Brexit, for once some facts.

[flecc]

On another issue.
Putin has said his demands are
Recognition of the 2 separatist regions.
His continued control of Crimea.
Demilitarisation of Ukrain. (becoming neutral?)
????
Anybody any thoughts?
That sounds better than current situation? Could Ukraine keep sovereignty and Zelenskyy??

I've maintained all along that Ukraine's aggressive posturing, especially that of the president, has been a mistake and that there need not have been any conflict.

Wholly Russian Donbass is of no use to Ukraine. Nor is Crimea which as a desert the agricultural Ukrainians have never occupied to any extent.

If the president had used his brain instead of his testosterone he could have offered possession of those to Russia together with a narrow neutral corridor between Donbass and the Crimea alongside the Azov sea, skirting Mariupol.

That would have still left Ukraine with its key port city of Mariupol while giving Putin what he needs and almost everything he wanted, without any conflict. I'm quite certain Putin would very happily have accepted that political gain without cost, while Ukraine would have lost nothing it already didn't have but gained peace.

China pulls Premier League TV coverage over shows of solidarity with Ukraine

Premier League matches will be blocked by Chinese broadcasters this weekend because of planned displays of solidarity with Ukraine

www.theguardian.com

Surely it's more supportive of Russia?

As they say, “China and Russia are strategic partners, but not allies.”

Both have the same end game, but China is using hearts and minds, while Putin is stuck in the past thinking aggression can still ultimately win.
.

 

[jonathan.agnew]

I've maintained all along that Ukraine's aggressive posturing, especially that of the president, has been a mistake and that there need not have been any conflict.

Wholly Russian Donbass is of no use to Ukraine. Nor is Crimea which as a desert the agricultural Ukrainians have never occupied to any extent.

If the president had used his brain instead of his testosterone he could have offered possession of those to Russia together with a narrow neutral corridor between Donbass and the Crimea alongside the Azov sea, skirting Mariupol.

That would have still left Ukraine with its key port city of Mariupol while giving Putin what he needs and almost everything he wanted, without any conflict. I'm quite certain Putin would very happily have accepted that political gain without cost, while Ukraine would have lost nothing it already didn't have but gained peace.



As they say, “China and Russia are strategic partners, but not allies.”

Both have the same end game, but China is using hearts and minds, while Putin is stuck in the past thinking aggression can still ultimately win.
.

Listen to what putin say - he's not interested in donbas or corridors - he does not and has never acknowledged the existence of ukrain as an independent state. His aim has always regime change, installing a puppet like assad, or in Belarus that would extend his control. I'm afraid it's probably as clear to the Russian regime than us that it will have to be destroyed, that we can't tolerate a aggressive neofascist state that threaten nuclear war, which might make for a desperate end game.

 

[oyster]

Maybe I am hopelessly susceptible to "western" propaganda? But I do find it very difficult to summon up any pro-Russia arguments.

(I might be able to understand that Russia has views contrary to those of Ukraine, and me. But not to the point of military action.)

Are the marchers seeing (more or less) the same as I am? That is, is it their interpretation of what they see that results in being pro-Russian? Or do they see different things by accessing, for example, Russian media?

War in Ukraine: Thousands of pro-Russia Serbs march in Belgrade


War in Ukraine: Thousands of pro-Russia Serbs march in Belgrade

Up to 4,000 people have taken part in a pro-Russia demonstration in the Serbian capital.
Friday's march was a show of support for Moscow after its invasion of Ukraine.
Serbia has religious, ethnic and political ties with Russia that have existed for centuries.

Thousands of pro-Russia Serbs march in Belgrade

Flags and flares are paraded through the Serbian capital, as marchers show support for Moscow.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Woosh]

If the president had used his brain instead of his testosterone he could have offered possession of those to Russia together with a narrow neutral corridor between Donbass and the Crimea alongside the Azov sea, skirting Mariupol.

Zelensky did the right thing.
The world would be a better place if we have more Zelensky and fewer Putin.

 

[jonathan.agnew]

Maybe I am hopelessly susceptible to "western" propaganda? But I do find it very difficult to summon up any pro-Russia arguments.

(I might be able to understand that Russia has views contrary to those of Ukraine, and me. But not to the point of military action.)

Are the marchers seeing (more or less) the same as I am? That is, is it their interpretation of what they see that results in being pro-Russian? Or do they see different things by accessing, for example, Russian media?

War in Ukraine: Thousands of pro-Russia Serbs march in Belgrade


War in Ukraine: Thousands of pro-Russia Serbs march in Belgrade

Up to 4,000 people have taken part in a pro-Russia demonstration in the Serbian capital.
Friday's march was a show of support for Moscow after its invasion of Ukraine.
Serbia has religious, ethnic and political ties with Russia that have existed for centuries.

