There can no longer be much doubt that the West is fighting a proxy war with Russia. The goal is not simply to defend Ukraine’s territory and safeguard its sovereignty, but to “see Russia weakened” – in the words of U.S. defence secretary Lloyd Austin (a former board member of Raytheon Technologies).
In a previous post, I reported what the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO said in a recent interview with the New York Times: “I think we are in a proxy war with Russia. We are using the Ukrainians as our proxy forces”. Since then, several U.S. politicians have confirmed this is a proxy war.
On 2nd May, Democratic Congressman Jason Crow tweeted: “The United States is not interested in stalemates. We are not interested in going back to the status quo. The United States is in this to win it and we will stand with Ukraine until victory is won.”
Speaking to Fox News on May 6th, Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton explained: “At the end of the day, we’ve got to realise we’re at war. And we’re not just at war to support Ukraine. We’re fundamentally at war – although somewhat through a proxy – with Russia. And it’s important that we win.”
Then on May 11th, Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw tweeted, in defence of his decision to approve the latest $40 billion aid package: “Yeah, because investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea. You should feel the same.”
This has very serious implications. If the West’s aim is to “see Russia weakened”, that means prolonging the war, rather than finding a diplomatic solution as soon as possible. It means more lives lost, more buildings reduced to rubble, and more chances for accidents or missteps that lead to nuclear escalation.
Even the ‘mainstream’ media is waking up. Yesterday, the New York Times ran a piece arguing that “the United States and its allies have greatly increased the danger of an even larger conflict”. The author observing, “Indefinite protraction of the war, as in Syria, is too dangerous with nuclear-armed participants.”
And the Washington Post ran a similar piece. Noting the West’s approach “may carry extraordinary, underappreciated risk”, the authors warn that “Putin could turn to unconventional weapons, including low-yield nuclear weapons, to stave off defeat”.
The fact that influential newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post are airing scepticism about the West’s increasingly reckless approach is, of course, welcome. But is it too late to avoid a protracted war?
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
No shit Sherlock.
Dear me, Dan Crenshaw, you want Russians and Ukrainians (military and civilian) to continue to die to suit your purposes? How craven and immoral.
I used to rate him, but after that garbage…
What was the phrase used previously in jest:
We intend to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian
Seems like it’s not a joke now.
American military,
“So we can totally take them in a war”
Then they thought about it and went,
“Oh Crap we can totally take them in a war”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxJ9BGFyG0s
From 5;15.
“American military,
“So we can totally take them in a war”
Then they thought about it and went,
“Oh Crap we can totally take them in a war””
Well if jingoistic fantasy nonsense is all you’ve got:
“You see, meeting Mr. Kalibr or laser-guided Mr. Krasnopol, or T-72B3 rolling over you (believe me, I know, I had T-62 rolling over me and that one was “friendly”) and being shell-shocked 24/7 is not the same as blowing Pushtu weddings from the drone sitting somewhere in Rammstein or Kuwait, or facing small arms fire from people in sandals. No, real war is when you experience uncertainty if you are being tracked by Kalashnikov Concern drones already or you are still in the general area of Liana’s coverage and they decide in Moscow what to do with your location–turn it into the parking lot right now or wait a little bit longer and then send in the cavalry like Ka-52s and Mi-35s. You know, those “small things” at war with the enemy who not only shoots back but has a much bigger gun and really wants you dead. I bet that this is not how they thought about war in D.C.”
Small Things Which Speak Volumes
“we can totally take them in a war”
Cough, cough
https://youtu.be/stlebnAY78w
It is a high risk strategy which could have the worst possible outcome all to achieve what? Why does the west need to weaken Russia? They are not threatening to invade the USA, Britain or Western Europe? Surely there are bigger threats in the world to be concerned with – the China Hong Kong situation for example.
Ah but it’s like Munich, isn’t it. Ukraine is just the beginning, even though the Russians won’t admit it.
it’s a classic confrontational technique. Accuse the other side of something that is essentially impossible to disprove. Russia, of course, can’t “prove” they don’t want to invade other bits of Europe. Even if they agreed to every possible humiliation put in front of them to “prove” their intentions, one could always “uncover” new nefarious intentions.
They used the same approach with Saddam Hussein. He was asked to prove he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. You can’t prove that. Even if you go and look and don’t find them you can still claim they were there but you just couldn’t find them. And that is exactly what happened. Hans Blix went in to look, came out saying there weren’t any WMDs and the US and UK said, nah, there are, you just haven’t found them.
This technique can be used to pick a fight with anyone and keep the confrontation going for as long as you want.
And it takes an enormous amount of restraint not to be baited by that.
What evidence do you have that Ukraine is just the beginning and Russia will not stop there? We have to remember the history of Russian satellite states and that whether we like it or not Russia regard these as with in their sphere of influence. When the situation was reversed in Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis America was not too happy.
You have to read past the sarcastic first sentence in stewart’s post to see his meaning..
True, makes sense now. The real danger this time though is the west are play these games with a nuclear power.
Probably would have been best of they just took Ukraine, then Poland, and so on. Would that make you happy?
I’m going to assume that’s an honest question, and attempt to answer it accordingly.
The Russians repeatedly worked to make NATO a genuine peace-keeping body (see the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, signed in 1997), agreeing to “build together a lasting and inclusive peace”.
This continued until as late as 2011, when NATO and Russia participated in some joint exercises.
Then came the events in Ukraine, and the establishment of what was clearly a puppet government, dependent on US support/advice and Ukrainian Nazis (many of whom unrepentantly called themselves that, proudly displaying their insignia).
It would have been a good idea if the West had taken seriously the legitimacy of Russia’s concerns; as the regions of Ukraine closest to Russia (with predominantly Russian-speaking populations) were subjected to repeated attacks by the Ukrainian armed forces, resulting in an estimated 14,000 deaths.
Those physical attacks, shattering their lives, were accompanied by outrageous insults and threats, designating them as sub-humans. There is ample and indisputable evidence for all this.
It would have been a good idea if certain laboratories had not been established by the US, across the Ukraine. For what was going on there, you might like to take a look at:
Briefing: analysis of documents related to the military biological activities of the United States on the territory of Ukraine May 11, 2022 | The Vineyard of the Saker
You can disagree with it, if you like. But if you are genuine, you will at least look.
It would have been best all round, if people had accepted that the Russian requests for security assurances, made repeatedly, were reasonable and should have been respected.
I understand why the Russians finally decided that that was never going to happen; and that they had to act, for precisely the reasons they declared.
The determination of the West to support their puppets, while Ukrainian men die uselessly day after day, is manifested by the provision of weaponry that will make a fortune for their Western manufacturers and do very little or nothing to assist anybody in the Ukraine.
That determination is also expressing itself in demonstrably false propaganda which people here (not all of us) are resisting. We are the ones daring to make ourselves “unpopular”.
so well said
They’ve already started stirring up trouble in Transnistria. Putin wants to take the entire Black Sea coast to link up with the Russian backed rebels.
So, his next target is Moldova.
Other neighbours like Estonia and Latvia have big Russian speaking minorities and have been subject to interference for years. So if Putin isn’t stopped in Ukraine, it leads to direct trouble in 3 more states in the near future.
Did you get your magical crystal ball from the same supplier as Neil Ferguson by any chance?
Don’t need a crystal ball – it’s already been happening.
I would point out that this site is home to people who make the wildest predictions about secret elite takeovers on a daily basis.
I’m not exactly pushing the limits here.
The NATO Alliance argue that NATO expansion has been to protect against potential Russian aggression.
Russia will argue that their attack on Ukraine and anyone who comes after has been provoked by relentless and unnecessary NATO expansion.
That’s where we are and will be for a long time to come.
And some would say that Russia’s behaviour has justified the existence of NATO. More recently the expansion and strengthening of NATO would seem to be very necessary, looking at Russian’s intentions.
Finland joining NATO is a completely counterproductive move and very silly for Finland. It creates the same situation that Russia say they don’t want in Ukraine i.e. NATO on its border. Whatever threat there is of Russia invading Finland (and I’d argue virtually zero) would be increased significantly.
Number of NATO countries invaded by Russia: zero.
Number of former republics and military allies of the USSR that are in NATO – a lot.
Some need reminding that to be in NATO is to cooperate with the US in planning for war against Russia.
The thing that really got to Putin wasn’t the US – not NATO – but the fact that the US just didn’t care about Russia any more.
Or Finland invading Russia, as they did before.
In 1945 there was no total surrender, end of the regime, supposed beginning of a “de-Nazification” equivalent in Finland.
I won’t be surprised if we start to hear more about the often forgotten 16th republic of the USSR, which came to an end in 1956, the Karelo-Finnish Republic; nor about the city of Vyborg, once Finland’s second city.
It will be a massive mistake – clearly the Finnish leadership are under Schwab’s spell and have lost the lot.
They have now endangered thr Finnish people.
Indeed. The Finnish PM, Sanna Marin, is a WEF YGL.
Utter rubbish.
What chance was there that Russia would invade Finland in the twentieth century? 100%. They invaded in 1939. They ended up shaving off 10% of Finland’s territory, which they still hold.
Write on the blackboard one hundred times:
“The Soviet union was not Russia and Russia is not the Soviet Union.”
You may not agree with what I have said, but it certainly isn’t utter rubbish.
If the threat is so high, as you claim, then why aren’t they in NATO already? Whatever the level of the threat, it will be increased by joining NATO now, given that the present Russian administration have an issue with NATO being on their border.
Without evidence you’re not only pushing the limits, it’s clear you’re just making shit up as usual.
Neil Ferguson created some quite reasonable models.
Oops.
Airfix?
I prefer Tamiya
Didn’t their husbands dump them when they found out?
With Syria and Afghanistan now out of the picture, how else will US defence contractors make their money. Peace does not put Bollinger on the boardroom table at the AGM.
They want to weaken Russia, China and anyone else who threatens the hegemony of the US and the dollar (the reason Libya was destroyed).
Russia has been buying up physical gold for years and are weaning themselves away from the US dollar.
With trillions of dollars of useless derivatives the US economic system is about to collapse.
A war with Russia is purely to save the dollar and make lots of money for US armaments corporations and US banks and all the lap dog countries that do their bidding.
The UK is like a little boat tied to the US Titanic … after it hit the iceberg and the band are still playing. All that we can achieve being tied to them, is to be dragged down with them.
They want to weaken Russia, China and anyone else who threatens the hegemony of the US and the dollar (the reason Libya was destroyed).
Libya was a joint English-French military (air) operation the USA explicitly refused to join at that time.
Yes, but this doesn’t fit with the mainstream narrative of Daily Sceptic, so it must be ignored.
What’s more it was a UN operation. Russia or China could have vetoed it.
It’s wrong, see above.
“What’s more it was a UN operation. Russia or China could have vetoed it.”
It was a NATO operation, not a “UN Operation”, as noted above.
