Topic: Russia launches invasion of Ukraine (*) & use spoiler tags for anything graphic!

[scatman]

Don't know if we had a Belarus thread, but Krystsina Tsimanouskaya has safely arrived in Warsaw.

If there's one good thing the government here in Poland have been doing, its this. They've been really proactive in helping Belarussians.

[villagelife]

Id fucking bombv Putins palace in Sochi, just to let him know. Whats he going about it, get his gym instructor to claim?

[Trump's tiny tiny hands]

Looks like Putin has got Lukashenko playing dangerous games on the Poland/Belarus border. It is clever in its evilness as it strikes to the heart of Polish distrust of the EU (illegal immigrants) and the EU's sanctions against his country. The poor migrants are invited in to Belarus and then herded by armed forces to the border.

[Cruiser]

Poland's treatment of the migrants is just as bad. Using helicopters to fly low over them at night and using the downdraft to push them back from the barbed wire is sickening behaviour against such desperate people that include women and children.

Wankers, the lot of them.

[dalarr]

Almost reminiscent of the build up to the First World War, this. Two countries, backed up by superpowers, having a squabble. I’m so sick and tired of “strong” men creating conflicts to further their own agenda.

It’s naive to say “can’t we all just get along”, but seriously..can’t we, at some point, at least try? The vast majority of people in the world have no interest in these conflicts. These “strong” men should just meet in the Octagon and have a proper fight. Wonder how brave they would be then. Fuck ‘em all. The world would be better without their meddling and scheming.

[KillieRed]

It`s all to do with fear though, isn`t it?

Putin want to make territorial gains, regain the Soviet Empire etc in order to be able to bask in a little glory and most importantly protect himself by solidifying his position. These dictator`s believe that someone is coming for them because that`s how they got where they are. The paranoia is real.

[Mister Flip Flop]

Putin now has 100k troops gathered at the Ukrainian border. That looks like more than a exercise to me and there are mumblings of an invasion. If they do all bets are off.

[Red-Soldier]

It`s all to do with fear though, isn`t it?

Putin want to make territorial gains, regain the Soviet Empire etc in order to be able to bask in a little glory and most importantly protect himself by solidifying his position. These dictator`s believe that someone is coming for them because that`s how they got where they are. The paranoia is real.

Indeed.  Hitler, Stalin , Putin, China, and our very own Johnson government - all totally paranoid about a bogeyman coming for them.

[Son of Spion]

Indeed.  Hitler, Stalin , Putin, China, and our very own Johnson government - all totally paranoid about a bogeyman coming for them.

Whilst lacking the self-awareness to realise that it's actually them who are the bogeymen.

[Cruiser]

Indeed.  Hitler, Stalin , Putin, China, and our very own Johnson government - all totally paranoid about a bogeyman coming for them.

Nato expansion towards Russia may have something to do with it 

[classycarra]

Nato expansion towards Russia may have something to do with it 

Nah. They invaded annexed Crimeria for their own reasons, as they did in Georgia - not because they've been scared into doing it by NATO.

And Putin's inferiority complex and fear also exists without NATO. He knows how he treats political opponents, after all.

[Red-Soldier]

Nato expansion towards Russia may have something to do with it 

As someone with Eastern European heritage, I'm very aware how Russia / Soviet Union operates / has operated in the past.

He would've hoovered up the Baltic States ages ago, if he thought he could get away with it.

As Classy said, I wasn't aware that Nato forced him to invade Ukraine.

[Jshooters]

Nah. They invaded annexed Crimeria for their own reasons, as they did in Georgia - not because they've been scared into doing it by NATO.

And Putin's inferiority complex and fear also exists without NATO. He knows how he treats political opponents, after all.

Their own reasons being that they need a ‘warm water port’ to launch their naval ships from. For a few months a year the Russian ports are frozen so they need access to ports that are open all year round.

[Nobby Reserve]

Their own reasons being that they need a ‘warm water port’ to launch their naval ships from. For a few months a year the Russian ports are frozen so they need access to ports that are open all year round.

