Latest developments and discussion of recent events in the Ukraine War

[VBer]

18 minutes ago, tgw said:

What do you mean, media forgets to mention it ?

 

Alright, I admit that I’m wrong and the fact it was residential buildings is covered.

I just made this wrong conclusion from the headline here, in this forum.

[Bkk Brian]

19 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

At least you are showing your true colours as a Putin fanboy. However, there is an alternative narrative to the image of loveable, hard done by, misunderstood Vlad which you portray. 

 

I sincerely hope the author of this piece is wrong, otherwise Ukraine and, indeed the world, will continue to suffer at the hands of this wanna be imperialist dictator.

 

https://theconversation.com/russias-economy-is-now-completely-driven-by-the-war-in-ukraine-it-cannot-afford-to-lose-but-nor-can-it-afford-to-win-221333

Agreed. Of course its a war economy. Only apologists attempt to deny it.

 

The Kremlin has constructed a war economy, driven by increased defence spending and financed by energy earnings

 

This column describes how Russia's economy rebounded due to increased public spending in war-related industries

 

While Russian GDP may be growing, the economy is increasingly geared towards the war industry, upheld by large fiscal stimulus.

 

Putin's New War Economy

Edited September 10 by Bkk Brian

[tgw]

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Except the war was not "unncessary" after the West had expanded NATO. For decades Russia had implored the west that expanding NATO beyond Ukraine is a line in the sand. Russia was lied to and deceived. Russia can no more tolerate a pro American nuclear Ukraine as part of NATO than the US could tolerate Russia missiles in Cuba. It's called national security. 

 

Western politicians knew this, and yet pressed on with NATO enlargement regardless. Many cold war warriors warned of the potential consequences. 

 

Ever since Putin came to power in Russia, he has been trying to subjugate Ukraine, to dominate it, to control Ukraine's destiny, despite it being a sovereign independent state.

Putin committed many crimes against Ukraine and even more were committed on his orders.

 

Ex-Soviet states suffered a lot already under the Soviets, so it's understandable that they wanted to join the EU and NATO, but since Putin is in power, that wish for protection against Putin has increased at an accelerated rate. Putin is NATO's best recruiter.

[Cameroni]

24 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

Ever since Putin came to power in Russia, he has been trying to subjugate Ukraine, to dominate it, to control Ukraine's destiny, despite it being a sovereign independent state.

Putin committed many crimes against Ukraine and even more were committed on his orders.

 

Ex-Soviet states suffered a lot already under the Soviets, so it's understandable that they wanted to join the EU and NATO, but since Putin is in power, that wish for protection against Putin has increased at an accelerated rate. Putin is NATO's best recruiter.

Not at all. It only started after 2008 when NATO made clear at the Bucharest conference that Ukraine will join NATO. That and America's intervention in Lybia in 2011 convinced Putin that the Americans were not just liars, they were dangerous liars.

 

Putin would not have touched Ukraine, had it not declared its undying love for America and the EU and thrown its wet panties at them. Only when it became clear that Ukraine would be a pro American, anti-Russian problem, was the invasion of Crimea started.

[Cameroni]

36 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The war was completely unnecessary as, pre-2014 Ukraine was nowhere close to gaining NATO membership. 

 

Let's not forget that Russia was undermining Ukrainian sovereignty long before it started this war.

 

The truth of the matter is that Putin refused to accept that the Ukrainian people preferred a future bound to Western Europe rather than Russia, and he has acted in order to try to stop it happening.

 

You are unware of political develolpments. In 2008 NATO at the Bucharest conference had declared that Ukraine would become a NATO member. Only after this announcement and America's intervention in Lybia did it become clear to Russia that Americans were not just liars. They were dangerous liars.

 

Of course Russia would not accept a pro-American Ukraine. Just like the US would not accept Russian missiles in Cuba. Again, it's called national security.

Edited September 10 by Cameroni

[tgw]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

Not at all. It only started after 2008 when NATO made clear at the Bucharest conference that Ukraine will join NATO. That and America's intervention in Lybia in 2011 convinced Putin that the Americans were not just liars, they were dangerous liars.

