Ukraine

[wilts rover]

Video going round of Ukrainian soldiers (allegedly) shooting Russian POW in the knee caps. Brutal and not good at all.

It's bad enough to commit war crimes when you are trying to gain world public opinion (and help) on your side. But to commit war crimes and then post them on the internet - who thought that was a good idea?

[albie]

Wilts,

You are missing my point.
Yes, it should be led by Ukraine, but the country which emerges from the war will be different from that which entered it.

Ukraine is under-resourced for the reconstruction, and will need international support.
The country will remain militarised for the foreseeable, and is may be unstable politically in the wake.

Large inputs of military hardware will empower those who hold these resources, and no-one knows who will retain control of these munitions.

You are correct about Corbyn I think...he was Putin's worst nightmare, because he could not be corrupted.

This is why Vlad spent so much effort on Kompromat against the weak minded Johnson, and also directed Russian money to Mandelson by way of insurance.

The strategy of placing compromised dupes in positions of power started with Trump, continued through the Brexit debate, and then brought Johnson in as head of the right wing cult which took over the Tory Party.

If his intention was to weaken the western alliance, then selective deletion of the component parts of that alliance is the way Vlad chose the go.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Looks like Abramovic has had a quaff from the special samovar.

The Russian state is simply disgusting.

[danumdon]

Looks like Abramovic has had a quaff from the special samovar.

The Russian state is simply disgusting.

I got the distinct impression that Abramovich was about to dish the dirt in a manner that Putin could not have aired.

[drfchound]

Didn’t one of Putins failed generals have a fatal heart attack a few days ago too.

[wilts rover]

Not really Albie. I think the whole premise of your question is mute. We - the west - gave up any qualification to be able to say what any peace deal in Ukraine should look like once we - NATO - refused to give any military help and said 'go off and fight them on your own'.

Its up to Zelensky and the Ukraine government want to say what they want and for us to help them achieve it. I can't predict what they might be - but I reckon it will be expensive.

But yes where I do agree is that once you start giving highly advanced weaponry to people who you might not normally want to have it - that often has consequences beyond your control. The Mujahideen turning into Al Qaeda, Iraqi militia into IS and the Manchester bomber being trained by NATO in Libya being some of the most recent notorious examples. But sorry, I disagree that the west should be dictating anything to Zelensky about what 'we' want after the end of the fighting. It should be how can we help him get/do what he wants.

Wars and conflict are not as simple or black and white in reality as they are made out to be in films and books.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Corbyn was Putin's worst nightmare?

I've seen some eulogising of the Blessed St Jeremy, but this takes the biscuit.

This is Corbyn who obfuscated over Salisbury. Corbyn who argued that there was no proof Putin was facilitating gassing of Syrians. Corbyn who, even as this disaster was unfolding, headed a group that couldn't even bring itself to call it an invasion and insisted it was NATO's fault.

One of the key reasons why Putin's forces didn't just waltz into Kiev is that the Ukraine army has been trained and equipped by NATO countries. Do you honestly believe that Corbyn would have agreed to that?

[Nudga]

This will please Tyke no end.

WARNING!! GRAPHIC CONTENT. VERY DISTURBING FOOTAGE.

https://twitter.com/Georgelg13/status/1508468381707649028?t=OJqPYXGut3m5KoG1C5XiXg&s=19

[Nudga]

And for balance, this little Ukrainian girl was very lucky.

https://twitter.com/avalaina/status/1508527343576530952?t=WDe_d3lVMubyeYaFIuawhw&s=19

It's civilians of both sides i feel for whilst the fat elite w**kers play war chess.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm struggling to see what the "war chess" is that Ukraine is playing. They have been invaded by a f**king thug. He is the number one criminal in this.

There are some evil Kitsons on the far right in Ukrainian militias and I'd like to see those individuals wiped off the face of the earth.

