonable.



Gosh. What are we doing in a deep reaching formal political association with such a rogue state?


----------



## Baby boomer

cremeegg said:


> Better than he Netherlands ? You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> The Netherlands campaign (with some British help) to reoccupy Indonesia after WW2 was appalling. They gathered villages together and burned the people en masse.
> 
> According to a Dutch government inquiry in 2022, the Dutch had resorted to systematic extreme violence, including torture and murder and this conduct had been sanctioned at the highest levels of government.
> 
> The army was “frequently and structurally” guilty of “extrajudicial executions, ill-treatment and torture, detention under inhumane conditions, arson of houses and villages, and often arbitrary mass arrests and internments”, the report’s researchers said. Rape was not normally condoned but it was lightly punished, if at all.
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> The naivety of some Irish people about our 'civilised' European neighbours is unreasonable.


Right, so about 75 years ago, Netherlands did some bad stuff.  They've now fessed up and acknowledged their misdeeds.  That does not in any way justify, lessen or contextualise what Russia is doing today.  This very day, for example, they've deliberately shelled and bombed another hospital.  Does Netherlands do that today? Does the USA? Does NATO? 

Put simply, what Russia is doing is wrong.  It's unjustified.  It's a war crime.  It's savage and inhumane.  It is simply beyond me why you feel the need to engage in constant historical whataboutery and false equivalence whenever Russia is criticised.


----------



## cremeegg

Baby boomer said:


> Right, so about 75 years ago, Netherlands did some bad stuff.  They've now fessed up and acknowledged their misdeeds.  That does not in any way justify, lessen or contextualise what Russia is doing today.  This very day, for example, they've deliberately shelled and bombed another hospital.  Does Netherlands do that today? Does the USA? Does NATO?
> 
> Put simply, what Russia is doing is wrong.  It's unjustified.  It's a war crime.  It's savage and inhumane.  It is simply beyond me why you feel the need to engage in constant historical whataboutery and false equivalence whenever Russia is criticised.


Have you read any of my comments ?

What Russia is doing is unjustified and a war crime. Yes.

What should Ireland do about that ? Offer asylum to Ukrainians. Yes

Condemn Russias war? Yes.

Join NATO ? No.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> The naivety of some Irish people about our 'civilised' European neighbours is unreasonable.


What about the Irish people who went around the world killing the natives for King and Country?
It's very convenient to ignore our active and majority supported participation in the British Army (our army for hundreds of years) but we've no right to take the high moral ground on anything. 
In the here and now our neighbour is fighting a totalitarian dictatorship in a war that has far reaching and direct consequences for us any every other free country in the world and we, along with a small number of other cowardly countries, are refusing to give them the help they are begging for. I am ashamed of us.


----------



## Purple

This month is the 30th anniversary of the beginning of the siege of Sarajevo. 14,000 people were killed by the Bosnian Serb Army, including 5,500 civilians. 

We did nothing then either.  


During the Second World War we refused to allow Jewish orphans fleeing the Nazis into the country. 
In fact in 1943 in his maiden speech to the Dail Oliver Flannigan, newly elected FG TD and later Minister, said that; “There is one thing that Germany did and that was to rout the Jews out of their country,” he declared, saying that Ireland should follow suit. “They crucified our saviour 1,900 years ago and they are crucifying us every day of the week.”
When Éamon de Valera announced plans to take in 500 refugee children from France Flannigan again objected because of their religion, causing Dev to deny that they were in fact Jewish. Flannigan doubled his vote in the next election and was a popular politician throughout his career despite, or possibly because of, his antisemitism. That antisemitism is alive and well in Ireland still. 

Yes, we covered ourselves in glory there. 


We've a long and seemingly proud history of doing nothing in the face of evil or, when we do act, doing the wrong thing. 
If there's a high moral ground we certainly aren't on it.


----------



## Purple

Mass graves have been dug by Russian forces in Mariupol.
The deputy Mayor of the city said on NewsTalk this morning that the civilian death toll was over 30,000.


----------



## Delboy

Purple said:


> It's very convenient to ignore our active and majority supported participation in the British Army (our army for hundreds of years) but we've no right to take the high moral ground on anything.


"majority supported participation"...even for you Purple, that's a serious stretch


----------



## Purple

Delboy said:


> "majority supported participation"...even for you Purple, that's a serious stretch


Before the emergence of modern Irish Nationalism in the 1830's, and O'Connell in particular, most people accepted the reality as it was that we were part of the UK and their Monarch was our Head of State. The Irish were massively over represented in the British Army, to the extent that in the 19th Century they made up almost 40% of its members. That was certainly more to do with poverty than patriotism ( as was the case almost everywhere at the time) but there were plenty of poor in England, Scotland and Wales as well.


----------



## cremeegg

I often wondered where Purple learned his history, then I came across this.









						Mr Kipling’s exceedingly British schoolbook
					

An Irishwoman’s Diary on what schoolchildren were once taught




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## Delboy

Purple said:


> Before the emergence of modern Irish Nationalism in the 1830's, and O'Connell in particular, most people accepted the reality as it was that we were part of the UK and their Monarch was our Head of State. The Irish were massively over represented in the British Army, to the extent that in the 19th Century they made up almost 40% of its members. That was certainly more to do with poverty than patriotism ( as was the case almost everywhere at the time) but there were plenty of poor in England, Scotland and Wales as well.


We'll agree to disagree on your interpretations of Ireland's past acceptance of the British army, their Monarchy and our place in the UK which I believe to be absolutely ridiculous! This is the Russian thread after all


----------



## michaelm

cremeegg said:


> Our geographical location is very favourable


Above is a key point.  We are not under any credible threat of invasion.  Current events should not bounce us into NATO membership or into an EU Army.  Being militarily non-aligned but not politically neutral makes a lot of sense for Ireland.  We should focus on energy and food security in the first instance, and then building up air and sea defence capabilities (EIRE signs don't quite tick that box).


----------



## Peanuts20

Purple said:


> Before the emergence of modern Irish Nationalism in the 1830's, and O'Connell in particular, most people accepted the reality as it was that we were part of the UK and their Monarch was our Head of State. The Irish were massively over represented in the British Army, to the extent that in the 19th Century they made up almost 40% of its members. That was certainly more to do with poverty than patriotism ( as was the case almost everywhere at the time) but there were plenty of poor in England, Scotland and Wales as well.



You don't have to go back to the 1830's. I have a box at home with one grand-uncles trench art from his time in the trenches and his subsequent War of Independence medals in it. His 2 sisters married English sailors/soldiers and his other brother took part in the aborted 1916 rising in Cork. Anyone who thinks Ireland didn't accept or take part in the British Army and the Monarchy is living in cloud cuckoo land. That grand uncle was far from the only one. the likes of Tom Barry served in the British army









						‘Astonishing’ video footage of smiling ‘famine queen’ Victoria’s Dublin visit found
					

Film archivists are amazed at the quality of film showing Victoria’s 1900 visit




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## jman0war

michaelm said:


> Above is a key point.  We are not under any credible threat of invasion.  Current events should not bounce us into NATO membership or into an EU Army.  Being militarily non-aligned but not politically neutral makes a lot of sense for Ireland.  We should focus on energy and food security in the first instance, and then building up air and sea defence capabilities (EIRE signs don't quite tick that box).


We should also look into establishing a strategic reserve / stock piling of fossilized fuels, similar to what the US does with oil.


----------



## PMU

jman0war said:


> We should also look into establishing a strategic reserve / stock piling of fossilized fuels, similar to what the US does with oil.


I thought we had that: https://www.nora.ie/


----------



## Baby boomer

jman0war said:


> We should also look into establishing a strategic reserve / stock piling of fossilized fuels, similar to what the US does with oil.


Totally agree.  Even if we went ahead with renewables, EVs, retrofitting, etc, etc as fast as is possible, we will STILL need at least SOME fossil fuels for at least SOME period of time.   Having security of supply is only common sense.  However, that's a commodity in short supply in the Green party, now unfortunately part of our Government.  They have opposed the building of an LPG import terminal - which would give us an alternative source of supply - and they have opposed (and banned) further oil and gas exploration in Irish waters.  The atmosphere is blissfully indifferent as to whether the gas or oil we burn comes from Siberian,
Middle Eastern, US or Irish territory.   But Ryan and company would prefer to fund Russian and Gulf dictatorships rather than Irish jobs.  A high price to pay for ideological purity!  And then there's their historic opposition to nuclear which many European green parties have sensibly embraced.  More ideological purity even as we import nuclear generated electricity via interconnectors.  

It's a bit like the old Irish attitude to abortion - not wanting that sort of thing here but happy to turn a blind eye as we let other countries solve our problems.  But, hey, our purity is intact.  

And the same purity fetish is evident in our neutrality obsession.  We'll send money and food to the Ukrainian Army but not weapons!  What a perverted sense of morality!


----------



## Itchy

michaelm said:


> Above is a key point.  We are not under any credible threat of invasion.



As if the "threat of invasion" is the only point on the spectrum of conflict to consider. Its inane to dismiss our defencelessness on a point that is essentially irrelevant in the context of Ireland's defence policy (current and future). Not least to justify the status quo of our tacit support for the Russian invasion (Germany buys their gas, we make frowny faces and wag the finger). 

Focussing on food security and energy security don't exist in isolation. There are all interdependent and ignoring one aspect (defence) can render your other efforts meaningless. For example, your energy security is only as good as the security of your infrastructure, digital and physical. 

It works the same when we focus on our own "self-interest". All sudden everyone else focusses on their own self interest too. That's the world of mé féiners. Those people and polices offer nothing and have delivered nothing towards Ireland's success up to now, and will not in the future. While everyone has their own national interests, we participate in structures that cooperate on issues for collective benefit. Why is Defence so different?


----------



## Itchy

odyssey06 said:


> Gosh. What are we doing in a deep reaching formal political association with such a rogue state?



That's the thing about self-interest, its malleable when you need it to be, $$$


----------



## joe sod

odyssey06 said:


> I would prefer an EU military pact, in the absence of that, then we need to seriously think about NATO membership.
> 
> NATO isn't perfect, well, one could take a pure self interest on it and say all the more reason to make sure you are in the biggest gang.
> 
> Unless you think we are 'too pure' for NATO? Really? Better than who exactly? Every other proper country in the EU?
> Better than Canada? Better than Denmark? Better than the Netherlands? Seriously?
> Too holier than thou more like it.
> 
> What is this perfect country which does not rely on NATO members to ultimately defend it without getting their hands dirty??? Please name them. You could have said Sweden but now they are seriously looking at NATO membership. Switzerland's dirty banking secrets invalidate it as a candidate.
> What is this other Utopia?
> 
> It's Skibbereen Eagle territory.
> 
> It really isn't beyond Russia or some other actor to hit us as the weak link when the EU takes a stand. We've seen Russia doesn't give the slightest damn for morality or previous treaties or established norms of political conduct. On the global stage even the USSR had some respect for that as it tried to appeal to non aligned states even if it treated its own citizens as serfs.
> 
> We have negligible defence capacity. If we want ourselves and the EU to be able to play a role on the world stage opposing evil regimes like Russia, then we need to beef up our defence capabilities - and going it alone would be a lot more expensive.


another thing never mentioned is Northern Ireland also in NATO. Surely if there is any serious ambition for a united Ireland we have to show that we are serious about the defence of the whole island. If the whole island was in Nato it would smooth the path for a potential united ireland. If we continue to carry on as we are well then a united will always be off the cards . There is not a hope of us convincing the northern unionists to abandon the UK and Nato to join a neutral ireland with a non existent defence force


----------



## Baby boomer

Sweden and Finland agree to submit Nato applications, say reports
					

Two countries could apply for membership simultaneously as soon as mid-May, according to reports




					www.theguardian.com
				




Sweden and Finland now say they will jointly apply for NATO membership in the next few weeks.
Kinda leaves Ireland sticking out like a sore thumb and not in a good way.