As is well known, the Empire of Lies exploited a resolution purporting to allow military action to “protect civilians”, following a US sphere campaign of black propaganda about supposed massacres and imminent genocides, to enact the regime change that was their very obvious goal.
The direct result of that experience was that the Russians and Chinese refused to consider any such seemingly “harmless” resolutions in Syria.
Fool me once….
NATO led force, but enforcing a UN resolution.
The UN doesn’t have any troops. All UN actions are carried out by national forces.
Fool us all constantly….shame on us all!
It must get tedious for you being proven wrong every single time you post your made up shit.
You forget, Lukewarm. This is the only place in the world where you get an audience.
They weren’t involved at all?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
Right.
The Brits and French regimes jumped the gun slightly in their enthusiasm to show their zeal in serving the Empire of Lies, but it was of course very much a NATO operation:
Operation Unified Protector
Ok, I partially misremembered that: The French were the first to intervene in a battle. The USA was involved, but mainly in a supporting role. Nevertheless, this was about enforcement of two resolutions of the UN security council. As Russia has a permanent seat on that and could have vetoed them, the military operation doesn’t qualify as example of NATO aggression.
Translation:
“I’m wrong again, but I’ll wriggle anyway”.
“this was about enforcement of two resolutions of the UN security council. As Russia has a permanent seat on that and could have vetoed them, the military operation doesn’t qualify as example of NATO aggression.”
As I noted above, the Empire of Lies exploited a UN resolution purporting to allow military action to “protect civilians”, following a US sphere campaign of black propaganda about supposed massacres and imminent genocides, to enact the regime change that was their very obvious goal.
The direct result of that experience was that the Russians and Chinese refused to consider any such seemingly “harmless” resolutions in Syria.
The US military played an instrumental role in the initial stage of the intervention, suppressing Libyan air defenses and coordinating international forces in the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya before handing command responsibility to NATO and taking a supporting role in the campaign of air strikes against pro-Gaddafi forces.
It was all done because Gadaffi linked his currency to gold.
Wikipedia……
the US military played an instrumental role in the initial stages of the intervention…suppressing Libyan air defenses and coordinating international forces in the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya, before handing command responsibility to NATO and taking a supporting role in the campaign of air strikes against pro-Gaddafi forces.[17] The intervention severely weakened the Gaddafi regime and aided the rebels to victory, with the fall of Tripoli in August 2011.
It makes money and it diverts from the BuyDem corruption in Ukraine.
America is trying to destroy Russia through the excuse of supporting Ukraine. If it comes to all out war between NATO and Russia, China will side with Russia since it knows that if Russia is defeated, the US will turn it’s full attention to China.
Threats against Finland and Sweden???
Hong Kong is now China. That’s a done deal.
Worry more about China acquiring Taiwan.
Hong Kong was leased from China. It always belonged to the country and was handed back when the lease expired.
Bigger threats? A psychopathic dictator threatening to use nuclear weapons?
Well, like the Soviet-Afghan war, then.
The US actively armed the Taliban back then. Although I think it was done secretly. So maybe not exactly the same.
Except that in this case, Russia is the West’s North Vietnam.
I watched a podcast with Scott Ritter a couple of weeks ago. To paraphrase his most memorable comment, Finland is going to get a severe lesson in reality if it joins NATO.
And so too, no doubt, will the U.K.
Looks like Finland is joining NATO – I expect there has been the ceremonial passing of the Brown Envelopes behind the scenes.
Meanwhile the invasion of Britain continues as ‘refugees’ escape from war-torn France.
Croatia has already said that it would block Finland from joining NATO, since it won’t boost peace nor stability in Europe, but make WW3 more likely than not.
Seems likely there will be a bunch of countries (Hungary, Turkey, maybe one or two Balkan countries, if the people put pressure on the collaborationist regimes) unkeen on this latest NATO expansion, but will any of them stand up to the pressure that will be put on them from the Empire of Lies, when push comes to very firm shove?
It all depends when the Empire of Lies implodes – the rising mass insanity will surely end up blowing the lid off?
If you mean the Croatian government, they can’t block it. Governments don’t vote on NATO membership. Decisions are made in the North Atlantic Council.
I saw that from Ritter, and with all due respect to him I did feel he was over-egging the likelihood of an attack as a response to Finland merely joining NATO. It’s nothing like as significant for Russia as the Ukraine being in NATO. Redeploying forces to the border and a general change of attitude (and nuclear targetting) seems more likely to me.
But perhaps he’s right and I’m wrong.
Yes…bye bye the tranquil mind! Why gratuitously make an enemy of your large Nuclear armed neighbour?
It makes no sense.
Useful to remember that Russia annexed Crimea 8 years ago.
Useful to remember that Russia encouraged/armed the Donbas separatists for the last 8 years.
Useful to remember that Russia invaded Ukraine.
Useful to remember that Russia’s stated aim is the support of Donbas folks.
Useful to remember that Russia has actually gone far beyond acting towards these goals, such as attacking Kyiv, reducing cities to rubble, targeting civilians, commiting war crimes
Useful to remember that Russia is blockading Black sea access, to precipitate a food crisis, impacting 100’s of millions of people.
So, it would seem that Ukraine needs some help and is getting it.
If this is a proxy war, then Russia made something of a mistake in starting it.
They have illustrated their nature and it is clearly desirable that they are weakened.
Useful to remember the US’s passion for regime change.
Useful to remember cause and effect.
Useful to remember that if you keep kicking a dog at some point it will likely snap at you.
Useful to remember that most things are grey, not black and white.
Useful to remember lots of things.
Useful to remember this isn’t happening in a vacuum…Russia is responsible for its actions, but it is not responsible for the actions now being taken by the West…they have to own their own decisions….
It’s the myth of attacking Kyiv again.
Well if you deny that……
Sources not shot through, with prior hatred for Putin, postulate that either: (A) troops positioned to the north of Kyiv were a feint (B) a fixing operation (C) or both.
Useful to forget that the US and UK have been arming Ukraine, and giving them huge loans they have no hope of repaying in order to solve an internal conflict, which has nothing to do with anyone but Ukraine.
This has been going on long before Russia got involved directly, I think it is clear to anyone with half an ounce of sense, that Ukraine has never been a united country with a common identity.
Much the same as all the other former states of the former USSR.
It’s a proxy war, being fought by foreign powers meddling in a foreign nation, with absolutely no regard for the civilian population.
Not the first time and it won’t be the last.
I have no issues with foreign aid to support civilians, but military support should never be implemented.
Neither is Russia
And your point is?
My point is, your point is not relevant.
Still haven’t got a grasp of logic have you?
Was the trouble in Ukraine internal? Yes
Why would that be?
Possibly because Ukraine is not and never has been a unified country.
So it is relevant, and you have no point.
Neither has Russia
Are you intentionally pretending to be stupid or are you actually just slow?
So I’ll ask again, what point are you trying to make?
Has Russia spent the last 8 years stirring up the trouble in eastern Ukraine?
No.
President Barack Obama approved military aid for Ukraine:
President Donald Trump approved military aid for Ukraine:
President Joe Biden approved military aid for Ukraine:
Because the Russians were the only ones interfering of course.
Here’s Jacques Baud’s summary, and he was there at the time:
“Let’s try to examine the roots of the conflict. It starts with those who for the last eight years have been talking about “separatists” or “independentists” from Donbass. This is not true. The referendums conducted by the two self-proclaimed Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in May 2014, were not referendums of “independence” (независимость), as some unscrupulous journalists have claimed, but referendums of “self-determination” or “autonomy” (самостоятельность). The qualifier “pro-Russian” suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case, and the term “Russian speakers” would have been more honest. Moreover, these referendums were conducted against the advice of Vladimir Putin.
In fact, these Republics were not seeking to separate from Ukraine, but to have a status of autonomy, guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official language. For the first legislative act of the new government resulting from the overthrow of President Yanukovych, was the abolition, on February 23, 2014, of the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law of 2012 that made Russian an official language. A bit like if putschists decided that French and Italian would no longer be official languages in Switzerland.
This decision caused a storm in the Russian-speaking population. The result was a fierce repression against the Russian-speaking regions (Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Lugansk and Donetsk) which was carried out beginning in February 2014 and led to a militarization of the situation and some massacres (in Odessa and Marioupol, for the most notable). At the end of summer 2014, only the self-proclaimed Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk remained.
At this stage, too rigid and engrossed in a doctrinaire approach to the art of operations, the Ukrainian general staff subdued the enemy without managing to prevail. The examination of the course of the fighting in 2014-2016 in the Donbass shows that the Ukrainian general staff systematically and mechanically applied the same operative schemes. However, the war waged by the autonomists was very similar to what we observed in the Sahel: highly mobile operations conducted with light means. With a more flexible and less doctrinaire approach, the rebels were able to exploit the inertia of Ukrainian forces to repeatedly “trap” them.
In 2014, when I was at NATO, I was responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we were trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels, to see if Moscow was involved. The information we received then came almost entirely from Polish intelligence services and did not “fit” with the information coming from the OSCE—despite rather crude allegations, there were no deliveries of weapons and military equipment from Russia.
The rebels were armed thanks to the defection of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units that went over to the rebel side. As Ukrainian failures continued, tank, artillery and anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what pushed the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Agreements.
But just after signing the Minsk 1 Agreements, the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a massive anti-terrorist operation (ATO/Антитерористична операція) against the Donbass. Bis repetita placent: poorly advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat in Debaltsevo, which forced them to engage in the Minsk 2 Agreements.
It is essential to recall here that Minsk 1 (September 2014) and Minsk 2 (February 2015) Agreements did not provide for the separation or independence of the Republics, but their autonomy within the framework of Ukraine. Those who have read the Agreements (there are very, very, very few of those who actually have) will note that it is written in all letters that the status of the Republics was to be negotiated between Kiev and the representatives of the Republics, for an internal solution to the Ukraine.
That is why since 2014, Russia has systematically demanded their implementation while refusing to be a party to the negotiations, because it was an internal matter of the Ukraine. On the other side, the West—led by France—systematically tried to replace the Minsk Agreements with the “Normandy format,” which put Russians and Ukrainians face-to-face. However, let us remember that there were never any Russian troops in the Donbass before 23-24 February 2022. Moreover, OSCE observers have never observed the slightest trace of Russian units operating in the Donbass. For example, the U.S. intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in the Donbass.
In October 2015, Vasyl Hrytsak, director of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), confessed that only 56 Russian fighters had been observed in the Donbass. This was exactly comparable to the Swiss who went to fight in Bosnia on weekends, in the 1990s, or the French who go to fight in the Ukraine today.”
The Military Situation In The Ukraine
This article adds further information to that contained in your post, with OCSE observer noting that Ukraine bombed the Donbass a full week before Russia invaded
https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/russia-started-the-war-and-other-fallacies/
Indeed. As others have noted, Russia intervened in an ongoing war.
Correct – much to the relief of the besieged, bombarded Donbas Russian speaking civilians!
https://youtu.be/6gRmYpQs8tw
When was the last time there was a civil war in Russia?