Bit more complex than that, though.

Sevastopol had been the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet since 1783, when the whole of Crimea was part of the Russian Empire. Obviously after the Revolution, the naval base and wider Crimea were within the [ultimately] USSR. In 1954, Khrushchev 'transferred' Crimea from Russia to Ukraine, which was largely symbolic since both were in the USSR anyway (and was also technically against USSR & Russian law). As you'd expect, the breakdown of the USSR created a problem, which was barely solved by a lease treaty that was renewed (to 2042) in 2010, and there's been intermittent flash-points along the way. Ukrainians view it as a source of national pride, although there's more ethnic Russians in the Crimea than ethnic Ukrainians. When there's a Moscow stooge government in Ukraine, things settled; when an anti-Moscow government comes in, they blow the nationalist rhetoric dog whistle.


Anyway, tonight's film choice is The Day After or Threads.

[classycarra]

Bit more complex than that, though.

Sevastopol had been the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet since 1783, when the whole of Crimea was part of the Russian Empire. Obviously after the Revolution, the naval base and wider Crimea were within the [ultimately] USSR. In 1954, Khrushchev 'transferred' Crimea from Russia to Ukraine, which was largely symbolic since both were in the USSR anyway (and was also technically against USSR & Russian law). As you'd expect, the breakdown of the USSR created a problem, which was barely solved by a lease treaty that was renewed (to 2042) in 2010, and there's been intermittent flash-points along the way. Ukrainians view it as a source of national pride, although there's more ethnic Russians in the Crimea than ethnic Ukrainians. When there's a Moscow stooge government in Ukraine, things settled; when an anti-Moscow government comes in, they blow the nationalist rhetoric dog whistle.


Anyway, tonight's film choice is The Day After or Threads.

Yeah the Russian claim to Sevastopol/Ukraine is about as reasonable as the UK moving into Jamaica or India and saying they are taking over control of their ports cos they were once their imperial 'property'

[Nobby Reserve]

Yeah the Russian claim to Sevastopol/Ukraine is about as reasonable as the UK moving into Jamaica or India and saying they are taking over control of their ports cos they were once their imperial 'property'

Yeah... but no. Nothing like.

[classycarra]

Yeah... but no. Nothing like.

Substitute your first line:

"Sevastopol had been the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet since 1783, when the whole of Crimea was part of the Russian Empire."

with this:

"Port Royal had been the home of the Royal Navy command in Jamaica since 1655, when the whole of Jamaica was part of the British Empire."

(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica_Station_(Royal_Navy)  )

Still don't think it's anything alike? If so, I'd love to know why not?

Otherwise would seen a bit likely that it's this not new viewpoint we encounter every so often in the UK, that:

- western imperialism='bad'
- non-western imperialism='ooh it's a bit more complicated, and not really that bad or the same'

[Nobby Reserve]

Basic geography, mate.

[classycarra]

Basic geography, mate.

Oh aye yeah, nearby imperialism isn't as bad as far away imperialism. Good argument you've got there

Here you go then, an alternative with a country bordering the UK to appease the pedantic:



Substitute your first line:

"Sevastopol had been the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet since 1783, when the whole of Crimea was part of the Russian Empire."

with this:

"Cork Harbour had been the home of the Royal Navy command in Ireland since 1805, when the whole of Ireland was part of the British Empire."

Sources:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Cork_Harbour#/Military
http://www.corkshipwrecks.net/navalfleetsqueenstown.html

[Yorkykopite]

Basic geography, mate.

Calais is ours!

The serious point about the Crimea is that it was an act of conquest by Putin. A forced annexation that has not been recognised by the nation that Crimea was torn from or the United Nations. A plebiscite was held, certainly. But the voters were surrounded by a ring of bayonets. 

