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

[Jiminy Cricket]

Rooted in our complex history with Britain.  My grandmother used to have a pop off my uncle for "taking the queens shilling"

Joining Nato now seems further away than ever in my opinion as sinn Fein is now the largest political party here and they're vehemently anti Nato. That's despite erasing all rhetoric about that topic from their website recently. But that might be more of a topic for the Irish politics thread.

I think there was a strong element of 'my enimy's enimy is my friend' with Ireland's neutrality in WWII. But, for most Irish men who faught the Nazis, they reasoned that they were an even greater enemy. I doubt the insult of taking the Queen's shilling was the main driving force most Irish men who enlisted.

I am not downplaying any of the appalling history of England in Ireland. I can even understand Ireland's neutrality. Although, some of this is hindsight - the full extent of Nazi attrocities only becoming generally known after the war - I think Ireland's neutrality was indeed wrong.

I recall (as a yound child) asking my Irish granddad if he was in the war and being very puzzled when he explained that he wasn't because Ireland was neutral.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Ireland was famously neutral during the Second World War, and continued to be so after the war was over. There were two basic reasons. The first was the understandable desire - as expounded by De Valera - to avoid identifying the new Republic too closely with British foreign policy. The second was a pragmatic realisation that the country could rely on the Royal Navy to protect its shores - which it did - since the British didn't want Ireland to be used by the Nazis as a launching pad for the invasion of England, Scotland and Wales. This was obviously a very cheap form of defence for Ireland. It paid nothing! And for all the talk about Britain being just as much a potential enemy as Germany, no Irish man or woman really believed they were threatened by the British.

I guess that since 1945 the Irish taxpayer has rather liked not paying for their own defence. Being a full member of NATO will obviously hit them in the pocket a bit. Hence - as described by a poster above - the reluctance of Irish politicians of any stripe to get serious about it.

But the widespread hatred for 'The English' surely factored into this too.

[FlashGordon]

But the widespread hatred for 'The English' surely factored into this too.

Definitely. It's 'the Brits' not ' the English' by the way. I've touched on this before, it's not aimed at the ordinary man or woman in Britain, more the British establishment or gentleman class.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Definitely. It's 'the Brits' not ' the English' by the way. I've touched on this before, it's not aimed at the ordinary man or woman in Britain, more the British establishment or gentleman class.

Well, I've heard 'English' in the past. But I'll bow to your obvious better knowledge and position to comment on this.

[Sangria]

Ireland was famously neutral during the Second World War, and continued to be so after the war was over. There were two basic reasons. The first was the understandable desire - as expounded by De Valera - to avoid identifying the new Republic too closely with British foreign policy. The second was a pragmatic realisation that the country could rely on the Royal Navy to protect its shores - which it did - since the British didn't want Ireland to be used by the Nazis as a launching pad for the invasion of England, Scotland and Wales. This was obviously a very cheap form of defence for Ireland. It paid nothing! And for all the talk about Britain being just as much a potential enemy as Germany, no Irish man or woman really believed they were threatened by the British.

I guess that since 1945 the Irish taxpayer has rather liked not paying for their own defence. Being a full member of NATO will obviously hit them in the pocket a bit. Hence - as described by a poster above - the reluctance of Irish politicians of any stripe to get serious about it.

The unforgivable part was persecuting those who served on the Allied side, even after all that was known about the Nazis. Some of the persecution persisted into the 21st century.

[FlashGordon]

The unforgivable part was persecuting those who served on the Allied side, even after all that was known about the Nazis. Some of the persecution persisted into the 21st century.

That's a fairly grey area I'm afraid. You could write and talk about it for years and still never come to a conclusion everyone would agree on.

[Sangria]

That's a fairly grey area I'm afraid. You could write and talk about it for years and still never come to a conclusion everyone would agree on.

To me, there seems to be a fairly clear area of ground that everyone should have been able to agree on. Given the evilness of the Nazis that these men fought against, even if you don't celebrate them, the least you could do was not persecute them. From the articles of the period, IIRC there were men who had criminal records resulting from service against the Nazis who were barred from various aspects of life well into the 2000s. Even if you don't give them awards, what was the argument for punishing people for fighting against the Nazis, for over half a century?