1919
You seem to be labouring under the misassumption that in this fight between Good and Evil, we are the good guys…
Useful to remember that Russia has rejected requests from Donetsk and Luhansk to join the federation for eight years. That doesn’t sound like a nation hell bent on territorial expansion now does it, splinter?
US got bored with terrorists and drug lords, needed a new Hitler2.0 But there is scant evidence that the old Hitler wanted to take over the world.
How about if Russia joined the EU and NATO? Then everybody would be happy.
I believe they asked to join NATO, and were rejected.
Putin asked Bill Clinton to consider option Russia might join NATO
“”I remember one of our last meetings with President Clinton when he came to Moscow. During the meeting I said, ‘we should consider an option that Russia might join NATO.’ Clinton said, ‘Why not?’,” Putin said, noting that “the US delegation got very nervous.”
“Have you applied?” asked Stone. The Russian president just laughed.
NATO is a US political tool that does not have any allies but just vassals, Putin said.“
How do you explain them invading Ukraine?
To acquire a region that it doesn’t want?
Eastward expansion of NATO. The arming and funding of Ukraine when they are not part of NATO. This is now not in doubt as the Americans have now admitted it’s a proxy war on Russia.
Putin has also offered to protect the culture and language of Russian speaking Ukrainians in Donbass. They have refused for the last 8 years whilst losing thousands of citizens to Ukrainian insurgents waging war there in an attempt at ethnic cleansing.
See, it’s easy to explain it if you actually put some thought into it instead of obediently watching the BBC.
It doesn’t want Ukraine and it doesn’t want the Donbas. It wants to neutralise a hostile state on its border. Whether it’s actions are moral or proportionate is an open question but Russia is NOT trying to expand its borders.
In which case, why have they introduced the rouble, made Russian compulsory, and redirected the internet via Russian servers in captured areas?
Source please.
Try Tass
More like The Guardian
I find it hard to take someone serious when they post such as you have, it clearly shows a complete lack of understanding with the Ukrainian situation going all the way back to 2014.
I suppose you are going to say that the Maiden Coup in 2014 wasn’t CIA funded nor led by the CIA but it was the Russian’s instead which instigated it (even though afterwards, Russia ceased to be an official language in Ukraine).
Does that mean you think the Russian invasion of Ukraine is justified?
From their perspective, yes, otherwise they wouldn’t have done it.
Personally, I couldn’t care less other than the UK is spunking money on a war that has nothing to do with us, once again. Can’t even hide behind it being justified by NATO as Ukraine isn’t a member.
If you want to talk about Ukrainian casualties, how about beginning with the 14,000 dead in the Donbass at the hands of Western Ukrainians?
Nah, didn’t think so. You didn’t even know that was happening, did you?
You’re tree!
He’s not all here, so reduced to Plank.
Or two short ones?
Useful to remember the global disposition of US and NATO forces.
Also useful to remember that the same people who advocated and mandated covid lockdowns and vaccines, masks and who waged psychological warfare on their own citizens to achieve compliance are the same people supporting this proxy war
Useful to remember that Putin said “mothers are women and fathers are men”. That would seem to be more closely aligned with my values than your MSM brainwashed psyche.
Looks like you are getting all the issues mixed up to create a sceptical soup.
Dinners on the table pet. It’s alphabet soup.
Because all the issues are mixed up, that’s what my post said, Einstein.
“So, it would seem that Ukraine needs some help and is getting it.”
All the Ukraine is getting is encouragement to increase the level of destruction and deaths it sustains before the inevitable terms, which will be far worse for the Ukraine as a result of the aforementioned “encouragement”.
A standard pro-Russian argument, repeated many times.
It amounts to “the victim must not defend themselves and are responsible for acts of the aggressor, if they do”
Can you outline what would have happened if Ukraine had folded immediately, without help?
“A standard pro-Russian argument, repeated many times.”
Doubtless because it’s self-evidently true, as the overwhelmingly most likely outcome of the current conflict in the Ukraine.
“It amounts to “the victim must not defend themselves and are responsible for acts of the aggressor, if they do””
Nope, it amounts to “don’t pick fights with far superior opponents and then whine about the consequences because yo thought the big bully boy had your back”. Same lesson the Georgians learned a few years back when they started a war because they thought Washington was behind them.
“Can you outline what would have happened if Ukraine had folded immediately, without help?”
Broadly, the Ukraine would have been forced to behave decently to its Russian-speaking minorities, not join the US’s military gang, and face up to reality as far as the consequences of its past actions are concerned, in terms of the loss of the Crimea and the Donbass. Oh, and probably make some pretence at reining in its extremist thugs.
Granted it would have been worse than if the Ukraine had just obeyed the terms of the Minsk 2 agreement, which basically just required it to behave decently, but it would also have been far better than what it could get now, and the settlement terms are getting worse with every week that passes.
Russia would have walked in unopposed. Kicked out the CIA imposed coup government and stopped the slaughter in Donbass.
They would have ensured a peaceful and Democratic election of the next government, perhaps a referendum on easter Ukraine over self determination, and then gone home.
Similar to Crimea really where there was an 80% voter turnout with 90% participation to establish their self determination.
Simple when you think about it instead of trusting the BBC.
These fatuous straw man questions don’t do you any favours.
I can tell you what wouldn’t have happened, lots more people wouldn’t be dead, and lots more buildings wouldn’t have been destroyed. Ukraine wouldn’t have more debt than it can repay. The Ukranian Nazi issue would be solved. Half the world wouldn’t be facing starvation. Most of the world wouldn’t be facing fuel shortages/crippling high prices. A lot of Bankers, Ukranian oligarchs, western arms manufacturers would be less well off. And Branden would lose his money laundering opperation, and his families back handers.
Brilliant solution to wars.
Give up!
Why doesn’t Putin give up? That would work even better.
that would “work even better” to accomplish the genocide the Asov have been carrying out in the Donbas since 2014
You don’t seem to value human lives at all.
https://askeptic.substack.com/p/the-msms-ukraine-amnesia?s=r
The MSM’s Ukraine neo-Nazi Amnesia
Ukrainians in the Donbass have been sleeping in basements…for 8 years, and not because of the Russians. They’ve been attacked, and subjected to efforts to “cleanse” the region of ethnic Russians during that time.
Zelensky has banned all opposition parties, arrested the leaders of the parties, and taken over media outlets. Not exactly a paragon of democracy.
And the Azov battalions have been torturing Ukrainians for 8 years.
All Ukrainians in Donbass?
Are all Ukrainians in western Ukraine sleeping in basements?
(UK / Western Media Press Release – please use/ select freely)
War is mainly a catalogue of blunders. – Winston Churchill
Johnson I think imagines himself as Churchill … the reality is he is the Mussolini poodle being dragged along by Hitler-Buydem
Politically Churchill was a anti-establishment Georgist.
Boris Jong Il is a complete looter enabler.
He has nothing in common with Churchill, not even his school!
These aren’t blunders. They’re deliberate policy.
This looks more credible than MSM reports hitherto https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/05/ukraine-congress-passes-the-bucks-realism-sneaks-in-poland-plans-for-more-war.html
As pointed out last time: Someone’s proxy in a proxy war must be the attacker. That’s not the case for Ukraine defending its territory. And that’s the end of the story. Green-is-the-new-red style nonsense from US propagandists trying to hijack working terms for their political marketing doesn’t matter. That’s just the usual, abysmally low level of public discourse in the USA.
“As pointed out last time: Someone’s proxy in a proxy war must be the attacker. “
And as was pointed out in response last time, you seem to be using an inappropriate definition for a proxy war.
A proxy war is just a war fought using a proxy. Other additions to that definition, such as insisting that both sides have to be proxies, or your implied requirement here for the proxy to be the aggressor, are just specialist usages at best.
For instance, the Soviet-Afghan war is often regarded as a proxy war between the US and the Soviets, because the Afghan resistance acted as proxies for the US. But the Afghan resistance were not aggressors.
My point is that I consider your (among others) definition of proxy war inappropriate. Ukraine would be acting as US proxy if Mexico invaded Texas with the aim of retaking it and Ukrainian troops where trying to prevent that (assuming the USA intends to keep Texas which – under democratic government – perhaps cannot be taken for granted). Ukraine defending its territory isn’t. Ukranian forces would also defend (or try to defend) Ukranian territory if the USA didn’t exist at all. At least, that’s their stated purpose. The same is true for the Russian invasion in Afghanistan, as evidenced by the fact that the Afghan US proxies more or less threw their supposed allies out of their country as well.
I don’t know where your definition comes from, but it isn’t the usual one.
“Proxy wars are conflicts in which a third party intervenes indirectly in a pre-existing war in order to influence the strategic outcome in favour of its preferred faction. Proxy wars are the product of a relationship between a benefactor who is a state or non-state actor external to the dynamic of the existing conflict (for example, a civil war) and the chosen proxies who are the conduit for the benefactor’s weapons, training, and funding. In short, proxy wars are the replacement for states and non-state actors seeking to further their own strategic goals yet at the same time avoid engaging in direct, costly, and bloody warfare. Such responses are based on an intrinsic perception of risk, specifically that direct intervention in a conflict would be either unjustifiable, too costly (whether politically, financially, or materially), avoidable, illegitimate, or unfeasible.”
A Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations (4 ed.)
“proxy wars – which this article defines as conflicts in which a third party intervenes indirectly in order to influence the strategic outcome in favour of its preferred faction”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03071847.2013.787733
I recall seeing definitions that require both war participants to be proxies for other powers, but not, off the top of my head, one requiring the proxy to be the aggressor.
I can imagine such a definition being used for the purposes of a particular study or discussion, but it absolutely is not the one in common English usage.
This definition makes no sense, as it would mean that world war one was a US proxy war against Germany until 1916 and that Operation Barbarossa was another US proxy war against Germany. Things become even more interestingly twisted when applying this to European history before the 20th century. It’s probably going to be difficult to find any war which doesn’t qualify as proxy war as larger conflicts used to involve all so-called great powers to some degree.
The second definition is even more useless: Prior to 1914, the British navy wasn’t used as terror instrument to hurt enemy populations. The USA sold grain to France during the wars of the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars. It follows that they must have been proxy wars of the USA against Europe.
Yet more amusing: Germany is still buying Russian gas and oil. The German government has already been accused of supporting the Russian war effort in this way. Hence, clearly, the Russian-Ukrainian war must be a German proxy ware against the NATO and/or the USA. As Germany is certainly part of the NATO, this basically means Germany’s utilizing Russia to fight a proxy war against itself. Now, that’s cunning and roundabout!
“This definition makes no sense“
Only if you wilfully mis-apply it.
Regardless, it is broadly the definition in general English usage.
I admire your tenacity. It’s like banging your head against a brick wall. RW and Fingal just make shit up and vomit over their keyboards.
Typical left wingers.
RW’s an interesting and intelligent character. I disagree with many of his points but agree with others.
He’s stubborn, but open to persuasion to a degree.