 

Putin would not have touched Ukraine, had it not declared its undying love for America and the EU and thrown its wet panties at them. Only when it became clear that Ukraine would be a pro American, anti-Russian problem, was the invasion of Crimea started.

 

As usual you are full of it.

It started not very long before the Orange revolution (2004). Yushchenko was poisoned the same year by his own security forced paid by Russia.

I was there.

 

 

 

Edited September 10 by tgw

[tgw]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

You are unware of political develolpments. In 2008 NATO at the Bucharest conference had declared that Ukraine would become a NATO member. Only after this announcement and America's intervention in Lybia did it become clear to Russia that Americans were not just liars. They were dangerous liars.

 

Of course Russia would not accept a pro-American Ukraine. Just like the US would not accept Russian missiles in Cuba. Again, it's called national security.

 

in 2004, Russia poisoned presidential candidate Yushchenko and rigged the vote in favour of Yanukovich.

 

and you thought after that the people of Ukraine would still be favourable to Russia ?

 

[Cameroni]

10 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

As usual you are full of it.

It started not very long before the Orange revolution (2004). Yushchenko was poisoned the same year by his own security forced paid by Russia.

I was there.

 

 

 

 

That didn't help, the Ukraine making flirty eyes at America, but without enablement from NATO it would mean little. Only in 2008 when NATO declared at Bucharest that Ukraine WILL become a member was it clear where the train was heading. Then America's shameless Lybia intervention convinced Putin to come back as President, as he understood the Americans were not just liars, but dangerous liars. Only then did Crimea etc happen.

Edited September 10 by Cameroni

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

in 2004, Russia poisoned presidential candidate Yushchenko and rigged the vote in favour of Yanukovich.

 

and you thought after that the people of Ukraine would still be favourable to Russia ?

 

 

How do you get away with spreading this misinformation? 

 

Yushchenko himself implicated Davyd Zhvania, the godfather of one of his children, of involvement in his dioxin poisoning. Zhvania is Ukrainian. 

 

There is no real evidence Russia poisoned Yanukovich.

[tgw]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

That didn't help, the Ukraine making flirty eyes at America, but without enablement from NATO it would mean little. Only in 2008 when NATO delcared at Bucharest that Ukraine WILL become a member was it clear where the train was heading. Then America's shameless Lybia intervention convinced Putin to come back as President, as he understood the Americans were not just liars, but dangerous liars. Only then did Crimea etc happen.

 

no, it simply meant Ukraine was going to seek protection from Putin's crimes. Putin brought it onto himself by trying to stop the inevitable : Ukrainian people wanted to join Western Europe and its culture and prosperity. Evro-Standard. Paniatna ?

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, tgw said:

 

no, it simply meant Ukraine was going to seek protection from Putin's crimes. Putin brought it onto himself by trying to stop the inevitable : Ukrainian people wanted to join Western Europe and its culture and prosperity. Evro-Standard. Paniatna ?

 

That was a grave mistake. If you are neighbour of America you have to consider American interests. If you are a neighbour of Russia you have to consider Russian interests. Ukraine can't poke Russia in the eye with a stick and then complain when the bear comes raging.

[tgw]

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

How do you get away with spreading this misinformation? 

 

Yushchenko himself implicated Davyd Zhvania, the godfather of one of his children, of involvement in his dioxin poisoning. Zhvania is Ukrainian. 

 

There is no real evidence Russia poisoned Yanukovich.

 

On 27 September 2009, Yushchenko said in an interview aired on Channel 1+1 that the testimony of three men who were at a dinner in 2004 at which he believes he was poisoned is crucial to finishing the investigation, and he claimed these men were in Russia. Ukrainian prosecutors said Russia has refused to extradite one of the men, the former deputy chief of Ukraine's security service, Volodymyr Satsyuk, because he holds both Russian and Ukrainian citizenship.^[24] Satsyuk returned to Ukraine in 2012 and tried to relaunch his political career, but did not succeed.

 

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

 

[tgw]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

That was a grave mistake. If you are neighbour of America you have to consider American interests. If you are a neighbour of Russia you have to consider Russian interests. Ukraine can't poke Russia in the eye with a stick and then complain when the bear comes raging.

 

Ukraine didn't poke anyone.

