|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Tue 23 May 06:43
Biden confirms that the US will not stand in the way of F-16s being donated to Ukraine and that partners will train the Ukrainian fighter pilots.
The key thing with the F-16 is that there are so many variants - each with slightly different capabilities and different software - and so there needs to be a common standard chosen for the Ukrainian Air Force and number handed over with said standard.
The Dutch have reportedly halted a contract to sell 28 to a training company in the US that the USAF uses to train their pilots against. As is stands, the Danes have 33 of the A variant and are in the process of transitioning to the F-35 which could be sped up. Norway had 64, 32 of which were bought by Romania and it seems they could be redirected. Poland has 48 which are a mix of the C & D variants and the Greeks have 153 C variants.
So in total, that is nearly 300 F16s that Ukraine COULD receive. Couple that with the 130+ Leopard IIs / 200+ MBTs committed to Ukraine and the longer range missiles now being deployed, nevermind the intelligence sharing.
Russian partisans now operating quite openly in the border regions around UKraine and Lukashenko reportedly ill. You do have to wonder if Putin actually realises the extent of how f***ed he actually is...
Seems, rightly, nobody now gives a damn about the Kremlin`s threats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Tue 23 May 09:15
If you see a ship in a drydock, you might notice a string of zinc blocks attached to the hull below the waterline. These are known as sacrificial anodes.
They aim to protect from corrosion the steel and other metals used in constructing the hull (the cathode) by effectively becoming the more reactive material (the anode) in this natural process, which occurs when metals meet water and air.
I am convinced that Ukraine has become a sacrificial anode. It is destined to corrode, possibly indefinitely, to the point of utter destruction, while the countries surrounding it are protected from harm.
The Ukraine conflict will never be called a war, which it is. Instead, on the surface, it will remain a scuffle between Ukraine and Russia while the real action goes on thousands of miles from Kyiv.
For all his early heroics, it is evident that Zelensky today is little more than a globetrotting puppet for the `hawks" in the Pentagon and the senior NATO members. There is no hiding that this is a proxy war between NATO and Russia in every key measure, except personnel.
It is debatable whether the Russian invasion of Ukraine 15 months ago was down to an insane overestimation by Putin or a blindingly brilliant masterstroke by the planners in the Pentagon. Still, either way, the result is the same. Russia is in a hole, and it`s digging itself deeper.
For decades, American presidents have complained that too many NATO members enjoy the organisation`s benefits without them providing adequate funds to keep it afloat. It now looks like the Americans have found a creative solution to this problem.
Not only have they added two new well-financed members – Sweden and Finland – they have secured a method whereby other NATO members "voluntarily" supply Ukraine with their ageing weapons while doubtless placing expensive orders for new weaponry from the American military-industrial complex.
We could be sitting here in five years reading about the latest military supply to Ukraine. We have let loose a monster with an insatiable appetite.
As "win-wins" go, this is an absolute belter if you are American!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 23 May 10:02
"It is debatable whether the Russian invasion of Ukraine 15 months ago was down to an insane overestimation by Putin or a blindingly brilliant masterstroke by the planners in the Pentagon. Still, either way, the result is the same. Russia is in a hole, and it`s digging itself deeper."
Aye those silly old Russians were duped into committing a full scale invasion a mere 7 years or so after they annexed Crimea and partially invaded eastern Ukraine.
" The Ukraine conflict will never be called a war, which it is"
It will never be called a war? Maybe not in Russia but in the western world (not in Australia I guess) it is called the War in Ukraine by every media outlet I use.
"Not only have they added two new well-financed members – Sweden and Finland – they have secured a method whereby other NATO members "voluntarily" supply Ukraine with their ageing weapons while doubtless placing expensive orders for new weaponry from the American military-industrial complex."
Public opinion in Sweden and Finland had swung overwhelmingly in favour of joining NATO. Having a much larger, more powerful neighbour going on a murderous rampaging war of conquest does tend to get people a bit tetchy.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Tue 23 May 10:48
Fair comment, TOWK. However, you overlook the machinations by NATO that led up to the annexation of Crimea. Are you saying that Russia was not provoked into this action? Of course, it was.
Never EVER trust military experts who are interviewed in the media... they are ALL on the payroll of the military-industrial complex. This is why we get a hugely distorted view of the conflict. Add to this that so few journalists are reporting near the front line.
This is a televised war viewed from drones. We look down on tiny soldiers in trenches and watch little toy tanks getting blown to smithereens in this grotesque video game, and we accept what we are told as the truth. The only truth is that those tiny little specks are human beings, and there are 200,000+ people dead so far, with, obviously, many more to come.
And who was tetchy? Russia was operating on the basis of a signed agreement that NATO would not advance eastwards, which it has. And to add to its problems, it now has a new NATO member right on its NW border, Finland. Ukraine, a potential member, is on its SW border. The situation has completely backfired on Putin.
I am no supporter or defender of Putin, but I believe there is a whole backstory to this that is not being told.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Tue 23 May 16:43
Quote:
OzPar, Tue 23 May 10:48
Russia was operating on the basis of a signed agreement that NATO would not advance eastwards, which it has.
What signed agreement was that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Tue 23 May 17:56
On May 27, 1997, in Paris, Russian President Boris Yeltsin joined President Bill Clinton and the leaders of the 15 other NATO member states in signing the "Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation." It is known as the NATO-Russian Founding Act.
It was signed at a time when there was much optimism following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the effective ending of the Cold War. The Act contains NATO`s qualified pledge not to deploy nuclear weapons or station troops in the new member states.
This pledge forms the basis of Putin`s claims that Russia has been dudded by NATO, but it is evident that Western nations take a different interpretation of the treaty.
Another argument put forward by Russia is based on informal discussions that occurred in 1990 between Soviet and Western leaders. At the time, Soviet officials, including then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, were concerned about the future of the Soviet Union and wanted assurances that Germany`s reunification would not lead to an enlarged NATO presence on its eastern border. Western leaders, including U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, indicated that NATO would not expand its military infrastructure into the territories of the former East Germany.
However, interpreting these discussions as a formal, legally binding commitment not to expand NATO eastwards is heavily contested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Tue 23 May 18:15
There was no signed agreement. There was a verbal agreement between James Baker of the USA and President Gorbachev in February 1990.
Not that a signed agreement would have been worth any more than the recent Minsk accords that aimed to settle the conflict within Ukraine which followed the overthrow of the government in 2014. Gorbachev never understood who he was dealing with, unlike Stalin who always did. When Gorbachev agreed to a united Germany and withdrew Russian troops from what had been the east of that country he opened the door to Ukraine, a country that had been invaded twice by Germany in the 20th century. What NATO is undertaking now is a third attempt to control the agriculture and mineral resources of Ukraine for western use. Just as Nazi Germany employed fascist legions from surrounding countries to achieve this goal in WW2 so does NATO today enlist their offspring to offset heavy losses of manpower.
It took western media around two weeks to admit that Mariupol, the bastion of the Azov battalion who swore to die rather than surrender, had been taken by Russian forces. Most of the Azov battalion who survived decided to surrender. They had to change their name after that. The surrender of Bakhmut, described in western media as an impregnable fortress not so long ago, has yet to be acknowledged. Instead the Daily Express has as its main story a diversionary guerilla attack on a Russian border area. Check out the credentials of these self-styled `Russian partisans` like Denis Nikitin and you will find a CV chock full of fascist xenophobia.