Thousands of pro-Russia Serbs march in Belgrade

Flags and flares are paraded through the Serbian capital, as marchers show support for Moscow.

www.bbc.co.uk

Perhaps I'm the same (though boris' blatant hypocricy of not taking any actual useful action against oligargs or for refugees says a great deal) - but how can one put it euphemistically, Serbs have shown themselves to not always be averse to genocide and war crimes in the past

 

[oyster]

Perhaps I'm the same (though boris' blatant hypocricy of not taking any actual useful action against oligargs or for refugees says a great deal) - but how can one put it euphemistically, Serbs have shown themselves to not always be averse to genocide and war crimes in the past

That always makes it difficult.

Whatever else, we still can and do criticise Johnson (et al.). And he deserves most of it. Do the Serbs discussed ever see severe, factually-based criticism of Putin (et al.)?

 

[flecc]

Listen to what putin say - he's not interested in donbas or corridors - he does not and has never acknowledged the existence of ukrain as an independent state. His aim has always regime change, installing a puppet like assad, or in Belarus that would extend his control. I'm afraid it's probably as clear to the Russian regime than us that it will have to be destroyed, that we can't tolerate a aggressive neofascist state that threaten nuclear war, which might make for a desperate end game.

Zelensky did the right thing.

Blinkered and short sighted, what on earth is the point?

Following the course I advised above and previously would have resulted in no current war, with Ukraine losing nothing it hadn't already lost or never had.

The sort of foolishness you express above is resulting in death and maiming on a huge scale and Ukraine not just losing everything but even disappearing, quite possibly for good. It was Russia's Lenin who made it a country only 104 years ago from being just a part of Russia, and now another Russian absorbing it back into being a Russian province.

The important thing was to avoid all that for the present, predicting what Russia might go on to do later is just guessing.

Putin is just short of 70 years old and won't last for ever. With the Ukraine issue settled in the way I advised, if Putin does have further designs on expansion he'd then leave Ukraine alone to get on with that, bringing a far greater likelyhood of NATO involvement and the end of Putin.

Meanwhile Ukraine would have remained an independent country, unsullied by the killing and maiming of so many and the destruction of infrastructure which will take years and huge cost to put right.
.

 

[flecc]

Do the Serbs discussed ever see severe, factually-based criticism of Putin (et al.)?

See and ignore. Their's is a long standing religion based alliance so such things as who is leading Russia is immaterial. Nation and faith over personalities.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

Russian joke.
Moscow man buys newspaper, glances at front page, throws it straight out. Next day and day after, same. Eventually, seller snaps. ‘Why DO you do that?’ ‘I'm just checking for an obituary.’ ‘But obituaries aren't on the front page.’ ‘The one I'm looking for will be.’

 

[Woosh]

The sort of foolishness you express above is resulting in death and maiming on a huge scale and Ukraine not just losing everything but even disappearing, quite possibly for good. It was Russia's Lenin who made it a country only 104 years ago from being just a part of Russia, and now another Russian absorbing it back into being a Russian province.

Putin made his conditions impossible for Ukrainians to accept. The West has also made it impossible for Putin to back down. He'd be finished if he did. Yes, I still think Zelensky did the right thing for Ukraine and Russia because the only alternative is far worse: Zelensky will have to go onto exile, Ukraine will cease to be an independent country, never join the EU and will be soon absorbed into Greater Russia. As it is, a partitioned Western Ukraine would be on a fast track to join the EU and maybe the Russian people will see Putin for what he is: a dictator misguided by his ego and folly of the Russian empire.

 

[flecc]

Putin made his conditions impossible for Ukrainians to accept. The West has also made it impossible for Putin to back down. He'd be finished if he did. Yes, I still think Zelensky did the right thing for Ukraine and Russia because the only alternative is far worse: Zelensky will have to go onto exile, Ukraine will cease to be an independent country, never join the EU and will be soon absorbed into Greater Russia. As it is, a partitioned Western Ukraine would be on a fast track to join the EU and maybe the Russian people will see Putin for what he is: a dictator misguided by his ego and folly of the Russian empire.

That is completely untrue, as I've shown Ukraine didn't have to accept all Putin's demands, only what he needed most, a tiny amount at no cost which wasn't impossible for more sensible Ukrainians to accept instead of probable annihilation of their country.