But on the big scale, there's no equality between the crimes of Putin's Russia and the actions of Ukraine. Anyone who blurs those lines is one of Putin's useful idiots.

[Nudga]

Jesus f**kin wept. Its clearly still the BST forum and not the VSC.

[Dagenham Rover]

Not really Albie. I think the whole premise of your question is mute. We - the west - gave up any qualification to be able to say what any peace deal in Ukraine should look like once we - NATO - refused to give any military help and said 'go off and fight them on your own'.

Wilts Ukraine is not a member of Nato  so troops on the ground are not an option,  Nato is a defensive organisation designed to protect its members.  Now if you had said United Nations there might be a slightly different argument. However Nato countries are helping to supply arms to Ukraine but to help with troops on the ground so to speak is a totally different kettle of fish and WW3 would be upon us     

[BillyStubbsTears]

Jesus f**kin wept. Its clearly still the BST forum and not the VSC.

Which bit of my post did you disagree with?

[Nudga]

BST, I cannot be f**kin arsed with you. Forum ruined.
See ya later.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I still don't get which part of my post you have an issue with.

[albie]

BST,

My reference to Corbyn was about corruptibility, and the programme of kompromat that Putin has been following for years. The post makes that clear, so the comments you make are not relevant.

The training and equipping of Ukraine before the conflict is one reason Putin gave for invasion.
It is a pretext, but should he be given cover?

Wilts,

I did not say that the west should dictate anything to Ukraine.
I do think that the post war reconstruction will need support from the international community.

In my experience, such support usually comes with strings attached.
I hope that in this case that is not so, but I doubt that will be how it goes.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.
You think Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if the Ukrainian army had not been strengthened? Cover is a minor issue compared to what would have happened if the Ukrainian army had simply rolled over. And you think that Putin didn't have both bases covered with the main parties led by Johnson and Corbyn? You emphasise the kompromat, but ignore the useful idiot cover that Corbyn has provided for years. Yes Corbyn beatifically claims he stands for no aggression by anyone, but in practice that has meant his folk deliberately choosing to play down aggression by Russia "in case it deflects attention from bigger crimes by the West".

[SydneyRover]

I think what has been shown here in this debate is that circumstances would have been different under a corbyn led government but noone can say that they would have been worse  or better in terms of the invasion of the Ukraine.


Could anyone, did anyone predict the appalling decisions and non decision that have been made in respect of British citizens and governance of the UK since 2010?

[SydneyRover]

And could more preventative work have been done?

''Weak sanctions creates 'dangerous illusion' for Russia, Zelenskiy says
Finally, Zelenskiy delivered some emphatic lines regarding sanctions imposed on Russia.

Ukraine cannot and will not agree with the passive sanctions position of some entities towards Russia. There should be no ‘suspended’ sanctions packages - that if the Russian troops do something, then there will be some answer...

We went through this story last year when we said that strong preventive sanctions against Russia were needed to prevent an invasion. The preventive package was not made. A full-scale war has begun.

There are now many hints and warnings that sanctions will be tightened, such as an embargo on Russian oil supplies to Europe, if Russia uses chemical weapons. There are simply no words.”

Zelenskiy continued to claim a tightening of sanctions now depends on Russia’s use of chemical weapons.

Just think about what it all came down to. Waiting for chemical weapons... We, living people, have to wait… Doesn’t everything that the Russian military is doing and has already done deserve an oil embargo? Don’t phosphorus bombs deserve that? Do the shelled chemical production or nuclear power plant deserve that?

Zelenskiy urged for sanctions packages to be “effective and substantial”.

If the sanctions packages are weak or do not work enough, if they can be circumvented, it creates a dangerous illusion for the Russian leadership that they can continue to afford what they are doing now. And Ukrainians pay for it with their lives. Thousands of lives.”

[albie]

BST,

Not at all.
I think Putin had the intention of invading Ukraine from at least 2014, when he annexed Crimea.