[Cameroni]

To this day, there is no definitive answer as to how and who poisoned Yushchenko

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/03/01/viktor-yuschenko-former-ukrainian-president-poison/9333605002/

 

Suspicions are one thing. Evidence is another.

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, tgw said:

 

Ukraine didn't poke anyone.

 

Trying to ally with America and the EU is a huge provocation to Russia, very obviously.

[tgw]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

To this day, there is no definitive answer as to how and who poisoned Yushchenko

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/03/01/viktor-yuschenko-former-ukrainian-president-poison/9333605002/

 

Suspicions are one thing. Evidence is another.

 

the suspects have been given Russian passports and are living in Russia.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

You are unware of political develolpments. In 2008 NATO at the Bucharest conference had declared that Ukraine would become a NATO member. Only after this announcement and America's intervention in Lybia did it become clear to Russia that Americans were not just liars. They were dangerous liars.

 

Of course Russia would not accept a pro-American Ukraine. Just like the US would not accept Russian missiles in Cuba. Again, it's called national security.

 

I am not unaware of the announcement at the Bucharest conference, but announcing that Ukraine will become a member of NATO at some interminant time in the future is not the same as it actually being a member. 

 

As I said, imo Ukraine was not close to becoming a member of NATO (or the EU for that matter) in 2014.

 

No way of knowing of course, but I suspect that if Russia had kept a 'watching brief' rather than actively engage in Ukraine, then Ukraine would be in the same position today vis-à-vis membership of both organisations as it was then i.e. hanging around in the waiting room, not least because both France and Germany had - and probably still have - strong reservations about Ukraine's membership of both organisations.

[Cameroni]

Just now, tgw said:

 

the suspects have been given Russian passports and are living in Russia.

 

I thought Satsyuk returned to Ukraine?

[tgw]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

I thought Satsyuk returned to Ukraine?

 

I was waiting for that argument.

He returned when Yanukovich was president and magically, there was no investigation anymore.

Edited September 10 by tgw

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

I am not unaware of the announcement at the Bucharest conference, but announcing that Ukraine will become a member of NATO at some interminant time in the future is not the same as it actually being a member. 

 

As I said, imo Ukraine was not close to becoming a member of NATO (or the EU for that matter) in 2014.

 

No way of knowing of course, but I suspect that if Russia had kept a 'watching brief' rather than actively engage in Ukraine, then Ukraine would be in the same position today vis-à-vis membership of both organisations as it was then i.e. hanging around in the waiting room, not least because both France and Germany had - and probably still have - strong reservations about Ukraine's membership of both organisations.

 

What they announced was that Ukraine WILL become a member. It was just a matter of time. That clearly was what precipitated Russia's understanding that the Ukraine red line would be crossed.

 

The 2008 Bucharest declaration by NATO was followed by America's intervention in Lybia, which convinced Putin that Americans were dangerous and could not be trusted. It was this that prompted him to take the Presidential reigns from Medvedev and to begin his fightback against American policies in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

[RayC]

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Trying to ally with America and the EU is a huge provocation to Russia, very obviously.

 

What is the point of being an independent, sovereign nation if you are not allowed by your larger neighbour to behave like one?

 

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

What they announced was that Ukraine WILL become a member. It was just a matter of time. That clearly was what precipitated Russia's understanding that the Ukraine red line would be crossed.

 

See previous paragraph.

 

Turkey was until recently, a candidate country for EU membership. It applied in 1987. It never became a member for a number of reasons. I suspect that something similar would have happened to Ukraine's application to join the EU and NATO.

 

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

The 2008 Bucharest declaration by NATO was followed by America's intervention in Lybia, which convinced Putin that Americans were dangerous and could not be trusted. It was this that prompted him to take the Presidential reigns from Medvedev and to begin his fightback against American policies in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

 

The Bucharest Declaration was also followed by the Russian invasion of Georgia, thus fuelling Ukraine's fears that they did have something to fear from their neighbour and that Putin couldn't be trusted.

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

What is the point of being an independent, sovereign nation if you are not allowed by your larger neighbour to behave like one?