The real owners of Crimea are perhaps neither Ukraine nor Russia, but the Tatars. It was their land. But Stalin forcibly removed them and sent them eastwards. Now Putin is mopping them up. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/3/7/putins-war-on-the-crimean-tatars

[Cruiser]

As someone with Eastern European heritage, I'm very aware how Russia / Soviet Union operates / has operated in the past.

He would've hoovered up the Baltic States ages ago, if he thought he could get away with it.

They joined Nato during his shaky first term as president. If he was in charge before, then no doubt he would have mopped them up before they could join.

As Classy said, I wasn't aware that Nato forced him to invade Ukraine.

Pre-emptive action. Its no secret Ukraine has expressed its intent to join the Nato alliance and Putin is concerned about its eastward expansion. I'm quite sure if you had a military alliance with 3000+ nukes edging closer towards you, you'd almost certainly be concerned and take pre-emptive action to stop them without full blown direct confrontation.

Of course that alone isn't why he's invading former Soviet territories. As a member of the KGB he saw the Soviet Union fall apart in front of him and trying to return to former glory is high on his agenda.

[classycarra]

Pre-emptive action. Its no secret Ukraine has expressed its intent to join the Nato alliance and Putin is concerned about its eastward expansion. I'm quite sure if you had a military alliance with 3000+ nukes edging closer towards you, you'd almost certainly be concerned and take pre-emptive action to stop them without full blown direct confrontation

Ah yes, the good old fashioned invasion of a neighbour prior to that country being able to better defend it self from being invaded through alliance. How noble.

I'm sure the Ukranians and conscripted Russians and their families are consoled about the thousands of deaths, reassured that it was just a minor invasion before Ukraine was able to defend itself and that their dead family were at least not a consequence of a "full blown direct confrontation" or something that's actually bad like that.

[Yorkykopite]

T
Pre-emptive action. Its no secret Ukraine has expressed its intent to join the Nato alliance and Putin is concerned about its eastward expansion.

The problem is that Ukraine is a sovereign nation. It isn't part of the Russian Empire anymore. That means it can decide its own foreign policy. This is not Putin's business.

[Cruiser]

The problem is that Ukraine is a sovereign nation. It isn't part of the Russian Empire anymore. That means it can decide its own foreign policy. This is not Putin's business.

Now only if global politics was that simple and everyone minded their own business 

[Nobby Reserve]

The problem is that Ukraine is a sovereign nation. It isn't part of the Russian Empire anymore. That means it can decide its own foreign policy. This is not Putin's business.

The problem is, because of a symbolic 'giving' of the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, when the fact the whole region was within the USSR meant it didn't really matter, the break-up of the USSR left the Russian Black Sea Base in another country.

Further complicated by the fact that ethnic Russians had long been by far the dominant demographic in the wider Crimea area (per 2014 figures, 67.9% of the population of Crimea was ethnic Russian; 15.7% Ukrainian; 10.6% Tatar)

It was obviously, with hindsight, a blunder gifting Crimea (an area that, prior to the USSR, had been in Russia, and before that a remnant of a Golden Horde Khanate under Ottoman 'protection') to Ukraine - a state that, in none of its incarnations through history, had ever ruled or included Crimea.

This is why comparisons to historical European colonial imperialism are silly.

I despise Putin and the corrupt, oppressive, human rights-denying Oligarchy he rules over with his iron fist. But on Crimea, I do think Russia has a legitimate claim.

And when Ukrainian nationalism is riven with far-right neo-fascism, the enemy of mine enemy is, in this case, not my friend.

[So… Howard Philips]

Of course that alone isn't why he's invading former Soviet territories. As a member of the KGB he saw the Soviet Union fall apart in front of him and trying to return to former glory is high on his agenda.

Irony?

[Yorkykopite]

The problem is, because of a symbolic 'giving' of the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, when the fact the whole region was within the USSR meant it didn't really matter, the break-up of the USSR left the Russian Black Sea Base in another country.