The real question is whether the western alliance understood this in 2014, and what actions they could have taken to prevent an invasion.

The influence of Russian money was a key component of the strategy to directly influence election processes and outcomes in the west.

I don't think Putin had all bases covered at all, but that he targeted key players that were vulnerable to his influence. The salami slicing of political options in the governance of the western economies has been a central aim since his acceptance by new Labour in the Blair years.

Enough for now.
Plenty of background work on Putin and his foreign policy agenda elsewhere.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

Putin gave both Johnson and Corbyn that which they most desired.

Johnson: Support to get to the top of the pole.

Corbyn: someone to cling to who was not the thing he truly hates more than anything in the world - American capitalism.

He played them both, but in both cases it's just icing on the cake. He was always going to invade Ukraine.

[drfchound]

I think what has been shown here in this debate is that circumstances would have been different under a corbyn led government but noone can say that they would have been worse  or better in terms of the invasion of the Ukraine.


Could anyone, did anyone predict the appalling decisions and non decision that have been made in respect of British citizens and governance of the UK since 2010?

I wouldn’t think that anyone could argue with that first paragraph and obviously no one can say whether things would have been worse or better because it would be guessing.

With regards to the second paragraph, there aren’t too many people who can see into the future with any real certainty.
I seem to recall someone back in 1997 saying that Tory Britain has gone for good.
That didn’t come to pass did it.

[wilts rover]

Not really Albie. I think the whole premise of your question is mute. We - the west - gave up any qualification to be able to say what any peace deal in Ukraine should look like once we - NATO - refused to give any military help and said 'go off and fight them on your own'.

Wilts Ukraine is not a member of Nato  so troops on the ground are not an option,  Nato is a defensive organisation designed to protect its members.  Now if you had said United Nations there might be a slightly different argument. However Nato countries are helping to supply arms to Ukraine but to help with troops on the ground so to speak is a totally different kettle of fish and WW3 would be upon us     

Nor were NATO involved in the Falklands or invasion of Iraq. If any western country had wished to send troops to assist Ukraine they could have done. NATO was a convienient excuse not to do so.

The UK and US guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine iin the Budapest Memorandum - not NATO.

I agree it a NATO country had provided direct support then that could have led to escalation and Putin launching missiles. But that was a political choice by the individual countries, esp US & UK - they said to Ukraine, here's some guns, good luck you're on your own.

And as you picked out that comment from a post on how Corbyn would have dealt differently to the run up than Johnson - what would any different leader have done differently on the day of invasion? Kind of proves my point.

[albie]

BST,

"Corbyn: someone to cling to who was not the thing he truly hates more than anything in the world - American capitalism".

Sorry, but I think this is complete nonsense.
The whole Putin programme has been about the exercise of power through gangster capitalism, despotic political control directing resources towards those open to corrupt influence.

Far from despising American Capitalism, Putin seeks to extend it beyond Liberal politics into his own context. To achieve that, he wants to undermine the democratic process in those countries, to set up shadow proxies supportive of Russian foreign policy ambitions.

Sadly, he has had some success in changing the nature of political debate in the west.
There is a strong possibility of Trump returning in 2024, which would be a coup for Putin.

I think your dislike of Corbyn is preventing you from open discussion on this, as on other matters. I guess we just have to agree to differ on this.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie

I can only assume you've not spent a lifetime following the politics of the far left in the UK.

The long term aim may well be the global overthrow of capitalism. But the shorter term tactic, always was and still is to identify the number 1 enemy and focus n them. And consequently,  you support either explicitly where you can, or implicitly where explicit support would be too embarrassing, anyone who is an enemy of the number 1 enemy.

You will never understand Corbyn's approach to foreign policy unless you see it through that lens. Look at it that way and everything he and his group have ever said makes perfect sense.

Here are just a few examples of Corbyn's foreign policy stances that make no sense whatsoever if you don't understand what the real aim is.

