Ukraine

[Parafox]

Abramovich is to sell Chelsea.

 

What's prompted that I wonder.

[surrifox]

9 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

We have a lot to thank the Yanks for in ww2. Don't forget though Hitler did lose the Battle of Britain. Could not invade with defeating the RAF or Royal Navy for that matter. John Simpson of BBC draws comparison with Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939. Much bigger force than the Finns but got a bloody nose. 

The nazis lost the Battle of Britain for a number of reasons but importantly , the bloated buffoon Goring was entrusted with the job to curry favour with Hitler . Pretty much every major decision he took was the wrong option and allowed the RAF to regroup and strengthen and radar stations to provide the precious time to scramble RAF fighters to intercept and destroy German bombers . 

 

Hitler’s  vanity and ambition doomed his country in the Russian campaign . The Wehrmacht did not need to fight at Stalingrad they could easily by pass it and reach the oil fields . Hitler took personal charge of directing the army, firing generals and failed to make provision for adequate supplies due to extended supply lines and the Russian winter 

[SpacedX]

2 hours ago, RoboFox said:

 

Ironically, Edward Snowden who now has been granted permanent residence of Russia joined the board of the Freedom of the Press Foundation in 2014 and became its president in 2016. The Foundation aims to ‘protect, defend, and empower’ public-interest journalism in the 21st century. In fact he brands himself as a "public defender"...imagine that. It'd be like declaring yourself to be the 'People's Hero'. 

 

I wonder what he makes of state controlled Russian media and TV? 

[Sampson]

Dan Carlin has done a great podcast series on the Eastern Front in WW2, he said that Hitler actually got so paranoid and superstitious with Napolean's failure in Russia in the winter that he would doing really stupid things because he thought doing the same as Napolean would curse them. Like he refused to send units in with adequate winter clothing because Napolean did and he thought it would be bad for morale.

There was actually some weird supernatural and superstition stuff in the Nazi belief system like that as well.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

34 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Regardless of what he says, the argument that what Russia/Putin choose to do is the fault of the US or other "western" nations cannot be true. 

 

 

I think I understand what you're getting at. You're saying that only Russia can be held responsible for what Russia does? If that's what you're saying, of course I agree with you. But I'm not sure where that really gets us. Take another example of Western intervention which led to destabilisation and ultimately paved the way for something rather awful to happen. The countries involved in the second Iraq War cannot be held directly responsible for the actions of ISIS. But they can be held responsible for destabilising the region to such an extent that allowed an organisation such as ISIS to take over. How much weight you lend to each of those things and how serious you think each are is up to you and would make an interesting discussion of its own. Perhaps you don't believe there is proximate cause at all; that so much time had elapsed or so many other events had taken place between the initial invasion and the rise of ISIS that the 'but-for' test is next to useless in this instance. Or perhaps you think the initial invasion was done with the best of intentions and therefore it would be unfair to place any blame on those who took part in it. Fair arguments to make, but I think both the definition of "fault" and who to apply it to are at least up for debate.

 

In this situation, the West isn't directly responsible for the actions of Russia, whatever they ultimately turn out to be, but it is responsible for inflaming tensions and edging closer and closer to red lines which had been made clear many times prior. Again, perhaps you think the causal chain has been broken, or that the actions of the west were necessary or righteous or something else, that's a perfectly valid argument to make. But there clearly appears to be some chain of causality between the constant pushing to get Ukraine into NATO, supporting a new regime that is openly hostile to both Russia and the Russian-speaking majorities in the Donbas and what is happening now. Would you at least accept that these things might in some way be contributory factors in the current situation? 

Edited 2 March 2022 by MarshallForEngland

[Foxdiamond]

13 minutes ago, surrifox said:

The nazis lost the Battle of Britain for a number of reasons but importantly , the bloated buffoon Goring was entrusted with the job to curry favour with Hitler . Pretty much every major decision he took was the wrong option and allowed the RAF to regroup and strengthen and radar stations to provide the precious time to scramble RAF fighters to intercept and destroy German bombers . 