 

 

Why don't you ask Panama or Cuba or Nicaragua?  Offensive realism has no room for moralist complains. The reality of big power politics is that they require their neighbour states to be friendly or at least not hostile to them. When this principle is violated big powers have the option to impose their interests on smaller countries. This is just reality.

 

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

Turkey was until recently, a candidate country for EU membership. It applied in 1987. It never became a member for a number of reasons. I suspect that something similar would have happened to Ukraine's application to join the EU and NATO.

 

Your suspicion is sadly not enough to guarantee the national security of Russia. 

 

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The Bucharest Declaration was also followed by the Russian invasion of Georgia, thus fuelling Ukraine's fears that they did have something to fear from their neighbour and that Putin couldn't be trusted.

 

Which again proves the point that it was the Bucharest Declaration, where NATO announced that both Ukraine and Georgia will become NATO members which set off Russia's fightback.

 

Ossetia was Russia telling the West "This is our sphere of influence, we told you not to expand here". They ignored that too and now we have Ukraine.

[RayC]

14 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Why don't you ask Panama or Cuba or Nicaragua?  Offensive realism has no room for moralist complains. The reality of big power politics is that they require their neighbour states to be friendly or at least not hostile to them. When this principle is violated big powers have the option to impose their interests on smaller countries. This is just reality.

 

Your suspicion is sadly not enough to guarantee the national security of Russia. 

 

 

Which again proves the point that it was the Bucharest Declaration, where NATO announced that both Ukraine and Georgia will become NATO members which set off Russia's fightback.

 

Ossetia was Russia telling the West "This is our sphere of influence, we told you not to expand here". They ignored that too and now we have Ukraine.

 

How can you complain about the US's actions in Central/ South America (the US sphere of influence), while in the next breath justifying Russia's action in Ukraine and Georgia for the very same reason?

 

Poland shares a border with both Belarus and Ukraine. Given the former is nothing more than a Russian puppet state and there is, unfortunately, the prospect of Ukraine going the same way, would Poland (with the aid of NATO/ the EU) be justified in invading either country in order to safeguard its' security?

 

We now have Ukraine because Putin is an unreconstructed KGB man who longs for the return of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Bloc.

[Cameroni]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

How can you complain about the US's actions in Central/ South America (the US sphere of influence), while in the next breath justifying Russia's action in Ukraine and Georgia for the very same reason?

 

Poland shares a border with both Belarus and Ukraine. Given the former is nothing more than a Russian puppet state and there is, unfortunately, the prospect of Ukraine going the same way, would Poland (with the aid of NATO/ the EU) be justified in invading either country in order to safeguard its' security?

 

We now have Ukraine because Putin is an unreconstructed KGB man who longs for the return of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Bloc.

 

I don't know if you're being deliberately facetious making a joke, but if you seriously think Poland is a great power on the lines of Russia or America, I don't think that statement requires an answer.

 

As for Putin wanting to reconstitute the USSR and the Warsaw Bloc, again I'm at a loss of words to answer such nonsense.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

I don't know if you're being deliberately facetious making a joke, but if you seriously think Poland is a great power on the lines of Russia or America, I don't think that statement requires an answer.

 

As for Putin wanting to reconstitute the USSR and the Warsaw Bloc, again I'm at a loss of words to answer such nonsense.

 

I note that throughout our exchanges you make no attempt to address my points directly.

 

I am not being at all facetious. I did not claim that Poland was a great power akin to Russia or the US. You are (deliberately?) misrepresenting what I wrote (in order to avoid answering the question?).

 

You justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the premise that NATO (and the EU) are impinging on Russia's 'sphere of influence' by inviting Ukraine to join their respective organisations. Poland shares a border with Belarus (a puppet state of Russia) and developments there i.e. the increase in Russia's military presence prior to 2022 might be considered within Poland's - and by extension the EU/NATO's - 'area of interest'. By your line of argument, Poland - with the aid of NATO - would have been justified in reacting militarily against this provacation. Or perhaps you may hold an alternative view i.e. that Poland (and the Baltic States) should never have joined NATO (or the EU for that matter) in the first place?

 

I am continually amazed that some people cannot see - or refuse to accept - Putin for what he is: A Cold War warrior who refuses to accept the fact that, with the demise of the Soviet Union, Russia is no longer the second great power on the world stage. It appears that Putin is determined to correct what he perceives as an injustice even if it risks starting another Europe-wide conflict.