The political situation within Ukraine is far from clear. Zelensky does not seem to have been in the country since early May while the best known military figure, Zheluzhny, has disappeared from public view. Rumours abound within Russian media- there is a confirmed report of his wife visiting a hospital- but no Russian spokesman has made any official comment thus far. Most probably the main players - the Pentagon, Zelensky and Zheluzhny -are trying to aportion blame for the loss of Bakhmut.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Wed 24 May 15:27
OzPar - an interesting take on the situation. There was never a signed agreement between Russia and the US regarding NATO. NATO is a voluntary organisation and state makes the sovereign decision to apply and ascend to the organisation. I don`t buy the whole thing about the American Military Industrial complex though as many member states don`t use American-made equipment - Belgium, Italy, UK, Germany, Sweden and France all have significant arms manufacturers and equip various nations in the alliance. For example, many states use the German Leopard as their MBT, a number also use the Eurofighter or others (such as the Dassault Raffale or Saab Gripen) as their main fighter and they are free to choose weaponry as long as it comes from a member or aligned state of NATO. It just so happens that Germany and the US are the biggest arms manufacturers rather than it being a whole conspiracy.
Sammer - UK, US, Swedish and German media have reported that Bakhmut has all-but fallen to Wagner other than small pockets of resistance. It does seem however that Ukrainian forces are pushing to encircle the city. The whole point of Bakhmut from the Ukrainian perspective was to fix Russian focus and resources, which they were very successful in doing. You probably are right to an extent that the partisan raids were "conveniently" timed but they are undoubtedly a major embarrassment to the Kremlin, however you want to spin it.
The only person I see behaving like a Nazi is Putin and he`s basically tried to repeat the same steps that Hitler took in the 1930s by trying to take lands that are lived on by a large portion of Russian speakers. Hitler did the same with the Polish Corridor, Sudetenland and Austria. This followed defeat in the First World War and Russia likewise was defeated in the Cold War. For Putin, this is a matter of Nationalistic Pride.
He and the FSB organised the bombing of the apartment blocks in Moscow just when he was on the rise to power and blamed it on the Chechens, who were seen as a problem to "Russian unity". Convenient that. More convenient though was how the site was cleared before it could be examined properly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/world/europe/russia-fsb-crime.html
You talk about Fascism, but you seem to ignore the effect of the Brezhnev doctrines on Russia and the various ethnicities of the Soviet Union being forced to learn Russian. You`ve complained about Ukrainian attempts to get Ukrainian taught more widely taught in schools while pro-Russia politicians in Ukraine were not willing to allow the Hungarian minority in the West to have the same right. Either you simply do not know these facts or you`re ignoring them - which is it?
An interesting interview on France24 by Ilya Ponomarev who is a former member of the Duma and now spokesman for the Freedom of Russia Legion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8cZPjaliL8
A quick reference to his credentials:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Ponomarev
Post Edited (Wed 24 May 15:30)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 25 May 01:19
HJ,
Your information is always from western media, including the claims of Russia bombing its own apartment blocks in Moscow; I live around 100 yards from one of the targets in the east of Moscow and no one here believes any of that narrative. I`ve spent many hours getting sozzled in bars locally and that western narrative has never surfaced. Every day I pass a memorial to those who were killed.
I was also one metro station away from a bombing by a black widow from Chechnya one morning about 12 years ago so am not unaware of the forces which are criminally active against the Russian Federation. Ukrainian guerrilla attacks are no more an inconvenience to the average Muscovite than were IRA bombers in London back in the day.
Ponomarev is a joke, a pseudo Communist whose family were part of the reason the USSR was destroyed. By the way, he has compared himself to Gerry Adams amongst others and could not contain his glee when the daughter of a Russian nationalist was killed by a car bomb recently. He was ecstatic that a civilian could be killed in such a fashion. A bit like Adams really.
Whenever you see the word `legion` you realise you are talking about a fascist grouping. The USSR did not `collapse` as reported in western media, it was destroyed from within by a group of self interested careerists- call them oligarchs as of now- who saw an opportunity to raid the public purse under the guise of `modernisation.` Much the same has happened in western democracies although not so alarmingly until of late since Blair- Gorbachev`s UK equivalent- surrendered more slowly to the power of capital. Starmer will see the process complete with the sale of the NHS and BBC. The local post office, library and local boozer are on borrowed time. Foodbanks for all. Then nobody will own anything of worth- a true nirvana indeed although we will still have our football team I suppose.
There are no magic weapons in this war: the magic weapon was developed in 1945 by the west and by the USSR in 1949. Anything else is a ploy to excite the tribal loyalties that lurk beneath the present NATO v Russian Federation conflict. There are those who would welcome a nuclear war although they can never state this openly for fear of being exposed as psychopaths. The only hope left is that the good people of the countries involved can find a common purpose amongst ourselves.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Thu 25 May 04:17
Sammer, I was taught Russian language, history and politics in Sweden BY RUSSIANS. The vast majority of sources that they taught with were actually Russian language and then translated by the lecturers into English and/or Swedish. This included sources on the apartment bombings. Had I been taught in the US or UK, then your repeated claims of "Western Bias" might hold some water but, considering that Sweden has largely been neutral and anti-NATO until Putin`s invasion of Ukraine, it just sounds absolutely ridiculous.
Are you actually aware of the UN Press from Reporters Sans Fronteirs? This is an internationally recognised and UN-funded organisation. Take a wee look and see where Russia actually is on that list. You really need to learn to think a wee bit more objectively about how the media in Russia and other authoritarian regimes actually functions. There is a reason that folk like Putin, Stalin, Mao, Xi etc rule with a cult of personality. Those from your generation are particularly susceptible to such things because of reliance on TV, Radio and Print Media for information. You never seem to acknowledge that your perspective is skewed
both by your generation and your living in the Moscow-Petersburg bubble. No doubt though, you will have some problem with this organisation despite the fact that it has Russian Citizens working for it.
https://rsf.org/en/index
The whole "Russia being sold out" conspiracy is something repeatedly peddled by Western Pro-Russia shills such as yourself. Gorbachev himself said that the USSR was undermined by "treachery within the Communist Party". Quite often what you get in these regimes is that incompetent people are placed in positions above their station because of Party Loyalty - the best example of this was Titos Yugoslavia - and this is much of the reason why the USSR was never efficiently run and why there is so much corruption in Russia today. Xi is another prime example of this - an extremely poorly educated man that can be controlled by others within the CCP. The other reality in the USSR/Warsaw Pact was that the various ethnicities in different republics got tired of the policies of Russification which started with the Brezhnev doctrines and the largest minorities voted for statehood, democratically, in 1991. Can you name a single one of the former republics where the populace would genuinely wish to re-unite with Russia? And, No, Belarus isn`t one. While you bleet on about supposed "Fascism", are you really dedicated to turning a blind eye to blatant Russian Imperialism?
It is kinda strange how any Russian that disagrees with your analysis is simply dismissed. Ponomarev was a Nuclear Physicist and it probably this level of intelligence that scares Putin enough to try so desperately to discredit the man. So tell me, what is he - part of a Fascist or a pseudo-Communist? Surely you can see the contraction there?!
Also not really sure what Starmer has to do with anything here...
T
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Thu 25 May 04:17
The suggestion that ANYONE would want a nuclear war is just how ridiculous your position is. And remember it is Putin - the man you support - who has been constantly sabre-rattling regarding with the nuclear threat. The reality is that he`s been told by Xi that China would consider use of a Tactical Nuke as unacceptable and he knows it would bring NATO intervention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 25 May 23:52
‘Cult of personality’ flatters Putin a bit. Even the UK’s latest edition of its own personality cult- King Charles- might outdo Putin in the charisma stakes.