Fingal is also very obviously quite clever, it’s just that he is using his intellect in a bad cause to try to argue positions that are false with undue desperation. That makes him come across as obtuse and sometimes dishonest. I suspect he has personal reasons for siding with the Ukraine so dogmatically.
Granted, you’re not wrong about it being a waste of time trying to persuade him, but these points are worth addressing sometimes for the benefit of neutral or uninformed readers.
I’m afraid I find RW as thick as two short planks. He researches nothing and dribbles what he thinks he can get away with.
Fingal just makes shit up, all the time.
Aye they have PhDs in sophistry.
You’re dribbling again RW.
Put your bib on.
Ukraine, with help from the West, have been waging war against ethnic Russians since the US led coup of 2014.
In that year 97% of Ukrainians in Crimea democratically voted to reject their neo-Nazi national government for closer ties with Russia.
The republics of Donetsk and Luhansk voted by a similar margin.
Ethnic Russians in the east left the Ukrainian military and took their hardware to the Donbass to set up autonomous regions to protect their citizens fleeing from the Ukrainian army and neo-Nazi militias.
Zelensky was elected because he said he would end the conflict in the Donbass. He did exactly the opposite. He vowed to take back Crimea by force and join Nato and have nuclear weapons.
In February 2022 Ukraine were massing their military for a “final solution” against the ethnic Russians in the Donbass.
Russia recognized the democratic republics of the Donbass and were invited in to help defend them with their Special Military Operation.
Russia has not “invaded” the east of Ukraine as they were invited in and has not entered the west of the country. They entered Kyev to persuade Zelensky to negotiate. His US handlers told him not to so Russia withdrew from Kyev.
They have entered the south to achieve their goal of de-Nazifying Ukraine particularly their stronghold in Odessa where neo-Nazis burned alive many pro Russians and to protect the Crimea.
Article 51 of the UN Charter allows UN countries “self-defence” to protect its people from attack.
The UN World Summit Outcome Document in 2005 also allows for Responsibility to Protect.
Russia has tried to minimize harm to civilians at great expense to its own casualties.
The West are fighting a proxy war against Russia and are using Ukraine for their own ends.
Other European countries should not fear Russia as long as they do not join NATO (no eastern expansion was agreed back in 1991) and if they do not join any proxy war against Russia.
Imagine the response by the US if a hostile bloc sent weapons to a neighbouring country to the US.
The US would bomb them to oblivion and install a puppet government friendly to the US as they have done in many other countries throughout the years.
Putin hasn’t turned off the gas and oil taps to Europe, has he? Why not? Taking his time, isn’t he? You’d think he’d turn them off and stop the EU War Machine dead in its tracks.
Ukraine switched off the gas as the pipeline travels through Ukraine.
My friend in Slovakia is still getting gas in her kitchen.
You have a friend? Not fiend?
“You’d think he’d turn them off and stop the EU War Machine dead in its tracks.“
What “EU war machine” is that, then?
All the EU countries have done is send some old military surplus equipment, and imposed some self-harming economic measures.
How would cutting off some of their oil and gas stop them from doing that?
Granted, it might create economic and political issues for them, but it will take time for those to have any impact. And it will be far easier for the euro-elites to ride them out if they can say it was Russia that cut them off, rather than their own stupid sanctions choices.
Military vehicles in Finland are plastered with the EU flag – The ‘EU’ is really Germany running the show, and all countries in the EU are merely Germany’s allies in the next big war. They are still bitter things didn’t quite work out in WW2.
“Invasion of the EU army!Armed Forces Minister Penny Mordaunt warning that plans for a ‘Euro army’ hatched in Brussels and Berlin are a ‘huge concern’.
Ms Mordaunt only had to look as far as Salisbury Plain, Britain’s largest military training ground, to see that their tanks and vehicles – some emblazoned with the EU flag – are already on our lawn, as our exclusive photographs show.”
“Eurosceptics suspicious of the German government’s revived enthusiasm for a European army”
“Miss Mordaunt said: ‘This is proof of the European Union’s plan to create a Euro army”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3602683/Invasion-EU-army-Worried-Euro-tanks-park-lawn-Minister-late-here.html#comments
I don’t disagree with any of that, but it’s not anything that’s going to be “stopped in its tracks”, or much affected, by Russia cutting oil and gas supplies, at least in the short run.
Wonders will never cease. You posted something that made complete sense and we can all agree with.
Germany doesn’t currently seem to be running anything!
German Helmets.
Physically and metaphorically.
Is that what you want?
Did he suggest that’s what he wanted?
What do you want?
He needs the money.
Russia is more financially secure than America.
US debt to GDP ratio – 120%
Russian debt to GDP ratio – 12% (twelve percent for the avoidance of doubt)
You must get very bored being wrong all the time.
The USSR ensured the supply of gas to Europe throughout the cold war.
Shutting it off is not a military tactic as the victims would be civilians, a war crime potentially.
Don’t understand the point of this article. Russia has attacked the West directly – it never was a proxy war.
Ukraine sees itself as Western and Putin doesn’t like it.
Who’s the proxy? There’s no one in the middle.
“Don’t understand”
No change there then.
I also like the Western media’s go-to “appears.”
Well, you’ve already got your Russian fanboys here so in the name of balance…
Interesting, so by implying that “Russian fanboys” are at work, a figment of your imagination and not an actual fact, you are representing “Western fanboys”?
You have outed yourself to defend the imperialistic, warmongering West, which has a long history of invading countries and murdering civilians, but you claim to condemn these actions when someone else does it?
You are once again confusing distaste for Western actions, which are well documented and factually accurate, with support for Russian actions, which are also well documented and factually accurate.
You keep supporting your side of murderous trolls, and I will just keep watching for the inevitable shit storm that it will create, like it always does.
.There is at least one actual official Russian troll here – Lord Snooty. Awhile ago he said he was Welsh, but more recently he says he’s Canadian. His knowledge of the UK is based on wikipedia.
Interestingly, he joined before the war started although that’s all he posts about now. So why did he join? Because Russian propagandists understand that created general dissatisfaction and distrust of western institutions is itself a valuable aim, from their point of view.
They’re brilliant at this. Lots of bot farms, and a hand in multiple alternative news sites which are not obviously Russian backed.
So you don’t deny that you are a “Western fanboy” then?
I’m British and I’m pro-British.
Lord Snooty is Russian and pro Russian – but lies about it,
If you are pro British then why are you supporting foreign wars which will only harm you?
Firstly, Britain is not at war.
Secondly, not supporting Ukraine has many negative consequences that affect us deeply.
Thirdly, not helping could easily lead to war anyway, but from a much weaker position.
Why are you supporting our enemy?
“Firstly, Britain is not at war”
“Why are you supporting our enemy?”
So we are not at war, but I am supporting the enemy, nice logical response.
You are supporting the enemy, by condoning military action, leading to civilian deaths.
So do you think Russia was justified in invading Ukraine?
Do you still think the jabs are safe & effective, tree?
Damn, you got there before me in outing the plank.
You’d think he’d try to disguise his/her writing style!
Actually, I didn’t condone Putin’s invasion.
But you condone military aid being sent by the West, which will, and has already killed civilians for the last eight years.
You are pro war and pro establishment, not pro British.
The war is being fought on Ukrainian soil, so all civilian casualties are Ukrainian.
Well done, did you figure that out on your own?
So the civilians in the East aren’t Ukrainian civilians then?
This war isn’t being fought in the breakaway republics.
Not now it isn’t, but it was before, why isn’t it being fought in that area now?
It’s like shooting fish in a barrel when Fingal posts his drivel.
Like what?
What much weaker position?
Since when is Russia our enemy if “Firstly, Britain is not at war.”
Shoot yourself in the foot whydontcha Fingal……..LOL
Prove it Comradski……
Oh No!
The Russians are occupying the Daily Sceptic in an attempt to influence the UK’s perception of the war in Ukraine.
FFS, grow up Fingal. Do you realise how stupid you sound?
Eastern Ukraine and Crimea has never seen themselves as Western
Ukraine has varied opinions, as does Russia. The Chechens didn’t want to be Russian but strangely, this was a bunch or rebels Putin didn’t support,
Ukrainian public opinion has swung massively against Russia since the invasion – as in many things, Putin has achieved the exact opposite result from his intention.
Ukraine is a very divided country with the East being very pro Russian, the current conflict has changed things for some people for sure, but it looks like a lot of people in the east don’t run away and just happy to live under russian control and receive aid. Also, god knows how many people support russia further to the west of the country as voicing pro-russian views can get you killed.
The people of eastern Ukraine may not be very pro-Russian, since their cities have been trashed.
True that some pro Russian people maybe changed their minds but equally videos abound where residents of Mariupol, the hardest hit city, are happy that Azov is not there anymore. So it still to be established who changed their mind and from what to what
Reading minds now plank.
Their cities have been trashed for the past 8 years by Ukraine military.
by Ukranians…
so most are pro-Russian
So what makes them western?
Putin’s intention was to be popular in Ukraine?! Where did you get that idea?
Putin said Ukrainians were actually Russians.
I guess the theory is, if you shoot people, they become Russian.
Source please.
Didn’t think so.
Try Tass
In what capacity is Ukraine western?
Just goes to show the difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth is now about 4 weeks..
We need some new conspiracy theories.
All the old ones came true…
We’re fighting a proxy war on behalf of the Biden family’s interests in Ukraine,
Hundreds of Ukrainian troops dying daily for a laptop.
And millions of dollars.
question: what’s the UK government’s excuse?
Puppets.
And probably dirt on the laptop they don’t want revealed.
Sorry, this isn’t our fight.
It is not in the vital national interest of the UK.
Ukraine and Russia have been in conflict for centuries. Ukraine is the 4th most corrupt nation in the world with links to the Biden crime family. It is not an allie, nor part of NATO.
The borders British politicians should be concerned with are the English Channel and Northern Ireland.
Meanwhile, Johnson distracts us away from the absolute disaster he caused over covid, the climate scam, and wokism.
The tax burden is massive, inflation ramping up, people can’t pay energy bills.
Ukraine is a god send for BoJo and for the rest of the establishment as you can now blame Putin for pretty much anything.
You have mixed all the issues up to create a sceptical soup.
Dinners getting cold pet. Alphabet soup to help with your learning tonight.
Yet here you are. Why did you order the soup?!
The US or to be more specific certain people in the US who are still fighting the cold war, those who make money from wars and those who have corrupt dealings in Ukraine, wanted a war … and the UK is being stupid enough to go along with their proxy war.
We should get out of it now, before the idiots and criminals in the US take us into a disaster.
If push came to shove, how many US-NATO troops would it take to push Russia out of Ukraine ? Literally millions ? Westerners literally not having enough kids for that.
Against say 150K Russian troops, who are performing badly?
You calculate millions??
100K-150K Russian troops against much bigger Ukrainian army trained by US/NATO and supplied by weapons for the last 8 years fighting on home ground. Russian army is still there and Ukraine is loosing more territory apart from LDPR. In addition to all the weaponry sent after feb 2022 Ukraine now needs another $40Bn of military aid. What does it say about who’s performing badly
Who told you Ukraine has more troops than Russia is invading with?