[So… Howard Philips]

It took the Irish establishment 40 years to recognise the bravery of their UN peacekeepers at Jadotville so very unlikely that those who joined the British forces in WWII would be treated differently.

[Sangria]

It took the Irish establishment 40 years to recognise the bravery of their UN peacekeepers at Jadotville so very unlikely that those who joined the British forces in WWII would be treated differently.

I wasn't expecting their bravery to be recognised though. Just to not be treated as criminals.

[No666]

Definitely. It's 'the Brits' not ' the English' by the way. I've touched on this before, it's not aimed at the ordinary man or woman in Britain, more the British establishment or gentleman class.

But that gentleman class is English. I'd hazard when the Scots talk about 'the English' with animosity they are talking about that class in the main.

[Elmo!]

I'd hazard when the Scots talk about 'the English' with animosity

How predominant do you actually think this sort of language from Scots is?

[FlashGordon]

To me, there seems to be a fairly clear area of ground that everyone should have been able to agree on. Given the evilness of the Nazis that these men fought against, even if you don't celebrate them, the least you could do was not persecute them. From the articles of the period, IIRC there were men who had criminal records resulting from service against the Nazis who were barred from various aspects of life well into the 2000s. Even if you don't give them awards, what was the argument for punishing people for fighting against the Nazis, for over half a century?

Sadly, because of who they fought alongside. I'm not saying I agree with it, that's just the way it was. To Irish people, the Brits were still a bigger bogeyman than the Germans.

Two of my great granduncles fought for the British Army in WWI. Am I ashamed of that? No, but I can see why people at the time would have had a problem with it.

[FlashGordon]

But that gentleman class is English. I'd hazard when the Scots talk about 'the English' with animosity they are talking about that class in the main.

I know that, I'm aware of the intricacies of it all. Brits is just used as a catch all term here, I'm not saying it's correct.

[Jiminy Cricket]

To me, there seems to be a fairly clear area of ground that everyone should have been able to agree on. Given the evilness of the Nazis that these men fought against, even if you don't celebrate them, the least you could do was not persecute them. From the articles of the period, IIRC there were men who had criminal records resulting from service against the Nazis who were barred from various aspects of life well into the 2000s. Even if you don't give them awards, what was the argument for punishing people for fighting against the Nazis, for over half a century?

But you would have to transport yourself back to 1939. British history in Ireland was terrible, and some of it very recent to to 1939. Then, the full extent of what the Nazi machine was capable was (largely) unknow then. And, of course, factor in the widerspread attitude of well, it's nothing to do with me (across all peoples).

I agree with you, but context is surely at the centre of how we look at historical events. Psychology too. I'd suggest that times have changed and it is time to get over the past and for Ireland to consider joining NATO on its own merits.

[Sangria]

But you would have to transport yourself back to 1939. British history in Ireland was terrible, and some of it very recent to to 1939. Then, the full extent of what the Nazi machine was capable was (largely) unknow then. And, of course, factor in the widerspread attitude of well, it's nothing to do with me (across all peoples).

I agree with you, but context is surely at the centre of how we look at historical events. Psychology too. I'd suggest that time s have changed and it is time to get over the past and for Ireland to consider joining NATO on its own merits.

It's not just the context of 1939 though. Some of those criminal records lasted into the 2000s. Just how much hindsight does it require to recognise that the Nazis were worse than the British in 1939?

[Jiminy Cricket]

It's not just the context of 1939 though. Some of those criminal records lasted into the 2000s. Just how much hindsight does it require to recognise that the Nazis were worse than the British in 1939?

No argument from me. I was just dealing with the aspects which (somewhat) explain Ireland's position of historical nutrality and it continuing into the present day.

[FlashGordon]

It's not just the context of 1939 though. Some of those criminal records lasted into the 2000s. Just how much hindsight does it require to recognise that the Nazis were worse than the British in 1939?