----------



## Peanuts20

PMU said:


> I thought we had that: https://www.nora.ie/



Not to mention all the Turf !!


----------



## jman0war

nora mentions 90 day reserves, personally i think this should be quadrupled.


----------



## Firefly

Can you imagine the uproar from the Whataboutery brigade if the big, bad USA did something like this?


_Russian soldiers are forcing civilians to dig mass graves and bury the dead in exchange for food and water, the mayor of Mariupol has claimed.

... a third mass grave was discovered near the port city of Mariupol, where it is estimated 20,000 civilians have been killed. Satellite images of the village of Staryi Krym show that a trench which measured up to 64m on March 24 had been extended to 183m two weeks later.

Vadim Boichenko, the mayor of Mariupol, said the findings had been confirmed by villagers conscripted to help bury the dead._









						Ukrainian official says series of blasts in southern Russia are ‘karma’ for Moscow’s invasion
					

Russia reported a series of blasts in the south of the country and a fire at an ammunition depot today, the latest in a spate incidents that a top Ukrainian official described as payback and "karma" for Moscow's invasion.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## Sophrosyne

The Institute for the Study of War, a US-based thinktank, has said Russia is staging "false-flag attacks" in Transnistria.

"As we reported yesterday, explosions were heard in the Moldovan breakaway region in the early hours of the morning and radio antennae were destroyed.

The ISW said the battalions in Transnistria are "not likely sufficient" to mount an attack on the nearby Ukrainian town of Odesa by themselves, "nor are the Russians likely to be able to reinforce them enough to allow them to do so".

However, it said the troops could "support more limited attacks to the northwest of Odesa, possibly causing panic and creating psychological effects to benefit Russian operations in the south of Ukraine".

The thinktank also warned Russia could seek to destabilise Moldova by recognising the self-styled Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR) in Transnistria."


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> The Institute for the Study of War, a US-based thinktank, has said Russia is staging "false-flag attacks" in Transnistria.


The Germans did the same sort of thing to justify their invasion of Poland in 1939. The most famous was the Gleiwitz Incident, an attach on a radio station by German soldiers dressed as Polish soldiers (the then ardent Nazi Oskar Schindler, later the character in a Hollywood fantasy movie, was one of the senior organisers of the attack). 

It is deeply ironic that the Russians are so closely copying the playbook of Hitler while 'de-Nazifying' Ukraine.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> It is deeply ironic that the Russians are so closely copying the playbook of Hitler while 'de-Nazifying' Ukraine.



You're right...

_German newspapers and politicians, including Adolf Hitler, had made accusations against Polish authorities for months before the 1939 invasion of organising or tolerating violent ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans living in Poland._









						Gleiwitz incident - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Purple

Itchy said:


> Not least to justify the status quo of our tacit support for the Russian invasion (Germany buys their gas, we make frowny faces and wag the finger).


The EU is now capitulating to Russian demands to pay for their Gas in Rubles, thus agreeing to fund Russia's war in Ukraine. The Germans are leading the charge in this cave-in.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Purple said:


> The EU is now capitulating to Russian demands to pay for their Gas in Rubles, thus agreeing to fund Russia's war in Ukraine. The Germans are leading the charge in this cave-in.


Just on that, Putin has cut Russian gas supplies to Poland and Bulgaria and has threatened to cut supplies to other EU countries.

I don’t know how much Poland and Bulgaria pay Russia for the gas, but is Putin cutting off his nose to spite his face?


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> Just on that, Putin has cut Russian gas supplies to Poland and Bulgaria and has threatened to cut supplies to other EU countries.
> 
> I don’t know how much Poland and Bulgaria pay Russia for the gas, but is Putin cutting off his nose to spite his face?


The cut off of the supply to Poland an Bulgaria is because their existing contracts expired and they refused to agree a new one based on payment in Rubles. 
Germany and Austria have agreed to pay in Rubles. That's all that matters.

Their suppliers will purchase the gas in Euro them convert the payment into Rubles in Gazprom's Swiss Bank before the money goes on to Russia. In effect they will be propping up the Ruble and Russia's economy. Since there is a single EU energy market this is an EU wide decision to continue to fund Russia's war in Ukraine.


----------



## PMU

Purple said:


> Their suppliers will purchase the gas in Euro them convert the payment into Rubles in Gazprom's Swiss Bank before the money goes on to Russia. In effect they will be propping up the Ruble and Russia's economy. Since there is a single EU energy market this is an EU wide decision to continue to fund Russia's war in Ukraine.


 
Why at Gazprom's Swiss Bank ?   Are there not sacks of rubles held outside of Russia by, e.g. oligarchs, holders  of ruble-denominated bonds, etc. who are looking to unload their rouble holdings?  Why not just buy rubles at a discount from these sources and present them to Gazprom?
The reason I'm asking is that when Ireland had its own currency - the Irish Pound IEP 1979 -1999 - the Central Bank went out of its way to ensure that large holdings of IEP could not  be accumulated offshore, to prevent speculation against the IEP, e.g. mass selling to drive it's price down; settlement of non-IEP denomonated debts in IEP, etc.


----------



## joe sod

Purple said:


> The EU is now capitulating to Russian demands to pay for their Gas in Rubles, thus agreeing to fund Russia's war in Ukraine. The Germans are leading the charge in this cave-in.


But it's not as simple as that, if Germany was to switch off Russian gas it would collapse German industry affecting the whole of Europe including Ireland. The fact is that a lot of crucial industrial components and chemicals needed by everything from agriculture to computer chips are made in Germany.
The fact that Germany is so dependent on Russian gas can be layed at past German leadership especially Angela Merkel who shut down German nuclear and mothballed German coal powered stations (which they are now reversing and bringing back online by the way).
It's going to take a bit of time to get Germany off Russian gas, it is better that most of the damage is done to the Russian economy rather than unnecessarily damaging the European one.
The fact is that the Russian industrial capability to manufacture new weapons is being seriously hampered by their inability to obtain high tech components like microchips from the west. Russia will not obtain the capability to produce these themselves either, it's not like ramping up wheat or fertilizer production. Whereas European industry can keep rolling all this stuff but they need the energy. LNG or wind turbines etc can in no way replace Russian gas for a long while yet


----------



## Purple

joe sod said:


> But it's not as simple as that, if Germany was to switch off Russian gas it would collapse German industry affecting the whole of Europe including Ireland. The fact is that a lot of crucial industrial components and chemicals needed by everything from agriculture to computer chips are made in Germany.
> The fact that Germany is so dependent on Russian gas can be layed at past German leadership especially Angela Merkel who shut down German nuclear and mothballed German coal powered stations (which they are now reversing and bringing back online by the way).
> It's going to take a bit of time to get Germany off Russian gas, it is better that most of the damage is done to the Russian economy rather than unnecessarily damaging the European one.
> The fact is that the Russian industrial capability to manufacture new weapons is being seriously hampered by their inability to obtain high tech components like microchips from the west. Russia will not obtain the capability to produce these themselves either, it's not like ramping up wheat or fertilizer production. Whereas European industry can keep rolling all this stuff but they need the energy. LNG or wind turbines etc can in no way replace Russian gas for a long while yet


It certainly isn't simple but Russia would be hit hardest by cutting off their gas. The fact is that the EU blinked first.


----------



## johnwilliams

how long would it take them to get rid of russian gas ?


----------



## Purple

johnwilliams said:


> how long would it take them to get rid of russian gas ?


According to Bloomberg there is a EU plan to reduce imports by 80% next year.


----------



## Itchy

Run of the mill discussion on Russian state TV, considering the strategic use of an undersea nuclear blast to devastate the "British Isles".

"Such a barrage alone carries extreme doses of radiation. Having passed over the British Isles, it will turn whatever is left of *them *into a radioactive desert, unfit for anything for a long time".

Whatever about the tabloid nature of the presentation (they actually do have the capability, probably from an airdrop rather than undersea drone), its interesting that their is no distinction between NATO and "neutral states" (we already know this from the invasion of Ukraine and we are starting to see the destabilisation of neutral Moldova) and also the conditioning of the Russian population to discount the human cost of military action.





			https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1520846423629213699?s=20&t=0z24O5xKDK_QqDOF89hiug


----------



## Baby boomer

But, but, but, surely our precious, cherished and beloved neutrality will protect us from all harm.  Someone should really explain it to that chap on the video and make sure to tell that nice Mr Putin also.  Maybe Ming-n-Mick-n-Claire could have a word with their pals in Moscow.   We'll be grand then.  Apparently radioactive fallout respects neutrality too and will automatically avoid us.  Happy days!


----------



## joe sod

But UK and US have nuclear weapons too , a US nuclear submarine is supposed to be docked in Scotland currently. It just goes to show though that all the anti US and anti shannon stopover stuff was a load of nonsense in the light of what is currently happening. Moscow seems to be really honing in on the UK though, they see the UK as being the main agent in ramping up the pressure on the Russian army by supplying Ukraine with the best weapons but more importantly bringing the US into a much more engaging role in Ukraine. 
The americans were reluctant at the beginning in getting too much involved in Ukraine for fear of provoking Putin but the Buca massacre changed everything and revolted Biden. It just shows how stupid the Russian army has been, it was mostly the Chechens that carried the atrocities though and a huge mistake by Putin to introduce those bandits into Ukraine.


----------



## Purple

Baby boomer said:


> But, but, but, surely our precious, cherished and beloved neutrality will protect us from all harm.  Someone should really explain it to that chap on the video and make sure to tell that nice Mr Putin also.  Maybe Ming-n-Mick-n-Claire could have a word with their pals in Moscow.   We'll be grand then.  Apparently radioactive fallout respects neutrality too and will automatically avoid us.  Happy days!


Yep, we'll be a beacon of light (literally) in the Nuclear Winter that destroys all the non-neutral countries. It's completely logical.


----------



## michaelm

While some are gung-ho for Ireland to join NATO or an EU Army I expect that a large majority would oppose such a move.  To get either option over the line the State would have to guarantee that should there be a need for conscription, conscripts would not be obliged to serve beyond the island of Ireland.

Recruitment and retention seem to be a challenge for the defence forces as is and I suspect that the prospect of being sent to fight a war on the fringes of NATO, the EU or beyond would not improve things in this regard.  