Do your homework is the only thing I can say to you
Homework? It’s on the table for his dinner. Alphabet soup for the plank tonight, again.
Russia using 150,000 troops in invasion.
Active personnel: UA – 255,000 RU – 1,154,000
Reserve personnel: UA – 1,000,000 RU – 2,000,000
Available for military: UA – 11,149,646 RU – 34,765,736
Here’s a discussion of the numbers:
“To begin with, we will look at the number of soldiers that each side had at its disposal at the beginning of the conflict. Before any Russian soldiers crossed Ukrainian border, both sides grouped troops for an extended period of time. While Kiev was increasing the number of its units in the Donbas area, that is, in the operational zone of what Kiev authorities called the anti-terrorist operation, Moscow was deploying troops on the border with Ukraine. According to Russian sources, before the beginning of the conflict, Kiev deployed nearly 125.000 soldiers in eastern Ukraine, close to half of its regular military forces.[1]During the current fighting in Ukraine, plans for offensive against Donbas republics were confirmed by captured Ukrainian soldiers[2] with additional documentation related to these preparations being revealed by Russian troops in territories previously controlled by Kiev.[3]
All of the above can be dismissed as Russian propaganda, but it should be noted that according to Western sources, the military forces of the two Donbas republics, together, in 2021 numbered just over 40.000 soldiers.[4] In general, total number of troops for Donbas republics varies, according to different sources, between forty and fifty thousand soldiers. One of the generally accepted, though blunt, rules of war points out that in case of an attack on fortified positions, it is desirable that the attacking side has three times number of soldiers in comparison to defenders, the well known 3:1 ratio.[5][6]
As can be seen, before the Russian operation, the ratio of conflicting troops in Donbas roughly corresponded to this rule, so it can be concluded, with a dose of caution, that Kiev really intended to conduct in Donetsk and Lugansk something similar to the Croatian operation “Storm”.[7]
In terms of numbers, at the very beginning of the Russian offensive, Ukrainian army had 245.000 active-duty soldiers,[8] along with an additional 220.000 in reserve.[9] According to some sources, Kiev had as many as 900,000 soldiers at its disposal in the reserve.[10] The number of members in paramilitary formations ranged from fifty to one hundred thousand.[11] After the start of the conflict, between six and ten thousand foreign mercenaries arrived in Ukraine, though numbers varie wildely depending on the source.
On the other hand, when talking about the number of Russian troops on the border, before beginning of the conflict, most of the Western media agreed in the estimate of one hundred thousand Russian soldiers.[12][13] We have already pointed out that most often used figure for military forces of Donetsk and Lugansk is close to 50.000. Generally speaking, in terms of the total number of Russian forces in Ukraine at the moment, figures between one hundred and fifty to two hundred thousand soldiers are used.
If we accept that 900.000 reservists is unrealistic, and consider only the lesser number, we see that at very beginning of the conflict, more than half a million soldiers[14] were available to Kiev, as opposed to a maximum of 200.000 Russians and pro-Russians. According to Zelensky’s order, Ukraine mobilized its reserve units[15][16] already on February 23, and on April 8, Zelensky ordered a new, third, wave of mobilization related to reserve officers.[17]
Taking into account this information, it is clear that from the very beginning, balance of forces in terms of available manpower was, roughly speaking, 3:1 in favor of Ukraine. ”
[links to sources and references in original]
Two months of Operation Z
The same piece discusses the self-evident absurdity of the claim that Russia intended to storm Kiev against serious military resistance:
“This observation opens the question of both Kiev and Northern front, that is, their true purposes. Depending on the source, one encounters variations of three different scenarios. The first scenario, represented by Kiev itself and a large number of Western media, sees Russian withdrawal as a defeat, caused by inability to capture the Ukrainian capital and marked with high material and human losses. Bear in mind that this is the Western interpretation of Russian intentions, given that Moscow has never mentioned capture of Kiev as one of its goals. If we accept the narrative that Ukrainian units defeated Russians near Kiev, we must assume the existence of technical capacities for such an endeavor, that is, use of appropriate air and armored forces, and other means of war. If we further assume that Ukraine had such technical capacities after thirty days of war, then we must logically ask why those same capacities were not used to destroy a huge Russian column, 60 kilometers long, that was stationed not far from Kiev for days.[31] The Western media incessantly droned about this concentration of Russian forces and showed satellite images of trucks and other techniques stretching along the highway. For a country that enjoys air superiority, such a sluggish column is a gift from heaven, and it represents extremely attractive target even for ground units. Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions, however, during the entire period of existence of this column, not a single air strike or armored and infantry attack was organized by Ukraine.[32]
Second scenario represents a kind of compromise between first and the third. This rationale for Russia’s behavior presupposes that Northern and Kiev fronts were in fact opportunistic attempts to seize the capital and several other major cities while forcing the Ukrainian General Staff to redeploy its available forces from their initial positions on a nearly 3.000-kilometer long line of contact.[33][34]
The final possibility is that both of these fronts were in fact, from the very beginning, feint fronts[35] whose main purpose was to attract and keep in place a significant part of Ukrainian forces in the north and northwest of the country so as to ensure easier maneuvering and advance for Russian troops on the Southern and Eastern fronts, while simultaneously hampering attempts to replace losses and provide logistical support to Ukrainian troops in Donbas. Led by the assumed number of Russian troops in Ukraine, each front could field maximum of thirty-five to fifty thousand Russian soldiers at the beginning of the operation. DPR and LPR troops are included here. Personal opinion of author is that with this number of soldiers, it was not possible to take Kiev, a city of 2.5 million inhabitants, under any circumstances. If we presume Kiev had a garrison of only 30.000, then Russians would need to have at least 100.000 soldiers besieging just the capital, not to mention need to control all those territories which were under Russian control while North and Kiev fronts were active. Also bear in mind many larger cities remained under Ukrainian control, which would require even more Russian troops. Even some Western sources, after Moscow announced its withdrawal from the Northern and Kiev fronts, warned that this was not a defeat for Russia but a regrouping of Russian troops so they could be redeployed in Donbas proper.[36][37][38][39]
We have already mentioned that Maria Zakharova placed number of Ukrainian soldiers in the east close to 120.000, before Russian troops entered Ukraine. Western sources currently estimate that there are between 40.000 and 60.000[40] Ukrainian troops in Donbas, roughly the equal number to that before conflict escalated in 2021.[41] Assuming that these figures are correct, or at least approximately true, it can be concluded that Northern and Kiev fronts attracted close to 50% of Ukrainian forces from Donbas area.“
Ukraine has a bigger military than Russia!
Why has no one realised this before?
You see, that’s the point I was making earlier. You certainly aren’t stupid enough to really not grasp the difference between overall Russian troop numbers and the number actually deployed for this war, versus Ukrainian numbers.
Yet because you are trying so hard to core points in a lost cause, you make yourself appear to be that stupid.
Russia will have started the war with more troops. But Ukraine has been conscripting so that might not be the case now. (Although most of these men are just civilians with guns.)
But Russia began with overwhelming superiority in equipment – especially missiles, artillery, planes and tanks.
It has the capacity to hit Ukraine’s supply lines, but the reverse is not true.
Most casualties are coming as a result of munitions, not soldier-to-solider action.
In both Gulf Wars but especially the second one, the smaller army defeated the bigger army very easily, because of superior equipment, morale and tactics.
“Against say 150K Russian troops, who are performing badly?”
This is the danger in people falling for the silly Ukrainian/US sphere propaganda about Russia’s military “performing badly”, and thinking it might be safe to engage in direct conflict with Russia.
Active personnel: America – 1,385,727 Russia – 1,154,000
Reserve personnel: America – 849,450 Russia -2,000,000
Available for military: America – 73,270,043 Russia – 34,765,736
Talk sense plank.
too late. consent for the proxy war has been successfully manufactured through fake stories of Russian atrocities, staged photoshoots of maternity hospitals bombings, Bucha and the rest. And now it doesn’t matter that pretty much everything russia had claimed as a reason to invade – neo-nazi, Donbass atrocities, bio-labs, preparations of the Ukraine army to forcefully reclaim territories, preparations for the proxy war itself – turned out to be true. You live and learn. Or rather you don’t.
Do you believe the stuff you write?
it’s all there in the public domain. I won’t bother you with giving links because if you haven’t seen the abundance of info yet you either didn’t want to see anything contradicting your opinion or worse
And your comments
“through fake stories of Russian atrocities, staged photoshoots of maternity hospitals bombings, Bucha and the rest.”
Are you really believing this?
Have you even seen it to agree or disagree with it?
Er, no. That might empower you with a balanced perspective would it not plank.
Stick to the BBC mate, your brainwashing isn’t complete yet.
Although correct answer to ‘what happened in Bucha’ and other questions about ‘atrocities’ is that ‘i don’t now’ as I wasn’t there at the time it happened (so weren’t you to claim it’s true), it’s a case of judging on the balance of probabilities. Take Bucha, for example. First, Russian soldiers leaving the city, then smiling mayor mentioning nothing about the corpses on the streets, then announcement that Ukrainian military would undertake purges of pro-russian elements, then corpses on the streets are discovered w/o apparent signs that the bodies had been there lying for days. Besides, the bodies had white armbands normally worn by Russian soldiers and pro-russian civilians. Add to that Britain rejecting an independent inquiry proposed by Russia and a history of ‘staged’ atrocities by US/Britain (chemical attacks, babies thrown out of incubator, etc) to manufacture consent and you’ll have many more reasons to think that it’s a fake. If it looks like a fake, if it sounds like a fake, then it’s probably a fake.
But the main thing which will always make you wonder is why would Russians do that? What would they gain from that? It’s now clear to everyone that Russia has a range of missiles from small ones, capable of destroying whole residential buildings, to big ones capable of destroying half of the country. To fire these missiles Russians don’t even need to be on the ground in Ukraine at all. If they wanted to ‘commit atrocities’ then they’d have done it 100 times over. At least, Russia could decapitate the country by destroying Kiev with most of the government and Zelensky. Yet, even mobile networks are intact so that idiots foreign fighters can upload pictures in camo. Instead, Russia is sacrificing its soldiers on the ground as it doesn’t want to carpet bomb indiscriminately like US/NATO normally does.
https://askeptic.substack.com/p/the-msms-ukraine-amnesia?s=r
“As Russia invaded Ukraine, the entire MSM joined in lockstep to give us a narrative. An important part of the narrative was that Russia’s claim that Neo-Nazi’s are a force in Ukraine is a Kremlin lie.
It is a narrative that is easily unraveled by the MSM’s own past articles. So far, no MSM outlets are willing to discuss this ugly truth today. Anyone interfering with the narrative is said to be ‘Speaking Putin’s Talking Points’.”
Take a look at the multiple news articles going back several years.