 

Hitler’s  vanity and ambition doomed his country in the Russian campaign . The Wehrmacht did not need to fight at Stalingrad they could easily by pass it and reach the oil fields . Hitler took personal charge of directing the army, firing generals and failed to make provision for adequate supplies due to extended supply lines and the Russian winter 

All sides make mistakes in war. To end this current crisis apart from Putin being deposed I suppose he will need a way out that looks like a victory but somehow retains Ukraine as independent . I think this is what John Simpson was driving at.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

29 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I'll give you a hint: the smaller nation with only defensive weaponry who are being invaded is the victim. 

I am quite sure this is not your best.

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, MarshallForEngland said:

and supporting a new regime that is openly hostile to both Russia and the Russian-speaking majorities in the Donbas. 

Is there any basis for this? Moreover, as far as I'm aware most Ukrainians are bilingual. It's true that the toppling of Victor Yanukovych was an unconstitutional coup supported by the west and that since then Kiev has flooded with western advisers, military consultants, CIA trainers but Russian proxies have been present in Donbas for well over a decade inflaming conflict in the east. 

 

Changing the subject, listen to the fear in Sergei Naryshkin's voice...

 

 

[casablancas]

24 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Dan Carlin has done a great podcast series on the Eastern Front in WW2, he said that Hitler actually got so paranoid and superstitious with Napolean's failure in Russia in the winter that he would doing really stupid things because he thought doing the same as Napolean would curse them. Like he refused to send units in with adequate winter clothing because Napolean did and he thought it would be bad for morale.

There was actually some weird supernatural and superstition stuff in the Nazi belief system like that as well.

There’s a few decent docs surrounding the Nazis and the Occult. Dead interesting and suggests there whole ideology is based on a complete myth. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

Well here's a fun bit of gossip

 

 

[Foxdiamond]

3 hours ago, Col city fan said:

After the market crash of (c1931?) Hitler was hugely popularly for years with the Germans particularly and across the globe. The nazis literally turned the German economy around from the Deutschmark being worth literally nothing to the nation financially thriving. If you look on YouTube you’ll see photos and Videos of German couples holidaying and thanking ‘The Fuhrer’ for their new-found wealth.

The Nazi’s of course built the Autobahns (so much better than the British motorways), new homes, tons of ‘modern’ buildings… the list went on

And very few national Germans were against the idea of Liebensraum. The German occupation of Czechoslovakia was welcomed with open arms by the majority. 
The Neuremberg rallies epitomised this probably best. Hitler was utterly adored by huge swathes of the natural German population.

 

This is probably where the biggest similarity lies with the current war in The Ukraine and the ‘perfect storm’ that gave rise to WW2. 
Like Hitler, it’s clear that Putin has been planning this for years, yet ‘the World’ has turned a blind eye to it AND has actually popularised Putin to some extent.

Just like it did with Adolf

I can’t emphasise this point enough. This apparent hypocrisy of the massive outcry of what Putin has now done (and the outcry quite rightly), whilst for a long time knowing he was going to do it. There are HUGE parallels here with Hitler.

I think there was lots of opposition to the Nazis in Germany but once elected in 1933 he crushed all. Trade Unions, communists, liberals the lot. With state propaganda so strong and little chance of other views being heard it was too late by the time people woke up. It seems we became less concerned with Putin and more with Isis and the like  

[Zear0]

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

This is genuinely one of the most baffling and disturbing things I have read on here, and I've been reading our match day threads for quite a long time now. I can't even figure out who is who here; there aren't enough parties in your analogy to map onto the situation we're discussing. His argument in 2015 was that Western countries (particularly the US) seriously considering inviting Ukraine into NATO, agitating for regime change and trying to align the country with the great European powers was likely to destabilise the region and antagonise Russia and that it would be Ukraine who ended up paying the price, which unfortunately is exactly what is happening now. I wish I could twist your analogy to fit that set of facts but I'm struggling.

 

51 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I'll give you a hint: the smaller nation with only defensive weaponry who are being invaded is the victim. 

A crude analogy which should have been articulated better, but which was basically getting at what LF said above. After years of watching well spoken and articulate videos being shared (see the covid thread) and passed off as the defining opinion on posters behalf, I feel somewhat defeated in this theatre of online discussion.