[ChicagoExpat]

The idea that the western far Right has been so taken in by Russian lies is continually astonishing to me.  I'm old enough to remember when it was the Left that were Moscow's fellow travelers.  I never in a million years would have guessed the Right would take its place.

 

@RayC You're doing God's work in responding to the Putin fanboys, but it's like stepping on cockroaches, or trying to reason with a raving lunatic.  It has no end.

 

[Bkk Brian]

Looks like the OK to use the long range missiles given by the US, UK etc are finally going to be able to do what they are intended to do.

 

BREAKING: President Biden responds to a question on whether he will lift restrictions to allow Ukraine to strike military targets in Russia with long range missiles such as ATACMS and Storm Shadow: "We're working that out right now."

https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1833621789391655418

 

 

Biden to Discuss Allowing Ukraine to Use Long-Range Weapons Against Russia, Says Blinken

https://united24media.com/latest-news/biden-to-discuss-allowing-ukraine-to-use-long-range-weapons-against-russia-says-blinken-2229

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

I don't know if you're being deliberately facetious making a joke, but if you seriously think Poland is a great power on the lines of Russia or America, I don't think that statement requires an answer.

 

As for Putin wanting to reconstitute the USSR and the Warsaw Bloc, again I'm at a loss of words to answer such nonsense.

Given Putin's inability to conquer the eastern part of Ukraine, I fail to understand how anyone can believe the western propaganda that Russia is even capable of taking over Europe.

[beautifulthailand99]

22 hours ago, RayC said:

 

The simple truth is that a negotiated peace would be the quickest way to end this war, but it would result in Russia being rewarded for instigating the conflict and is therefore rejected by Ukraine and, for the time being at least, by her Western allies.

 

Crimea was not lost to a Western-backed coup in 2014. It was lost to another act of aggression by Russia.

 

The Maidan protests in 2014 - which eventually led to the overthrow of Yanukovych's government - were a direct result of  Yanukovych refusing to sign and implement the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement.  This Agreement had already been approved by the Ukrainian parliament and formed a major plank in the platform upon which Yanukovych had been elected. However, under pressure from Moscow, Yanukovych unilaterally decided against signing the Agreement campaign but instead sought closer ties to Russia, an act which led to his removal.

 

This event was the catalyst for the escalation in the conflict in Ukraine. Russia may be concerned at what she perceives as NATO military encroachment into her sphere of influence, but imo she is even more concerned about her loss of economic influence and simply does not respect Ukraine's decision to place her future economic prospects with the West (the EU).

 

The blame for this conflict sits squarely on Russian shoulders.

Well Zelenkiy was elected to bring better relations with Russia,end corruption and find a solution to the war in Donbas and he can't be removed by an election as it stands currently. And let's not forget Maidan wasn't a mass revolt but a gathering of 20,000 mostly peaceful but with a nasty undercurrent of far right forces fomenting unrest for their own ends - echoes of January 6th maybe ? Maybe Yanukovych realised in his soul that cordial relations with Russia were vital if you didn't want to be "Chechnyiad". He wasn't wrong.Post war if western money comes in and it's a big if - we will have replaced one oligarchic class with another, American big finance - when the heroes who survive will want a country fit for all like 1945 Britain socialism red in tooth and claw. Blackrock and JP Morgan don't do that.

Edited September 11 by beautifulthailand99

[beautifulthailand99]

The public is weary of the war, draconian measures to mobilise men, almost daily blackouts and endemic corruption, while Zelenskyy’s popularity declines. To some Ukrainians, the Government shake-up looks unnecessary and untimely as Russian troops advance in southeastern Donbas

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/10/in-ukraine-some-are-sceptical-of-zelenskyys-shake-up-as-russia-advances

 

According to an August survey by the National Democratic Institute pollster, his ratings dropped to 45 percent from 69 percent in January.

Earlier this month, a deputy prime minister and six cabinet ministers sent their resignations to the Verkhovna Rada, the unicameral parliament of Ukraine

 

He said Zelenskyy needed the shake-up to divert the public’s attention from corruption and the dysfunctional court system.