USSR invades Ukraine. (2 Viewers)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Yes, shame on all those who would challenge beacons of democracy like uhhhh [checks notes] Venezuela

There’s challenging and there’s simply threatening to use force to decide who should be in charge. Don’t act like we have a rigid moral compass that decides who we support and oppose

 

[SBT]

There’s challenging and there’s simply threatening to use force to decide who should be in charge. Don’t act like we have a rigid moral compass that decides who we support and oppose

I just mean that Venezuela isn’t perhaps the best hill to die on when advancing this argument. Plenty of countries thought that election was completely illegitimate and didn’t recognise the ‘winner’.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The West has been initiating regime changes in more countries than you can shake a continental stick at for a long time. Some dictators are fine, but the ones who decide not to do what we like or as we say must get removed. We even overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government to install the Shah simply because of oil interests. Turned out well, that. We were also quite happy to let Pinochet overthrow another democratically elected Chilean government for political convenience. Plenty of other examples we could go into there.

In the more recent past there was very serious talk in the US of using military force on Venezuela if their democratically elected leader remained in office. We decide to invade other countries not based on whether the dictator is a threat or criminal, but based on whether they have fallen out of favour or are harbouring some valuable resource. Take Hillary Benn’s applause winning speech demanding bombs be dropped on Syria in the name of freedom at the same time as Boko Haram was unleashing itself on Nigeria.


Longer ago we were the ultimate land grabbers who thought little of invading vast swathes of land and taking what we wanted. We were just as deplorable for doing that then as Putin is for what he is doing now. Many times since we have decided who should lead a country instead of those who actually live there. Just we have managed to do it usually without sending in the armed forces.

You’ve cited examples that are absolutely valid if we still lived in the Cold War era. At that point, US foreign policy was geared towards containing communism at all and any cost. At the expense of democratically elected governments and that is a stain on their history.

This same behaviour, which you correctly call out for being wrong, is happening right now in Ukraine. Yet, you’re bringing up events that happened when my mum was a toddler. I’m sorry, but what the USA did or didn’t do 40-50 years ago is just not relevant. They should’ve defended democracy and it’s precisely these historical examples why the West needs to back Ukraine.

Again, it’s worth pointing out that even in the US interventions, they weren’t systematically undermining the territory of their neighbours and annexing their territory. I’m sure you’ll mention that US did precisely that to Mexico in the 19th century…

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I just mean that Venezuela isn’t perhaps the best hill to die on when advancing this argument. Plenty of countries thought that election was completely illegitimate and didn’t recognise the ‘winner’.

I mean I’ve used plenty of others in that post and I could use plenty more. The West has overthrown democracies in favour of dictators ample times and allies itself to other dictators for its own convenience.

Just when someone from the other side does it, does it become unacceptable.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I mean I’ve used plenty of others in that post and I could use plenty more. The West has overthrown democracies in favour of dictators ample times and allies itself to other dictators for its own convenience.

Just when someone from the other side does it, does it become unacceptable.

They both are aren’t they

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I mean I’ve used plenty of others in that post and I could use plenty more. The West has overthrown democracies in favour of dictators ample times and allies itself to other dictators for its own convenience.

Just when someone from the other side does it, does it become unacceptable.

What you fail to mention is that most of those examples were in the Cold War where the US and USSR were playing tit for tat in trying to expand communist and anti-communist regimes.

The geopolitical context was very different and not really relevant to the 21st century anymore.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

You’ve cited examples that are absolutely valid if we still lived in the Cold War era. At that point, US foreign policy was geared towards containing communism at all and any cost. At the expense of democratically elected governments and that is a stain on their history.

This same behaviour, which you correctly call out for being wrong, is happening right now in Ukraine. Yet, you’re bringing up events that happened when my mum was a toddler. I’m sorry, but what the USA did or didn’t do 40-50 years ago is just not relevant. They should’ve defended democracy and it’s precisely these historical examples why the West needs to back Ukraine.

Again, it’s worth pointing out that even in the US interventions, they weren’t systematically undermining the territory of their neighbours and annexing their territory. I’m sure you’ll mention that US did precisely that to Mexico in the 19th century…

No. I can simply refer to what they were doing to Cuba for the last 50-60 years. The only time where progress was made there was when Obama chose to soften his stance, then his orange successor turned back up the heat on Cuba and tore up the Iranian nuclear deal which was also going in the right direction.