Amnesty International produced a report on the human rights abuses conducted by the Ukrainian Nazis.
Victoria Nuland, who was directly involved in behalf of the U.S. in the coup against the previously elected president, admitted to Congress that there were village in Ukraine, and she was very concerned that Russia might get their hands on the research material contained in them. It’s on video.
Do you believe the stuff you post plank?
BTW, there’s a difference between typing and writing. But I don’t expect you would get that.
“There can no longer be much doubt that the West is fighting a proxy war with Russia. “
There was doubt?
Not in my name.
Here is an article going back 8 years now, which describes perfectly what we are now seeing. And to think, most people think the US are the good guys.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger
“And to think, most people think the US are the good guys.”
Not under the current administration. And hasn’t been for quite a while.
Who are the good guys, in your view?
You go first. Who are the good guys in your view?
And worth bearing this in mind as well (from Brian Berletic’s New Atlas Channel):
A few thoughts regarding Washington’s shifting policy of turning Taiwan into Asia’s “Ukraine:”
1. Taiwan is to China as Ukraine is to Russia, in other words the US seeks to wage a proxy conflict through the breakaway island province in the same way the US is waging war with Russia through Ukrainian forces;
2. Just as US training and arms sales to Ukraine has done absolutely nothing to “repel” Russia, US training and arms to Taiwan will not only not “repel” any military operation to reintegrate Taiwan fully, it will most likely only accelerate provocations toward such a military operation;
3. Washington’s goal in both Ukraine and Taiwan is not to preserve the regimes administering either territory, but to create and use conflicts involving both territories as justification for isolating Russia and China;
4. The Western arms industry obviously is benefiting to the tune of billions regarding arms sales to not only to Ukraine and Taiwan, but also to nations as part of “preparing” for wider conflict between Europe and Russia as well as Indo-Pacific nations and China;
5. In both cases it is clear that the US is not underwriting security for either Ukraine or Taiwan as well as the regions both territories reside in, and instead, is the greatest threat to both regions and wider global peace, stability, and prosperity.
https://t.me/brianlovethailand/395
Unlike Russia, there’s little good that can be said about the Chinese state. But the same realpolitik argument applies, that going to war over it securing its own hinterland would be catastrophically stupid and costly.
“Joe Biden and the U.S. Congress have sent so much military aid to Ukraine that our country, the United States, is running out of weapons. According to Bloomberg, “Pentagon officials say that Kyiv is blowing through a week’s worth of deliveries of anti-tank munitions every day. It’s also running short of usable aircraft as Russian airstrikes and combat losses take their toll. Ammunition has become scarce in Mariupol and other areas in Ukraine. This is presenting Western countries with a stark choice between pouring more supplies into Ukraine or husbanding finite capabilities they may need for their own defense.”
That’s the line “they may need for their own defense.” It’s a scary world and if you blow it all on Ukraine with finite resources, which we have, sorry, where does that leave you? Undefended. ”
Tucker Carlson
Thx for that link and the quote!
It is my impression that the loathing of the British ruling class towards Russia is only superficially understood if at all. Rudolf Steiner talked about it over a hundred years ago in his lectures on the lodges of Europe. Anyone who is familiar with the great Russian novelists of the nineteenth century will understand the influence of freemasonry in Russia at that time. Steiner said that the average Englishman would have no problem whatsoever living alongside his European brothers. And as well as the war of the brotherhoods that persists to this day there is the relationship between the Roman and Russian church and the divisions within Russian orthodoxy. All of these things are of crucial importance in understanding the current situation.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-our-leaders-believe-protecting-ukraine-is-more-important-than-protecting-you
Tucker: Our leaders believe protecting Ukraine is more important than protecting youTucker exposes how much money is being spent on UkraineThere is nothing in the world worse than finding out that your deepest fears are justified. That’s the nightmare scenario, learning there really is a zombie in the closet. Let’s say you’re a kid and you’ve convinced yourself that your parents don’t really love you. They claim they do. They say it all the time, usually without looking up from their iPhones, but you can tell they don’t really mean it. They don’t seem sincere.
And then one Christmas morning, confirmation. You discover they’ve forgotten to buy you presents, any presents. They were busy and it just slipped their mind. Instead, they spent all their time and all their money buying gifts for a kid down the street. All the things that you asked for, they gave to another nine-year-old you have never met. How would that make you feel?
Well, you would be crushed, but you would also be vindicated. You would know for a dead certain fact that your parents really didn’t love you. They’re not even very interested in you. That’s how a lot of Americans felt last night watching the House of Representatives approve yet another massive aid package for Ukraine. Nothing against Ukraine, but we could probably use that money here right about now. After 100 years of virtually uninterrupted wealth generation, the American economy appears to be faltering in ways that are scary to anyone who’s paying attention.
Even people who aren’t paying attention can sense there’s something really wrong. Lots of people are not working. Those who are working are getting poorer quickly, thanks to inflation. All of a sudden everything is wildly more expensive. Have you noticed? We literally have a shortage of baby formula right now. Did you think that would happen in America ever? And yet it is happening and so is the deadliest drug epidemic in our history.
…your representatives in Washington just voted to send yet another $40 billion to Ukrainian oligarchs who paid off the president’s son. That’s what happened, and it’s just the latest check that Congress has cut them. You can add it to the approximately $14 billion they’ve already spent on Ukraine. That brings the total as of tonight to more than $54 billion.
Congress has decided to fix all of the pressing problems that need to be fixed except fix them in Ukraine, not here.
Guess what? Bill Gates has just launched a synthetic baby formula.
Taken by injection of course?
Thx for the quote/transcript.
Oops.
FRENCH VOLUNTEER, OUTRAGED BY LIES OF WESTERN MEDIA, REVEALED TRUTH ABOUT WAR CRIMES IN UKRAINE
“Azov fighters are everywhere. With neo-Nazi stripes. It shocks me that Europe supplies weapons to neo-Nazis. The symbols of the SS are embroidered everywhere on their uniforms. They not hide their views. They advertise them. I worked with these people and treated them. They openly say that they are ready to destroy blacks and Jews,” he added.
…..
“I witnessed how the Ukrainian military shot through the knees of captured Russian soldiers and shot at the head of employees with a rank higher than officer.”
…..
“Butcha was staged. The bodies of the victims were moved from other places and deliberately placed in such a way as to produce a shocking shooting,” he stated.”
“Butcha was staged. The bodies of the victims were moved from other places and deliberately placed in such a way as to produce a shocking shooting,” he stated.”
Yes, this is totally believable, there are 20 million crisis actors in Ukraine, I recognise them from Sandy Hook
20 million lying in the streets?
That sounds a few too many, don’t you think Fingers?
there’s been many of such revelations already all over the internet, wondering if the penny will drop eventually
You let it rest. You assumed that the external and the verified represented truth. Maybe it worked well in times of prosperity. You need to give yourself a shake and understand that in our islands we are moving far away from prosperity. Do you have it in your genetic inheritance to remember how to fight and survive in difficult times. Because we shall soon find out.
Interesting how the girls aren’t here. War must be a manly man’s thing.
Anyway, I don’t know what threat the Russians are – Putin ordered them all to be vaccinated, so they’ll all be having heart attacks, strokes, Bell’s Palsy and hepatitis, won’t they? And Lord knows what the nanobots will do to ’em!
Any idea what Nano means?
Your dick.
Sorry, couldn’t resist it.
“We will continue to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian”
“Joe Biden and the U.S. Congress have sent so much military aid to Ukraine that our country, the United States, is running out of weapons. According to Bloomberg, “Pentagon officials say that Kyiv is blowing through a week’s worth of deliveries of anti-tank munitions every day. It’s also running short of usable aircraft as Russian airstrikes and combat losses take their toll. Ammunition has become scarce in Mariupol and other areas in Ukraine. This is presenting Western countries with a stark choice between pouring more supplies into Ukraine or husbanding finite capabilities they may need for their own defense.”
That’s the line “they may need for their own defense.” It’s a scary world and if you blow it all on Ukraine with finite resources, which we have, sorry, where does that leave you? Undefended. ”
Tucker Carlson Tonight (11/5/22)
The Mujahideen didn’t use much of the arms sent to them by America to fight the USSR in Afghanistan. Instead they stockpiled it to turn on the Americans when they turned up.
It is the necessary illustration of reality and it will become more stark and apparent as millions die through hunger and cold during next winter. Perhaps at some point there will be a challenge or reckoning. I am inclined to think that with the masses glued to phones that no one will even acknowledge the suffering around them. And thus we end up with a bleak and desolate world of our own creation.
The opinion of at least one scholar, and a former US govt. official is that Putin is using Ukraine as an opportunity to kibosh the World Economic Forum (WEF). Western globalists know it, and don’t like it.
Putin is re establishing ‘the state’ as an instrument of Democracy in Russia. Without a state there can be no Democracy. Industry in a Democratic state is subordinate to the state. The west is turning into, a technocratic state, which is a fancy name for fascism on steroids, the state subordinate to industry, as per WEF and Bill Gates’ desires.
There is logic behind this. Ukraine is the global centre for money laundering of arms, drugs, human trafficking etc. conducted by US/Russian/Ukrainian oligarchs. We note Putin hasn’t said much about Russian oligarchs being marginalised by the west with their yachts etc. unlawfully confiscated. The theory is he’s glad to see the back of them.
If Putin stops the eastward march of neocon controlled NATO he essentially breaks the back of the concept of a global government and destroys the means and the will of the WEF to implement it.
Whilst some sort of global reset might be useful for the US and the west to wipe out debt, it probably wouldn’t suit Putin. America’s debt Vs GDP is 120%. Russia’s debt Vs GDP is 12%. Why would he be interested in wiping out debt? Wiping it out means sharing it amongst every other country.
There are also the practical issues of the eastward march of NATO and the proxy war America is fighting against Russia. Putin has also publicly declared he’s willing to protect the culture and language of Russian speaking Eastern Ukrainians in Donbass particularly, where thousands have been killed by Ukrainian insurgents keen on ethnic cleansing.
He also recognises the very real threat of far left Naziism, corruption and criminal organisations acting in consort to form a Ukrainian cell which can reach out to infect surrounding regions. It’s a separate but important issue. Russians as a whole despise Naziism as they killed 40m of their countrymen in WW2.
It’s interesting there was no outcry in the western media over what amounted to a Ukrainian civil war in Donbass, yet when Putin invaded Ukraine, everyone got interested. Presumably because a civil war didn’t threaten the WEF’s ambitions, but Putin does.
It’s also interesting that during Trump’s entire Presidency he was dogged with entirely concocted claims of Russian collusion yet, when Biden is materially connected to Ukrainian hotbed of corruption via his son Hunter, there’s not a murmur from the western media. Whatever anyone thinks of Trump, that alone stinks to high heaven.
Putin is accused of being a WEF Young Global Leader but, interestingly, like Boris Johnson Putin didn’t ‘graduate’. The theory being is that because neither unquestioningly conformed to Schwabs indoctrination they were, essentially, dropped. Another is that Putin attended as it was important enough for him to understand what they were up to.
