Ukraine Watch...

[Ralphw2]

Thanks guys.

The US is dropping the ban on arming the Azov brigade, saying it found no evidence of significant abuse (war crimes) in its activities.

This seems a largely symbolic change, as the original brigade must have been severely depleted in the early months. This rehabilitation points to the shortage of troop numbers in the Ukrainian forces

The Russian advances have entirely stalled in the north and further slowed in the south. The more rightwing media in the UK is talking up the possibility of a Russian collapse, although it is hard to see how Ukraine has the weapons or forces to take advantage of Russian weaknesses.

US policy still seems to be to give Ukraine just enough to stop Russia winning but not enough to expel them. The growth in Russian GDP is entirely due to the conversion to a total war economy using its financial reserves, which are finite and depleting, but Russia has been systematically destroying Ukrainian electricity production which is going to seriously impact the country in winter.

Russia is now regularly using T62 tanks in its front line attacks, which shows just how much of their soviet era reserves have been destroyed. If Ukraine was given the weapons to counter Russian aircraft firing glide bombs they really could halt all Russian advances.

[Default0ptions]

Azov Battalion

“Azov occupies a central role in a network of extremist groups stretching from California across Europe to New Zealand, according to law enforcement officials on three continents.”

https://time.com/5926750/azov-far-right ... -facebook/

[Ralphw2]

Ukraine is counter attacking on the Kharkiv front and retaking ground. Reports that the number of glide bombs being used by Russia has fallen to a third in recent weeks, which indicates that the long range weapons that the West has allowed Ukraine to use against Russian territory are impacting on the Russian airforce.

Both Russia and Ukraine are finding it hard to conscript or employ enough troops. There is no sign of Russia opening further northern fronts.

Trump has stated he will cancel all military aid to Ukraine the day he is elected. If he is elected he cannot legally do that until he takes office in January.

[Default0ptions]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... d-war-2022

“In April 2022, Ukraine and Russia were on the brink of signing a deal to end the war just weeks after it began. The New York Times published documents showing President Vladimir Putin was willing to make concessions to get an agreement signed”

New York Times documents:
https://archive.is/dDPFY


”Draft Treaty on Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees for Ukraine“
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/d ... 2-full.pdf

And the article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... #documents

(Click ‘show reader’ or your browser’s equivalent to circumvent the paywall)

“Rarely mentioned in current commentaries on the war in Ukraine, in the early weeks that followed the February 24, 2022, Russian invasion, Russia and Ukraine engaged in three separate and significant attempts to negotiate a peaceful settlement. Those negotiations had several important things in common. All three could have ended the war before the devastation of Ukraine’s infrastructure, the massive Ukrainian loss of lives, and the increased risk of unchecked escalation. All three featured an offer by Ukraine not to join NATO. And all three were stopped by the United States.”

https://www.theamericanconservative.com ... -no-peace/

[invalid]

Reported first use of a fab-3000. Up in Lyptsi.

Decent bbc(!) article on how Ukrainian lads are trapped trying to avoid being sent - forcibly - to the meatgrinder: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... 6vqe5o.amp

[Default0ptions]

Not enough to stop the rise of Reform in the polls. He rephrased it rather well in the interview: NATO and EU expansion eastwards gave Putin the excuse he needed to justify a war in the eyes of the Russian people. That much is probably true. The counterfactual holds true I think: had NATO not expanded so far eastwards then the war would have been considerably less likely. This is not a moral justification for the war, although the word "provoke" might be taken as that. Sometimes reacting to provocation is not morally defensible, regardless of the provocation. The important question is whether or not he would continue to support Ukraine, and I don't remember him actually being asked that question.

Another poll putting Reform ahead of Tories:

Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 39% (-2) RFM: 20% (+3) CON: 19% (=) LDM: 12% (+1) GRN: 6% (=) SNP: 3% (=) Via @WStoneInsight, 19-20 Jun. Changes w/ 12-13 Jun.

Although there's another one out tonight putting Reform on 13 and the tories on 22. I don't know what to believe.

UE: “had NATO not expanded so far eastwards then the war would have been considerably less likely.”

I’ve been making this point all along.

And had that been the only point you had made, I would not have argued with you. The statement is true, but it does not justify Russia starting the war, and certainly doesn't justify all the other nonsense you have posted in support of Russia. I am NOT saying that NATO should not have expanded eastwards. I am making a factual statement, not a moral one, and I am doing so in order to analyse the exact meaning of Farage's statement.

It is a fact that NATO did agree not to expand that far eastwards, but it can also be argued that the choice whether to join NATO or not should always have been in the hands of the countries concerned, not NATO and not Russia. After the breakup of the USSR those countries became independent sovereign states with a right to self-determination. The root problem here is that some elements in Russia never accepted this. Had Russia accepted it, then those countries probably wouldn't have been so keen to join NATO.

UE: “all the other nonsense you have posted in support of Russia”

And that would be . . . ?

Name me three examples

[clv101]

It is a fact that NATO did agree not to expand that far eastwards, but it can also be argued that the choice whether to join NATO or not should always have been in the hands of the countries concerned, not NATO and not Russia.

It's up to existing NATO members who join, not the prospective member. The existing members should have recognised the destabilising effect of eastward expansion and rejected it. Frozen NATO as a cold war relic, maybe even replaced it with a new, looser military alliance more aligned with 21st C. threats.

