advertisement


Ukraine III

Status
Not open for further replies.
ks.234 said:
And what is your position and how would that bring the quickest end to the suffering in Ukraine?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't give advice to Ukraine, but if it was my country being attacked by a brainwashed agressor army, I would recommend jamming their communications, dropping their air force, burning their armor, killing their commanders, destroying their supply lines and decimating their soldiers, until they are removed from my land.
 
kensalriser said:
Maybe, but the command of colloquial English is good enough to suggest this person has at least spent some time living in an English speaking country.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but there are many Russians who speak excellent English. The reverse is sadly not so, though you do have a strange prime minister with a Russian first name.
 
Last edited:
Hook said:
It’s also being reported that Roman Gavrilov, the General who led Russia’s initial push into Ukraine, has been arrested by Putin’s Federal Security Service.
Click to expand...
The head and deputy of which are under house arrest. It’s like an episode out of Monty Python.
 
Because people are suffering
Because people need to be treated in a decent way
Because no one here can help resolve this
It would be time to close this thread
 
George J said:
I have read every post in the now three parts of the Ukraine thread.

A thought that has long since lodged with me is that after a while every country gets the government it deserves. A revolution may come along, but after a while the government will reflect a nation's basic cultural instinct. In the UK we have the government we deserve. In France they have the government they deserve. In Ukraine they have the government they deserve ... In Russia they have the government they deserve!

So without wanting to be seen as anti-Russian, or even perhaps a racist, I would say that it is no surprise that many Russians fully support Putin in the invasion of Ukraine. Even in fifty years this will not change. When Putin is no longer leader of Russia, the situation will arise again. All the small countries that border Russia need to be very careful to be able to defend themselves against Russia - as Ukraine seems to be doing with considerable and perhaps, for some, surprising success.

Our newest Russian correspondent - loyal Russian though he appears to be - needs to remember that while we may not understand the nuances of Russia, we - or many of us outside Russia, and I speak as half Norwegian - have a massive distrust not just of the Russian government [at any stage in history and today], but also the motives the majority of the Russian populace.
Click to expand...

Not to say you are wrong, but when a government and or media subjects its population to endless propaganda and then a sizeable percentage of the population supports that government it seems a little unfair to blame the population. While I despair of the beliefs of some Trump supporters I save my ire for the few who knowingly mislead them. It might be wise to view a good percentage of Russia's Putin supporters similarly.
 
George J said:
A thought that has long since lodged with me is that after a while every country gets the government it deserves. A revolution may come along, but after a while the government will reflect a nation's basic cultural instinct. In the UK we have the government we deserve. In France they have the government they deserve. In Ukraine they have the government they deserve ... In Russia they have the government they deserve!
Click to expand...

Well yes George. But does Russia have the Government that Ukraine, Crimea, Georgia, or Chechnya deserve? That's the real issue here, simply because since at least WW2, Russia's concept of 'influence', translates to 'total control', whereas NATO and the West mostly rely on democratic nations having a common interest in avoiding Russian Authoritarianism and dominance. Did Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia etc... have the Govt's they deserved from 1945 to 1989?

Russians are perhaps more amenable to repressive Govt.. because that is all they have known forever, except for the chaos from approx 1905-1923, and again from 1989.
 
ks.234 said:
Thank you for mentioning me by name.

If you want the fastest end to the suffering of men, women, and children in Ukraine, the only way to achieve that is a negotiated withdrawal.

Your own hate filled rants and extreme intolerance sound very similar to those of Putin and are a tactic if repeated in diplomatic circles will only extend the war and increase the suffering of Ukrainian men, women and children.

You have to think about what your objectives are and the best way of achieving them. My preference is for the quickest way to peace in Ukraine, if yours is to punish Putin, you will need state if that is achievable, how it will be achieved and what the consequences will be.
Click to expand...

You seem determined to ignore the difference between Ukraine under Russian Occupation..for that is surely what it would be.. and a Ukraine which has fought for its political and democratic freedom. You seem to be struggling with this concept, which makes me wonder if you value democracy at all? Our democracy in the UK is very imperfect,. but I'd argue it is infinitely preferable to totalitarianism. Yes..we can all reduce deaths and suffering by surrender, but if we value freedom more highly.....
There are degrees of suffering and they are not all defined by the horrors of war. The horrors of 'peace', if enacted via constant surveillance, suppression of free speech etc..are just as intolerable for many.
Your argument is coldly logical, but bereft of humanity.
 
DonQuixote99 said:
Yes, if by 'core electorate' you mean the people who count the votes.
Click to expand...
Russia is now fully into network voting. Given the results of the last election, this system is best for fast vote fixing, at least in Russia.

With the "vote" out of the way, Russia has to worry about empty fridges.

We shall see if the "fridge wins over TV" to cite a common Russian meme.
 
Mullardman said:
You seem determined to ignore the difference between Ukraine under Russian Occupation..for that is surely what it would be.. and a Ukraine which has fought for its political and democratic freedom. You seem to be struggling with this concept, which makes me wonder if you value democracy at all? Our democracy in the UK is very imperfect,. but I'd argue it is infinitely preferable to totalitarianism. Yes..we can all reduce deaths and suffering by surrender, but if we value freedom more highly.....
There are degrees of suffering and they are not all defined by the horrors of war. The horrors of 'peace', if enacted via constant surveillance, suppression of free speech etc..are just as intolerable for many.
Your argument is coldly logical, but bereft of humanity.
Click to expand...
You start off making a false assumption, therefore any conclusion you make is going to be somewhat flawed. I have spoken about peace talks, I have not spoken about surrender, Russian occupation of Ukraine, totalitarianism for Ukraine, or anything else in your long list of assumptions.