This is of course theory of informed commentators however, they are quick to point out there are numerous factors at play and nothing is set in stone. They also emphasise that in terms of geopolitics, Putin is the cleverest man in the room by far.
This is a clumsy illustration of an incredibly complicated subject.
So your argument is….Putin is a democrat.
Yes!
How can he be, he’s not an American resident, or hadn’t you noticed, silly.
As for Russia being a Democracy:
“The 1993 Russian constitution declares Russia to be a “democratic federal law-bound State with a republican form of government”. Thus, it is considered to be a democracy.” (The Analyst)
Any more stupid comments you would like to contribute Fingers?
1993 is pre Putin.
Surely, even you can’t imagine Russia has free and fair elections?
No tinkering with the constitution so Putin can stay in charge for instance?
Go and find it revoked somewhere.
The US Constitution was created long before Biden became POTUS.
“Putin’s 83% public approval rating proves that the Russian people understand what he is doing and fully support him. ”
Find it and provide the evidence before making more of your fantasy allegations.
Making shit up as usual Fingers.
Please. Just emigrate.
You can vote for him yourself.
Not that ‘clumsy’ RHS..have read all of this elsewhere and this seems a pretty clear interpretation.
Yeah, and proxy wars have always worked out sooooo well in the last 75 years…
I can see why Trump wants a new broom in their party to sweep out many of the bad old ideas of the Cold War that are still dictating US foreign policy as well as all the globalist woke cr@p.
Crenshaw has been taken in by the neoCons. And he was one of the better new crop of GOP politicians to come to the fore over the last 5 years.
Starving American Babies Disguise Selves As Ukrainian Soldiers In Hopes Of Getting $40 Billion In Federal Aid
Donetsk and Luhansk
There is no way that Russia will allow the Kiev regime, backed or not backed by US air power, to retake the whole of Donetsk and Luhansk. As for invading and conquering Crimea, so that the US navy can sail into Sevastopol, the Black Sea having become a US lake, nope – that’s not going to happen either.
Finland
During the Soviet period (this changed afterwards, in 1992 to be precise), the idea of Finnish neutrality meant that Finland would not allow either US or Soviet warplanes to fly over Finnish territory and would shoot them down if they tried it.
Finland in NATO means US warplanes flying up and down the 800-mile Finnish-Russian border. Compare with German forces crossing the Rhine in 1936. This is all about pushing a potential NATO-Russian front past Sweden, all the way across Finland. It would be a very scary development and let us still hope at this late hour that it doesn’t happen.
If it does, there will be a Russian response…
Kaliningrad
…and this will involve Russia strengthening its forces in Kaliningrad. The thing to watch out for is this being called a “threat” in the western media before it happens. If the sheeple are whipped up into a frenzy of “Ooh, do you think crazy Putin will put those missiles in Kaliningrad?”, then you will probably soon afterwards get a general NATO-Russia war, also known as “World War 3”. Given NATO air superiority, that would have to turn nuclear within a matter of days.
So…if anybody is still waiting for a sign to begin hoarding food so they’ve got something to munch on as they wait for the moment when they bend down and kiss their a*se goodbye – or alternatively, when they fly out to New Zealand – then watch out for propaganda about Kaliningrad.
Such propaganda has started but so far only in minor media. For example, that region has been described as “Russia’s ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ deep in Nato territory” (!) on some pr*ttish website called “The Conversation” (strapline “Academic rigour, journalistic flair” [*]); and the opinion has been expressed in the “World Politics Review” that it could be the “next flashpoint”.
Footnote
*) Anybody who thinks they’ve got either academic rigour or journalistic flair, or even both, should demonstrate it in what they do – they shouldn’t declare that they’ve got either of these attributes, which only makes them look a complete d*ckhead.
A little known fact.
Putins ‘invasion’ of Ukraine is a legal intervention in a growing threat to Russian security. It’s supported by the UN.
“before sending in the tanks– Putin invoked United Nations Article 51 which provides a legal justification for military intervention. Here’s an excerpt from an article by former weapons inspector Scott Ritter who defended the Russian action like this:
“Russian President Vladimir Putin, citing Article 51 as his authority, ordered what he called a “special military operation”….
under Article 51, there can be no doubt as to the legitimacy of Russia’s contention that the Russian-speaking population of the Donbass had been subjected to a brutal eight-year-long bombardment that had killed thousands of people.… Moreover, Russia claims to have documentary proof that the Ukrainian Army was preparing for a massive military incursion into the Donbass which was pre-empted by the Russian-led “special military operation.” [OSCE figures show an increase of government shelling of the area in the days before Russia moved in.]” (Mike Whitney. The Unz Review. May 12, 2022)
Putin can quote UN text all he likes, but that doesn’t mean the UN agrees with him.
So they don’t agree with their own rhetoric? How odd
Lukewarm thinks the UN approved the invasion.
He’s dim.
I don’t think you can call anyone dim, with your past and present record.
Try arguing facts instead of feelings, you might almost win one.
So to clarify, you also think the UN approved of Putin’s war?
This is one of those things you call – ‘facts’?
Do you also have difficulty reading?
“Putin invoked United Nations Article 51”
This is an article of the UN is it not?
So yes, factually correct.
I never mentioned anything about the UN agreeing with it, that was you.
You are yet to provide any “facts” so don’t get childish because you can’t argue a single, simple point.
Where are the UN by the way? I thought they had “peace keeping forces” nowhere to be seen, weird.
Come on Super. You’re worth more than this.
He read out the article. So what? I can read out the article and then go attack my next door neighbour.
Nothing to do with the UN.
“Nothing to do with the UN”
Wrong again!
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/russia-special-military-operation-claimed-right-self-defense/
I’ve picked the well known pro Russian institute of West Point (where they train US officers) to prove you wrong, again.
Article 51 was invoked for the reason why Russia moved on Ukraine, it was voted down because of a breach of UN Charter Article 2(4)
You can’t argue with facts.
“He read out the article. So what? I can read out the article and then go attack my next door neighbour”
What on earth has that got to do with UN articles?
Are you under the impression that your link supports Putin?
You need to read the whole thing: ‘The Russian justification for military action against Ukraine is without any basis in international law’
He invoked Article 51 incorrectly and got nowhere with it.
What gives you the impression I support anyone?
I’ve been clear on this issue multiple times, so we can add memory loss to your long list of imperfections.
I have read the whole thing, and it proves the fact that Putin did indeed invoke article 51.
Clearly it didn’t wash with the UN council.
So why do you think Russia decided to take military action against Ukraine?
OK Super, I don’t know where you think you’re going with this one. You obviously thought that article supported your point of view, because you only read the start.
Let’s try again: did Putin have UN approval for his invasion.
Yes or no?
Did Putin need UN approval? No
Did the UN vote for approval? No
Did I say they didn’t, or did you ask my opinion on the matter? No
Did Putin invoke article 51 for his reason of action? Yes
Did the UN cite article 2(4) as the reason for a breach? Yes
Did I state that Putin invoked article 51? Yes
Did you go off on a tirade when I proved you wrong, again? Yes
All facts.
And your point is?
Now you answer my question,
So why do you think Russia decided to take military action against Ukraine?
I didn’t think anyone could manage to jump in on RedHot’s thread and make it even less coherent.
Putin attempted to invoke Article 51 but failed, so his invasion remained unjustified under UN rules.
He invaded because he thought it would be easy and relatively costless.
What is incoherent about it?
I simply added clarification that article 51 was invoked, not my fault you got confused.
“He invaded because he thought it would be easy and relatively costless”
That’s a vague and spurious statement, what would be easy and relatively costless, fighting a vast country with Western backing?
That makes no sense. Try again.
I said he that’s what he thought. But he was wrong.
Why do you think he invaded?
He invaded, legitimately, to save tens of thousands of lives dummy. Or isn’t that good enough for you?
“I said he that’s what he thought. But he was wrong”
In English?
So why do you think Putin went into Ukraine? Because as I have already stated, your previous vague answer makes no logical sense. Try again.
Putin didn’t attempt to invoke Article 51, he did invoke it. The vote against it makes no difference whatsoever to the legality of his actions as they conform precisely with the Article.
You really are as dumb as they come Fingers.
It wasn’t his decision you dumbass!
And no his actions don’t fit the terms, which was why they rejected it.
No, it’s not his choice. It’s his OBLIGATION, as it is any UN members OBLIGATION to go to the aid of victims of violence.
But no other member of the UN offered to help Donbass. Not one other UN member state moved to fulfil their OBLIGATION to save lives.
Not that you would know anything about obligation.
“You can see that by the time Putin invaded Ukraine, the war had already begun. The shelling of ethnic Russians had already intensified by many orders of magnitude. People were being slaughtered in droves, and tens of thousands of refugees were fleeing across the border into Russia. And, all of this had been going on since the 16th of February, a full week before Russia crossed the border. (Moon of Alabama has compiled the data on the bombardment that took place in the Donbas preceding the invasion: “The February 15 report of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine recorded some 41 explosions in the ceasefire areas. This increased to 76 explosions on Feb 16, 316 on Feb 17, 654 on Feb 18, 1413 on Feb 19, a total of 2026 of Feb 20 and 21 and 1484 on Feb 22.”)
So, why does the media keep repeating the lie that Russia started the war when it is clearly false?
The fact is, Putin sent in the troops to put out a fire not to start one. If ever there was a situation where the Responsibility To Protect (R2P) could be justified, it’s in east Ukraine prior to the invasion. [my emphasis]14,000 ethnic Russians had been killed before the shelling began. Should Putin have looked the other way and allowed another 14,000-or-so to be slaughtered without lifting a finger?” (Mike Whitney. The Unz Review. May 12, 2022)
Putin invoked the UN’s own Article 51 which clearly lays out the terms of engagement:
“nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense… ” And this right of self-defense has been interpreted to permit countries to respond, not only to actual armed attacks, but also to the threat of imminent attack.” (Abbreviated, my emphasis).
Nor is ignoring UN declarations unheard of at all, is it Fingers, after all, the US and the UK violated Resolution 1441 when they invaded Iraq with no justification. No WMD’s were ever found in Iraq, but in Donbass some 5,969 artillery shells were fired over a seven day period, and tens of thousands of refugees fled over the border to Russia before Putin intervened.
But whilst native Russians are observably being killed, you disingenuously condemn Putins obligation to respond to a direct threat, to save lives and terminate destruction of property, because you think that’s a reason to win an argument on a blog?
If it wasn’t so sick it might be funny.
Putin acted within the terms of article 51. The UN’s ‘vote’ was clearly a political manoeuvre instigated, no doubt, by NATO members to provoke international hostility toward Russia.
And you are reprehensible pond life for even rising to the defence of the tyrant Volodymyr Zelenskyy who was about to embark on a full scale invasion of Donbass for the purposes of ethnic cleansing before Putin stopped him.