That's a failing on our part, for sure. You do have to understand though that the people elected to make those sorts of decisions would be very wary of the optics of it all though especially when it comes round to canvassing for your next election. Not sure you quite get the deep rooted anger held in the past, and somewhat still to this day, towards 'the Brits' in Ireland.

[Sangria]

No argument from me. I was just dealing with the aspects which (somewhat) explain Ireland's position of historical nutrality and it continuing into the present day.

Just expressing my incredulity at how those criminal records weren't given a blanket pardon by the 1980s at the latest, let alone the 2000s. I get how the Irish at the time might have been hung up over the hated British, with the civil war and prior still in living memory. But with the passing of that generation, all those convictions should have been shelved as a historical curiosity.

For a similar example, see that Chinese Nationalist commander who imprisoned Chiang Kaishek and forced him to come to terms with Mao Zedong and form a common front against the Japanese. After said commander voluntarily freed Chiang, he allowed himself to be imprisoned in turn by the Kuomintang, being moved to Taiwan after the Communists took over the mainland. He was eventually freed after Chiang died in 1975, after some 40 years in prison. The Taiwanese government recognised that those he wanted to fight against were rather more relevant than the crimes he'd been convicted of. Neither side held any grudges, with Zhang Xueliang recognising the mood of the times and the fact that he'd committed a crime, and the Taiwanese government recognising that enough time and reflection had passed to change the perspective.

[FlashGordon]

Just expressing my incredulity at how those criminal records weren't given a blanket pardon by the 1980s at the latest, let alone the 2000s. I get how the Irish at the time might have been hung up over the hated British, with the civil war and prior still in living memory. But with the passing of that generation, all those convictions should have been shelved as a historical curiosity.

For a similar example, see that Chinese Nationalist commander who imprisoned Chiang Kaishek and forced him to come to terms with Mao Zedong and form a common front against the Japanese. After said commander voluntarily freed Chiang, he allowed himself to be imprisoned in turn by the Kuomintang, being moved to Taiwan after the Communists took over the mainland. He was eventually freed after Chiang died in 1975, after some 40 years in prison. The Taiwanese government recognised that those he wanted to fight against were rather more relevant than the crimes he'd been convicted of. Neither side held any grudges, with Zhang Xueliang recognising the mood of the times and the fact that he'd committed a crime, and the Taiwanese government recognising that enough time and reflection had passed to change the perspective.

With the greatest respect, that's easy for you to say. Also to a large number of people here, the occupation of our country still exists to this day. Everything isn't quite as historical as you like to point out.

[24/7]

Stay on topic please.

[Bend It Like Aurelio]

No argument from me. I was just dealing with the aspects which (somewhat) explain Ireland's position of historical nutrality and it continuing into the present day.

Ireland not joining NATO today will have nothing to do with its’ ideological ties to pacifism or neutrality. After all, it does open it’s airports to military aircraft from NATO, which indirectly ties it in with the defence of the organisation. Rather, I would say that it is more of an issue with money, as Ireland has a relatively meagre defence budget (0.3% to 0.5% of GDP), and it would probably want to maintain that stance over the long term.

[Bend It Like Aurelio]

Seems like the Russian advances are stalling, and they are losing ground in areas around Kharkiv. Think the May 9th parade in Moscow will be quite a sobering one.

[FlashGordon]

My apologies for moving the thread off topic, I'll bow out of it for a while.

[Bend It Like Aurelio]

https://twitter.com/stratcomcentre/status/1521838951526457345?s=21&t=JvfV7oZ56L2s1PU0R8ibMQ

To explain in simpler terms for some, the Ukrainian army is threatening to encircle a large part of the Russian invading force around a city called Izyum, where just a few days ago the military headquarters was hit, supposedly killing many senior Russian officers. This however still remains unconfirmed.

[Yorkykopite]

Oh just to add, there's still a few Irish men, women and children who feel threatened by the British to this day, not to mind in the 1940s.

Oh, I'm sure. And vice versa of course! 