 

The article LF posted on the previous page does a far more intelligent deconstruction of him but I'll add a few of my own thoughts. 

 

His entire concept of offensive realism can be (mis)interpreted such that any major power annihilating a lesser state on the basis that they may be a credible threat in the future is both effective and justifiable. My own interpretation of this draws parallels to certain authoritarian regimes criminalising those who may be a future threat (Navalny as a victim in recent times with the extreme being Cambodia in the 70s). Funnily enough, this concept is completely at odds with the fundamental defensive nature of NATO hence his quite open distain to the organisation and my particular underlying gripe with him. Whilst that particular theory on realism may be effective, I believe it be frankly immoral. 

 

It goes without saying that geopolitical wrangling happen globally with pretty much every single nation involved to a greater or lesser extent. Where I get particularly fed up with how people are interpreting John's video is that the centuries long geopolitical tug-of-war to align foreign governments to your own ideology is somehow justification for the Russian State to try and wipe an entire nation and its people off the map. 

 

As I said above, rightly or wrongly the influence of "West" against "East", particularly in Eastern Europe has been ongoing for centuries and is considered "fair game" in international relations and does not excuse or justify what is happening. Whilst I recognise, but won't pretend to appreciate or understand fully, the wide range of factors in the relationship between Russia and Ukraine, there is only one person(s) at fault here. It is not "The West", Ukraine or NATO and lies solely with Putin and his cabal of lickspittles. Whilst the analogy was crude, I do believe that shirking the blame on a defensive organisation and nation progressing their own interests is, as you put it, "baffling and disturbing" as well as offensive to those being slaughtered as we discuss. 

 

 

Edited 2 March 2022 by Zear0
Typos

[Zear0]

15 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Is there any basis for this? Moreover, as far as I'm aware most Ukrainians are bilingual. It's true that the toppling of Victor Yanukovych was an unconstitutional coup supported by the west and that since then Kiev has flooded with western advisers, military consultants, CIA trainers but Russian proxies have been present in Donbas for well over a decade inflaming conflict in the east. 

 

Changing the subject, listen to the fear in Sergei Naryshkin's voice...

 

 

Won't be seeing much of him in the future... 

[LiberalFox]

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I think I understand what you're getting at. You're saying that only Russia can be held responsible for what Russia does? If that's what you're saying, of course I agree with you. But I'm not sure where that really gets us. Take another example of Western intervention which led to destabilisation and ultimately paved the way for something rather awful to happen. The countries involved in the second Iraq War cannot be held directly responsible for the actions of ISIS. But they can be held responsible for destabilising the region to such an extent that allowed an organisation such as ISIS to take over. How much weight you lend to each of those things and how serious you think each are is up to you and would make an interesting discussion of its own. Perhaps you don't believe there is proximate cause at all; that so much time had elapsed or so many other events had taken place between the initial invasion and the rise of ISIS that the 'but-for' test is next to useless in this instance. Or perhaps you think the initial invasion was done with the best of intentions and therefore it would be unfair to place any blame on those who took part in it. Fair arguments to make, but I think both the definition of "fault" and who to apply it to are at least up for debate.

 

In this situation, the West isn't directly responsible for the actions of Russia, whatever they ultimately turn out to be, but it is responsible for inflaming tensions and edging closer and closer to red lines which had been made clear many times prior. Again, perhaps you think the causal chain has been broken, or that the actions of the west were necessary or righteous or something else, that's a perfectly valid argument to make. But there clearly appears to be some chain of causality between the constant pushing to get Ukraine into NATO and supporting a new regime that is openly hostile to both Russia and the Russian-speaking majorities in the Donbas. Would you at least accept that these things might in some way be contributory factors in what is happening now? 

I don't believe there has been constant pushing to get Ukraine into NATO. I think Russia (or Putin if you like) is firmly responsible for the current events. I don't believe Russia is being reactive. Ukraine wanted a more European future (by majority in a democracy) and Putin has chosen to resist that using force. 

 

I think rather than going through all his slides and giving my opinion as to the credibility of his argument I prefer to understand where he thinks the west should be heading and the recent interview he gave is revealing:

 

What do you think our policy should be in Ukraine right now, and what do you worry that we’re doing that’s going to undermine our China policy?