We seem to be going round in circles. The West does not use people being ‘good’ as the basis for whether they should remain in power. We ally to some and invade others usually leaving carnage behind. Saddam was an acceptable dictator until he wasn’t. The mujahideen in Afghanistan were useful allies until the Cold War ended.

We are facilitating horrific crimes in Yemen as we speak and have been for years, but nobody is sanctioning Saudi Arabia or ourselves for that matter. The USA is not a benevolent force, it’s simply on our side.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

What you fail to mention is that most of those examples were in the Cold War where the US and USSR were playing tit for tat in trying to expand communist and anti-communist regimes.

The geopolitical context was very different and not really relevant to the 21st century anymore.

What is the cut off date for writing off regime changes in democratic states?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

What is the cut off date for writing off regime changes in democratic states?

Well, context matters. The Cold War and Post-Cold War eras are very different and therefore deserve different treatment. Conflict, geopolitics and situations all change.

No. I can simply refer to what they were doing to Cuba for the last 50-60 years. The only time where progress was made there was when Obama chose to soften his stance, then his orange successor turned back up the heat on Cuba and tore up the Iranian nuclear deal which was also going in the right direction.

We seem to be going round in circles. The West does not use people being ‘good’ as the basis for whether they should remain in power. We ally to some and invade others usually leaving carnage behind. Saddam was an acceptable dictator until he wasn’t. The mujahideen in Afghanistan were useful allies until the Cold War ended.

We are facilitating horrific crimes in Yemen as we speak and have been for years, but nobody is sanctioning Saudi Arabia or ourselves for that matter. The USA is not a benevolent force, it’s simply on our side.

Cuba and Yemen Houthi rebels… two very bad examples of democracies. Iran also admitted itself it breached the nuclear deal in 2020.

Let’s cut to the chase… do you think Russia is in the right in this conflict?

If the answer is no, why are we debating?

 

[Otis]

17 miles long? Has Ukraine got any chance in hell against that?

 

[Otis]

This is purely my thinking out loud here and guessing, but I just wonder if this could be Putin's thinking.

Putin is a very clever man. He needs to win and wishes to look the hero to his people.

He must know there is a lot of opposition in Russia to what he is doing right now. But, what if the Ukrainian government are ousted and he puts a government in place and says that's it job, done, no more fighting, we have achieved our aim.

He then puts that out in front of the Russian people and from that point on in, any fightback from Ukraine resistance, would then be painted as terrorist acts, after all, Putin will have brought "peace and stability" to the region.

I can see the Russian people buying into that concept and therefore them then losing any sympathy for their Ukrainian brothers across the border.

Could that possibly be his plan? He doesn't care what WE think, but as has been said, I think he can only be toppled from within.

If he is suddenly seen as liberator and then peacemaker, it could change the perception of the Russian people.

Is this his mindset, that he believes the Russian people will come round in the end?

 

[clint van damme]

You’ve cited examples that are absolutely valid if we still lived in the Cold War era. At that point, US foreign policy was geared towards containing communism at all and any cost. At the expense of democratically elected governments and that is a stain on their history.

This same behaviour, which you correctly call out for being wrong, is happening right now in Ukraine. Yet, you’re bringing up events that happened when my mum was a toddler. I’m sorry, but what the USA did or didn’t do 40-50 years ago is just not relevant. They should’ve defended democracy and it’s precisely these historical examples why the West needs to back Ukraine.

Again, it’s worth pointing out that even in the US interventions, they weren’t systematically undermining the territory of their neighbours and annexing their territory. I’m sure you’ll mention that US did precisely that to Mexico in the 19th century…

If you belive Mossadegh was over thrown as part of a strategy to contain communism you'll believe Putin is going in to Ukraine because its full of nazis.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

View attachment 24009

17 miles long? Has Ukraine got any chance in hell against that?

It’s actually 40

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

View attachment 24009

17 miles long? Has Ukraine got any chance in hell against that?

Have Ukraine not got an airforce?

 

[Flying Fokker]

View attachment 24009

17 miles long? Has Ukraine got any chance in hell against that?