Further complicated by the fact that ethnic Russians had long been by far the dominant demographic in the wider Crimea area (per 2014 figures, 67.9% of the population of Crimea was ethnic Russian; 15.7% Ukrainian; 10.6% Tatar)

It was obviously, with hindsight, a blunder gifting Crimea (an area that, prior to the USSR, had been in Russia, and before that a remnant of a Golden Horde Khanate under Ottoman 'protection') to Ukraine - a state that, in none of its incarnations through history, had ever ruled or included Crimea.

This is why comparisons to historical European colonial imperialism are silly.

I despise Putin and the corrupt, oppressive, human rights-denying Oligarchy he rules over with his iron fist. But on Crimea, I do think Russia has a legitimate claim.

And when Ukrainian nationalism is riven with far-right neo-fascism, the enemy of mine enemy is, in this case, not my friend.

Your last point is rather spoilt by the fact that Russian nationalism is even more riven with far-right neo-fascism. And a neo-fascism that is sponsored by the present regime. Those Russian soldiers who've been menacing Ukraine for the last few years are a genuine fascist paramilitary force.

As for the Crimean peninsular, it does sit rather awkwardly in the middle of Ukraine. It's not quite as detached from Russia as Kaliningrad, granted, but until the Russians built a connecting bridge over the Straits of Kerch after the invasion, the Crimea was not connected to Russia at all. It's obvious why the region was awarded to Ukraine in the old USSR.

[Nobby Reserve]

Your last point is rather spoilt by the fact that Russian nationalism is even more riven with far-right neo-fascism. And a neo-fascism that is sponsored by the present regime. Those Russian soldiers who've been menacing Ukraine for the last few years are a genuine fascist paramilitary force.

No doubt. I'd already demonised Russia, though. And I was attempting to clarify that presenting an image of a 'poor, oppressed Ukraine bullied by big, bad Russia' was not really a reality (not that you yourself were in this instance)

As for the Crimean peninsular, it does sit rather awkwardly in the middle of Ukraine. It's not quite as detached from Russia as Kaliningrad, granted, but until the Russians built a connecting bridge over the Straits of Kerch after the invasion, the Crimea was not connected to Russia at all. It's obvious why the region was awarded to Ukraine in the old USSR.

It doesn't sit 'in the middle of Ukraine'. It is a peninsula at the southern tip of Ukraine, joined by a narrow isthmus (and a road bridge further to the east, in addition to the road bridge linking it to Russia)

Worth noting as well that 'Ukraine' as a country has only ever been intermittently in existence - and most of that time as a form of Kiev Principality way smaller than the current borders, although expanding as 'Kievan Rus' in the 11th and 12th centuries. The area now recognised as Ukraine has been variously controlled (all or parts of) by the Lithuanians, Poles, Golden Horde, Ottomans, Russian Empire, Habsburgs, USSR, and other small statelets that no longer exist.

In all of the time it was in any way independent, its boundaries always fell short of even reaching the isthmus. The only time it extended beyond the Dnieper was when the vassal state that controlled the mouth of the Dnieper well to the west was part of the Kievan Rus. By WW1, the majority of what we now consider Ukraine had been within the Russian Empire for well over a century, the rest (West Ukraine) under the Austro-Hungary Empire.

In the aftermath of the Russian Revolution, parts of what we know as Ukraine splintered. With the eventual Bolshevik victory, the first re-emergence of a Ukrainian state emerged, and it was actually in the early days of the USSR (pre-Stalin) when its nominal borders were extended to close to what we see today - and there was even a movement by the Soviets to encourage Ukrainian cultural identity. Stalin, of course, was an evil, genocidal turd (and, along with his imposed Collectivisation and other mass-murdering policies, reversed the cultural freedoms the pre-Stalin Ukraine)

Anyway, the core point is that 'Ukraine' isn't a historical country with relatively established borders dating back centuries. It's a pretty modern construction, taking in areas that it had no real historical ties with, but whose borders were drawn largely for Soviet administrative reasons.