One of the failures of the post cold war period in the west is that we gave up respecting and trying to understand Russia. During the cold war, understanding the Soviet position, their point of view, their likely response was very high priority. We gave up that work, contemporary leaders didn't, in my opinion, give enough consideration of the ramifications of NATO enlargement.

It's easy (and correct) just to say Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, but that's not useful. What we need to understand is *why* Putin invaded - and it's not sufficient to just say he a mad tyrant.

[Default0ptions]

It is a fact that NATO did agree not to expand that far eastwards, but it can also be argued that the choice whether to join NATO or not should always have been in the hands of the countries concerned, not NATO and not Russia.

It's up to existing NATO members who join, not the prospective member. The existing members should have recognised the destabilising effect of eastward expansion and rejected it. Frozen NATO as a cold war relic, maybe even replaced it with a new, looser military alliance more aligned with 21st C. threats.

One of the failures of the post cold war period in the west is that we gave up respecting and trying to understand Russia. During the cold war, understanding the Soviet position, their point of view, their likely response was very high priority. We gave up that work, contemporary leaders didn't, in my opinion, give enough consideration of the ramifications of NATO enlargement.

It's easy (and correct) just to say Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, but that's not useful. What we need to understand is *why* Putin invaded - and it's not sufficient to just say he a mad tyrant.

” What we need to understand is *why* Putin invaded - and it's not sufficient to just say he a mad tyrant.”

Exactly; and this is what I’ve been saying all along.

[UndercoverElephant]

Name me three examples

I am not wasting any more of my time "debating" this with you. Not interested. Have a nice day.

[UndercoverElephant]

It is a fact that NATO did agree not to expand that far eastwards, but it can also be argued that the choice whether to join NATO or not should always have been in the hands of the countries concerned, not NATO and not Russia.

It's up to existing NATO members who join, not the prospective member. The existing members should have recognised the destabilising effect of eastward expansion and rejected it. Frozen NATO as a cold war relic, maybe even replaced it with a new, looser military alliance more aligned with 21st C. threats.

One of the failures of the post cold war period in the west is that we gave up respecting and trying to understand Russia. During the cold war, understanding the Soviet position, their point of view, their likely response was very high priority. We gave up that work, contemporary leaders didn't, in my opinion, give enough consideration of the ramifications of NATO enlargement.

It's easy (and correct) just to say Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, but that's not useful. What we need to understand is *why* Putin invaded - and it's not sufficient to just say he a mad tyrant.

It is also not sufficient to say it was self-defence. There is plenty of blame to go round.

The problem is that this is part of a long strategic conflict between two conflicting ideological systems -- western liberal democracy and illiberal authoritarianism in all its guises -- and the people of eastern Europe made a clear decision that they wanted to become part of the liberal democratic world. I still believe we're heading for WW3, with those as the sides.

[Default0ptions]

Name me three examples

I am not wasting any more of my time "debating" this with you. Not interested. Have a nice day.

The interesting thing is how much you’re shifting towards the position that I’ve held all along.

UE: The problem is that this is part of a long strategic conflict

Yes - but you’ve denied this over and over again by claiming that this all began with the Russian SMO in February 2022. Unprovoked.

But now you’re agreeing with me that it’s part of a long strategic conflict after all.

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes - but you’ve denied this over and over again by claiming that this all began with the Russian SMO in February 2022. Unprovoked.

No I haven't, and this is precisely why I do not debate you. You are making 100% false claims. I have always said this was part of a larger conflict.

I am not getting dragged into this. Nobody cares what you post on this topic. Everybody taking part in this thread has already decided for themselves what you are. Nobody else is reading it. I have better things to do than deal with your nonsense. I will not be responding to you again -- I am staying out of this thread in order to avoid having to read your inane posts, and I'm only here because my post was moved here from the GE thread. Goodbye.

[Default0ptions]

Yes - but you’ve denied this over and over again by claiming that this all began with the Russian SMO in February 2022. Unprovoked.

No I haven't, and this is precisely why I do not debate you. You are making 100% false claims. I have always said this was part of a larger conflict.

I am not getting dragged into this. Nobody cares what you post on this topic. Everybody taking part in this thread has already decided for themselves what you are. Nobody else is reading it. I have better things to do than deal with your nonsense. I will not be responding to you again -- I am staying out of this thread in order to avoid having to read your inane posts, and I'm only here because my post was moved here from the GE thread. Goodbye.

So you do agree, by default, that Russia was provoked then?

[Default0ptions]

UE: “I'm only here because my post was moved here from the GE thread.”

Yeah I moved it here. Are you bleating about that too? It was getting off topic for the GE thread.

[Default0ptions]

UE: “Nobody cares what you post on this topic. Everybody taking part in this thread has already decided for themselves what you are. Nobody else is reading it.”

Well, actually clv101 has consistently been posting on this topic from a position not entirely unadjacent to mine:

“It's easy (and correct) just to say Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, but that's not useful. What we need to understand is *why* Putin invaded - and it's not sufficient to just say he a mad tyrant.”

UE: “Nobody cares what you post on this topic. Everybody taking part in this thread has already decided for themselves what you are. Nobody else is reading it.”

Umm - you’re confusing the message with the messenger there.

It’s uncomfortable I know, but you’re already belatedly trying to own the points I’ve made all along.

Hundreds of thousands didn’t need to die to end up more or less with Minsk 2.

Or WW III.