To repeat just for you LukeWarm, Putin did not have UN support. His reference to Article 51 was unsuccessful because it didn’t meet the terms.
Separately, the whole UN assembly voted to demand Putin’s withdrawal from Ukraine.
The UN decided whether he meets the terms, not you.
It is a matter of observable and legal fact that Putin did comply with article 51.
I repeat:
“nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense… ” And this right of self-defense has been interpreted to permit countries to respond, not only to actual armed attacks, but also to the threat of imminent attack.” (Abbreviated, my emphasis).
Clearly this passage is beyond your sick, twisted tiny mind.
Russia is a member of the UN. It conformed to Article 51 and went to the assistance of victims of a founder member of the UN – in 1945 as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
Doubtless you’ll use the weird excuse that Ukraine has since left the USSR and so no longer need conform to The UN’s rules. But it retained its seat after it became independent so, like Russia before Putin, still conforms to the agreements under the UN.
In other words, it’s not allowed to attack other countries, nor is it allowed to attack it’s own people. If it does either then there is a legitimate reason for another member, acting independently or collectively, to act in the victims defence.
This isn’t subject to your wild fantasies, this is, as you can see, documented, legitimate, allowed responses.
Whether Putin had the blessing of the UN or not, he cannot be criticised for his response, nor can his ‘invasion’ be considered some sort of war crime.
ButI guess you would rather see the deaths of thousands of innocent people at the hands of the terrorist Zelenskyy than Putin dare conform to UN Articles to save lives.
We also not that the UN did nothing over the last 8 years of western Ukraine’s ethnic cleansing of 14,000 people in Donbass. Did they vote not to intervene? Or did they simply ignore the whole event in violation of the single most important reason for their founding in 1945. Remember that date Fingers?
You choose.
“You obviously thought that article supported your point of view, because you only read the start”
You clearly are a special kind of idiot if you think I picked that article because it was going to “support” my point of view. Whatever that means. I picked an article from West Point, clearly the US military academy, which was highly unlikely to support any anti US rhetoric.
Of which I read the whole thing, and it contained the information that you didn’t understand.
I like the way you edited your post, after I had already responded, nice try.
Daily Sceptics were also known as conspiracy theorists when we said vax injuries are real, amongst many other things we were proven right about.
Now Russia is becoming an underdog fighting US/NATO goliath on it’s own.
Admitting the blatantly obvious takes no courage.
Sometimes it does. Look at Covid. The awfulness of concerted government response throughout the world is clear, yet after two years, the establishment media continue to persist in not seeing it.
Many of us have been saying much the same since the start.
it’s Russia, it’s not right what is happening in Ukraine but by propping up Ukraine with western support more people will die for no real reason.
anyone interested in stopping this mess would let Ukraine fall to Russia and while sanctioning Russia.
Ukraines neighbours are NATO affiliated so Russia must stop there.
if they don’t they get our full might, not propping up of these states that can’t fight a nuclear super power.
when winter comes WE all will feel the full impact of Ukraine not shipping its grain, no animal feed, no grain to sow the fields, the poorest nations will suffer most.
covid impacts like lockdowns where bad, loss of vital supplies from Ukraine that propped up many of the worlds agriculture will be worse.
The mental midgets ruling over us think they can control a virus and control the climate.
If they don’t back off antagonizing Russia they will be in for a huge shock.
It’s a shame the obvious is invisible until the establishment media sees it.
If an aggressor is launching death and destruction on a neighbouring country, isn’t it normal and logical to want to weaken the aggressor?
Not to want to do that would be the disreputable thing in my opinion.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
yeah, good idea if you don’t care about the country you’re trying to protect. read history books and see what normally happens to countries used as proxies.
Yawn. Noah’s obsession yet again makes him Putin’s friend. Does Noah deny that the West is REACTING to Russia’s aggression?
I can’t wait for Noah’s next article, condemning Finland for threatening Russia by joining NATO.
I wish Noah would just naff off to Moscow and be done with it.
You are NIna Jankowicz and I claim my ten pound prize. Thank goodness for people like Noah and this site…(exactly why are you here?)…which allows people to have a different view and opinion from the sheep and the MSM……
and, which the history over the last two years shows, we were correct to question.
You are Putin’s Useful Idiot: claim your ten roubles.
nah I’m not…that’s not it is it? It’s just that you’re trying to make a decidedly financially dodgy bloke, and his corrupt country into something they’re not…(this in no way excuses Putin’s invasion) and if we don’t play along..take him as our Lord And Saviour, and polish up the bunting you don’t like it. I’m looking forward to the day the MSM write about him, as they were doing pre-2022….I hope it won’t come as an awful shock!!
Why has the Daily Sceptic turned into an anti-Western echo chamber? Why are Putin and Xi spared the paranoid scepticism that is focused instead on the leaders of the societies that tolerate such seditious free speech?
Just the same thick argument used by idiots who call people anti-vaxxers when they ask a pertinent question about the vaccines, or who deviate from the sheepy MSM Covid narrative…..
I would suggest if you actually had a point about Putin or Xi we could be just as sceptical as required.
Just the same thick argument used by idiots
Resorting to ad homs usually reveals a fatal weakness in any position (as well as being straightforwardly wrong).
I would suggest if you actually had a point about Putin or Xi we could be just as sceptical as required.
No personal points, but the current Russian and Chinese regimes are brutal, totalitarian, ultra-nationalist / fascist, anti-democratic and expansionist ones which silence all serious opposition through intimidation, internment and murder.
And in the case of Russia a government which is currently engaging in an orgy of destruction and killing in Ukraine on completely deceitful pretexts.
As well as threatening to wipe out all of humanity through initiating nuclear armageddon if anyone dares to stand in its way.
I look forward to hearing the scepticism you promised…
Now do the UK backed murdering Saudis in Yemen with as much vitriol….
It’s a proxy war with China, not Russia.
Yes, this speech by Liz Truss at Easter made that point clearly…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6FQ9VNeG4s
“Liz Truss, UK foreign secretary, has warned China to learn lessons from the west’s robust economic response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, saying Beijing will face consequences if it does not “play by the rules”.
We need a global NATO. By that I don’t mean extending the membership to those from other regions. I mean that NATO must have a global outlook, ready to tackle global threats.
We need to pre-empt threats in the Indo-Pacific, working with our allies like Japan and Australia to ensure the Pacific is protected. And we must ensure that democracies like Taiwan are able to defend themselves.”
All the world then has to submit to NATO and their ‘rules’..or else…but hey that’s not threatening in the least…….
The rules Liz Truss was referring to were not NATO’s but the near universally accepted ones precluding one nation militarily conquering another for imperial purposes – eg Russia invading Ukraine or China invading Taiwan (which though in reality an entirely independent country is not widely acknowledged as a nation state to avoid hurting the poor Chinese regime’s sensitive feelings).
Everything else in her speech was about joint military defence against the above two fascistic countries’ expansionist agendas, so the exact opposite of ‘submitting to NATO’.
“Russia invading Ukraine, or China invading Taiwan”…Hahaha priceless..
because no one else, particularly Western countries have ever invaded a sovereign country…no never!! Hahahah
Have you just woken up after being asleep for the last fifty years???
Sad to say, but the way our western leaders behave Trudeau and the like I want to see Russia win. If the US Canada and U.K. believe they will win they will simply increase restrictions on us. They need toppled, and voting doesn’t work, look at Trump who lost, Trudeau and Aherne who won. Non of this madness will stop until democrats are out, if they ever will be out.
What a truly stupid comment: Trudeau is awful, therefore I’ll support someone far, far worse. The logic of the lunatic.
Convenient to forget that Trudeau illegally froze peoples bank accounts, that No unvacced can leave Canada. That Australia constructed Covid camps. That the non vacced were threatened with being excluded from society by one Mr Gove, without one word of condemnation from our elected leaders. That the Ukraine was not going to join EU or NATO. That we are not deliberately prolonging the war, at the cost of the destruction of the Ukraine. You believe in the multi party democracy…well that’s working isn’t it! Before you can export democracy you must practise it. What we have now is lunacy.
Putin is far worse than Trudeau. If you think otherwise you are deluded.
You believe that there are more restrictions in the multi-party liberal democratic US, UK and Canada (under all leaders apart from Donald Trump) than those imposed by the current totalitarian-fascist Russian regime –
Where all serious political and media opposition is met with intimidation, firing from jobs, imprisonment (up to 15 years for daring to question the current brutal assault on Ukraine) or assassination?
I am a retired nurse practitioner. No military background whatsoever. How did I know from the beginning of the proxy war it was a proxy war? I read alternative papers, witnessed the comedienne in Ukrainia dress in a costume of Green each day, and watch that “bad guy” actor play his part in this made for tv drama. I have been to Russia, the Russians like their leader. Loads of Ukrainians living in the USA. They are a bit unusual, but probably more like Russians than Americans. So, a war between the two countries does not make sense, despite the best efforts of NATO with Joe Biden’s $$$support to inflame the battle. Good to see all the Ukrainia flags flown high in the UK
what a joke. A country (UK) where they don’t even fly their own flag proudly!
in the beginning people were understandably shocked by what looked like an unprovoked attack of evil Russia on peaceful Ukraine, but by spending a bit of time any sane person with half a brain can see that it is very far from what people in the west are lead to believe by their government and the pre$$.
Yes, everyone who opposes the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine is insane or mentally deficient.
Where is the Soviet Union and its renowned psychiatric internment camps when you need it…?
all wars and invasions are bad, i don’t think anyone here would think otherwise. But comparing to Iraq (and many other examples) Russia had more reasons to invade than US/NATO especially that it was part of the plan of the US/NATO from the very beginning, Russia just decided to strike first. Wars and conflicts are bad, but they happened and they will happen.
So, a war between the two countries does not make sense
So I presume you are doing everything you can to persuade the Putin regime to withdraw its mass murdering and destroying forces from Ukraine;
You say you don’t live in Russia (rather the USA), so at least you can carry out your anti-invasion campaign without facing up to 15 years in prison (or worse).
and now you’re going to get executed in Ukraine for voicing pro-russian views, how about that?
Also, remember the lady who appeared on the state Russian TV in prime time with anti war sign? Is she in prison? Dead? No, she is in Germany after paying some fine.
I wouldn’t think that this is news to any moderately intelligent individual.
They certainly would not believe the version of events put forward by western governments, the MSM and Ukraine’s corrupt president. It is far more nuanced than that.
I’m certainly not a Putin apologist, but anyone who believes that all Ukrainians wear white cowboy hats and all Russians black cowboy hats is extremely naive.
Ukraine: The Nexus of Cognitive Warfare – Narratives to dateUkraine is the frontline in the battle for minds, including yours.
https://veryslowthinking.substack.com/p/ukraine-the-nexus-of-cognitive-warfare
There are great similarities with how the majority of the public have swallowed the MSM Ukraine narrative like they did with covid. How easy it is for the MSM to manipulate the British people – what suckers! They just cannot see that most of the time the MSM and the deep state are in bed together.