 

"We should be pivoting out of Europe to deal with China in a laser-like fashion, number one. And, number two, we should be working overtime to create friendly relations with the Russians. The Russians are part of our balancing coalition against China. If you live in a world where there are three great powers—China, Russia, and the United States—and one of those great powers, China, is a peer competitor, what you want to do if you’re the United States is have Russia on your side of the ledger. Instead, what we have done with our foolish policies in Eastern Europe is drive the Russians into the arms of the Chinese. This is a violation of Balance of Power Politics 101."

 

In other words his issue is with committing US and US allies to a foreign policy that is belligerent towards the Russian world view because he thinks China is the bigger fish for the US to fry and he feels without incorporating countries like Romania and the Baltic nations, the US could have spent the time it wasted "promoting democracy" in Afghanistan/Iraq (and Eastern Europe in his view) on developing relations with Russia. He then goes on to say that morality will always be a secondary concern. 

 

My own opinion as a Liberal is that you cannot separate morality in geopolitics because allies that behave contrary to your own values will always be unstable. Take Cuba and the Batista regime. It's not a coincidence that such an "ally" was vulnerable to a communist revolution. It is not a coincidence that the Shah was deposed in Iran. I also think that US belligerence towards China is something the UK and EU should be wary of. 

 

It's easy for an American to just suggest sacrificing democracy to the east of Germany out of naked self interest, but aside from being immoral, it just assumes that the UK and EU would be fine with the arrangement. I think current events are also seeing the rise of pan-European military cohesion.  

Edited 2 March 2022 by LiberalFox
added the quote to expand my point.

[surrifox]

15 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Is there any basis for this? Moreover, as far as I'm aware most Ukrainians are bilingual. It's true that the toppling of Victor Yanukovych was an unconstitutional coup supported by the west and that since then Kiev has flooded with western advisers, military consultants, CIA trainers but Russian proxies have been present in Donbas for well over a decade inflaming conflict in the east. 

 

Changing the subject, listen to the fear in Sergei Naryshkin's voice...

 

 

Hardly surprising this guy is bricking it . Must be like confronting Tony Soprano 😩

putin looks quite bloated and unhealthy in that picture , be a shame if anything happened to him 

[Zear0]

4 minutes ago, surrifox said:

Hardly surprising this guy is bricking it . Must be like confronting Tony Soprano 😩

putin looks quite bloated and unhealthy in that picture , be a shame if anything happened to him 

Careful what we wish for. I've always though North Korea have never done anything too daft due to their own need for self preservation. 

 

The thought of Vlad being on his last legs might be bad news for us all in the near term. 

[String fellow]

Why was Putin so sensitive to the Liz Truss comment about allowing volunteers to go to fight in Ukraine that he threatened to nuke the UK, but he seems utterly insensitive to all the terrible suffering and anguish he is causing to many thousands of innocent Ukrainians? Is he a criminal psychopath?

[Zear0]

Also rather telling to see that those supporting Russia in the UN General Assembly were:

Belarus (shock)

Syria

Eritrea

North Korea

[st albans fox]

Has anyone mentioned this from lavrov ?

 

Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier on Wednesday that Moscow remains committed to the "demilitarisation" of Ukraine and added there should be a list of specified weapons that can never be deployed on Ukrainian territory.

But he said that Vladimir Putin's regime recognised the Ukrainian people's right to chose their own leader and that Russia accepts Volodymyr Zelensky as the legitimate president.

 

as a basis for negotiations, that surely has legs …….

[Foxdiamond]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

Has anyone mentioned this from lavrov ?

 

Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier on Wednesday that Moscow remains committed to the "demilitarisation" of Ukraine and added there should be a list of specified weapons that can never be deployed on Ukrainian territory.

But he said that Vladimir Putin's regime recognised the Ukrainian people's right to chose their own leader and that Russia accepts Volodymyr Zelensky as the legitimate president.

 

as a basis for negotiations, that surely has legs …….