Methinks we might be better to co-operate closely with the UK to develop improved air and sea defence for the British Isles as a whole.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> While some are gung-ho for Ireland to join NATO or an EU Army I expect that a large majority would oppose such a move.  To get either option over the line the State would have to guarantee that should there be a need for conscription, conscripts would not be obliged to serve beyond the island of Ireland.


Military neutrality is a long standing government policy, not a constitutional position. Being part of a EU rapid reaction force, being aligned to NATO from an equipment and training perspective (as we are anyway) and being able to defend ourselves just required some allocation of resources. 


michaelm said:


> Recruitment and retention seem to be a challenge for the defence forces as is and I suspect that the prospect of being sent to fight a war on the fringes of NATO, the EU or beyond would not improve things in this regard.


Having a proper army might attract more and better people to join. 


michaelm said:


> Methinks we might be better to co-operate closely with the UK to develop improved air and sea defence for the British Isles as a whole.


The "British Isles" doesn't exist. Take a look at the wording of the Good Friday Agreement.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> Military neutrality is a long standing government policy, not a constitutional position.


Yes, indeed.  Although it seems that article 29.9 of the Constitution would block joining an EU army . . "The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State."


----------



## Sophrosyne

michaelm said:


> While some are gung-ho for Ireland to join NATO or an EU Army I expect that a large majority would oppose such a move. To get either option over the line the State would have to guarantee that should there be a need for conscription, conscripts would not be obliged to serve beyond the island of Ireland.
> 
> Recruitment and retention seem to be a challenge for the defence forces as is and I suspect that the prospect of being sent to fight a war on the fringes of NATO, the EU or beyond would not improve things in this regard.
> 
> Methinks we might be better to co-operate closely with the UK to develop improved air and sea defence for the British Isles as a whole.


Neither the EU nor NATO has an army. 
The nature of the defence contribution is up to individual countries.


----------



## joe sod

michaelm said:


> Methinks we might be better to co-operate closely with the UK to develop improved air and sea defence for the British Isles as a whole.


That will also mean difficult decisions  ,the British might not be willing to cooperate on our terms  , they would likely want to be able to access our ports and airports and want to place radar or sophisticated kit that the Irish army don't possess .
They will obviously sense that we are getting more anxious about our defence and will use that to drive a better bargain.
Alot of sacred cows are going to have to be jettisoned shortly. This will be very difficult territory for SF.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I see the Russians are plotting nuking lil' ol' us.  We will be made to pay for the bravado of a few fishermen.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I see the Russians are plotting nuking lil' ol' us.  We will be made to pay for the bravado of a few fishermen.


I presume they are Nuking Donegal because their mate Mick's gaff is in Wexford.


----------



## Purple

If anyone is interested in the Irish defence forces and how they compare to our EU neighbours there's good data in the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, published earlier this year.


----------



## Itchy

michaelm said:


> While some are gung-ho for Ireland to join NATO or an EU Army I expect that a large majority would oppose such a move.  To get either option over the line the State would have to guarantee that should there be a need for conscription, conscripts would not be obliged to serve beyond the island of Ireland.
> 
> Recruitment and retention seem to be a challenge for the defence forces as is and I suspect that the prospect of being sent to fight a war on the fringes of NATO, the EU or beyond would not improve things in this regard.
> 
> Methinks we might be better to co-operate closely with the UK to develop improved air and sea defence for the British Isles as a whole.



I'm constantly amazed at the total disconnect of our citizenry towards our Defence Forces and the role they do. The organisation is completely voluntary and has no history of conscription. It doesn't have the infrastructure to support conscription. With the amount of ardent Shinners and internal security issues in the state, the security resources alone required to ensure the integrity of a conscript system, would be substantial. It would make more sense to just expand the professional system anyway. 

A conscript force requires a professional military to maintain it AND to carry out ongoing duties. We are really too small to manage a conscript system and we lack the overt threat needed to politically sustain such a system among the population (i.e. Finland/Sweden). Particularly a population that has a head in the sand approach to Defence and Security. 

We had a large reserve force system (that has since been run into the ground) that numbered over 12,000 at one stage. Again completely voluntary. We have the capacity to maintain a standing force and a large reserve force (which can attract sufficient numbers on a voluntary basis and provide meaningful/rapid expansion if required) without the need for any conscription system whatsoever. Politically, why would anybody introduce a system like that in Ireland. It's a total red herring. 

The Defence Forces already have a system for mandatory overseas service. However, every single person who joins (as a professional soldier) agrees to this system. They are required to give up their rights in this regard. Members of the Defence Forces cannot question when and where they are sent. It's a political decision and that's where it should stay. That fact does not influence recruitment and retention now, nor will it in the future because the 'prospect of being sent to fight a war' is not a reality. Nor is conscription, nor is an 'invasion' as a meaningful threat upon which to contextualise the discussion on Irish Defence and Security policy. 



joe sod said:


> That will also mean difficult decisions  ,the British might not be willing to cooperate on our terms  , they would likely want to be able to access our ports and airports and want to place radar or sophisticated kit that the Irish army don't possess .
> They will obviously sense that we are getting more anxious about our defence and will use that to drive a better bargain.
> Alot of sacred cows are going to have to be jettisoned shortly. This will be very difficult territory for SF.



There's a well worn diktat  “there is no such thing as friendly intelligence agencies, there are only intelligence agencies of friendly powers”. Same goes in matters of national security. No alliance precludes actions against those you are in an alliance with. Fundamentally, you need your own capability and your own information in order to make any assessments. Relying on friendly forces is grand for training, ad hoc logistics etc. For 'tip of the spear' stuff you need absolute and total control. 

I wonder how will SF propose to manage the withdrawal of the NATO umbrella from a lot of British and Irish citizens?


----------



## michaelm

Itchy said:


> The Defence Forces already have a system for mandatory overseas service. However, every single person who joins (as a professional soldier) agrees to this system.


Indeed.  Is such not essentially limited to UN Peacekeeping missions and some EUFOR misadventures?


Itchy said:


> That fact does not influence recruitment and retention now, nor will it in the future because the 'prospect of being sent to fight a war' is not a reality.


Were Ireland to join NATO might the 'prospect' be more real?  I don't doubt that Ireland has work to do on defence and security but I don't think it is imperative that we join NATO.


----------



## Itchy

michaelm said:


> Indeed.  Is such not essentially limited to UN Peacekeeping missions and some EUFOR misadventures?



It is limited, by policy. Deployment of the DF abroad is decided on approval by the Dáil and the governments of Ireland, Russia, China, the US, France and the UK.



michaelm said:


> Were Ireland to join NATO might the 'prospect' be more real?  I don't doubt that Ireland has work to do on defence and security but I don't think it is imperative that we join NATO.



Its no more real than for existing members. However, there is a lot of road between here and there. 

It's confusing and stifling the debate on what's needed for Ireland. In this moment, our response is abhorrent and being perpetuated by the clinging on to an outdated policy for fear of what _might _happen in the future, _if_ we join a collective defence agreement and _if_ a democratically elected Irish government votes for something that _might _also be supported by other democratically elected governments, that _might_ be seen as US imperialism, all the while watching and tacitly supporting actual Russian imperialism today.


----------



## Baby boomer

Itchy said:


> Deployment of the DF abroad is decided on approval by the Dáil and the governments of Ireland, Russia, China, the US, France and the UK.
> 
> 
> In this moment, our response is abhorrent and being perpetuated by the clinging on to an outdated policy for fear of what _might _happen in the future, _if _we join a collective defence agreement and _if_ a democratically elected Irish government votes for something that _might _also be supported by other democratically elected governments, that _might_ be seen as US imperialism, all the while watching and tacitly supporting actual Russian imperialism today.


 Two good candidates for Sentence of the Year Award on AAM!


----------



## Peanuts20

Russian people aren't stupid, I'm sure many of them are sitting at home, watching that news programme and wondering what would happen to them if they did drop a nuke on someone

meanwhile


Purple said:


> I presume they are Nuking Donegal because their mate Mick's gaff is in Wexford.



I thought it was because they were scared of the West Cork Fishermen


----------



## michaelm

Itchy said:


> In this moment, our response is abhorrent and being perpetuated by the clinging on to an outdated policy for fear of what _might _happen in the future, _if_ we join a collective defence agreement and _if_ a democratically elected Irish government votes for something that _might _also be supported by other democratically elected governments, that _might_ be seen as US imperialism, all the while watching and tacitly supporting actual Russian imperialism today.


I'd have thought it prudent to consider what-ifs re any major policy decision.  Ireland has condemned the Russian invasion, has supported 5 rounds of EU sanctions, voted for UN resolutions damning Russia's actions, provided aid and accepted refugees . . methinks 'tacitly supporting Russian imperialism' might be a bit of a stretch.


----------



## Purple

Peanuts20 said:


> I thought it was because they were scared of the West Cork Fishermen


No, they'll have a special military operation to deal with them boyos.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> I'd have thought it prudent to consider what-ifs re any major policy decision.  Ireland has condemned the Russian invasion, has supported 5 rounds of EU sanctions, voted for UN resolutions damning Russia's actions, provided aid and accepted refugees . . methinks 'tacitly supporting Russian imperialism' might be a bit of a stretch.


We have failed to give a democracy which is being attacked by a dictatorship the aid it asked for and needs.
We've done the diplomatic equivalent of calling Joe Duffy.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> We have failed to give a democracy which is being attacked by a dictatorship the aid it asked for and needs.


I agree that we should have given Ukraine anything we have that they could use.


----------



## Peanuts20

Purple said:


> No, they'll have a special military operation to deal with them boyos.



Excuse me, it's "boy" down in the People's Republic. not boyos


----------



## Purple

Peanuts20 said:


> Excuse me, it's "boy" down in the People's Republic. not boyos


Maybe we could invite the Russians to invade them. They are already a People's Republic...


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> I agree that we should have given Ukraine anything we have that they could use.


Yea, money to buy weapons. That's what they asked for, but we are neutral in the fact of evil. In fairness we are consistent.


----------



## joe sod

Itchy said:


> There's a well worn diktat  “there is no such thing as friendly intelligence agencies, there are only intelligence agencies of friendly powers”. Same goes in matters of national security. No alliance precludes actions against those you are in an alliance with. Fundamentally, you need your own capability and your own information in order to make any assessments. Relying on friendly forces is grand for training, ad hoc logistics etc. For 'tip of the spear' stuff you need absolute and total control.
> 
> I wonder how will SF propose to manage the withdrawal of the NATO umbrella from a lot of British and Irish citizens?



I think the fact that the recent nuclear simulation by russian tv explicitely showed ireland being engulfed by a wave and that the Russian navy carried out exercises close to our coast right before the Ukraine invasion shows that we are in fact in their crosshairs and they see us as a vulnerability. 
Of course the british and US must have already picked up on this change in approach, the US multinationals with alot of capital now invested here might start looking for more guarantees about our defence capabilities. Could the Russians look to target US tech companies here especially the likes of Intel that manufacture the microchips that are vital for most electronic devices including high tech armaments.


----------



## Baby boomer

joe sod said:


> I think the fact that the recent nuclear simulation by russian tv explicitely showed ireland being engulfed by a wave and that the Russian navy carried out exercises close to our coast right before the Ukraine invasion shows that we are in fact in their crosshairs and they see us as a vulnerability.