Media control was not invented in your lifetime nor even mine. Susceptibility to propaganda is most easily recognised in those who claim to be immune to it, rather like sin. And it is no respecter of age, gender, creed or kind. The RSF media outlet you recommended has long been happy to take funding from neo-conservative elements and its language is shaped by the western world where it is based. So I’ll continue to digest my daily dog’s breakfast of Russian, UK and American news sources along with contributors on internet sites.
You initiated this thread clearly excited, like a boy with a new meccano set, about F-16 planes being ‘donated’ to Ukraine. (The bill for all the NATO weapons will be added to Ukraine’s tab for around the next 50 years.) These planes will be no more a ‘game changer’ than the HIMARS, Leopard Tanks and Patriot Missile Systems before them but will enrich the military complex and no doubt the scrap dealers and grave diggers close to combat zones. My comments about nuclear psychopaths should be seen partly in this context: initially Biden was adamant he would not send such planes for fear of escalation. Talk of ‘tactical nuclear exchange’ can be now heard here in Russia media and within the Pentagon itself.
The path taken by Ponomarev is a well trodden one. Posing as a leftist in his younger days before lurching to the right to reveal his true colours. UK examples would include Mandelson, Clarke, Straw and Reid although the best current example is Chancellor Scholz, one time outspoken critic of NATO aggression who now seems rather keen on war with Russia. Since NATO helped blow up his gas pipeline we have barely heard a cheep out of him. Starmer is of the same mould and I mentioned him since he has silenced critics within his own party over the conflict in Ukraine and will be delighted to pose as a trusted warmonger if ever elected PM.
I will attach a photo of me passing a giant mural dedicated to Julian Assange, a genuine independent journalist who has paid the price for his efforts and languishes in prison under NATO decree.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Fri 26 May 00:39
How many random journalists have "fallen" out of skyscrapers or been found cut up in briefcases? Russia hardly has journalistic integrity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Fri 26 May 10:35
The fact it`s illegal to call a war a war shows there is a big difference between the UK and Russia even allowing for the flaws in the UK.
At least we were able to call the second invasion of Iraq an invasion and a war and over one million had the opportunity to protest the war on the streets. In Russia you can`t do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Fri 26 May 10:46
Quote:
Andrew283, Fri 26 May 00:39
How many random journalists have "fallen" out of skyscrapers or been found cut up in briefcases? Russia hardly has journalistic integrity.
Julian Assange might be able to supply those figures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Fri 26 May 11:56
Sammer, what does "media control not having been developed in my lifetime" have to do with journalistic integrity in Russia? As per, you`re simply dodging the point and deflecting. You fail time and again to actually address points that are put to you, such as those regarding the language issues in Ukraine. In my experience though its unsurprising, as your generation often have issues with admitting they`re wrong to someone younger as its seen as a loss of face. You see the same behaviour from older Yoons in Scotland.
You`ve defended Dugin and Dugina who, when asked about such matters, give pseudo answers about "our Russian truth" which is usually referring to their Russian Ultra-nationalistic and Imperialist tendencies. These two essentially want(ed) to Russify all the ethnicities of the former Soviet Union. Do you agree with such ideology? Or are you going to deflect again and talk about how American culture has infiltrated Europe?
Also, RSF isn`t actually a media outlet, so it does help if you actually research a wee bit and read about organisations before you start peddling bumph...
Of course though, the reinvigoration of NATO is absolutely nothing to do with Putin`s blatant aggression in Ukraine, it`s all the fault of the "Big Bad Collective West". I mean, Putin has successfully swung Swedish and German public opinion toward being pro-NATO, which no domestic politician could have ever achieved on their own. In these two countries especially, that is a rather spectacular feat.
And we`re back to your old pal Hersch and Nordstream again. Last I saw he was trying to blame the Norwegians. You still want to ignore the point that Russian frigates and submarines were in the vicinity? Seems the joint Baltic-Danish-Swedish-German investigation has found a number of ships with their transmitters turned off and a number of these were Russian-registered. Swedish authorities have confirmed that it was sabotage using "military grade" explosives in any case:
https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/pressmeddelanden/2022/november/bekraftat-sabotage-vid-nord-stream/
Have to admit I do find the mural to Assange rather ironic considering the number of Russian independent journalists who have been disappeared or eliminated over the years.
In terms of the military stuff though, the MBTs and F16s WILL make a big difference. The Ukrainians have already humiliated the Russian military and destroyed huge quantities of their armour. The two Russian tank factories can only produce about 20 tanks per month combined which is nowhere near matching the losses (ca. 1000 destroyed and 500 captured), in any case, the Leopard II & Challengers are superior technologically. Air Power will take a bit longer but the F16 is more than a match for anything the Russians have. It is just a matter of time now until the Putin regime collapses one way or another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Fri 26 May 13:30
Some interesting comments from the boss of the Wagner group, suggesting `revolution` could be in the air. I reckon he could have the sort of power to do that in Russia. They have their fingers in a lot of pies, creating a lot of unrest throughout Africa, draining the gold out of Sudan and pulling the strings in the situation there
"This duality may end like it did in 1917, with a revolution, when first the soldiers rise up, and after that their loved ones do," he warned, referring to the Russian Revolution that toppled the country`s monarchy more than a century ago. Prigozhin said Russian citizens could raid the elites` homes with "pitchforks… and don`t think there are hundreds of them, now there are now tens of thousands of relatives of those killed, and there will probably be hundreds of thousands."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 26 May 20:31
If HJ can explain what he means by ‘journalistic integrity’ then I can answer him more easily. If it involves willingly taking funding from millionaires, corporations and governments (as even the BBC does through a licence fee) then I cannot see it could ever have integrity since a conflict of interest is inevitable. Major media platforms can afford to run at a loss since the proprietors are handed every perk and favour going, and in the case of Murdoch their tax obligations are overlooked. I assume that’s the case in every country, which is what makes independent journalism so precarious. But I’d take a Seymour Hersch story, given his track record, over any disclaimer from ‘the authorities,’ Swedish or otherwise. Journalists have indeed died in Moscow in highly suspicious circumstances; the UK generally tries to de-platform them or sling them in jail as with Assange and Craig Murray. David Kelly, not a journalist but a spokesman, was not so fortunate.
A man named only as Marcel J was jailed yesterday in Hamburg but I cannot find the story in UK media, only in Die Welt. His crime was to ‘endorse’ Russian aggression in Ukraine. Others in Hamburg, a city which has seen large anti-NATO rallies (largely unreported in UK media) have been fined up to E4,000 for wearing t-shirts with the letter ‘Z’ on the front. Thoughtcrime is expensive in Germany these days, as it was in the not so distant past. George Galloway has commented on the obstacles being placed in the way of anti-NATO rallies in London, not a problem at the time of the Iraq invasion.
Sticking with NATO, Sweden and Finland were always recognised as being in the western camp and their neutrality was ever an elastic concept. I hope both have read the small print in their NATO insurance policy about proxy wars.
I have no idea why HJ thinks I ever supported Dugin or his daughter’s opinions. Their brand of ethnic Russian nationalism is not to my taste. But I wouldn’t have placed a bomb under their car like Ukrainian forces did.
Maybe RSP misreads Prigozhin’s inflamed rhetoric about revolution. He clearly has political ambitions and is doing his tribune of the squaddies routine as part of that campaign. His complaint is not about the country being at war, it’s about the way the war is being conducted. Too much pussy-footing around is about the size of it. Prigozhin’s outbursts are well received in western media; you’ll remember all the stories from last year about Russian troops running out of ammunition, deserting en masse, throwing officers under the wheels of trucks, sobbing in trenches etc etc. Prigozhin is not short on enemies within the regular military and he will do well to survive the conflict unscathed.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 26 May 20:47
He was jailed on Monday, not yesterday. I got an alert on my Yahoo news. I am in the UK 🤦♂️
Post Edited (Fri 26 May 20:48)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sat 27 May 01:09
Thanks for that Jake. I can`t find it in UK media. Feel free to comment?
