Ukraine

The question is, are they wrong?

 

Well there you go, should the US and us in Europe consider ourselves the worlds policeman, jumping in to right all the wrongs in the world.

 

I see that Belgium will be sending seized Russian cash to Ukraine. Putin will belivid, as money is the only thing that he cares about. Lets see if others follow their move.

 

Something I've never understood about the western response is that we effectively banned Russian tourists from entering the rest of Europe or the USA. Perhaps someone can explain it?

This is how I see it. If Russia airlines were allowed to continue taking citizens to other countries for their holidays, then first of all, financially, more money would be coming out of Russia. Not just from the holidaymakers spending their money outside of Russia, but also airlines have to pay a fee every time they enter another country's airspace.

Perhaps far more importantly than the financial side, it would mean that ordinary Russians would get to see and hear news from a different perspective, as opposed to the version the Kremlin approves. They might be made to feel unwelcome by some, but the majority of people would treat their Russian guests with the same respect as anyone else. All put together this would mean fewer Russians are brainwashed to believe everything their state controlled media tells them. That would have really come in handy when relatively small protests happened in Russia, small because most people are either brainwashed or terrified, or both. It also would have come in handy as their fake election approaches. It would be nice if a few more Russians started to have some doubts about their leader, or if just a few more didn't think the whole world is out to get them just for being Russian.

 

This is mind boggling - Ukraine are still standing tall - 2 years after invasion. F16 fighter jets arriving in Summer...

UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace says that 97% of the Russian army is now estimated to be in Ukraine

 

Ukraine is currently losing. The media is spinning it as positively as they can of course. But here's the situation as I see it.

The Ukrainians are doing an outstanding job against a much larger force, but they simply don't have the means at this stage to make meaningful progress.

Europe is and many countries outside of Europe are really helping out as far as they can, but must be careful of two things. 1. Drawing themselves into direct conflict with Russia and 2. Giving up too much and making themselves vulnerability.

Ukraine's allies seem keen to use Ukraine to erode Russia gradually. If allied nations really were on a war footing, they'd be cranking up weapons production at all costs. But in reality, as usual there is political infighting at all levels.

Poland, while talking the talk in support of Ukraine, is actively trying to hurt Ukrainian with border blockades over a petty trade dispute.

The US is already showing signs of abandoning it's friends, like they did in Afghan and Vietnam.

Ukraine is organising peace talks with multiple nations, but they refuse to invite representation from the one nation that really needs to be involved in such talks.

To top it all, the Americans seem to be fear mongering. Sputnik 1 all over again. The Russians put up a satellite recently. The US started a rumour that it's a nuke in orbit. To the majority of folks with little or no interest in science that sounds pretty terrifying. But it makes precisely zero sense on any level.

 

There's a headline in the news today. 'Russia within 150 metres of triggering full scale NATO war after missile strike'.

The article goes on to explain how the Greek prime minister had a near miss when a missile struck nearby while he was in Ukraine visiting Zelensky. The article goes on about article 5, implying that if the Greek prime minister had been killed or injured, then NATO might be obliged to attack Russia.

This story tells another side of the war narrative. Quite honestly, it supports Putin's argument that NATO is the threat. It reads as though NATO is itching for an excuse to attack. This article appears the day after another article about RAF fighter jets being met over the black sea as they approached Russian airspace. But the latest news article, of the Greek prime minister's close call having the potential to trigger article 5. I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't read article 5 in full. But I just assumed it didn't extend to mishaps that might happen when the head of a NATO member state visits an active war zone and stands next to the enemy's top target.

It's about time all sides grew up and just stopped fighting. They're all idiots as far as I can tell.

 

That's an interesting point about Article 5. Apparently it does not mean that everyone automatically goes to war with the aggressor. The NATO members make their own decision as to if and how to help. So, with 9/11 some NATO members helped with logistics and that is all.

Putin however doesn't abide by any rules - he won't stop until he is stopped by force.

Wednesday 6th March, a couple of days ago - was the one year anniversary of the murder of Oleksandr Ihorovych Matsievskyi - he was 42. A unarmed Ukrainian soldier - a prisoner of war. He was forced to dig his own grave - his last words were 'Glory to Ukraine' - before he was gunned down. His murder was recorded and published on social media.

There is no such thing as stopping fighting when it comes to Russia.

 

I still think Putin will not do anything drastic until he knows the outcome of the American elections.
Unless of course we force his hand, he has time on his side and he sees western help for Ukraine is starting to wain.
Bluster from the French president is not helping the situation IMO.
It could escalate very quickly.

If we think the cost of living is high now imagine where it could go if we have a NATO Russian/China war.

 

If we have a full scale war of NATO Vs Russia and China, and of course Iran and several others that will feel emboldened to start, I won't be worrying about the cost of living at all, on account of I wouldn't expect to actually be doing a great deal of living.

 

Everyone seems to think it will be nukes from day one.
I don't see it that way, both sides know the outcome.
I see another European war as one we are likely to sleepwalk into without noticing until it's too late.
A kind of slowly ratcheting up of the situation rather than they press their button and we kind of hope our one or two work.

 

I doubt it would be nukes from day one. In fact I doubt nukes would come into it at all, although I wouldn't bet money on that.

The thing is, Putin has all the advantages in a nuclear war. First and foremost, he really doesn't care one bit. He can just get right out of the way and let everyone else deal with it. If he had any kind of conscience I'd be less worried, but he has proven time time again that he sees all people, regardless of nationality or any other measure, as nothing. If he can't make use of a person, they simply don't matter to him.

The other key advantage is that Russia is well equipped to survive a nuclear war. They still have working nuclear bunkers. Not the dark, dingy, damp holes in the ground people imagine, but actual underground's retail and leisure complexes. We have nothing like that and he knows it.

The bit that fewer people talk about is electronic and cyber warfare. Russia excels on this front. Putin knows there's no need in the 21st century to start flinging nukes about. There are far easier ways to shut down vital services. In the event that the electricity grid goes down for an extended period for example, who's likely to cope better, those of us in western countries where we literally live by technology these days, or those Russia that are totally used things being generally a bit rubbish for the ordinary folks?