Absolutely.



joe sod said:


> Of course the british and US must have already picked up on this change in approach, the US multinationals with alot of capital now invested here might start looking for more guarantees about our defence capabilities.


There are absolutely no guarantees we could conceivably offer.  Zero.  We don't have the ability to carry out even basic detection and observation of hostile forces, yet alone engage them militarily.



joe sod said:


> Could the Russians look to target US tech companies here especially the likes of Intel that manufacture the microchips that are vital for most electronic devices including high tech armaments.


With over 30 odd "diplomats" accredited to the FSB operation in Orwell Road, you think they aren't already targeting those companies?


----------



## Leo

joe sod said:


> I think the fact that the recent nuclear simulation by russian tv explicitely showed ireland being engulfed by a wave and that the Russian navy carried out exercises close to our coast right before the Ukraine invasion shows that we are in fact in their crosshairs and they see us as a vulnerability.


No, it shows us as entirely inconsequential. That graphic was a warning shot to the UK.


----------



## Purple

Leo said:


> No, it shows us as entirely inconsequential. That graphic was a warning shot to the UK.


It shows that we are beside the guys in the crosshairs. We're acceptable collateral damage. We're as important as the guy who was couch surfing in Osama's gaff when the SEAL's went in.


----------



## PMU

Leo said:


> No, it shows us as entirely inconsequential. That graphic was a warning shot to the UK.


My Russian is a bit rusty, but the video refers to the 'British Isles'.  https://twitter.com/i/status/1520846423629213699


----------



## joe sod

Leo said:


> No, it shows us as entirely inconsequential. That graphic was a warning shot to the UK.


Of course that's true but it also shows that we are the weak spot if they want to get at Britain.
There must be quite pressure from the US and UK to start getting our house in order. The luxury of being neutral while enjoying the defence umbrella from big brothers while not contributing to that umbrella ourselves is well and truly over.
It is significant that suddenly Simon Coveney wants to increase the defence force numbers by 3000. For the last 2 decades we have been allowing them to fall now a sudden change in approach.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

“SKY News” said:
			
		

> Mark Ayres has spent the past two months in Ukraine after joining the Azov Regiment, which originated as a far-right paramilitary unit. The British Army veteran insists he has challenged some Azov fighters over their beliefs and those he has met are not "monsters and psychos".


Of course they’re monsters and psychos.  I do get a tad worried that we are getting a very biased slant on the Russian operation.
BTW Hitler’s grandfather was a Jew.


----------



## Leo

PMU said:


> My Russian is a bit rusty, but the video refers to the 'British Isles'.  https://twitter.com/i/status/1520846423629213699


The TV report starts with 'Another option is to plunge Britain into the depths of the sea', and is a continuation of their output directed specifically at the UK for their role in the ever more powerful weapons being supplied to Ukraine.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Of course they’re monsters and psychos.  I do get a tad worried that we are getting a very biased slant on the Russian operation.


Good background info here. They are most definitely neo-Nazi in their ideals and their history. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> BTW Hitler’s grandfather was a Jew.


Allegedly.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Purple said:


> Allegedly.


Nothing wrong with being a Jew


----------



## cremeegg

Baby boomer said:


> But, but, but, surely our precious, cherished and beloved neutrality will protect us from all harm.  Someone should really explain it to that chap on the video and make sure to tell that nice Mr Putin also.  Maybe Ming-n-Mick-n-Claire could have a word with their pals in Moscow.   We'll be grand then.  Apparently radioactive fallout respects neutrality too and will automatically avoid us.  Happy days!


No not neutrality any more. It seems we are too mature for that now. In future Simon and 100 boy scouts will give us all the protection we need.


----------



## johnwilliams

jo sod said "I think the fact that the recent nuclear simulation by russian tv explicitely showed ireland being engulfed by a wave and that the Russian navy carried out exercises close to our coast right before the Ukraine invasion shows that we are in fact in their crosshairs and they see us as a vulnerability",j
doesnt need a nuclear torpedo just a simple nuclear naval mine rolled off the back of a ship like the one delivering oil from russia . as i said in previous thread we have always been in the russian crosshairs a first strike to  prevent nato from ever using our airports and sea ports to help resupply nato units or watch russian navy movements ?


----------



## Leo

johnwilliams said:


> as i said in previous thread we have always been in the russian crosshairs a first strike to prevent nato from ever using our airports and sea ports to help resupply nato units


Why on earth would they see us as any kind of threat? To think that NATO would need any of our infrastructure makes no sense, there is literally nothing to be gained militarily from parking all your kit on an unprotected island only to have to move it on again. Why would Ireland be a better landing spot that any number of better protected mainland Europe and have direct rail and road access all the way to Moscow. 

In a NATO Russia conflict, Ireland offers no strategic location benefits to NATO and no threat whatsoever to Russia. In the event of conflict breaking out, striking Ireland would be like trying to swat a fly while you have three lads punching you in the face.



johnwilliams said:


> just a simple nuclear naval mine rolled off the back of a ship like the one delivering oil from russia


First of all, Russia don't have such a weapon, and second, why would they go to all that bother when they could just press a button in a far off control room? They'd be relying on something substantial coming into contact with a mine for detonation. Besides that, trying to roll a mine off the back of a tanker is a sure fire recipe for disaster. 



johnwilliams said:


> or watch russian navy movements ?


Naval movements are observed from space, you don't need a lad standing on a cliff with binoculars to see what's going on.


----------



## odyssey06

Tom Clonan in The Journal:

_The Kremlin celebrated Victory Day in Moscow. All eyes were on Putin as it was expected he might announce a major development in his ‘special military operation’ in Donbas. Pessimists feared that he might announce a general mobilisation of Russia’s entire military machine, calling up all reservists across the country and to declare a full scale war on Ukraine. Other, more optimistic commentators, hoped that Putin might announce a ‘victory’ of sorts in the war, with the prospect perhaps of accelerated peace talks and a face-saving pause in military operations. Neither has happened. The war grinds on._









						Tom Clonan: On day 75 of the war, the Russian war machine remains sluggish and without 'victory'
					

There was little for Putin to celebrate during this year’s ‘Victory Day’.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## odyssey06

Good summary of current situation...

Ukranians holding Kharkiv.
US intel warns of long war and Russian plan to cut Ukraine off from sea, seize Odessa and link with Moldova separatists.









						Russia urged to annex Ukraine's Kherson, Moscow claims Kyiv bombed Russian city
					

The Moscow-installed administration said there would be a “request to make Kherson region a full subject of the Russian Federation.”




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## odyssey06

Yeah not reassuring there from Leo... not exactly my goto guy for defence advice!


----------



## odyssey06

After epic siege, looks like Mariupol steel plant defenders have laid down their arms:









						Russia says hundreds of Ukrainians surrender at Azovstal steel plant
					

Ukraine’s defence ministry confirmed the soldiers had left Azovstal, expressing hope for an “exchange procedure.”




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## odyssey06

Finland and Sweden submit NATO membership applications... Public opinion in Finland and Sweden has shifted massively in favour of membership since Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February.









						Finland and Sweden submit applications for Nato membership
					

Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said he welcomes the requests.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## johnwilliams

Leo said:


> Why on earth would they see us as any kind of threat? To think that NATO would need any of our infrastructure makes no sense, there is literally nothing to be gained militarily from parking all your kit on an unprotected island only to have to move it on again. Why would Ireland be a better landing spot that any number of better protected mainland Europe and have direct rail and road access all the way to Moscow.


my original reply got deleted ,basically you deny your enemy any advantage . just because you don't see its value your enemy might.  example  azov steel factory


Leo said:


> First of all, Russia don't have such a weapon, and second, why would they go to all that bother when they could just press a button in a far off control room? They'd be relying on something substantial coming into contact with a mine for detonation. Besides that, trying to roll a mine off the back of a tanker is a sure fire recipe for disaster.


i had seen a debrief about it many years ago after fall of iron curtain .not talking about a hertz horned contact mine  more influence type (acoustic/magnetic/pressure)
sorry tanker may have been wrong choice, any ship various sizes can be fitted with concealed mine rails as i said roll it off the back or side  all types can/are  fitted with time delay for activation or programed for a specific ship type 
going back to original thread now


----------



## Leo

johnwilliams said:


> my original reply got deleted ,basically you deny your enemy any advantage . just because you don't see its value your enemy might. example azov steel factory


Sorry, what advantage do you think Ireland offers as a means of delivering military hardware to the continent??? The only thing NATO would achieve by defending Ireland would be to dilute their defence of far more strategically important locations.


johnwilliams said:


> sorry tanker may have been wrong choice, any ship various sizes can be fitted with concealed mine rails as i said roll it off the back or side all types can/are fitted with time delay for activation or programed for a specific ship type


Yes, tankers make very poor mine layers, so it was odd that you suggested that the ship that was delivering oil would be a viable choice.


----------



## Firefly

This is how the Russians behave folks. 

_Eight Russian soldiers and mercenaries were charged on Tuesday with the murder of the mayor of a small Kyiv suburb and her family, Ukraine’s prosecutor general said.

The mayor, Olha Sukhenko, was found in a shallow grave in her village, Motyzhyn, about 30 miles west of Kyiv, on April 2, after Russians withdrew from their positions around the capital. Her husband and son were buried with her.

The prosecutor general, Irina Venediktova, said five of the accused men were soldiers in the Russian Army and three were part of the private military group Wagner, which is run by a businessman close to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. The soldiers included two lieutenants and three sergeants from one unit, the 37th Separate Guards Motorized Rifle Brigade.

“They kidnapped Olga Sukhenko, her husband and son from the home of the village of Motizhyn,” Ms. Venediktova wrote on Facebook, publishing the names and photographs of all eight men.

She said that, in March, the men detained Ms. Sukhenko and her family members and took them to a house they were using as a base. There, she said, *the Russian fighters “tortured them, trying to beat out information” about the Ukrainian Army and defense forces. The prosecutor said the Russians killed Ms. Sukhenko’s son in front of her.*_
*
“They first shot her son in the leg and then killed him with a shot in the head,” she wrote. “The whole family died from multiple gunshot wounds.”*









						What Happened on Day 91 of the War in Ukraine
					

Ukrainian officials say Russia is likely to resort to siege tactics as it tries to encircle and capture Sievierodonetsk and other cities in the Donbas region.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## odyssey06

Interesting tweet from Gary Kasparov on the spin he sees coming from the Kremlin... expect versions of it to be pushed by its mouthpieces

"Putin knows the weapons will get there, in less than a month, so he is desperate to push the story of a stalemate, to get a ceasefire he won't honor. Under that cover he will consolidate territory, continue annexation, and liquidate any resistance. He's done it before."