It’s not often the Pentagon agrees with me, but on this occasion they seem to support my version of events about ‘game changers’ rather than that of HJ, who as I recall is a territorial army equivalent up in Sweden. He will soon be carrying out his exercises under their NATO command. He can make his points known to them then.
‘’The military’s top general cautioned Thursday that F-16s won’t act as a “magic weapon” for Ukraine, but the U.S. is fully behind a group of NATO allies taking the lead on training and potentially transferring the jets to Kyiv.’’
‘’Milley’s comments followed similar points made this week by Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, who said the jets are “not going to be a dramatic game-changer” for Ukraine, though “it’s something that makes sense for them. It’s going to help them” in the long run.’’
“The Russians have 1,000 fourth-generation fighters,” Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley told reporters at the Pentagon following a virtual meeting of the multinational Ukraine Defense Contact Group.’’
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 27 May 08:23
Click here
Not the UK link but came through on my news feed earlier in the week as a UK story.
Worth noting the articles about him (there are a few more) are misleading. He was jailed for supporting Russia but the primary reason he was jailed was for assault. Supporting Russia was just part of a list of crimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Sat 27 May 10:26
Quote:
“The Russians have 1,000 fourth-generation fighters,” Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley told reporters at the Pentagon following a virtual meeting of the multinational Ukraine Defense Contact Group.’’
Do they hell, all this war has shown is how pathetic and outdated Russians military and tactical approaches have been. Tell me the last nations that has desperately resorted to multiple waves of conscription?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sun 28 May 01:57
There is no conscription in Russia despite western claims to the contrary. That will only occur in the event of direct NATO involvement in Ukraine and is well understood here in Moscow. So far direct NATO v Russia conflict has been denied, officially at least, and the German foreign minister was called to account when she suggested otherwise.
Regarding the jailing in Hamburg and other such events, we don’t know the circumstances of course. But western media is less than interested, despite the jailed man attacking a journalist. His sentence seems very heavy but may be explained by the Matt Lygate principle. Matt was a Scottish Maoist/anarchist who oversaw the robbing of Glasgow banks in 1971 in order to steal from the capitalist looters. He rather stupidly made a long political statement from the dock in which he threatened the judge and earned himself a hefty sentence of 24 years. A wise lawyer commented: ‘He was given 8 years for the robberies and 16 years for the speech.’
BTW, better that I avoid Hamburg- a city I have visited and which has a large Russian population- lest I`m arrested at the airport for the new crime of `endorsement.` I might meet Assange sooner than I wish.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sun 28 May 13:14
His co-defendant got six months. He got three years as it included the two years and four months for the assualt. He also had multiple previous convictions including the assault of the journalist, and was also found with an illegal knife. There`s nothing unduly harsh in that.
It`s not likely to get much coverage outside of Germany as an assault and getting six months for displaying banned symbols is hardly a major event in terms of the reporting of world news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 4 Jun 22:33
Ref: sammer
Sun 28 May 01:57
"There is no conscription in Russia despite western claims to the contrary."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand there is propoganda from both sides, but this article from The Washington Post (11 Apr 23) seems categorical:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/04/11/russia-conscription-military-mobilization-war/
"Under the new rules, electronic summonses will be issued to conscripts under Russia’s compulsory military service for men ages 18 to 27, but also potentially to members of the Russian military reserve and others. Under Russian law, conscripts must not be deployed to Ukraine, however complaints have surfaced that in some cases they have been sent there and killed in action."
And from https://www.politico.eu/article/what-the-use-of-russia-conscripts-tells-us-about-the-war-in-ukraine/ , (17 Mar 22)
"Conscription is a sensitive topic in Russia, and [its]use by the Kremlin indicates the degree to which the country’s leaders believed they could keep the cost of the war hidden from the domestic populace. But now that their deployment is public, what does Russia’s continued use of conscripts say about the war and the future course the conflict may take?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Mon 5 Jun 16:38
Hi Sammer,
I`d be interested in discussing why we believe what we believe, for example if we take this - what seems a simple, single item - you say there is no conscription in Russia. I don`t know for certain, and I wouldn`t stake my life on it, but given what I`ve read and heard on news programmes and various mainstream media here, I`m more inclined to believe there is conscription in Russia.
I was wondering if possibly you have misinterpreted something? Or have I?
Could it be that you have read somewhere, as I have, that no Russian conscripts are supposed to be sent to Ukraine, and maybe you think therefore there is - no conscription which is for the purpose of sending soldiers to Ukraine - but there is nonetheless conscription, or compulsory military service, in Russia?
Can you say why you are convinced that "there is no conscription in Russia"?
Perhaps you meant there is no general conscription, but there is conscription for some of the population, e.g. men only, age 18-27, and reservists etc.?
I`m interested to know if you have a clear reason for saying there`s no conscription in Russia, to support your assertion that it`s a falsehood put about by Western media.
Post Edited (Mon 05 Jun 18:52)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Mon 5 Jun 20:21
As someone whose friends brother is currently in Russia, I can guarantee they are conscripting young adults, call it whatever you will
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Mon 5 Jun 20:29
Hi TOWK,
Sorry to be late in replying. The situation as described by me is pretty much what you wrote in your second last paragraph. There is no conscription as I would understand the term, in that general members of the population such as Andrei Ivanov (Andy Johnstone) and Yakov Kuznetsov (Jimmy Smith) are not being called up for military service.
However what we would call in the UK ‘National Service’ has never been abolished in the USSR or modern day Russia. Young adult males are expected to undertake two years military training such as Jim Baxter had to do in his time, but which Denis Law missed by a few months. This is a form of conscription since it is compulsory but not the sense in which I would use the term. Girls like my friend’s daughter, who was identified as something of a crackshot when the military visited schools, were also given extra training in weapons and sniping as teenagers.
In theory she could, like all who have undergone National Service, be called up as part of ‘mobilisation.’ However, as a 40 year old mother of two children this will not happen at present. Mobilisation so far seems to have focused on those with more recent training and with specific skills linked to electronics and IT. There was a scandal of sorts when unsuitable recruits when being swept up in mostly rural areas and as a result army personnel were held to account and punished. Some richer Russians have ‘dodged the draft’ by leaving the country- I met a young example in Georgia recently whose speciality was IT. Against that, there are stories of veterans around my age volunteering at mobilisation centres and cursing the recruiters if they are turned down.
That NATO forces are fighting inside Ukraine as well as Russia is no secret: most of the ‘partisans’ killed in border incursions are reported in Russian media as being Polish. Much of the close quarter fighting on the Russian side so far has been assigned to local militias and the Wagner Group, which would suggest regular militia are being held back for the possibility of an openly declared NATO incursion. Were that to happen then I would expect general conscription to be introduced and foreigners from a hostile country like myself - and especially those many Ukrainians who live in Russia- might either be deported or interned.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Mon 5 Jun 20:32
Apologies for wrong name. It should have been OAUTP.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Tue 6 Jun 02:32
Hi Sammer, thank you for responding. And I`d say you were pretty quick. It sometimes takes me a while to gather my thoughts, so a response is good, no matter if it takes some hours or days.
Our interpretation of the word `conscription` differs. I go along with this, from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
`conscription: compulsory enrollment of persons especially for military service`
Therefore, is it accurate to say there is no conscription, if the word means only compulsory enrollment. (Not of whom or how many.)