[scatman]

The problem is, because of a symbolic 'giving' of the Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, when the fact the whole region was within the USSR meant it didn't really matter, the break-up of the USSR left the Russian Black Sea Base in another country.

Further complicated by the fact that ethnic Russians had long been by far the dominant demographic in the wider Crimea area (per 2014 figures, 67.9% of the population of Crimea was ethnic Russian; 15.7% Ukrainian; 10.6% Tatar)

It was obviously, with hindsight, a blunder gifting Crimea (an area that, prior to the USSR, had been in Russia, and before that a remnant of a Golden Horde Khanate under Ottoman 'protection') to Ukraine - a state that, in none of its incarnations through history, had ever ruled or included Crimea.

This is why comparisons to historical European colonial imperialism are silly.

I despise Putin and the corrupt, oppressive, human rights-denying Oligarchy he rules over with his iron fist. But on Crimea, I do think Russia has a legitimate claim.

And when Ukrainian nationalism is riven with far-right neo-fascism, the enemy of mine enemy is, in this case, not my friend.

yeah but people here will downplay ukrainian fascism to you know be against Russia, despite ukrainians joining up to the Nazis willy nilly and still displaying that kind of love for the far right. The Ukrainians have the gall to complain about Crimea being taken over when they murdered all the jews and poles that lived in the city of Lviv and annexed it to their new state.

[Yorkykopite]

It doesn't sit 'in the middle of Ukraine'. It is a peninsula at the southern tip of Ukraine, joined by a narrow isthmus (and a road bridge further to the east, in addition to the road bridge linking it to Russia)

I don't think you've done yourself any favours there Nobby. I already said it was a "peninsular" - and as such is not surrounded by anything but sea on three sides. On the fourth side it is connected to Ukraine - the only country, indeed, it is connected to by land. Yes, there is now a bridge to Russia. I said that too. But since the bridge was built following the military invasion of Crimea by the Russians (presumably to allow Russian military forces an 'overland' route into its newly conquered territory) it hardly buttresses the idea that Crimea was always really 'Russian'!

Worth noting as well that 'Ukraine' as a country has only ever been intermittently in existence - and most of that time as a form of Kiev Principality way smaller than the current borders, although expanding as 'Kievan Rus' in the 11th and 12th centuries. The area now recognised as Ukraine has been variously controlled (all or parts of) by the Lithuanians, Poles, Golden Horde, Ottomans, Russian Empire, Habsburgs, USSR, and other small statelets that no longer exist.

This is a dodgy argument too. 'India' didn't really exist as a country either before 1947. Like Ukraine it has been colonised, conquered, partitioned, attached to various empires. But no one in their right mind questioned the authenticity of Indian nationalism or the right of 'India' to exist after independence. The same is true of Italy before unification. Germany too for that matter, which was split between two empires (sometimes three) and which also consisted of scores of often mutually hostile kingdoms and principalities. These countries might have existed "in the mind" but their territorial integrity was as compromised - perhaps more so - than even Ukraine's.

Don't get me started on Poland - or 'Poland' as most people would have referred to it in the 19th century. Indeed I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't some members of Putin's Imperium who still think of it as 'Poland'. They certainly don't seem to think Lithuania is a real country.

yeah but people here will downplay ukrainian fascism to you know be against Russia, despite ukrainians joining up to the Nazis willy nilly and still displaying that kind of love for the far right. The Ukrainians have the gall to complain about Crimea being taken over when they murdered all the jews and poles that lived in the city of Lviv and annexed it to their new state.

Interesting post.

Did you hear what Stalin (sorry, 'the Russians') did to the Ukrainians in the 1930s?

Or for that matter to the Crimean Tatars after the war?

[Nobby Reserve]

snip

So you know... I'm out.

I've said all I've got to say and if you want to nitpick and play semantics to draw false equivalents, I can't be arsed. I'll let others judge.

[Yorkykopite]

So you know... I'm out.

I've said all I've got to say and if you want to nitpick and play semantics to draw false equivalents, I can't be arsed. I'll let others judge.