Nor would the alternative I proposed have meant any of the other things you claim, but not adopting that course will very likely bring about all you fear with Ukraine no longer existing

I've no idea where you get the idea that Ukraine will be partitioned with Western Ukraine as an EU member, exactly what Putin does not want. His now revealed aim of taking Odessa in the far west and thus sealing off the whole of Ukraine from the sea to leave the north and east of the Black Sea coast entirely his is the clearest indication yet that he intends to take the whole country.

In any case partition has never worked and never will. The world and especially Europe are proof of that truism.
.

 

[Woosh]

That is completely untrue, as I've shown Ukraine didn't have to accept all Putin's demands, only what he needed most, a tiny amount at no cost which wasn't impossible for more sensible Ukrainians to accept instead of probable annihilation of their country.

we don't know if Putin will accept less than what he has asked, also, there is no way Putin can annihilate Ukraine. He may destroy more of the towns and cities but his army will be severely hit as the Ukrainians will get better at hitting back.

 

[flecc]

we don't know if Putin will accept less than what he has asked

Contrary to what so many seem to believe, he's neither daft nor mad. He would happily accept what he actually needed handed to him on a plate without effort or loss, knowing he could still come back later with aggression for more if he felt it became necessary. Having received that neighbourly benefit from Ukraine it's unlikely he'd feel it necessary.

there is no way Putin can annihilate Ukraine. He may destroy more of the towns and cities but his army will be severely hit as the Ukrainians will get better at hitting back.

Thinking he'd get a quick victory as in Georgia, he went in too light. But he hasn't even begun to bring all his might to bear. That would soon change the picture, we've seen how Kharkiv, Mariupol, Kherson and Mykolalv have been crumbling or fallen. Kiev hasn't suffered an assault to take it over yet, it seems the Russians are just waiting for it to weaken more before that to avoid street to street losses.
.

 

[jonathan.agnew]

Contrary to what so many seem to believe, he's neither daft nor mad. He would happily accept what he actually needed handed to him on a plate without effort or loss, knowing he could still come back later with aggression for more if he felt it became necessary. Having received that neighbourly benefit from Ukraine it's unlikely he'd feel it necessary.



Thinking he'd get a quick victory as in Georgia, he went in too light. But he hasn't even begun to bring all his might to bear. That would soon change the picture, we've seen how Kharkiv, Mariupol, Kherson and Mykolalv have been crumbling or fallen. Kiev hasn't suffered an assault to take it over yet, it seems the Russians are just waiting for it to weaken more before that to avoid street to street losses.
.

For once I'm with polly. He would - not could - have come back with aggression. He will continue to invade. If the world gave him Ukraine he'd be emboldened. As after Syria. He's doing exactly what worked there (besiege towns, bomb, starve civilians, infrastructure).
In many ways he is significantly worse than Hitler (whose blitzkrieg didn't specifically target the vulnerable) or stalin (whos paranoia made it about possible opponents). appeasement now will achieve exactly the same as in 39

 

[oyster]

Today, I ordered a new lot of flour for my baking purposes. Thankfully, price looks the same as last time I ordered. And availability is OK. I hope it remains so, but there are many "rumours" that prices will soon rise considerably and availability will plummet.

(I just got to my re-ordering point, not stock-piling any more than usual.)

Today, I saw my first 160.9 pence per litre forecourt (diesel - petrol three pence less).

 

[flecc]

For once I'm with polly. He would - not could - have come back with aggression. He will continue to invade. If the world gave him Ukraine he'd be emboldened. As after Syria. He's doing exactly what worked there (besiege towns, bomb, starve civilians, infrastructure).
In many ways he is significantly worse than Hitler (whose blitzkrieg didn't specifically target the vulnerable) or stalin (whos paranoia made it about possible opponents). appeasement now will achieve exactly the same as in 39

The circumstances are entirely different. We all saw how Putin was holding back for what seemed ages, leaving the West guessing why. It was clear he was trying to assess what the reaction to his invading would be, clearly nervous about it not being too great, such as a NATO response.

In other words he didn't want war beyond the quick fall of Ukraine he planned for, akin to that of Georgia.

If at any time during that long waiting period Ukraine had made the right sort of approach, showing empathy with the Russian position and negotiating to meet Russian needs without any Ukrainian loss, there would be no war now.

It's important to remember or be aware that for the whole of the 20th century Russia and Ukraine enjoyed good relations, with Ukraine a privileged partner. That only ended with the deliberate destabilising of Ukraine by the USA, the consequence being the long standing civil war in Ukraine.

An agreement on the lines I suggest would immediately automatically end that civil war, two birds killed with one well aimed stone.
.