1) He befriended a prominent denier of the Srebrenica massacre. This is a totem for many on the far Left, Noam Chomsky being the most prominent. That only makes any sense if your aim is to not critcise Serbia, one of the most prominent of anti-American European countries.

2) Connected with that, Corbyn wrote a rambling piece in the Morning Star, saying that NATO used the example of Srebrenica as an excuse to take action in Kosovo that was really about extending American power. That was bizarre in as much as America has very little strategic interest in the region. Corbyn said nothing about the impending massacre of Kosovans by Serbians that was averted by the NATO action - because that would have meant him directly criticising Serbia.

3) He learned a lesson from that. He got a kicking from many on the less extreme left, and a couple of years ago tweeted his support for the Srebrenica memorial day. https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1282003750069116929 But note the language. This is classic Corbyn. Whenever someone who he doesn't want to criticise is responsible for a massacre, like Serbia at Srebrenica, he never mentions them. He uses the line that all violence is wrong. Compare and contrast with his volcanic, direct and explicit criticism of any atrocities committed by the West.

4) His response to Salisbury was astonishing. Our own services was saying that there had been an attack on British residents on British soil by a hostile power and what did Corbyn say in Parliament? Not a word of criticism of the Putin regime in the first two debates. Not one word. But a suggestion that we should accede to a Russian request to be sent a smaple of the nerve agent so they could run their own tests.

5) A month later when Putin's puppet Assad used chemical weapons in Douma, Corbyn was immediately decrying it...but as ever, in the most generic terms. https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/983101179310768128 He called for the UN to investigate, in the full knowledge that Russia had blocked a plan for the UN to send investigators.

6) His past attitudes on Ukraine are...well, let's say "nuanced". Writing after the annexation of Crimea, even he couldn't entirely turn a blind eye to Russian aggression. But he buries it in a single line after waffle about the fluidity of Ukraine's borders, & talk about neo-Nazis and before launching into the standard NATO-blame game. https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/the-history-lurking-behind-the-crisis-in-ukraine-by-jeremy-corbyn-mp/ Note that this is within weeks of a Russian military invasion.

If you see Corbyn as the even handed evangelist of peace, none of those actions make any sense at all. If you wake up and realise that it's all about diluting attacks on America's opponents and focussing your fire o America and the West, it all makes sense.
And if you still don''t get it, Corbyn's own spin doctor Seamus Milne instructed the inner circle not to emphasise Putin's war crimes in Syria In case it defected attention from what he called "the bigger crimes of the West".

[albie]

You still don't get it at all, do you BST?

It is NOT about Corbyn, it IS about Putin.
The post above is a classic example of what I said about your dislike of Corbyn getting in the way.

Looking for reasons to connect the left to Putin, instead of looking for the reasons and motivations for the actions of Putin.

Well, you can lead a horse to water.......take a sip of the Kool-aid, Lad!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Of course the two are connected. You claim that Corbyn is Putin's worst enemy.

I give you chapter and verse on why I think Corbyn, far from being his worst enemy, was at best a useful idiot for Putin.

You can engage with that or move the goalposts.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

So, if continued peace talks eventually result in Donbass being annexed from Ukraine do you think the West should maintain all sanctions on Russia as a guarantor against any further incursions?

If so for how long?

In addition, should some of the frozen  assets be used to help Ukraine rebuild what Putin destroyed?

[River Don]

Corbyn and the Stop the War brigade weren't very prominent at the protests in London about the Ukraine conflict were they?

Funny that. If there is one thing Corbyn normally enjoys it's a big demo.

[wilts rover]

Ammunition Depot in Belogrod on fire tonight. Thought to be from a missile strike.

Belogrod is 25 miles inside Russia from the Ukraine border. If this was a Ukraine attack - I believe this is the first foreign offensive action on Russian territory since WW2.

https://twitter.com/mi6rogue/status/1508892153300324364