I do these things?

Ah well. You do seem to have a persistent problem with being contradicted by reasonably well-thought out replies. That's not a problem at all, although it's a bit odd on a discussion board.

[Nobby Reserve]

I do these things?

Ah well. You do seem to have a persistent problem with being contradicted by reasonably well-thought out replies. That's not a problem at all, although it's a bit odd on a discussion board.

I've said all there is; any more is going round in circles and boring the shite out of everyone.

I've no problem being contradicted. Over the years, I've learned so much from many people on forums who are experts on a certain topic, and even changed my position at times. I've also learned to recognise people who have a fixed position and will argue the toss to support that personal opinion in order to get the last say.

[Yorkykopite]

I've said all there is; any more is going round in circles and boring the shite out of everyone.

I've no problem being contradicted. Over the years, I've learned so much from many people on forums who are experts on a certain topic, and even changed my position at times. I've also learned to recognise people who have a fixed position and will argue the toss to support that personal opinion in order to get the last say.

You are a model for us all.

[bigbonedrawky]

Oh aye yeah, nearby imperialism isn't as bad as far away imperialism. Good argument you've got there

Here you go then, an alternative with a country bordering the UK to appease the pedantic:



Substitute your first line:

"Sevastopol had been the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet since 1783, when the whole of Crimea was part of the Russian Empire."

with this:

"Cork Harbour had been the home of the Royal Navy command in Ireland since 1805, when the whole of Ireland was part of the British Empire."

Sources:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Cork_Harbour#/Military
http://www.corkshipwrecks.net/navalfleetsqueenstown.html

If we compare it to Gibraltar we might look like the bad guys.   

[classycarra]

If we compare it to Gibraltar we might look like the bad guys.   

not sure who the 'we' is here, but if it's the british empire i think you've accidentally stumbled into agreeing with me (and disagreeing with nobby's apologism for russia's imperialist invasion).

i don't see that there's a moral argument/defence for the (hypothetical example) brits to claim ports in ireland, which is what nobby reserve was doing for the russian state.

[Linudden]

I think it's a bad job from all sides that there hasn't even been an attempt to peacefully resolve the Crimea situation. It's quite evident that the locals didn't see Russia as invaders and identify as Russians so I don't begrudge them that.

However, if there was a settlement that lead to a permanent UN buffer zone on the Ukraine-Russia border and Russian withdrawal of support for the Donbas and Luhansk rebels in exchange for Crimean recognition as part of Russia I think it'd benefit everybody. Especially the living standards for the Crimean people who have been stuck in a limbo for a very long time. Commerce and tourism could then finally blossom again, giving the locals a well-needed boost after some rough years. Crimea being back under Ukrainian control is a pipe dream of western media and Kiev politicians and there needs to be a bit more of a sober analysis on that front. If the locals weren't identifying as Russians all along it'd be different.

With regards to Russia, their space debris accident is a lot more intriguing though. Seemed a bit reckless!

[TriumphOfTruth]

This is a dodgy argument too. 'India' didn't really exist as a country either before 1947.

No this is a dodgy argument. The concept of a 'nation-state' is a recent invention in the long view of history and more or less a Western concept.

India and China are civilizational states and by and large India has been united twice under an indigenous culture:

1) Maurya Empire
2) Maratha Empire

India has existed 3000 years before the Roman empire was even a thing and will exist 3000 more years from now.

[Yorkykopite]

No this is a dodgy argument. The concept of a 'nation-state' is a recent invention in the long view of history and more or less a Western concept.

You clearly didn't read the next sentence but one. Here it is again:  "But no one in their right mind questioned the authenticity of Indian nationalism or the right of 'India' to exist after independence."

[TriumphOfTruth]

My issue was with the framing "India did not exist before 1947".

India has existed since antiquity under different names and different forms.

Perhaps, I took umbrage at that statement because the Indian Left have co-opted arguments like that to undermine the Dharmic cultural foundations of India