----------



## Delboy

Firefly said:


> This is how the Russians behave folks.
> 
> _Eight Russian soldiers and mercenaries were charged on Tuesday with the murder of the mayor of a small Kyiv suburb and her family, Ukraine’s prosecutor general said.
> 
> The mayor, Olha Sukhenko, was found in a shallow grave in her village, Motyzhyn, about 30 miles west of Kyiv, on April 2, after Russians withdrew from their positions around the capital. Her husband and son were buried with her.
> 
> The prosecutor general, Irina Venediktova, said five of the accused men were soldiers in the Russian Army and three were part of the private military group Wagner, which is run by a businessman close to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. The soldiers included two lieutenants and three sergeants from one unit, the 37th Separate Guards Motorized Rifle Brigade.
> 
> “They kidnapped Olga Sukhenko, her husband and son from the home of the village of Motizhyn,” Ms. Venediktova wrote on Facebook, publishing the names and photographs of all eight men.
> 
> She said that, in March, the men detained Ms. Sukhenko and her family members and took them to a house they were using as a base. There, she said, *the Russian fighters “tortured them, trying to beat out information” about the Ukrainian Army and defense forces. The prosecutor said the Russians killed Ms. Sukhenko’s son in front of her.*_
> 
> *“They first shot her son in the leg and then killed him with a shot in the head,” she wrote. “The whole family died from multiple gunshot wounds.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Happened on Day 91 of the War in Ukraine
> 
> 
> Ukrainian officials say Russia is likely to resort to siege tactics as it tries to encircle and capture Sievierodonetsk and other cities in the Donbas region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com


That 37th Rifle Brigade will soon be sent on a suicide mission by their Generals so that they're not alive to be chased after for justice when this is over. The Wagner scumbags too. I read that's what happened to those Russians who left all the dead civilians behind them in Bucha.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> This is how the Russians behave folks.
> 
> _Eight Russian soldiers and mercenaries were charged on Tuesday with the murder of the mayor of a small Kyiv suburb and her family, Ukraine’s prosecutor general said.
> 
> The mayor, Olha Sukhenko, was found in a shallow grave in her village, Motyzhyn, about 30 miles west of Kyiv, on April 2, after Russians withdrew from their positions around the capital. Her husband and son were buried with her.
> 
> The prosecutor general, Irina Venediktova, said five of the accused men were soldiers in the Russian Army and three were part of the private military group Wagner, which is run by a businessman close to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. The soldiers included two lieutenants and three sergeants from one unit, the 37th Separate Guards Motorized Rifle Brigade.
> 
> “They kidnapped Olga Sukhenko, her husband and son from the home of the village of Motizhyn,” Ms. Venediktova wrote on Facebook, publishing the names and photographs of all eight men.
> 
> She said that, in March, the men detained Ms. Sukhenko and her family members and took them to a house they were using as a base. There, she said, *the Russian fighters “tortured them, trying to beat out information” about the Ukrainian Army and defense forces. The prosecutor said the Russians killed Ms. Sukhenko’s son in front of her.*_
> 
> *“They first shot her son in the leg and then killed him with a shot in the head,” she wrote. “The whole family died from multiple gunshot wounds.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Happened on Day 91 of the War in Ukraine
> 
> 
> Ukrainian officials say Russia is likely to resort to siege tactics as it tries to encircle and capture Sievierodonetsk and other cities in the Donbas region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com


It is kind of unfortunate that the "heroes of Mariupol" who held out longest in the Steel Works are the Neo-Nazi (or possibly just Nazi) Azov Battalion, who have a history of racist and homophobic attacks and murders. It does strengthen Putin's domestic propaganda that he's de-nazifying Ukraine. 

Russia's own large neo-Nazi groups are, of course, ignored by Putin.


----------



## odyssey06

It appears Ukraine's air force received a boost back in April as 'spare parts' were shipped that were actually disassembled attack jets and helicopters:









						It seems that Ukraine received Su-25 aircraft. In a very unusual way • Mezha.Media
					

Defense Express on the basis of the analysis of open data made a very interesting conclusion. It seems that Ukraine received Su-25 front-line attack aircraft




					mezha.media


----------



## odyssey06

Good article via RTE on the role of artillery in the conflict, and possible impact of deliveries of medium range artillery to Ukraine.









						How US and UK missile systems will challenge Russia in Ukraine
					

The arrival of new gun and rocket artillery is good news for the Ukrainian army, but very bad news for Russian forces




					www.rte.ie


----------



## joe sod

I read a depressing article this morning in the independent about how some Ukrainian soldiers are now deserting due to the huge pressure they are under in severedonetsk, they don't have enough men or weapons to hold off this sustained Russian attack.

I think we have to remember that when we in the West are procrastinating about what and how many weapons we should send to Ukraine, they are the ones UN in the firing line and that procrastination is resulting in more and more young Ukrainian soldiers getting killed and maimed in eastern Ukraine.
Those young men are the ones that are taking the full force of this Russian aggression and indirectly protecting the rest of the continent


----------



## Purple

joe sod said:


> I read a depressing article this morning in the independent about how some Ukrainian soldiers are now deserting due to the huge pressure they are under in severedonetsk, they don't have enough men or weapons to hold off this sustained Russian attack.
> 
> I think we have to remember that when we in the West are procrastinating about what and how many weapons we should send to Ukraine, they are the ones UN in the firing line and that procrastination is resulting in more and more young Ukrainian soldiers getting killed and maimed in eastern Ukraine.
> Those young men are the ones that are taking the full force of this Russian aggression and indirectly protecting the rest of the continent


We won't even give them money for weapons. We're offering them tea and sympathy, thoughts and prayers.


----------



## odyssey06

An interesting development re: additional Irish aid to Ukraine.

From the Journal - small number of wounded Ukranian soldiers being treated in Ireland (Cork UH).

https://www.thejournal.ie/ukrainian-soldiers-ireland-airlift-5789081-Jun2022/


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> An interesting development re: additional Irish aid to Ukraine.
> 
> From the Journal - small number of wounded Ukranian soldiers being treated in Ireland (Cork UH).
> 
> https://www.thejournal.ie/ukrainian-soldiers-ireland-airlift-5789081-Jun2022/


Yea, sympathy and now bandages... just not what they are actually want and need; the tools to fight the Russians.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Some sobering comments from the UK’s Gen. Sir Patrick Saunders, Chief of General Staff in his speech today at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)…

“I believe we are living through a period in history as profound as the one that our forebears did over 80 years ago. Now, as then, our choices will have a disproportionate effect on our future.

This is our 1937 moment. We are not at war - but we must act rapidly so that we aren’t drawn into one through a failure to contain territorial expansion. So surely it is beholden on each of us to ensure that we never find ourselves asking that futile question – should we have done more?”


----------



## odyssey06

Reports that Russian forces are evacuating much fought over Snake Island as Ukrainian forces can hit it now with Western supplied longer ranged artillery.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> Some sobering comments from the UK’s Gen. Sir Patrick Saunders, Chief of General Staff in his speech today at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)…
> 
> “I believe we are living through a period in history as profound as the one that our forebears did over 80 years ago. Now, as then, our choices will have a disproportionate effect on our future.
> 
> This is our 1937 moment. We are not at war - but we must act rapidly so that we aren’t drawn into one through a failure to contain territorial expansion. So surely it is beholden on each of us to ensure that we never find ourselves asking that futile question – should we have done more?”


We will do what we did in 1937; nothing.
The difference is that then we were a poor country which had recently won our freedom from the UK. Now we have no excuse.


----------



## Firefly

_"Russia said on Thursday it had summoned the British ambassador to voice a strong protest against "offensive" British statements"

"In polite society, it is customary to apologise for such statements."_









						Russia hauls in ambassador over 'offensive' UK comments on nuclear weapons
					

Russia said on Thursday it had summoned the British ambassador to voice a strong protest against "offensive" British statements, including about alleged Russian threats to use nuclear weapons.




					www.reuters.com
				




Meanwhile, Russia bombs an apartment building in Odessa killing at least 18 people. Is THIS the action of a polite society?









						Russian missile strikes on Odesa residential area kill at least 18, says Ukraine
					

Armed forces urge residents to seek shelter after twin attacks on southern port city, say Ukrainian officials




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Purple

It's great to see that the Russians are upset.


----------



## cremeegg

A number of things we have learned from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing war.

Russian conventional military strength is not all that it was thought to be, obviously. However that may mask some other important issues.


Invading is hard.
Small anti-tank, anti-aircraft, anti-ship weapons have made many large high value assets like Aircraft Carriers less relevant.
Russia has been completely unable to enforce any type of air superiority. They might as well not have an airforce.
China, which was never impulsive, will be even slower to actually use its forces. Military build up yes, war no.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> Russia has been completely unable to enforce any type of air superiority. They might as well not have an airforce.


For me that's the most surprising thing of the war so far.


----------



## joer

I would say that a lot of people including Putin were surprised at the resistance the Ukraine army have shown. Credit to their army.


----------



## Purple

joer said:


> I would say that a lot of people including Putin were surprised at the resistance the Ukraine army have shown. Credit to their army.


The Americans have been training them extensively since the Russians annexed Crimea.


----------



## joer

Purple said:


> The Americans have been training them extensively since the Russians annexed Crimea.


And trained them very well, it seems.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> The Americans have been training them extensively since the Russians annexed Crimea.


And more than training them, they have been their eyes and ears and probably being a bit of a backseat general in terms of directing the military effort.


----------



## joe sod

I know the Ukrainians have suffered alot of setbacks lately and the destruction and loss of life has been horrendous. 

However the new himar long range systems from the US seem to be having a big effect already as the Ukrainian army has been able to accurately destroy slot of Russian weapons recently . Also they are far superior to anything the Russian have and crucially at a time when the Russians have exhausted most of their long range precision rockets

The French artillery systems are also having a big effect  aswell. 

Reports that Putin invited chi the Chinese Premier to Moscow recently but he declined to go. Not even the Chinese want to be pictured with Putin now for fear of repercussions from the West. He really is toxic


----------



## Firefly

joe sod said:


> I know the Ukrainians have suffered alot of setbacks lately and the destruction and loss of life has been horrendous.
> 
> However the new himar long range systems from the US seem to be having a big effect already as the Ukrainian army has been able to accurately destroy slot of Russian weapons recently . Also they are far superior to anything the Russian have and crucially at a time when the Russians have exhausted most of their long range precision rockets
> 
> The French artillery systems are also having a big effect  aswell.
> 
> Reports that Putin invited chi the Chinese Premier to Moscow recently but he declined to go. Not even the Chinese want to be pictured with Putin now for fear of repercussions from the West. He really is toxic


Yes, but he is also a nut-job who needs to show strength at home. He is making shapes that Russia has only begun, but I think he needs a win soon enough. My fear is that he could escalate with a nuclear component, so it's a balancing act in how much military support the West provides to Ukraine. Nutjob will most certainly use this as his excuse.....


----------



## johnwilliams

interesting this new law forbidding companies from refusing contracts with russian  military ,wonder if ammo and spare parts starting to run low?


----------



## Purple

I see Russia has reacted with predictable favour to the letter written by our President's wife calling for the acquiescence by the Ukrainian people to the occupation of their country by Russia. Is Mrs. Higgins what Lenin called a useful idiot?


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> I see Russia has reacted with predictable favour to the letter written by our President's wife calling for the acquiescence by the Ukrainian people to the occupation of their country by Russia. Is Mrs. Higgins what Lenin called a useful idiot?