I wonder if the word has a WW2 connotation for you. Conscription here was, I believe, pretty much general in 1942, but we just refer to it as `conscription.`
It seems you are right there is no general conscription in Russia but, according to articles such as the one I quoted from the Washington Post, the West isn`t claiming there is, they state plainly that it`s only for a particular age group of men and `potentially`some others. So it`s quite hard to know why you say,
"There is no conscription in Russia despite western claims to the contrary."
You`re right again, there is no conscription as you "understand the term", i.e. as general conscription. But even if it did mean general conscription, the West isn`t claiming it exists, if we go by the Washington Post.
What would you say if we agreed that the meaning of "conscription" is as it`s given by the dictionary? Then can you see how misleading your statement can be? Could we rewrite it plainly as,
"There is conscription in Russia, but it`s not general conscription, which is an important distinction clearly made by e.g. the Washington Post."
I would be interested to know though - have you come across other Western media that claims there is general conscription in Russia?
Post Edited (Tue 06 Jun 12:03)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 6 Jun 06:10
"That NATO forces are fighting inside Ukraine as well as Russia is no secret: most of the ‘partisans’ killed in border incursions are reported in Russian media as being Polish."
Nato are not fighting in Ukraine. There might be volunteers/mercenaries of Nato nationalities fighting but considering what Russia did to Poland and the proximity of Poland to Ukraine it wouldn`t really be a surprise if there were quite a few Poles involved.
Nato may well be providing training and strategic intelligence in country but that`s not the same as fighting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Tue 6 Jun 18:03
I think I’ll stick to my working description: ‘Conscription’ as a term applying to a general call up in time of war and which has no time limit; and ‘National Service’ which applies to a policy that for young adults irrespective of war and operates within a specific period of time.
The Washington Post is as much as mouthpiece of the military as is the Daily Telegraph in the UK and is expected to spread propaganda on behalf of the Pentagon. Part of that propaganda is the narrative that Russians are resisting conscription en masse and that hapless young recruits are being thrust into front line fighting. This version of events knits in alongside inflated numbers of Russian casualty figures, some of which come direct from Ukrainian sources; Ukraine has rather wisely adopted a policy of offering no figures whatsoever on its casualty rate.
NATO forces most certainly are fighting inside Ukraine, but unofficially. You can leave the British Army on Friday (no questions asked) and be wearing a Ukrainian Army uniform on Monday if some captured prisoners are any guide.
A Mossad estimate of casualties up until January 2023 appeared in Turkey last month. It placed Russian military deaths at 18,000 which seems low, but that would probably exclude local militia and Wagner troops who have done much of the fighting. Ukrainian military deaths were numbered at 157,000; mercenaries 5,360; NATO soldiers 2,458 and NATO instructors 234.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 7 Jun 00:37
Your spin is really obvious. I gave you the benefit of the doubt so far but your lack of integrity is plain to see.
Even if you think "conscription" means "general conscription", do you also think that when the word is mentioned by Western media, by the Washington Post for instance, that they share your definition? No of course you don`t.
It makes no sense for you to say The Washington Post is spreading propaganda about general conscription. Or any form of conscription for that matter, when they have clearly given the information I quoted:
" Under the new rules, electronic summonses will be issued to conscripts under Russia’s compulsory military service for men ages 18 to 27, but also potentially to members of the Russian military reserve and others."
What`s general or propagandist about that? It clearly states there is no general conscription.
So where are your ideas coming from that led you to post,
"There is no conscription in Russia despite western claims to the contrary."
Whose "Western claims"?
How do you interpret "Western claims"? Claims made by - Westerners - mainstream media? - or some nutters on the Net?
Why are you so interested in knocking the West? Even if there is propaganda - what`s that compared to the devastation caused by the Russian military in Ukraine?
Post Edited (Wed 07 Jun 01:53)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Wed 7 Jun 10:20
Sammer, can I ask you what access you have to Western websites? Can you, for instance, access YouTube? I understand your antipathy towards the mainstream media here, but plenty of independent, reliable news sites exist. Perhaps you could try johnpilger.com?
Any news sources you reference seem to come from a microscopic orbit around Moscow.
And out of interest, do you - indeed, can you - access Pars TV to watch the matches from East End Park?
Any references you make to football appear full of minute detail but seem exclusively limited to the eras of Willie Cunningham and George Farm; back when we stood on terraces, there were no adverts around the pitch, and football matches were televised in black and white.
Without wishing to be overly critical, there is an opaqueness about everything you produce here. Yes, it can be intriguing sometimes, but I`m sorry to say sammer; invariably, it comes across as really odd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 7 Jun 13:03
Interesting site sadindie, I`ve had a read, also of johnpilger.com, so thanks for that OzPar. I also went to a link given by Pilger - to Consortium News. And I`ve read about the Donbas history elsewhere.
Where have I got to?
What is it all about?
1. American influence and deployment of nuclear weapons in Poland etc., i.e. NATO expansion within Europe, with American backing?
2. Luhansk and Donetsk regions seeking autonomy (to be neither completely Russian nor Ukrainian?)
3. Donbas: civil war was already ongoing between pro-Russians and Ukrainian Nazis? (Pilger says they are Kyiv-backed.)
What does it boil down to? Ukraine was trying to keep the three regions as part of its territory? It sides with Europe and America. Russia invades on the pretext of rescuing the Donbas from Nazis?
Then why is Russia attacking all of Ukraine?
My provisional conclusion: Russia`s aim is to conquer and absorb Ukraine as a buffer zone against Europe.
But then:
"On 25 April, the US Defence Secretary, General Lloyd Austin, flew into Kyiv and confirmed that America`s aim was to destroy the Russian Federation - the word he used was `weaken`. America had got the war it wanted, waged by an American bankrolled and armed proxy and expendable pawn." (Pilger)
What I don`t get is - why, from certain western sources, is America getting all this flack? America has done some feckin` truly terrible things in the name of foreign policy, but so has Russia, and the invasion of Ukraine is truly terrible, and of the moment.
Why is there not complete condemnation of the war, instead of arguing which side is to blame.
STOP THE FECKIN WAR! STOP KILLING FOLK! STOP SUPPORTING AMERICA! STOP SUPPORTING RUSSIA! FIGHT AGAINST WAR!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Wed 7 Jun 17:20
The Washington Post is registered as a newspaper, which means it should be reporting news. The National Service undertaken by young males inside the Russian Federation is not news since it can be dated back prior to WW2, yet it was reported with that implication by the Washington Post. That in turn gives a green light to tabloid news outlets to pick up the item and develop it more crudely.
I do read the Washington Post online and remember an article from last autumn, enthusing about the ability of HIMARS missiles to strike the Kakhovka dam which was partially destroyed a couple of days ago. Yet in its coverage yesterday the WP, while avoiding pointing the finger of blame at Russia and merely quoting bland NATO statements, omitted to mention something it had itself reported on some months ago which was surely relevant to the news story. As other western news media picked up the Zelensky claim of sabotage by Russia (against its own territory and people?) and repeated it verbatim, the WP was in a position to provide relevant background information. It chose, or was ordered, not to do so.
The Mossad figures regarding casualties in the conflict cannot be confirmed of course. However, I am not aware of Mossad issuing a denial. The link SIF posted about the figures being ‘fake’ was vouched for by, amongst others, Mark Milley, NATO, Face book and Twitter, so I will have to weigh that up and reach my own conclusion.
I have no problem accessing western media or youtube here in Russia except the BBC, which I can get via a VPN browser but rarely find worth the effort. The collusion between government and media, referred to by Prince Harry yesterday, is at an incestuous level. When news is unfavourable I notice a plethora of royal stories or Schofield/celebrity pieces to act as distraction from what is clearly a serious financial situation in the UK. In a bizarre way, talk of a WW3 can also be used as a distraction since as Douglas McGregor (a forceful ex-American military commentator available on several youtube sites) puts it, the present political generation in the west has lost its fear of war.