Maybe some European supplied drone attacks to set in a domino effect chain of explosions would help? It would block the road for one thing

 

[eastwoodsdustman]

Have Ukraine not got an airforce?

Itd be like shooting fish in a barrel

 

[Flying Fokker]

Have Ukraine not got an airforce?

Listened to Talk Radio expert last night. He says that some 70 Fighters are being 'given' by Europe and a dozen or so of them are from Turkey. The Turkish planes have strike capability so I guess the Ukranian Airforce is training their pilots to update their skills for their use? Get a move on...

 

[Otis]

It’s actually 40

Yes. I was up in the wee hours and it was 17 then

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

If you belive Mossadegh was over thrown as part of a strategy to contain communism you'll believe Putin is going in to Ukraine because its full of nazis.

Again, this happened in the early 50s in the context of McCarthyism where everyone was a communist.

In the context of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine some 70 years later is ancient history.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Just remembering the awe and wonder attack on iraqs capital. They’re just copying our lead with their bombing. War is just shit isn’t it

 

[Otis]

Just remembering the awe and wonder attack on iraqs capital. They’re just copying our lead with their bombing. War is just shit isn’t it

It is indeed. In the 21st century too. Humankind never, ever learns.

It's always over either power, greed or religion.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Again, this happened in the early 50s in the context of McCarthyism where everyone was a communist.

In the context of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine some 70 years later is ancient history.

Well no it pretty much entirely happened because of oil. But as discussed clearly there’s a time period after which apparently things like that don’t count. If Russia goes ‘clean’ for another 50 years it doesn’t cancel out what they did here.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Well no it pretty much entirely happened because of oil. But as discussed clearly there’s a time period after which apparently things like that don’t count. If Russia goes ‘clean’ for another 50 years it doesn’t cancel out what they did here.

Quite right

The double standards have always struck me as madness.

On our side it’s ok
Not on our side it’s not ok

That’s the mantra

It’s no wonder we are watching as hundreds of kids leave their homes and lives behind and worse many others dying in the way of a military arsenal that won’t be quelled

When good or evil is dependent on who’s side one is on we live in a moral vacuum

 

[tisza]

So why not send in a neutral contingent like the UN to sort it, rather than the US. Unless you believe the whole ‘Team America:World Police’ thing.

It's the whole issue around the UN - how effective can it be when it relies on the major powers agreeing?
Security council vetoes act as a permanent handbrake.
Take this case when Russia is on "trial" it can just veto any effective action against itself.
Every conflict area with 2 sides usually seems to have a superpower with a veto on each side.
UN peacekeeping forces are non-combatant and conflicts just go on around them. Current example is Mali. Military coup. French pull out. New junta invite the Wagner group in to fight opponents. Peacekeepers remain on the ground but can't get involved in stopping the Wagner group and its reported abuses.

 

[PVA]

Listened to Talk Radio expert last night. He says that some 70 Fighters are being 'given' by Europe and a dozen or so of them are from Turkey. The Turkish planes have strike capability so I guess the Ukranian Airforce is training their pilots to update their skills for their use? Get a move on...

The Turks have been providing drones. The other planes being given are planes that Ukrainian pilots can jump in and fly straight away with no further training needed.

The drones can only carry a couple of missiles per run so they take out the anti air units and then the planes come along to do the main damage

 

[tisza]

Have Ukraine not got an airforce?

Just not as modern as Russia's and Russia has extensive anti-air capabilities.
Russian airforce itself hasn't established air superiority due to Ukranian anti-air capabilities - one of the reasons why countries are sending new anti-air missiles etc because Ukraine using so many of their own.
But it must have some relevance that Russia is confident to build up such a concentrated force so close to Kiev without fears for its safety.

 

[duffer]

Have Ukraine not got an airforce?

About a tenth the size of Russia's, and pretty much the first thing that Putin went for. I don't think there's any realistic chance of them getting air strikes going against the convoy...

 

[duffer]

Just for perspective, an alternative view on NATO expansion. I'm not even for a moment going to suggest that this justifies Putin's actions here or elsewhere, but it is an interesting read...

Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored | Ted Galen Carpenter

It has long been clear that Nato expansion would lead to tragedy. We are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance

www.theguardian.com

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

It's the whole issue around the UN - how effective can it be when it relies on the major powers agreeing?
Security council vetoes act as a permanent handbrake.
Take this case when Russia is on "trial" it can just veto any effective action against itself.
Every conflict area with 2 sides usually seems to have a superpower with a veto on each side.
UN peacekeeping forces are non-combatant and conflicts just go on around them. Current example is Mali. Military coup. French pull out. New junta invite the Wagner group in to fight opponents. Peacekeepers remain on the ground but can't get involved in stopping the Wagner group and its reported abuses.

And I wonder where the model of only the strong win

On this Putin needs to be held to account. I’d love to be a pacifist but this world requires more, and pursuing peace is costly and sacrificial.

I know putin would love us to escalate things so he can escalate things more but it seems wrong to let Ukraine be inevitably destroyed

 

[clint van damme]

Again, this happened in the early 50s in the context of McCarthyism where everyone was a communist.

In the context of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine some 70 years later is ancient history.

It was after the 2nd World War which has been referenced plenty in this thread, these things do resonate, though to be fair, I didn't bring it up, just commented on it

 

[PVA]

About a tenth the size of Russia's, and pretty much the first thing that Putin went for. I don't think there's any realistic chance of them getting air strikes going against the convoy...

Russia have barely used their airforce yet for some reason and lots of units getting annihilated on the ground because of it.

Some theories why here for anyone interested:

The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force

On the fifth day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, one of many unanswered questions is why Russia has launched a military campaign at huge cost with maximalist objectives, and then declined to use the vast majority of its fixed wing combat aircraft.

rusi.org

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

13 year old Ukrainian girl in Liverpool on bbc talking more sense than any person involved. Her grandparents are in Ukraine

Bless her

Only solution is for putin and Russia to lay down their arms

 

[CCFCSteve]

Russia have barely used their airforce yet for some reason and lots of units getting annihilated on the ground because of it.

Some theories why here for anyone interested:

The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force

On the fifth day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, one of many unanswered questions is why Russia has launched a military campaign at huge cost with maximalist objectives, and then declined to use the vast majority of its fixed wing combat aircraft.

rusi.org

Some of this re-enforces the view that the scale of the invasion was pretty much unplanned logistically. I’ve heard various stories of Russian soldiers believing they were just going on training exercises or heading to Crimea. Decisions around the wider invasion were apparently kept between a small number of people due to the amount of intel US and UK had been picking up/disseminating publicly. Putin also seemed to believe ukraine would just roll over so there wasn’t the need for proper detailed planning. This appears to have led to an initial mess logistically. Who knows for sure though

I really hope this is not the case but unfortunately it looks like Ukraine have bravely fought themselves into a position where they are likely to be hit even harder and indiscriminately by the Russians ie militarily and civilians. I just hope they can continue to hold on (until some kind of ceasefire) and that the Russian public get to see what a lying scumbag Putin is and that they have been involved in a full scale aggressive invasion

 

[duffer]

Just not as modern as Russia's and Russia has extensive anti-air capabilities.
Russian airforce itself hasn't established air superiority due to Ukranian anti-air capabilities - one of the reasons why countries are sending new anti-air missiles etc because Ukraine using so many of their own.
But it must have some relevance that Russia is confident to build up such a concentrated force so close to Kiev without fears for its safety.

I wonder if part of it is just that Putin doesn't really care about the cost to his own ground forces, as long as he takes his objective - I could certainly believe that. Even so though, you'd have to think that his commanders on the ground wouldn't care for being sitting ducks. Perhaps they're trying to draw out whatever is left of the Ukrainian air force?

Either way, at some point they're going to have to move into the city if they want to take it, presumably. At that point I don't know how much use air superiority will be, I can only guess that it's going to be horrific for both sides.

 

[PVA]

Some of this re-enforces the view that the scale of the invasion was pretty much unplanned logistically. I’ve heard various stories of Russian soldiers believing they were just going on training exercises or heading to Crimea. Decisions around the wider invasion were apparently kept between a small number of people due to the amount of intel US and UK had been picking up/disseminating publicly. Putin also seemed to believe ukraine would just roll over so there wasn’t the need for proper detailed planning. This appears to have led to an initial mess logistically. Who knows for sure though

Yes indeed.

I think the phrase is, 'bad generals think tactics, good generals think logistics', or words to that effect.