_“Under the circumstances [the letter] suggests that everything should be done to end the hostilities as quickly as possible,” he told the Irish Times. “I wouldn’t want to intrude in internal affairs but the point of view, it makes sense. She’s against war. *We’re all against war*.”_
Yuriy Filatov









						Russian ambassador praises Sabina Higgins letter calling for negotiated settlement in Ukraine
					

Russian Ambassador Yuriy Filatov warns continued support for Ukraine will only mean more Ukrainian deaths




					www.irishtimes.com
				




Could have fooled me Yuriy


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> _“Under the circumstances [the letter] suggests that everything should be done to end the hostilities as quickly as possible,” he told the Irish Times. “I wouldn’t want to intrude in internal affairs but the point of view, it makes sense. She’s against war. *We’re all against war*.”_
> Yuriy Filatov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russian ambassador praises Sabina Higgins letter calling for negotiated settlement in Ukraine
> 
> 
> Russian Ambassador Yuriy Filatov warns continued support for Ukraine will only mean more Ukrainian deaths
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.irishtimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could have fooled me Yuriy


After President Higgins' sycophantic praise of Fidel Castro we already know that they have a fondness of murdering totalitarian dictators, as long as they don't like America and aren't Capitalists.


----------



## odyssey06

Some updated military analysis on Twitter from retired Aussie general Mick Ryan



			https://mobile.twitter.com/WarintheFuture/status/1553973368809918464


----------



## Purple

More pressure on Michael D to distance himself from his wife's letter. 
Fine Gael Senator John McGahon said the statement “answers nothing”.

_“There are still very basic questions as to why a controversial letter was published on the President’s website. His statement does not provide answers to what are very legitimate and reasonable questions.”_

John Dowling in the Indo also has a go at her, and again with Jason Corcoran. 
Kateryna Yushchenko, a former First Lady of Ukraine, has also criticised her.
She's also been criticised in the London Times but I presume that was just the "Oirish" edition.


----------



## jasdpace@gmail.

McGahon's comments seem fair enough to me. In essence, the controversy is about X so MickeyD issues a clarifying statement about Y.


----------



## Purple

jasdpace@gmail. said:


> McGahon's comments seem fair enough to me. In essence, the controversy is about X so MickeyD issues a clarifying statement about Y.


My problem is that the President is meant to be above politics. They are meant to keep their personal views to themselves so that they are not divisive and so can be the President for all of the people. Mickey D is so arrogant, so conceited, so utterly lacking in humility, that he thinks that his opinions are more important than the highest office in the land. 

It is obvious that his wife's letter was approved by him before she issued it as it appeared on the official website of the President. Therefore she is a proxy for him. 
This whole incident has been the cause of some minor happiness for me. I take great pleasure in his predicament as I loath the man and think of him as the embodiment of hypocrisy.


----------



## Sunny

I find the whole thing bizarre. I don't understand why there seems to be a real reluctance to make an issue out of this. A few months ago, we were basically chasing Russian Ambassador out of the Country for being a Putin Stooge. The wife of our President with or without the Presidents input writes a letter to the Irish Times which at best can be described as badly written. The letter appears on the official website of the President before being taken down without comment. Prior to being taken down, the letter was used by the same Russian Ambassador that we basically wanted to expel as some sort of approval for the Russian position/actions.  It doesn't matter if she meant that or not. She compromised the Presidency of this Country by allowing it to used in that way. 

Now there seems be a general push to 'move on'....I have even seen Journalists say it is not a story. It's just odd. 

And by the way, that letter has his fingerprints all over it. The smugness and the arrogance shown through.....


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> I find the whole thing bizarre. I don't understand why there seems to be a real reluctance to make an issue out of this. A few months ago, we were basically chasing Russian Ambassador out of the Country for being a Putin Stooge. The wife of our President with or without the Presidents input writes a letter to the Irish Times which at best can be described as badly written. The letter appears on the official website of the President before being taken down without comment. Prior to being taken down, the letter was used by the same Russian Ambassador that we basically wanted to expel as some sort of approval for the Russian position/actions.  It doesn't matter if she meant that or not. She compromised the Presidency of this Country by allowing it to used in that way.
> 
> Now there seems be a general push to 'move on'....I have even seen Journalists say it is not a story. It's just odd.
> 
> And by the way, that letter has his fingerprints all over it. The smugness and the arrogance shown through.....


Mickey D is a darling of RTE and the pseudo-socialists and pseudo-intellectuals in the Irish Times.

The Public Sector Broadcaster and TG4 benefitted greatly when he was Minister for Arts, Culture and Galway. 

He's also a smoked salmon socialist who dislikes any working people who have the audacity to be successful, just like the lovies in RTE dislike them. As RTE sets the news agenda it's hard to push against them.


----------



## jasdpace@gmail.

Sunny said:


> Prior to being taken down, the letter was used by the same Russian Ambassador that we basically wanted to expel as some sort of approval for the Russian position/actions.



Exactly - it's obviously a very, very sloppy letter when YourE Comical Ali Goebbels Fillatoff can use it for his purposes


----------



## Purple

Kathy Sheridan has an excellent piece on Micky-D's proxy in the IT today.


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> My problem is that the President is meant to be above politics.



Thats a nice idea.

But he is not above personal slagging off it seems.



Purple said:


> Mickey D is so arrogant, so conceited, so utterly lacking in humility,




I think you are trying to have it both ways.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> Thats a nice idea.


It's not just a nice idea, it's what's happened with just about every other President we've had because they understood their role and respected the office.


cremeegg said:


> But he is not above personal slagging off it seems.


Of course he's not. This isn't North Korea.


cremeegg said:


> I think you are trying to have it both ways.


What do you mean?
I think he's an arrogant obnoxious bombastic blowhard who thinks his opinions are more important than the protocols and traditions of the office he holds. What's both ways about that?


----------



## cremeegg

If the President is meant to be above politics and to keep his personal views to himself, and broadly I agree with this, then he should not be subject to personal attacks like yours.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> If the President is meant to be above politics and to keep his personal views to himself, and broadly I agree with this, then he should not be subject to personal attacks like yours.


Why?
I formed that opinion when he was Minister for Galway.

He's also entitled to formed an opinion on me and share it publicly.


----------



## odyssey06

Some analysis of the implications of the Ukranian attack on airbase deep in Crimea


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1557490755954167808


----------



## Purple

There's a great article in the economist this week about Russia and sanctions. It postulates that sanctions aren't doing what the West thought they would do.
 Russia's economy will shrink by 6% this year, not the 15% forecasted in March when sanctions were imposed. China is trading openly with them and the Middle East is providing a surrogate banking system for them. There are $280 billion in Russian assets frozen in Western Banks but they will generate a current-account surplus of $265bn this year due to energy sales. Countries that make up 40% of the global economy are continuing to trade fully with Russia. China will continue to trade with them and do all they can to keep their economy functioning because they want to put down a marker on sanctions so that the West doesn't think they can try the same thing if they invade Taiwan. 


Sanctions aren't working. It's time to accept that for better or worse military power is all that really matters when diplomacy fails.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> There's a great article in the economist this week about Russia and sanctions. It postulates that sanctions aren't doing what the West thought they would do.
> Russia's economy will shrink by 6% this year, not the 15% forecasted in March when sanctions were imposed. China is trading openly with them and the Middle East is providing a surrogate banking system for them. There are $280 billion in Russian assets frozen in Western Banks but they will generate a current-account surplus of $265bn this year due to energy sales. Countries that make up 40% of the global economy are continuing to trade fully with Russia. China will continue to trade with them and do all they can to keep their economy functioning because they want to put down a marker on sanctions so that the West doesn't think they can try the same thing if they invade Taiwan.
> 
> 
> Sanctions aren't working. It's time to accept that for better or worse military power is all that really matters when diplomacy fails.


I cant read the full article but I wonder if the Economist has fully factored in the effect of sanctions on Russias abilith to sustain, rebuild / expand its military power.

Finding different outlets for gas is not quick without pipelines. They are selling oil but at a discount.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> I cant read the full article but I wonder if the Economist has fully factored in the effect of sanctions on Russias abilith to sustain, rebuild / expand its military power.
> 
> Finding different outlets for gas is not quick without pipelines. They are selling oil but at a discount.


If you register without subscribing you get a few free articles.


----------



## odyssey06

RIP Mikhail Gorbachev








						Gorbachev, the man who chose peace over confrontation and ended the Cold War
					

The last president of the Soviet Union died yesterday aged 91.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## odyssey06

Russia not resuming Nord Stream 1 supplies - no longer hiding behind technical issues









						Russia blames sanctions for gas pipeline shutdown
					

Gas prices have soared after Russia said it would not reopen a major gas pipeline to Europe.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Russia not resuming Nord Stream 1 supplies - no longer hiding behind technical issues


Yep, it's heating up. I'm nearly 50 and while we are not close to a third world war we are closer to one that at any point in my lifetime, possibly since the end of the Second World War. 
We should be worried about the cost of living. While unlikely the possibility of nuclear war should temper our ire.


----------



## Firefly

Interesting video here









						Why is Vladimir Putin so obsessed with Ukraine?
					

Guardian correspondent Luke Harding chronicles the key historical events that led to the invasion of Ukraine, from the Euromaidan protests to the annexation of Crimea




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Firefly

Putin meeting with Xi and spouting the usual double-speak. Does he think we're all thick or something?

_“We jointly stand for the formation of a just, democratic and multipolar world order based on international law and the central role of the U.N., and not on some rules that someone has come up with and is trying to impose on others, without even explaining what it’s about,” Mr. Putin told Mr. Xi_









						Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Chinese Support for Putin’s War Looks More Shaky After Summit
					

The Russian president met with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, at a time of increasing animosity with the West. President Biden will meet on Friday with the families of Brittney Griner and another American imprisoned in Russia.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> Putin meeting with Xi and spouting the usual double-speak. Does he think we're all thick or something?
> 
> _“We jointly stand for the formation of a just, democratic and multipolar world order based on international law and the central role of the U.N., and not on some rules that someone has come up with and is trying to impose on others, without even explaining what it’s about,” Mr. Putin told Mr. Xi_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Chinese Support for Putin’s War Looks More Shaky After Summit
> 
> 
> The Russian president met with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, at a time of increasing animosity with the West. President Biden will meet on Friday with the families of Brittney Griner and another American imprisoned in Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com


Putin and Xi are in favour of a just and democratic world? Wow, that's good news. Did they give a date for when they are resigning?


----------



## Seagull

Purple said:


> Putin and Xi are in favour of a just and democratic world? Wow, that's good news. Did they give a date for when they are resigning?


That's based on their definition of just and democratic, which don't necessarily bear much resemblance to the commonly accepted version.


----------



## Firefly

Russia doesn't attack civilians apparently


----------



## Firefly

Russia doesn't attack civilians apparently


----------



## odyssey06

A Twitter takedown on the various pro Russian types on social media from 



			https://mobile.twitter.com/AlexKokcharov


----------



## Purple

Putin is introducing conscription. We're in for a long war.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> Putin is introducing conscription. We're in for a long war.