 

[Zlatan]

For once I'm with polly. He would - not could - have come back with aggression. He will continue to invade. If the world gave him Ukraine he'd be emboldened. As after Syria. He's doing exactly what worked there (besiege towns, bomb, starve civilians, infrastructure).
In many ways he is significantly worse than Hitler (whose blitzkrieg didn't specifically target the vulnerable) or stalin (whos paranoia made it about possible opponents). appeasement now will achieve exactly the same as in 39

Trouble is nobody knows what Putin really wants. Conditions mentioned in peace talks do not seem as severe as original, but he's now a proven liar. Mentioned earlier his conditions ask for the two separatist regions to come under his control / sovereignty along with Crimea.. No mention of Kyiv, installing puppet government, but that remaining is demilitarised..(neutral)
In some ways I totally agree with Jonathon, if somebody demanded Cornwall, we, d say feck off. On the other hand Ukrainians have proved a point, could hang on to what's left and Zelenskyy remain in power? The alternative could easily now be country/Kyiv destroyed, thousands more dead, millions more displaced and Zelenskyy /Klitchcos killed or carted off to some gulag.
Even if it is appeasement and Putin still wants more is world in any worse place..??? I don't think so. I see Flecc's argument. No point in dying needlessly. If Putin wants Poland I suspect those long columns of vehicles( if repeated in Poland) would be smoking piles of scrap after Warthogs, drones and F35s had played with them.
On the other hand Ukrainians do know exactly what's in store for them if they lose.. Hence they'd rather fight to the death???
Think if I were Zelenskyy I, d be taking conditions and hoping Putin then goes for Poland.
Flecc
Don't think its fair to blame US. Ukraine as a sovereign country had freedom to make links and ties to who they see fit. Their main suitor was in fact EU... They had little chance of joining NATO or EU and Russia has no right to stop any country (Finland/Sweden) joining NATO. Its not a valid argument suggesting Russia has right to insist its neighbours (some of them) aren't in NATO.. Canada shares a massive border with Russia with no problems from either side.
NATO never had or will have slightest inclination to encroach on Russian territory.. Only time it's an issue is if one is contemplating invasion?
I suspect Putin wants to reclaim as much of the old USSR as possible. Staying out of NATO makes that less problematic.
I can't make my mind up whether he just wants Crimea, Donbas or whether that's simply his justification for action in Ukraine. For Ukraine it makes no difference.

 

[oyster]

Think if I were Zelenskyy I, d be taking conditions and hoping Putin then goes for Poland.

I don't think Zelenskiy would survive. Not as president. But as a living being.

Which makes any accommodation of Putin an even more deeply unattractive proposition to Zelenskiy.

 

[oldgroaner]

Someone has hacked the Leave means Leave twitter site
"

Leave Means Leave

@LeaveMnsLeave
·
1h

We'd like to inform staff that, for technical reasons relating to money laundering regulations, all future salary payments will be made in Euros from our account in Luxembourg. Apologies for any inconvenience (or distress) this may cause.

And interestingly lots of Tory Mp's tweets to the site have appeared on the deleted tweets register

 

[flecc]

Flecc
Don't think its fair to blame US. Ukraine as a sovereign country had freedom to make links and ties to who they see fit.

Ukraine wasn't making any links shortly after the millennium, they were happy with their position in their friendly situation with Russia, until the CIA came in and destabilised the country by persuading the population that they'd be much better off in the EU. They did the same in Georgia leading to that conflict. The American intention was to get both into NATO to complete the western and Balkan encirclement of Russia.

It was entirely the USA's fault through their phobic hatred of communism or anything vaguely socialist and believing they had the right to run the world their way.

I suspect Putin wants to reclaim as much of the old USSR as possible. Staying out of NATO makes that less problematic.
I can't make my mind up whether he just wants Crimea, Donbas or whether that's simply his justification for action in Ukraine. For Ukraine it makes no difference.

As I've already explained, he has Donbass and Crimea already. Donbass because the Russian population there had risen up against the US created minority Orange party that had seized power in a coup and deposed the democratically elected pro Russian president and government. Crimea because he used an election to ask the residents of Crimea what they wanted, knowing that as mostly Russian they'd vote his way. They did so he took it.

So he has them already. What he wants and needs is a land link between the two to access and service his Southern fleet secure from threat of attack. That's all, and as I posted Ukraine could easily have given that without any loss.

Whether NATO is or is not a threat to Russia isn't material, it only matters that Russia and now Putin believes NATO is a threat. Hardly surprising when the USA has so keenly pursued surrounding Western and Balkan Russia with NATO countries on the Russian border, often with deliberate covert action to persuade them to join the EU as a stepping stone to NATO membership. These are not things friendly countries do.
.