In fact, I do believe the first bomb to kill a person in England in 1939 was laid by the IRA.

[No666]

https://twitter.com/stratcomcentre/status/1521838951526457345?s=21&t=JvfV7oZ56L2s1PU0R8ibMQ

To explain in simpler terms for some, the Ukrainian army is threatening to encircle a large part of the Russian invading force around a city called Izyum, where just a few days ago the military headquarters was hit, supposedly killing many senior Russian officers. This however still remains unconfirmed.

If they manage to encircle it, that would be game over, do you think?
Also, are you able to advise whether Stratcom is prone to exaggeration or whether its claims been pretty accurate so far?

[Red Beret]

In other words, we could do the same to Saint Petersburg as they could do to Bristol?

Pretty much. 

It's typical strong arm, bully boy tactics. They're trying to say we're a tiny, insignificant islands that's getting way too cocky and need putting in their place.

Now, I'm not saying he's wrong on that but we still have nuclear teeth. They can wipe us out, but we can still hurt them.

[Bend It Like Aurelio]

If they manage to encircle it, that would be game over, do you think?
Also, are you able to advise whether Stratcom is prone to exaggeration or whether its claims been pretty accurate so far?

The capture of villages around Kharkiv are reported by multiple sources, so the Eastward advance from Kharkiv by the Ukrainians are pretty much confirmed towards the town of Staryi Saltiv. Whether or not they can cut off the supply lines to Izyum remains to be seen, but it looks like they are threatening to do so south of the reservoir.

Game over? I don't profess to have a crystal ball. But it would be a huge blow to the Russians if they have to pull back from Izyum, because symbolically they would be prevented from cutting off the Ukrainians in the Donbass. The battle is very fluid though at the moment, but from the maps I've seen the Ukrainian forces numerically are outnumbering the Russians in the Kharkiv area.

[Musketeer Gripweed]

https://twitter.com/stratcomcentre/status/1521838951526457345?s=21&t=JvfV7oZ56L2s1PU0R8ibMQ

To explain in simpler terms for some, the Ukrainian army is threatening to encircle a large part of the Russian invading force around a city called Izyum, where just a few days ago the military headquarters was hit, supposedly killing many senior Russian officers. This however still remains unconfirmed.

I'm sure I read a couple of weeks ago that Izyum was where a lot of Russian tanks were made (I know, I thought exactly the same) and they were desperate to take control there. If they can't take that city it really doesn't look good for them.

[Bend It Like Aurelio]

I'm sure I read a couple of weeks ago that Izyum was where a lot of Russian tanks were made (I know, I thought exactly the same) and they were desperate to take control there. If they can't take that city it really doesn't look good for them.

If I remember correctly a lot of tanks during the Soviet era were made in Kharkiv, in the tractor factory KhTZ. Not sure about Izyum though, you could be correct too.

Just correcting myself, it wasn't KhTZ, but KhPZ (Malyshev Factory) in Kharkiv.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malyshev_Factory

[Red Beret]

The capture of villages around Kharkiv are reported by multiple sources, so the Eastward advance from Kharkiv by the Ukrainians are pretty much confirmed towards the town of Staryi Saltiv. Whether or not they can cut off the supply lines to Izyum remains to be seen, but it looks like they are threatening to do so south of the reservoir.

Game over? I don't profess to have a crystal ball. But it would be a huge blow to the Russians if they have to pull back from Izyum, because symbolically they would be prevented from cutting off the Ukrainians in the Donbass. The battle is very fluid though at the moment, but from the maps I've seen the Ukrainian forces numerically are outnumbering the Russians in the Kharkiv area.

If this is correct then it seems that, in some places at least, Russia has been unable to dig in defensively. I'm sure that will mean something in the long run.

[Musketeer Gripweed]

If I remember correctly a lot of tanks during the Soviet era were made in Kharkiv, in the tractor factory KhTZ. Not sure about Izyum though, you could be correct too.

Just correcting myself, it wasn't KhTZ, but KhPZ (Malyshev Factory) in Kharkiv.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malyshev_Factory

It's probably a lot more widespread than we know actually given their history.