It is conscription of reservists - 300,000. But without tanks, artillery, etc etc they will be just cannon fodder. Russia has lost so much equipment already, much of its reserve equipment is potemkin village stuff, and the sanctions will make it difficult to replace them.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> It is conscription of reservists - 300,000. But without tanks, artillery, etc etc they will be just cannon fodder. Russia has lost so much equipment already, much of its reserve equipment is potemkin village stuff, and the sanctions will make it difficult to replace them.


The Potemkin Village analogy is actually quite apt in that the story is a misrepresentation of the truth by Potemkin's detractors. He's also, more than anyone, the reason Russia can make a claim to Ukraine in general and Crimea in particular. He was Governor of the province of Novorossiya "New Russia", now Southern Ukraine, which was captured from the Ottomans and local Khanates (he was actively involved in that conflict too) when he annexed Crimea in 1783. 
It's not popular to point out but much of the population of the region is made up of the descendants of the people who were planted there by Russia. They were mainly Romanians, Serbs and northern Ukrainians. 

Before Russia the area had been part of the Golden Hoard, then it fragmented with areas controlled by many powers but without the Russians it would have been Ottoman/Turkic. 
That of course in no way negates the right of the people of Ukraine to self determination but it is interesting.

As for the current shortage of equipment; Russia and China are joined at the hip when it comes to military technology so it's virtually inconceivable that China won't continue to supply Russia with equipment.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

odyssey06 said:


> A Twitter takedown on the various pro Russian types on social media from
> 
> 
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/AlexKokcharov


Missing from that montage is the Realist. If realistically Russia can hold on to those territories who actually welcome being part of Russia what is the point of continuing the war?


----------



## odyssey06

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Missing from that montage is the Realist. If realistically Russia can hold on to those territories who actually welcome being part of Russia what is the point of continuing the war?


They dont welcome them. 
They invaded and have threatened, killed and murdered those who opposed them. Any vote is a corrupt sham.
Such actions cannot be allowed to stand.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

odyssey06 said:


> They dont welcome them.
> They invaded and have threatened, killed and murdered those who opposed them. Any vote is a corrupt sham.
> Such actions cannot be allowed to stand.


Holding these referenda is illegal and straight out of Hitler's playbook.  All the same the majority of people in Crimea and Donbas probably would prefer to be part of Russia especially after the Orange revolution.


----------



## odyssey06

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Holding these referenda is illegal and straight out of Hitler's playbook.  All the same the majority of people in Crimea and Donbas probably would prefer to be part of Russia especially after the Orange revolution.


We don't really know what the wishes of the majority are or who is this 'majority', or is it a rump.
Russia has deported people, threatened other into silence, murdered those that stood up. Others have fled as refugees.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Holding these referenda is illegal and straight out of Hitler's playbook.


And others.


Duke of Marmalade said:


> All the same the majority of people in Crimea and Donbas probably would prefer to be part of Russia especially after the Orange revolution.


That's the problem with regions which have seen vast movements of people over the last few hundred years; who are natives and who are the "planters"? 
Then there's the question of where you draw the lined to define a region or a country.
Then there's the question of who is actually being represented. The Irish Parliament voted for the Act of Union with Britain but that Parliament wasn't representative of the people.


----------



## odyssey06

UN investigators confirm Russian war crimes








						Russia has committed war crimes in Ukraine, say UN investigators
					

Investigating teams reported evidence of executions, torture and sexual violence in civilian areas




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> UN investigators confirm Russian war crimes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia has committed war crimes in Ukraine, say UN investigators
> 
> 
> Investigating teams reported evidence of executions, torture and sexual violence in civilian areas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com


Has there ever been aa war in which there wasn't executions, torture and sexual violence?
The "greatest phenomenon of mass rape in history" occurred in Russian occupied Germany after the Second World War where up to 2 million women and girls, ranging in age from 8 to 80, were raped. Some women were raped 6 or 70 times. Female deaths in connection with the rapes in Germany, overall, are estimated at 240,000. Children and fathers who tried to protect their mothers and  daughters were shot, Jewish women and girls who has spent the war in hiding were raped as well. 

While British, French and American soldiers were also guilty of mass rape (in addition to the 2 million cited above), the Soviet forces accounted for the overwhelming majority of it. 

The Russians have form in this area.


----------



## odyssey06

The Russian conduct seems also reminiscent of Bosnia, where it was almost used as a weapon; or medieval sieges.


----------



## Firefly

_Ukrainian investigators have discovered a box of gold teeth, pulled from victims at a Russian torture chamber where people were buried alive.

The violence was allegedly inflicted on residents, veterans and soldiers at a makeshift facility dubbed “mini Auschwitz” by investigators in the liberated Pisky-Radkivski village in the eastern Kharkiv region.

“Neighbours constantly heard screams from there,” wrote Serhii Bolvinov, head of Ukraine’s national security service investigations wing in Kharkiv, on Twitter.

The torture chamber – one of dozens discovered in formerly occupied areas of the war-torn country – was found by police earlier this week._









						Ukranians find box of gold teeth pulled from victims by Russian torturers
					

Ukrainian investigators have discovered a box of gold teeth, pulled from victims at a Russian torture chamber where people were buried alive.




					www.independent.ie
				




No public outcry....it is Russia afterall


----------



## odyssey06

Yes I read a twitter quote today something to the effect of... Russia loses on the battlefield and takes its vengeance on civilians.


----------



## losttheplot

Firefly said:


> _Ukrainian investigators have discovered a box of gold teeth, pulled from victims at a Russian torture chamber where people were buried alive.
> 
> The violence was allegedly inflicted on residents, veterans and soldiers at a makeshift facility dubbed “mini Auschwitz” by investigators in the liberated Pisky-Radkivski village in the eastern Kharkiv region.
> 
> “Neighbours constantly heard screams from there,” wrote Serhii Bolvinov, head of Ukraine’s national security service investigations wing in Kharkiv, on Twitter.
> 
> The torture chamber – one of dozens discovered in formerly occupied areas of the war-torn country – was found by police earlier this week._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ukranians find box of gold teeth pulled from victims by Russian torturers
> 
> 
> Ukrainian investigators have discovered a box of gold teeth, pulled from victims at a Russian torture chamber where people were buried alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independent.ie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No public outcry....it is Russia afterall


According to this, they were stolen from a dentist, he believes they were stolen as they thought they were gold.

Locals did confirm torture though.









						Did these gold teeth really come from victims of torture?
					

The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense expressed a gruesome suspicion on Twitter, posting a photo of a box of dental crowns. But BILD met the village dentist – he says no.




					m.bild.de


----------



## Purple

losttheplot said:


> According to this, they were stolen from a dentist, he believes they were stolen as they thought they were gold.
> 
> Locals did confirm torture though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did these gold teeth really come from victims of torture?
> 
> 
> The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense expressed a gruesome suspicion on Twitter, posting a photo of a box of dental crowns. But BILD met the village dentist – he says no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> m.bild.de


The story sounded a bit fishy. The first victim of war and all that. The Russians aren't all monsters and the Ukrainians aren't all saints. The Nazi ones certainly aren't (and yes, there are Nazi ones).


----------



## odyssey06

Russia is now shelling residential areas in region they annexed where supposedly 97% of the population wanted to be Russian...


----------



## Firefly

odyssey06 said:


> Russia is now shelling residential areas in region they annexed where supposedly 97% of the population wanted to be Russian...


Can't be true. Russia does not target civilians


----------



## Purple

According to the Financial Times (behind a paywall) Europe has already replaced it's gas supply from Russia with increased supplies from Algeria and Norway and a massive increase in LNG. The EU now consumed 40% of the world's supply of LGN.
While there will be significant increased costs there will be no shortage of supply. Heavy industries such as Fertilisers, Coke production, Metals, Chemicals and Paper account for a quarter of our natural gas consumption but only contribute 3% of our GDP and employ 1% of our workforce.
Russia on the other hand is down $100 billion a year in lost gas sales. The pipeline that have with China only has 10% of the capacity they have with Europe and the Chinese aren't building any more of them. 

Putin's energy supply blackmail has failed and failed spectacularly.


----------



## Firefly

New York Times:



Time to join the rest of us in the 21st century there Vlads!!!!


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> According to the Financial Times (behind a paywall) Europe has already replaced it's gas supply from Russia with increased supplies from Algeria and Norway and a massive increase in LNG. The EU now consumed 40% of the world's supply of LGN.
> While there will be significant increased costs there will be no shortage of supply. Heavy industries such as Fertilisers, Coke production, Metals, Chemicals and Paper account for a quarter of our natural gas consumption but only contribute 3% of our GDP and employ 1% of our workforce.
> Russia on the other hand is down $100 billion a year in lost gas sales. The pipeline that have with China only has 10% of the capacity they have with Europe and the Chinese aren't building any more of them.
> 
> Putin's energy supply blackmail has failed and failed spectacularly.


We don't have an LGN terminal here because of a certain Green Party minister not fulfilling his duties... will we in Ireland be ok I wonder.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> We don't have an LGN terminal here because of a certain Green Party minister not fulfilling his duties...


I agree.


odyssey06 said:


> will we in Ireland be ok I wonder.


As long as his Majesty's Government keeps sending us their nuclear power.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> I agree.
> 
> As long as his Majesty's Government keeps sending us their nuclear power.


It's the gas I'm worried about ... alas my house isn't hooked up for new-clear energy.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> It's the gas I'm worried about ...


Ah we'll be grand...


odyssey06 said:


> alas my house isn't hooked up for new-clear energy.


It is if you're on the National Grid.


----------



## Delboy

Purple said:


> According to the Financial Times (behind a paywall) Europe has already replaced it's gas supply from Russia with increased supplies from Algeria and Norway and a massive increase in LNG. The EU now consumed 40% of the world's supply of LGN.
> While there will be significant increased costs there will be no shortage of supply. Heavy industries such as Fertilisers, Coke production, Metals, Chemicals and Paper account for a quarter of our natural gas consumption but only contribute 3% of our GDP and employ 1% of our workforce.
> Russia on the other hand is down $100 billion a year in lost gas sales. The pipeline that have with China only has 10% of the capacity they have with Europe and the Chinese aren't building any more of them.
> 
> Putin's energy supply blackmail has failed and failed spectacularly.


What was the EU's share of LNG before the war? I wonder has the EU increase in LNG purposes pushed up prices/caused shortages elsewhere in the world and what will be the unintended consequences of that?


----------



## Purple

Delboy said:


> What was the EU's share of LNG before the war? I wonder has the EU increase in LNG purposes pushed up prices/caused shortages elsewhere in the world and what will be the unintended consequences of that?


I don't know but the article in the FT says that consumption is dropping in the rest of the world.


----------



## odyssey06

There is now a gas glut in Europe due to a mild October and increase in LNG ...








						Gas: the haves and have-nots | LinkedIn
					

Surprisingly, Europe has more gas than it can use. But not everyone will be benefitting. Who might pay less than expected this winter?




					www.linkedin.com


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> There is now a gas glut in Europe due to a mild October and increase in LNG ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gas: the haves and have-nots | LinkedIn
> 
> 
> Surprisingly, Europe has more gas than it can use. But not everyone will be benefitting. Who might pay less than expected this winter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.linkedin.com


In a discussion about haves and have-nots it's worth looking at what is going on in DRC (Congo) at the moment. The biggest war since the second world war, which has already killed over 5 million people, and displaced at least that amount again, is turning how again. If you think oil companies are unethical an that bothers you then you certainly shouldn't be buying an electric car.