I share Ozpar’s aversion to war. Whenever any conflict breaks out it is the duty of other bystanders to split up those fighting, without any prejudice or justified opinion about who was to blame. Once the two parties are separated that can be argued out. That might have happened last April in Istanbul but the moment was lost, (Boris Johnson ‘always got the big calls right’) so unless the UN can find the resolve, it looks as if this NATO/Russia conflict is set to run its military course.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 8 Jun 01:14
Regarding conscription, the Washington Post was reporting the news that electronic summonses were to be used to make it harder to dodge the draft.
I`m not all that impressed by any of the sources I`ve read, mainstream or not, there`s so much opinion and propaganda.
Two big questions arose for me - if Putin`s reason for "the special military operation" was to liberate the Donbas, why didn`t he take it first? Why spread the attack so widely in Ukraine? Why not take Donbas and "job done"?
The idea of America fighting a proxy war and having forced Russia into it - if so, why didn`t they arm Ukraine to the teeth and fortify it massively along the Russian borders well in advance of the invasion?
These are not rhetorical questions.
Post Edited (Thu 08 Jun 01:19)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 8 Jun 14:14
There are as many military commentators as there are football commentators, but at least with football we can agree on what the actual result was on the day. After that a whole range of opinion cascades down: from those who actually attended the entire 90 minutes; those who watched the entire 90 minutes on screen; those who only saw highlights; and surprisingly often from those who did none of the preceding. Most military commentators come into that last category unfortunately, with the added problem that they cannot even agree upon the ‘score.’
With that qualification, the questions OAUTP raised have been addressed. The Russian invasion was launched to pre-empt an attack on Donbas area by Ukrainian troops. Stretching the line of attack as far as Kiev was intended to tie down Ukrainian forces in order to offer Russia a freer hand in Donbas and also force the Zelensky regime to the negotiating table. Had a peace deal been signed in Istanbul then the ‘Special Military Operation’ would have been judged a success by most parties. However when it became clear that neither France nor Germany was prepared to support the Minsk accords (for which they were guarantors), and that the USA and UK were actively undermining any peace deal, then Russia began to mobilise its reservists.
Most commentators agree that Ukraine was indeed being ‘armed to the teeth’ by NATO ever since the coup in 2014. Since Ukraine was not a member of NATO this did not go unnoticed in Russia. The amounts sent by the USA in military aid to Ukraine prior to the Russian invasion were all publicly declared at the time in Washington.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 8 Jun 16:59
More viewpoints regarding legitimised murder in Ukraine.
Donbas was Ukrainian, yes? Why would Ukraine need to attack their own territory? Because part of it wanted to become Russian? And that part was backed by Russia, which decided to use it as an excuse for full-scale invasion, yes?
Who`s gonna sign a "peace deal" with somebody who`s invading your country and bombarding your people with missiles? Would you expect Putin to sign any peace deal offered by Ukraine if Russia was under such attack?
Had Russia perhaps undermined the peace deal by being several months into the invasion, and having just annexed big chunks of Ukraine?
Minsk accords or no, Russia hasn`t been invaded. Why do you think invasions perpetrated by the US and UK are to be held against them (rightly), but this invasion by Russia is justifiable and to be supported?
By "armed to the teeth" I mean able to have stopped the invasion in its tracks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 8 Jun 17:32
Even if we agree on little else, we can agree that Putin called it a"special military operation."
Would you disagree with this definition of invasion:
"the movement of an army into a region, usually in a hostile attack that`s part of a war or conflict."
Do you think it is wrong to call Russia`s "special military operation" an invasion?
Post Edited (Thu 08 Jun 17:43)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 8 Jun 21:22
That definition of ‘invasion’ is accurate as far as it goes, but should really contain the added idea of attempting to impose political power over the invaded country. There can be little doubt that Putin desired the fall of the Zelensky regime but there is no evidence that he intended to place all of Ukraine (as was) under the rule of the Russian Federation. Up until December 2021 Putin’s stated aim was to deliver autonomy to the Donbas area in line with the Minsk accords. We now know courtesy of Angela Merkel and Poroshenko that this was a forlorn hope.
The people opposed to the Zelensky regime did not so much wish to ‘become’ Russian but to remain Russian.
Who signs a peace deal with a country that is attacking you? Most do at one time or another, but normally under conditions of a cease fire which I understand was on offer at the time in Istanbul. Since Zelensky was voted in as President on the promise of bringing peace to Ukraine he might have pondered on where it was all going wrong. If being ‘tooled up’ by NATO was intended to bring peace and prosperity to Ukraine then it had proved to be a colossal misjudgement. Nothing since has altered that fact.
Many left leaning commentators including Mearsheimer and Chomsky have criticised the Russian decision to send troops into Ukraine but I have yet to hear what options were available to Putin. He could not allow a hostile force (NATO) on his borders any more than the USA could allow nuclear weapons in Cuba. He was under political pressure from within Russia to protect Russian speaking persons in the Donbas region who were suffering at the hands of Ukrainian state forces, of whom the Azov battalion was the most notorious. His attempts to breathe life into the Minsk accords were given a lukewarm response by its guarantors. Poland already had nuclear weapons on its soil capable of reaching Moscow in around 8 minutes, a time that Ukraine could presumably have improved upon. I think Putin reached the conclusion that he was attempting to negotiate with an organisation that was spoiling for a fight.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Fri 9 Jun 00:14
Sammer, of Putin: "He could not allow a hostile force (NATO) on his borders."
They didn`t even have the decency to accept his terms for peace or become neutral. Well they deserve what they get!
Of course, how could I be so blind? He`s after the Nobel Peace Prize!
Putin: `I`ll show them about peace! I`ll rid the world of hostile Europeans. Now I better go and oil ma chest and get on ma horse - or maybe a bear. I`m such a peace-lovin` guy - (He sings: "I`m just sittin` watchin` flowers in the rain, feeling the power of the rain, makin` the garden grow!") - Sure, I`ll do better than Gorbachev, I`ll win the Nobel Pecs Prize!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Fri 9 Jun 15:24
Have to say Sammer, the willful conflation of the terms "National Service" and "Conscription" is really quite telling. The Russians I`ve worked with in research groups would tell you quite a different story. Russia claimed to have a standing army of 2Mn men, but the reality of the situation was that they had about 250-300k professionally trained soldiers and a bunch of poorly trained conscriptees from the national service pool. These young guys are dying to satisfy a few auld duffers` egos and maintain the image of Russian Imperialism.
With regard to journalistic integrity, do you honestly believe that the media publications in say Sweden, Germany, the US or Japan are less reliable than those from Russia or China? You often talk about how I apparently "only share Western sources", but are you actually fully aware of what level of censorship exists in both Russia and China? Granted Japan isn`t the best example just now because Shinzo Abe promoted a lot of his pals to high positions in NHK, but do you REALLY believe that anything that goes out on Russian or Chinese media isn`t preapproved by the Russian and Chinese states?
You`ve claimed that various people, including Gorbachev "sold out" the Soviet Union, when the reality was the country was crippled economically from the War in Afghanistan and Chernobyl. You simply don`t know the history.
You talk about those in Donbas wanting to "remain Russian". What is your justification for the pro-Russia politicians in Ukraine who would not grant the same language rights to the Hungarian and Slovakian minorities in Transcarpathia? This is a point you have repeatedly ignored, I`m guessing because it would expose your obviously inherent bias.
Are you also gonna ignore the Norwegian sonic readings taken in Romania which prove rather conclusively that a high volume of explosives where used to breach the Nova Kharkovka dam? No advantage for the Ukrainians to destroy their own dam. Are you gonna claim it was Russian incompetence because they couldn`t maintain it properly?