Thinking back it was the military expert on Sky News that I heard saying about how strategic Izyum was because parts for the tanks were produced there. If they could take that factory over they could repair their damaged vehicles quicker.

Like I said though, it was weeks ago now. Not sure how many tanks they have left to repair now anyway.

[west_london_red]

It's probably a lot more widespread than we know actually given their history.

Thinking back it was the military expert on Sky News that I heard saying about how strategic Izyum was because parts for the tanks were produced there. If they could take that factory over they could repair their damaged vehicles quicker.

Like I said though, it was weeks ago now. Not sure how many tanks they have left to repair now anyway.

Considering the Ukrainians have generally been pretty on the ball tactically, I’d like to think the Ukrainians would destroy the factory rather then leave it for the Russians. 

[Bend It Like Aurelio]

Considering the Ukrainians have generally been pretty on the ball tactically, I’d like to think the Ukrainians would destroy the factory rather then leave it for the Russians.

The bulk of the Ukrainian defence industry is based in Kharkiv, and it seems they have been severely damaged since the beginning of the invasion. The front lines were literally right beside where most of the factories were, and a lot of the chemical facilities for propellants have been destroyed. As of now, the Ukrainians have little or no ability to manufacture their own munitions, never mind armoured vehicles or tanks. For example, the UK MOD has admitted it has been having trouble sourcing 122mm ammunition for the Ukrainian self propelled guns.

Analysts have been saying that this is the beginning of the shift by Ukraine to western armament and their associated calibres. One of the assumptions of the lend lease agreements being drawn up is for Ukraine to purchase not ex-Soviet military equipment, but Western ones, as the war may drag on for months. Even if it doesn’t, there is no way for the Ukrainians to turn back now.

[Yorkykopite]

A couple of barmpots here.

Ex- president and former gaolbird Lula thinks Zelensky is to blame for the Russian invasion:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/04/brazil-lula-zelenskiy-blame-war

Pope Francis, the famous Christian entertainer, thinks NATO is:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/pope-francis-says-nato-started-war-in-ukraine-by-barking-at-putins-door

[Zlen]

Nobody is trading weapons with them you thick bible licking idiot. They are giving them weapons to protect our own borders, your fucking border you sanctimonious bastard. God fucking damn it, what a pile of shit from self proclaimed 'moral authority'.

[didi shamone]

I think the leader of the worlds largest ever paedophile ring should probably refrain from moralizing altogether.

[classycarra]

A couple of barmpots here.

Ex- president and former gaolbird Lula thinks Zelensky is to blame for the Russian invasion:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/04/brazil-lula-zelenskiy-blame-war

Silly twat needs to shut the fuck up. His opposition raise the spectre of his association and admiration for Venezuela - you'd have thought he'd be smart enough to not parrot that dumb as shit regressive left nonsense that you expect from perennial marginal losers like Corbyn and Abbott rather than from someone with his experience.

Edit: Brazilian friend messaged me this thread https://twitter.com/OliverStuenkel/status/1522211693052407808?t=CkW2KqJmEJAu1K5zcLaHXw&s=08 - suggesting it's a play to the margins (discussed above) in his left coalition. Seems stupid, still

Pope Francis, the famous Christian entertainer, thinks NATO is:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/pope-francis-says-nato-started-war-in-ukraine-by-barking-at-putins-door

He [Pope knobhead] said that the real “scandal” of Putin’s war is “NATO barking at Russia’s door,” which he said caused the Kremlin to “react badly and unleash the conflict.”

No great surprise here, as chief catholic spin doctor this c*nt is obviously experienced at this - bit like how it's the childs fault for tempting the churches paedophiles

[Ravishing Rick Dude]

Maybe before he starts moralizing about things that he has got no clue, he should explain to us why his country Argentina always has served as a shelter for war criminals and psychopaths?

[Red Beret]

As a Catholic, I have to say Pope Francis has had a mare there. John Paul would have smacked the back of his head for a comment like that.