----------



## odyssey06

The is what liberation looks like in Kherson, one of the cities Russia annexed in its sham referendums recently...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1591386593201459207








						No water, power or internet -- only euphoria in newly liberated Kherson | CNN
					

For eight months, residents of the Ukrainian city of Kherson have been living under brutal Russian occupation. But on Friday, Ukrainian forces swept into the city and Russian troops retreated to the east.




					edition.cnn.com


----------



## Purple

Russia risks becoming ungovernable and descending into chaos​
Interesting piece from The Economist.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Subscription only article Purple, would you be able to summarise it?


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> Subscription only article Purple, would you be able to summarise it?


You can register for free and you'll get access to it.
The summary is that Russia is screwed.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I think a lot of wishful thinking in that report and of course it would be all our wishes as well.  But from what I read in other sources Putin and his special operation are still very popular at home.
It seems to me that the Ukrainian conditions for negotiations to begin, viz. that Russia withdraws from all annexed regions including Crimea is not realistic.  And by all accounts the Ukrainian population are losing out much more than the Russian population.  The stage must come when the West accepts that continuing to support Ukraine in a futile counter offensive is not doing Ukraine or indeed themselves any favours. I think the Republicans in the US are already in that space.


----------



## cremeegg

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think a lot of wishful thinking in that report and of course it would be all our wishes as well.  But from what I read in other sources Putin and his special operation are still very popular at home.
> It seems to me that the Ukrainian conditions for negotiations to begin, viz. that Russia withdraws from all annexed regions including Crimea is not realistic.  And by all accounts the Ukrainian population are losing out much more than the Russian population.  The stage must come when the West accepts that continuing to support Ukraine in a futile counter offensive is not doing Ukraine or indeed themselves any favours. I think the Republicans in the US are already in that space.


Well Ukraine itself must come to that decision, after all they are doing the suffering.

The other issue with your proposal is that if the war ends without Russia suffering a decisive loss, and its people understanding that they have suffered a decisive loss, it will just be a pause before they try again.


----------



## Purple

China is now importing almost all of the oil from Russia that Europe used to import. Their Gas imports are only limited by the delivery infrastructure. The only thing stopping massive increases in fuel prices and a corresponding massive recession in Europe is China's Covid lockdown and its refusal to use Western Vaccines which are effective against the current Covid variants.

Should the US and EU refuse to give China their vaccines unless it imposes sanctions on Russian Oil and Gas?


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> China is now importing almost all of the oil from Russia that Europe used to import. Their Gas imports are only limited by the delivery infrastructure. The only thing stopping massive increases in fuel prices and a corresponding massive recession in Europe is China's Covid lockdown and its refusal to use Western Vaccines which are effective against the current Covid variants.
> 
> Should the US and EU refuse to give China their vaccines unless it imposes sanctions on Russian Oil and Gas?


Interesting angle... I'd be concerned about how China are paying for this oil... is Russia getting munitions that way. 

Would need to play the vaccine card very carefully.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Interesting angle... I'd be concerned about how China are paying for this oil... is Russia getting munitions that way.


I wouldn't be surprised. China will do whatever they deem to be in their own interest. Morality doesn't come into it.


odyssey06 said:


> Would need to play the vaccine card very carefully.


I agree.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

According to this report we haven't got a vaccine card to play.  The Chinese vaccine is a bit inferior to Pfizer after the first 2 doses - 70% protection against serious illness or death versus 85%.  But after the booster they are both equally effective at 98%.  Problem is that China has only 68% of people over 60 who have had their booster - but I don't think that is because of shortages in their own supply.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> According to this report we haven't got a vaccine card to play.  The Chinese vaccine is a bit inferior to Pfizer after the first 2 doses - 70% protection against serious illness or death versus 85%.  But after the booster they are both equally effective at 98%.  Problem is that China has only 68% of people over 60 who have had their booster - but I don't think that is because of shortages in their own supply.


According to this the non mRNA Chinese vaccines are far less effective against Omicron. 
I agree that Chinese people are less likely to get vaccinated because don't trust their government, and why would they?


----------



## joe sod

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It seems to me that the Ukrainian conditions for negotiations to begin, viz. that Russia withdraws from all annexed regions including Crimea is not realistic. And by all accounts the Ukrainian population are losing out much more than the Russian population. The stage must come when the West accepts that continuing to support Ukraine in a futile counter offensive is not doing Ukraine or indeed themselves any favours.


Is it not ridiculous for Putin and Russia to be maintaining their own maximalist demands for peace negotiations, Russia is losing the war and yet they are still looking to hold on to all the annexed territory as a precondition, thats just preposterous. 
Until and unless Putin gives some indication of realistic conditions for peace talks mainly that Russia returns to the pre february 2022 situation then there is absolutely no basis for talks. This is actually the time when the West needs to increase pressure and support for Ukraine now that Russia is at its weakest. Every attempt to give Putin an off ramp was rejected by him.
I agree that Ukraine is paying the biggest price in that they are the ones that are fighting and dying in this war but I don't see how it is futile for the West to keep supporting Ukraine because ultimately a defeated and humbled Russia can only be beneficial for Europe the west and eventually Russia. The price for the West is not that large as our economies have largely weathered the energy shock so I don't see the big risk for the West in continuing to support Ukraine. For Putin though the continuing strong support for Ukraine is the end of his regime and the "novo Russia" stupidity


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Russia obviously failed in what it believed would be a two week operation to annex all of Ukraine.  But it did fairly easily annex the Russian supporting separatist regions.  Much as I would celebrate as anyone else, I find it difficult to see Ukraine reversing those annexations which it failed to repel in the first place.  The US might see strategic advantage in continuing to encourage Ukraine to pursue that objective but the time might come when Europe and Ukraine itself sees that pursuit as hopeless and much more damaging to themselves than to Russia.  The imminent collapse of Russia seems to me an immense indulgence in wishful thinking as the resilience of the Rouble and the Russian economy seems to indicate.


----------



## joe sod

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The imminent collapse of Russia seems to me an immense indulgence in wishful thinking as the resilience of the Rouble and the Russian economy seems to indicate


Maybe there is a little wishful thinking and delusion regarding Russia.  But surely Putin and Russia are the ones that are totally deluded about their own strengths mostly stemming from misplaced mythology rather than cold hard realities. 

Maybe this whole war was a result of western conservatism and reluctance to provoke Putin.  If the west had given Ukraine strong military support in the lead up to February 2022, Putin would have backed down.  We have seen him back down several times since February when he was confronted with strong western resolve to oppose him. We have learned from this episode that the west needs to show its teeth now and again .


----------



## odyssey06

Time Person of the Year.

Person of the Year: Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the Spirit of Ukraine.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600478151557013504


----------



## Purple

Good article in today's Irish Times highlighting our complete inability to defend ourselves and how hypocritical our stance on neutrality is. 
We have 16% of the EU's territorial waters and over 60% of the EU's underwater cables run through those waters. We have 2 ships to patrol them and neither one is a real Naval ship. 

Basically we have no air force, no air defence and defence radar. We have very limited Cyber Defensive capability. We have no Navy worth talking about, no Naval ships with any meaningful defensive or offensive weapons capability and a tiny army with no heavy weapons capability.  

That means that we are not Neutral. We rely on the UK to defend our airspace and our territorial waters if required but we can't even tell them if we need to hide behind their apron strings because we don't have the capability to see anyone coming.


----------



## cremeegg

Neutrality does not mean, 'armed to the teeth and ready to defend ourselves against all comers'.

Neutrality means not taking sides in other peoples wars. Military neutrality means not taking sides militarily in other peoples wars. Political neutrality means not taking sides politically in other peoples wars.

Ireland is militarily neutral, I think this is a very good thing. It is in Irelands self-interest which self-interest is the business of the Irish state.

In the present conflict Ireland is not politically neutral, as we lend political support to Ukraine. I am not convinced this is wise.

We also offer substantial practical support to Ukranian refugees, which I wholeheartedly support. That is not support for one side in this war, it is humanitarian support for people in a desperate situation.


----------



## cremeegg

Regarding our defence, our geographical position is our best defence against all comers except our nearest neighbours, and their imperial ambitions seem to have waned recently.

Our Naval service seems to do good work protecting our fisheries. This is effectively a policing rather than a military role, and should be well resourced in proportion to the needs of that policing role.



Purple said:


> We have ... over 60% of the EU's underwater cables


These were not installed by Irish interests and are not used by Ireland except in proportion to our size. We have no specific responsibility to protect them just because they run through Irish waters. I have no responsibility to care for the ESB pole in my garden.



Purple said:


> We have very limited Cyber Defensive capability.


This is a very important point. The cyber attack on the HSE last year was a warning to us. This is a genuine security concern and we should be developing the capability to defend ourselves in this regard.

In fact I firmly believe the reality of this threat highlights the unreality of military threats against us.


----------



## Purple

cremeegg said:


> Regarding our defence, our geographical position is our best defence against all comers except our nearest neighbours, and their imperial ambitions seem to have waned recently.
> 
> Our Naval service seems to do good work protecting our fisheries. This is effectively a policing rather than a military role, and should be well resourced in proportion to the needs of that policing role.
> 
> 
> These were not installed by Irish interests and are not used by Ireland except in proportion to our size. We have no specific responsibility to protect them just because they run through Irish waters.


We are part of the EU and have a collective responsibility because of that. More importantly we have built our state finances on getting taxes from MNC's that locate here. If I was the guy in California compiling a risk register for a proposed facility in Ireland our total inability to safeguard any of our critical infrastructure would be at the of the list.   



cremeegg said:


> I have no responsibility to care for the ESB pole in my garden.


Yea, 'cause that's the same thing...



cremeegg said:


> This is a very important point. The cyber attack on the HSE last year was a warning to us. This is a genuine security concern and we should be developing the capability to defend ourselves in this regard.
> 
> In fact I firmly believe the reality of this threat highlights the unreality of military threats against us.


Russia's attack on the Nord Stream pipeline highlights how vulnerable we are to military threats.
Cyber attacks, destruction of fibreoptic cables and electricity interconnectors are easy and would cripple us. Nobody's talking about an amphibious invasion, though if they sent paratroopers we'd only know they were coming if they left the transponders on in their aircraft.


----------



## Firefly

I found this article very interesting and informative









						Putin’s War: The Inside Story of a Catastrophe
					

Secret battle plans, intercepted communications and Russian soldiers explain how a “walk in the park” became a catastrophe for Russia.



					www.nytimes.com


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> I found this article very interesting and informative
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Putin’s War: The Inside Story of a Catastrophe
> 
> 
> Secret battle plans, intercepted communications and Russian soldiers explain how a “walk in the park” became a catastrophe for Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com


I saw that earlier. It's very sad on a human level. The Russians are being fed into a mincer.


----------