I sincerely hope so

[Buzzell]

43 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Is there any basis for this? Moreover, as far as I'm aware most Ukrainians are bilingual. It's true that the toppling of Victor Yanukovych was an unconstitutional coup supported by the west and that since then Kiev has flooded with western advisers, military consultants, CIA trainers but Russian proxies have been present in Donbas for well over a decade inflaming conflict in the east. 

 

Changing the subject, listen to the fear in Sergei Naryshkin's voice...

 

 

He’s scared shitless. It’s as if nobody wants to upset him. He’s very intimidating I imagine.

[Zear0]

Just now, Foxdiamond said:

I sincerely hope so

Ditto. 

 

I can't remember where I read it (think BBC live feed), but one of the analysts said Putin's in so deep that he won't back down to save face. If we can get some cast iron "security guarantees" on things that won't happen anyway such as "no nukes in Ukraine" etc. he may take that. Pray something happens soon though. 

[bovril]

31 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Well here's a fun bit of gossip

 

 

Random EU flag guy on twitter

[casablancas]

1 minute ago, bovril said:

Random EU flag guy on twitter

Tbf we’ve long known about the Russian money in London and it’s politics. 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

 

A crude analogy which should have been articulated better, but which was basically getting at what LF said above. After years of watching well spoken and articulate videos being shared (see the covid thread) and passed off as the defining opinion on posters behalf, I feel somewhat defeated in this theatre of online discussion.

 

The article LF posted on the previous page does a far more intelligent deconstruction of him but I'll add a few of my own thoughts. 

 

His entire concept of offensive realism can be (mis)interpreted such that any major power annihilating a lesser state on the basis that they may be a credible threat in the future as being both effective and justifiable. My own interpretation of this draws parallels to certain authoritarian regimes criminalising those who may be a future threat (Navalny as a victim in recent times with the extreme being Cambodia in the 70s). Funnily enough, this concept is completely at odds with the fundamental defensive nature of NATO hence his quite open distain to the organisation and my particular underlying gripe with him. Whilst that particular theory on realism may be effective, I believe it be frankly immoral. 

 

It goes without saying that geopolitical wrangling happen globally with pretty much every single nation involved to a greater or lesser extent. Where I get particularly fed up with how people are interpreting John's video is that the centuries long geopolitical tug-of-war to align foreign governments to your own ideology is somehow justification for the Russian State to try and wipe an entire nation and its people off the map. 

 

As I said above, rightly or wrongly the influence of "West" against "East", particularly in Eastern Europe has been ongoing for centuries and is considered "fair game" in international relations and does not excuse or justify what is happening. Whilst I recognise, but won't pretend to appreciate or understand fully, the wide range of factors in the relationship between Russia and Ukraine, there is only one person(s) at fault here. It is not "The West", Ukraine or NATO and lies solely with Putin and his cabal of lickspittles. Whilst the analogy was crude, I do believe that shirking the blame on a defensive organisation and nation progressing their own interests is, as you put it, "baffling and disturbing" as well as offensive to those being slaughtered as we discuss. 

 

 

I was pretty much with you until "wipe an entire nation and its people off the map". Does this not feel like outrageous hyperbole as you're saying it? What about the events so far points to this being the ultimate objective? I mean you can argue that it's totally wrong, unnecessary, reckless, immoral etc, all of that I can see plausible arguments for. But to say that the goal here is the total eradication of the country and its populace is absurd. From the way you write I can see you're a keen reader. I cannot imagine how anybody who has read anything about this subject could come to that conclusion. 

 

I'm not really sure how to parse some of your other claims. What is a "lesser state"? A militarised, partisan Ukraine, backed by a US-led NATO with all of the military equipment and "training exercises" that inevitably entails, welcomed into the loving arms of the EU which already has a frosty, sanction-heavy relationship with Russia as well its own ambitions of assembling a European army is not really a "lesser state". It's still a big country (bigger than France, for example) and Moscow is only 500 miles away from the border. Why is this not something Russia should be concerned about? Russia has consistently asked that Ukraine remain neutral and demilitarised and various Western players, particularly the USA, have repeatedly called its bluff. 

Edited 2 March 2022 by MarshallForEngland
Immortal > immoral