Zelensky himself has already called for peace talks, and I rather doubt that he has surrender, occupation or totalitarianism in mind as a necessary consequence. Rather, I would imagine preservation of Ukrainian sovereignty and an end to the suffering of Ukrainians are top of his list of demands. Because of his personal leadership and bravery, and the heroism of the Ukrainian people, Zelensky has possibly given himself a good negotiation position, and as he has called for peace talks, he has, presumably, thought about what he can offer Putin as an incentive to achieve that peace.

If you feel that Zelensky is wrong to call for peace talks, what is it that you are calling for? If not peace, then what? And how will what ever it is you are arguing for, benefit humanity? And at what cost?
 
Principles are cheap to have and bang on about on a hifi forum so long as someone else is doing the dying for them. We have too many keyboard generals, safely tucked up in bed worrying about the price of gas and defiantly 'standing up to Putin' by calling for other people's sons to die.They have the brass neck to talk of 'humanity'? Chickenhawks.
 
Mullardman said:
There are degrees of suffering and they are not all defined by the horrors of war. The horrors of 'peace', if enacted via constant surveillance, suppression of free speech etc..are just as intolerable for many.
Your argument is coldly logical, but bereft of humanity.
Click to expand...
I don't even think it's logical.There are many examples in recent history where fighting was the correct response, and not just against the Third Reich.

Two contrasting examples:

- In June 1940, after the German army broke through in Northern France, Paris was declared an open city. This decision saved a lot of lives and real estate, and was probably the correct one.

- In autumn 1939, Stalin rocked up to the Finns and demanded they hand over a strip of land including Finland's second largest city, Viipuri/Viborg. Stalin felt the border was too close to Leningrad - the usual Russian paranoia. The Finns told him to get stuffed. Stalin launched what he thought was going to be a short, sharp military expedition (the parallels are interesting). The Finns fought hard and well, and Stalin's losses were colossal. Of course, when the spring came, the Soviets were able to overwhelm the small Finnish army and Mannerheim had to negotiate a surrender. Stalin got his strip of territory, Finland lost Viipuri for the first time. But the Red Army had lost so many divisions in Finland that Stalin did not annex the country. He decided a peace and friendship treaty would serve his interests better. In 1941, the Finns concluded an alliance with the Reich to reclaim the territory they had lost (that did not make them Nazis). In 1943-44, the Soviet Union ground them down slowly and reclaimed the disputed strip of land, including Viipuri, and the Finns had to sign another Peace and Friendship treaty.
Contrast that with what happened to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They rolled over in 1940 without much of a fight, and as a result they spent 50 years subjected to the tender mercies of Soviet occupation. Stalin deported tens of thousands of Balts to Kazakhstan and elsewhere, purely to destroy their national identity. Less than half returned. Their economies still haven't recovered (but they have now made very sure they joined NATO). Finland took very heavy losses (Finnish cemeteries are full of WW2 graves) and had to accommodate half a million Karelian refugees (10% of the Finnish population), but nobody got deported to Siberia and they were free to maintain their democratic institutions. A huge majority of Finns agree it was worth fighting for.
 
Last edited:
PsB said:
I don't even think it's logical.There are many examples in recent history where fighting was the correct response, and not just against the Third Reich.

Two contrasting examples:

- In June 1940, after the German army broke through in Northern France, Paris was declared an open city. This decision saved a lot of lives and real estate, and was probably the correct one.

- In autumn 1939, Stalin rocked up to the Finns and demanded they hand over a strip of land including Finland's second largest city, Viipuri/Viborg. Stalin felt the border was too close to Leningrad - the usual Russian paranoia. The Finns told him to get stuffed. Stalin launched what he thought was going to be a short, sharp military expedition (the parallels are interesting). The Finns fought hard and well, and Stalin's losses were colossal. Of course, when the spring came, the Soviets were able to overwhelm the small Finnish army and Mannerheim had to negotiate a surrender. Stalin got his strip of territory, Finland lost Viipuri for the first time. But the Red Army had lost so many divisions in Finland that Stalin did not annex the country. He decided a peace and friendship treaty would serve his interests better. In 1941, the Finns concluded an alliance with the Reich to reclaim the territory they had lost (that did not make them Nazis). In 1943-44, the Soviet Union ground them down slowly and reclaimed the disputed strip of land, including Viipuri, and the Finns had to sign another Peace and Friendship treaty.
Contrast that with what happened to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They rolled over in 1939 without much of a fight, and as a result they spent 50 years subjected to the tender mercies of Soviet occupation. Stalin deported tens of thousands of Balts to Kazakhstan and elsewhere, purely to destroy their national identity. Less than half returned. Their economies still haven't recovered (but they have now made very sure they joined NATO). Finland took very heavy losses (Finnish cemeteries are full of WW2 graves) and had to accommodate half a million Karelian refugees (10% of the Finnish population), but nobody got deported to Siberia and they were free to maintain their democratic institutions. A huge majority of Finns agree it was worth fighting for.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that continuing the fighting, rather than the peace talks Zelensky has called for, is the correct response in Ukraine? For how long? To what objective? At what cost?
 
I doubt that neither Zelensky nor Putin read PFM, so they will continue the war as long as it serves the interests of each their country. They will also (seem to) negotiate as long as they see fit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top