OAUTP - Not sure how well versed you are in Russian history and Politics, but this whole saga is typical Putin. When he came to power, needed to establish himself so he organised the bombing of apartment blocks in Moscow and blamed the Chechens to start a conflict in a breakaway region. When he was facing political pressure in 2008, he started the conflict in Georgia. When he faces mass anti-corruption protests from Navalny., he starts the war in Ukraine. It`s all a desperate attempt to stay in power. The main reason is that his grip on power is down to him being the single biggest oligarch and he would have no hope in hell of surviving a corruption trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 9 Jun 18:07
Neutrality for Ukraine would have been a better option than applying for membership of NATO. American politicians experienced in such matters such as George Kennan, William Burns and Henry Kissinger – Cold Warriors to a man- warned against this over 20 years ago. These men were all hostile to the USSR/Russia but were well versed in realpolitik. Poroshenko and Zelensky, a chocolate millionaire and a comic actor, thought they knew better. Their judgment has proved calamitous.
No amount of psycho-babble from armchair psychologists will alter the fact that Putin is supported by the bulk of the Russian population. He’s even been known to jail a few oligarchs: their UK equivalents are knighted or sent to the House of Lords. Even if Vladimir Putin fell under the proverbial tram in Clean Ponds (the Russian equivalent of the Clapham Omnibus) then the Russian aims would remain as they are today.
The biggest shift in opinion I have witnessed in Russia over the last year is the hardening of opinion from amongst the younger generation who had been more pro-European in their outlook. They would have anticipated sanctions, support for Ukraine, condemnation of Russia and the like. But the visceral hatred shown in actions such as book burning in Ukraine, banning of Tchaikovsky concerts in the UK, attempts to de-platform Roger Waters, attempts to ban Russian and Belarus tennis players has really opened their eyes. The majority can understand English and are able to access western media: to a large extent Putin’s propaganda is being written for him by NATO spokesmen and western scribblers.
At risk of tedium I will once again make clear that I draw my information from three sources: UK/US media; Russian media; and to a large extent, independent commentators on youtube. I remain unconvinced that those who disagree with me have access, or desire access, to Russian media, some of which is offered in translation. If I don’t subscribe to the western view of the conflict it is not due to lack of information.
Information such as provided James Cleverley who immediately knew that Russia was responsible for the Kakovkha explosion and denounced it as one of the greatest war crimes in history. Cleverly seems unaware that one of the best known British war films is called ‘The Dambusters’ and glorifies the bombing of dams; in fact the name Guy Gibson still resonates with the older British public. To make matters worse, after the knee jerk accusations by Cleverly and a few (unelected) EU warmongers, the USA decided to adopt a more measured approach, leaving Cleverly high and dry. Norwegian sonic readings in Romania might give him some breathing space.
For those who believe Russia was responsible for the attack on a dam which Ukrainian forces have been shelling intermittingly for several months, I think the best response came from George Galloway on Wednesday in his MOATS broadcast.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Fri 9 Jun 19:05
Yes HJ, "typical Putin" as you say.
I feel that, in communicating with Sammer, it`s very much like trying to discuss religion with a believer. I think he was probably anti American and anti the West before he went to Russia, and has become more influenced by living there. To begin with, I thought of him as a Scot who has spent time working there, and who is still basically a westerner, but that`s not the case. I think now he is someone who had strong political gripes against the west, and from living in Russia, he`s now as influenced as your average Russian by pro-Putin propaganda.
I had wondered if the reason he won`t say a word against Putin is because he lives in Russia and might get sent to a Gulag, but if he was worried about that, more likely he just wouldn`t get invoved in this kind of thread. The reason he gets involved, it seems to me, is because he`s pro-Putin, pro-war with Ukraine.
I think this thread has been instructive in showing that he`s not just a harmless old, sometimes befuddled Scot, who worked in Russia and ended up there because of social connections, or a liking of the culture. No, sad to say, I believe he`s "gone native."
I could go through his post of 8 JUne 21:22 and refute some things but I think this says it all:
"Many left-leaning commentators ... have criticised the Russian decision to send troops into Ukraine but I have yet to hear what options were available to Putin."
Plus the rest of that paragraph:
"He could not allow a hostile force (NATO) on his borders any more than the USA could allow nuclear weapons in Cuba. He was under political pressure from within Russia to protect Russian speaking persons in the Donbas region who were suffering at the hands of Ukrainian state forces, of whom the Azov battalion was the most notorious. His attempts to breathe life into the Minsk accords were given a lukewarm response by its guarantors. Poland already had nuclear weapons on its soil capable of reaching Moscow in around 8 minutes, a time that Ukraine could presumably have improved upon. I think Putin reached the conclusion that he was attempting to negotiate with an organisation that was spoiling for a fight."
There you have it, Sammer`s fanciful justifications in support of a mass murderer.
Post Edited (Fri 09 Jun 20:23)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Fri 9 Jun 19:14
Ref: sammer
Fri 9 Jun 18:07
There must be a place for sammer at the Kremlin!
( a shout from the wings: "He`s already there!)
Post Edited (Fri 09 Jun 19:16)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Fri 9 Jun 19:14
Absolute clutching at straws to justify a full scale, badly organised invasion. Russia will destroy everything they can in Ukraine knowing they will likely never had the manpower or technology to take and hold the territory
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 9 Jun 23:18
A lot of argument ‘ad hominem’ here, but not much else.
You can’t negotiate with someone who is spoiling for a fight. Lloyd Austin made clear the intention to ‘bleed Russia’ and Biden, in presumably a more coherent moment, talked of ‘regime change’ and ‘turning the rouble into rubble.’ The understanding that NATO would ‘not move an inch’ beyond its 1990 borders was broken time after time. I have asked what Putin’s response should have been in December 2021 but as yet I have no answer.
The answer of course cannot really be voiced. The answer is Putin should have allowed Ukraine’s western backed millionaires to stack up NATO military hardware on his doorstep, at great financial benefit to themselves, in order to ‘pacify’ the Donbas. That accomplished, the Russian Federation could then be de-stabilised and a dupe like Gorbachev or Yeltsin installed. The prize, understood by Napoleon and Hitler, was access to Russia’s vast territory and mineral resources. Biden was going to succeed where these weaklings failed.
This answer is well understood in Russia and those who lived through the 1990s will fight tooth and nail before it is ever allowed to happen again. There are no Ukrainians being rounded up in Moscow, nor Ukrainian flags being burned in the streets, nor even Ukrainian songs being banned on radio. That the fight is with western imperialism (the US has 800 bases worldwide) is fully understood. The notion that Russia (around 20 bases is ‘imperial’) is a matter of jocularity, well beyond Russia’s frontiers. Ukraine chose to make itself a proxy for US imperialism and is paying a heavy price as it was warned on countless occasions would be the case. Its ‘sovereignty ’has been bankrolled from Washington since at least 2014.
Do the residents of the Donbas wish to be ‘liberated’ from Russian authority by the Zelensky regime? Do the people of Mariupol? Or Crimea? On this issue the western media remain silent, save to disregard any votes held in these regions. Again the question cannot be addressed because the answer betrays the imperial impulse behind the west’s active participation in the conflict. (As ‘non-belligerents’ of course.) For the answer is, it does not matter what the people in these areas think: we, NATO, will decide for them. As far as I can gather from the mixed messages that emanate from the White House and the Pentagon, this is what is meant by a ‘Ukraine victory.’ Subjugation of Russian speaking peoples within a Ukrainian state for Ukrainian people. Sounds a bit like Ulster. Or Israel, maybe.
I’ll attach a photo of the tunnels under Bakhmut, perhaps not available in western media, which are much larger than many of us suspected.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Sat 10 Jun 15:36
Have to admit I always find the claims of the "West wanting access to Russia`s vast mineral wealth" quite interesting. The West already has access to masses of oil through the Canadians and Saudis, rare earth metals through Sweden, Australia and Canada and Lithium in Latin America. Once again Sammer, you simply parrot what Russian media tells you. The whole Russian nation is simply set up to serve Putin and the oligarchs loyal to him, the number of which is reportedly dwindling.
You talk about a hardening of Youth Opinion in Russia against the West and EU, but my Russian colleagues tell me that`s only within the Moscow-Peterburg bubble as they are concentration conscription on poorer regions and the majority of richer and educated youngsters have left for places like Georgia. In fact, most young people still inside Russia identify as apolitical. Essentially, the Putin supporters are the boomers who grew up during the "Soviet Golden Age" and saw Putin actually stabilise Russia after the Chaos of the Yeltsin years. Many do however realise the basic fact that Russia, with its vast natural resources, should be doing far better economically. Russia, for having twice the population and vastly more resources has an economy only a third the size of Germany. Go figure. Where is all the money going?
Again, with NATO, many former Warsaw Pact nations and former Republics APPLIED to join. Nobody forced them and no spin can change that. There was supposedly a verbal agreement but nothing written down and set in treaties about NATO expansion. Why could Russia not hold together the Warsaw Pact if it was so scared for its existence?
If the fight is against "Western Imperialism", then surely the Russian public can see the irony in trying to undermine the statehood of the Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and Belarussians who all voted for Independence in 1991?
Funnily enough, the residents of Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea voted to be independent with Ukraine in 1991:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum
Or is this to be ignored now? The land legally belongs to the Ukrainian state and there is no debating that, especially when Russian "referenda" (Crimea aside) didn`t even take place over the entirety of the territory. At the end of this conflict, its quite likely that any residents who with to live in a Russian state will be moved to Russia, similarly to how population transfers were handled at the end of the Second World War, many ironically forced by the Russians. Or do you want to ignore Russia`s treatment of the Tatars and Armenians to name but a few?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sat 10 Jun 18:17
Most of HJ’s insight into Russia seems to come from Russians he has met, presumably in Sweden for the most part. You can pick up useful information through such people but they are about as representative of the average Russian as a Scot in a kilt at a Burns Supper in Prague, or a White Russian in Paris in the 1920s.
The Russian I met in Georgia who was avoiding being mobilised was not particularly apolitical anymore than any others I meet regularly. He came from people with money hence his ability to survive without work and he was well aware of my feelings regarding the conflict. We shared a few drinks over a couple of evenings and I told him that as a 26 year old with no wife or children he was a free man and had to do what he thought best for himself. If he was not comfortable with being mobilised (I think he was in IT) then it was better he leave. For his part, he acknowledged there might be no easy path back into Russian life with his broken service in future. I was in Tblisi for over a week and he was the only Russian in that position I encountered so I doubt he was very representative either.
A poll from 1991 doesn’t have much relevance now, any more than a Brexit poll or Scottish Independence poll from 1991 would today. If Russians are to be driven out of areas now under the control of Russian forces and local militia – 1 million had been hounded out before the wider conflict started- then that would surely require NATO troops on the ground. Zelensky’s firing of shells into Poland and shelling of a nuclear plant, now short of water, are a desperate attempt to bring this about. Although given their recent track record in conflicts, I think Zelesnky’s faith in NATO is optimistic.
I read that a Swedish diving boot has been recovered by investigators of the mysterious Nord Stream pipeline explosion, the explosion that turned Chancellor Scholz mute. Maybe planted there by Russian special forces.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Sat 10 Jun 19:37
Sammer, the Russians I work with are in the IT sector here in Sweden. I was also educated in Russian history and politics by a mix of Swedes and Russians at Lund and Stockholm University. Prior to my time in Sweden I worked with Russians in my research group at Heidelberg in Germany, which boasted three Russians, one Russian-speaking German-Kazakh and a Russian-Estonian girl.
If you actually want to learn the opinions of the average person on the street in Russia then you can watch channels such as 1420 on YouTube, where they go around different cities in Russia and ask people various questions:
https://www.youtube.com/@1420channel
Other good ones include The Russian Dude, NRKRZ and Vasya In The Hay. Personally I was always a big fan of Bald & Bankrupt as well, although he has a very questionable past in Brighton. Channels such as these give one a very broad view of Russia and the Russian people, as well as the reach of the state apparatus. Presumably you`re aware of these guys?
I guess if a legally-binding internationally-recognised referendum in 1991 is not relevant not then the "referendum" of 2014 in Crimea is also irrelevant, as are those held in the annexed territories where the Russians weren`t even in full control. Can`t have it both ways I`m afraid!
I thought the boot was supposed to be US Navy rather than Swedish? Speccys letting you down there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sat 10 Jun 20:51
Ref: sammer
Fri 9 Jun 23:18
"A lot of argument ‘ad hominem’ here, but not much else."
Latin! Not a phrase I`d ever heard of, but I think it means sammer thinks that the character of a person has no bearing on how much they can be trusted.
I disagree though, I think when a man makes up his own meanings for words, churns out irrelevant details, historical analogies and suppositions about what various people in power are thinking, makes the whole discussion as if it`s about something in books or on media and nothing to do with real people suffering these very moments, it`s not necessary to take apart his assertions one by one - it`s clear that the man and what he says are at the very least questionable.
But that idea - the possibility that things may not be as he says - is not part of sammer`s mindset. According to sammer, he is right, and that`s all there is to it. That`s not just my opinion, here`s the evidence:
Quote from sammer, Fri 9 Jun 18:07:
"For those who believe Russia was responsible for the attack on a dam which Ukrainian forces have been shelling intermittingly for several months*, I think the best response came from George Galloway on Wednesday in his MOATS broadcast."
I have listened to that broadcast. Galloway, repeats many times, with great emphasis, that if you believe Russia destroyed the dam, you are stupid. Not just stupid, but stewooooooooopid! I mean completely and utterly stewooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid! He says so over and over.
Why, Galloway says, would they blow up the dam and destroy some of their own military positions? Why would they do that, with knock-on consequences for Crimea? Fair questions maybe.
But I think, why would Ukraine destroy the dam, causing so much damage and demand on their resources? How easy would it be for Ukrainians to blow up a dam that`s in the possession of Russians? Are we talking mines? Or missiles? If missiles - is there no trace - e.g satellite images or other evidence? These and other questions readily come to my mind. And, like nearly everyone else, it seems, I don`t know which side burst the dam, or even if it just failed for some reason.
Notice sammer thinks Galloway`s response to the disaster was "the best" - i.e., telling everyone not to question him. Galloway doesn`t know who destroyed the dam or how. He might be right, or wrong, but effectively telling folk not to question what happened, nor to question his opinion about it, is wrong.
Hence, sammer and George Galloway have low credibility for me.
*sammer about Kakhovka dam: "Ukrainian forces have been shelling intermittingly for several months" Another propagandist fantasy?
Post Edited (Sat 10 Jun 22:38)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sat 10 Jun 21:23
HJ you’ve won bore of the year and it’s only half way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Sat 10 Jun 21:28
Quote:
Parboiled, Sat 10 Jun 21:23
HJ you’ve won bore of the year and it’s only half way.
Truth hurt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sat 10 Jun 21:29
Who’s talking to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Sun 11 Jun 06:46
A Tory attacking someone who can present facts...not really a surprise. That said, defending Putin is a new low even for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
