[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

[Eeyore]

In a sliding doors moment, a potential PM and Home Secretary have already nailed their 'who's to blame' colours firmly to the mast ..

This is obviously filmed before the invasion, and should be seen in that context.

What problem do you have with what Corbyn said ? Made perfect sense to me.

NATO courting Ukrainian membership has been a flash point in that region.

As he correctly points out, the UK supported Putin and Corbyn was amongst the first to point out the dirty Russian money in the ruling party.

Facts, eh ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc07qyLcx2U

 

[dazzer6666]

DT extract

BRITAIN has frozen more Russian bank assets than any other country as part of the international wave of sanctions following Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, ministers said yesterday.

The Foreign Office announced that the UK had acted on a total of £258.8 billion bank assets, compared with £240 billion by the US and £33.8 billion by the EU.

The figures came after Boris Johnson’s Government faced criticism over the speed with which it was imposing sanctions on individuals linked with President Putin’s regime. Britain has imposed sanctions on individual members of the Russian and Belarusian elites, including Mr Putin, and at least 12 banks and companies. The Government will also push for an international limit on the import of Russian gas.

Ministers have spoken about targeting more than 100 individuals and companies, but have named only around 14 Russians – leading to criticism of Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary.

But a Foreign Office source said: “Liz’s focus has been on hitting banks and financial institutions, which have a bigger impact on the Russian economy than sanctioning single individuals.

‘Targeting oligarchs is important but it’s by no means the most effective way to debilitate Russia’s economy’
“We’ve gone further than the EU and US on bank asset freezes, which is where Russia feels the pinch. Targeting oligarchs is important – but it’s by no means the most effective way to debilitate Russia’s economy and war machine.

“The emergency legislation we’re bringing in via the Economic Crime Bill will allow us to move faster against oligarchs. It’s something Liz has pushed hard for. More oligarchs will be sanctioned soon as part of Liz’s ‘hit list’.”

 

[peterward]

Looking ahead, if Putin loses his army in Ukraine there will be a few republics, itching to break away from Moscow and the Russian Federation, which might seize their chance.

If Putin falls so does Lukashenko and Kadyrov which is why it's so important he fails

 

[The Clamp]

He hasn’t explicitly threatened anyone with nukes. I hope this is because he has no intention of using them and doesn’t want to look weak by threatening it then backing down. I hope.

 

[Billy the Fish]

What problem do you have with what Corbyn said ? Made perfect sense to me.

NATO courting Ukrainian membership has been a flash point in that region.

The problem is that Ukraine is a sovereign nation, if Ukraine wants to join NATO it's none of Russia's business.

The assumption that Ukraine wanting to join NATO (not being courted as far as I'm aware) equals aggression against Russia is simply wrong, it's Russian propaganda. Of course they're going to say that because they knew at some point they'd invade.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Is anyone else worried about Russia appearing to single out the UK above anyone else in terms of him doing something nuts? Is there anything he can actual do?

No, not worried at all.

It's part of the well known and understood Kremlin sabre rattling tactic used to scare Western populations into inaction.

It is also a warning to the UK politicians that the Kremlin has Kompromat on.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

In many ways, the first strike is irrelevant. If it’s London, Moscow, Paris, St Petersburg, Los Angeles or Volgograd; once the nuclear bomb is dropped, we are all doomed. Even those in the corners of the world would succumb to the nuclear winter that follows.

It’s a binary situation in my opinion; it either happens it it doesn’t. In that sense I’d stop ruminating about it. After some days, I have. It is out of the ordinary man’s control.

Exactly.

People must - for their own sakes - stop worrying about things they can't control.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

OK - This MIGHT be fake.

Treat it as entertaining fiction if you like.

The translator hasn't many followers but the document behind the translation has more providence.

[Tweet]1500301348780199937[/Tweet]

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

This is obviously filmed before the invasion, and should be seen in that context.

What problem do you have with what Corbyn said ? Made perfect sense to me.

NATO courting Ukrainian membership has been a flash point in that region.

As he correctly points out, the UK supported Putin and Corbyn was amongst the first to point out the dirty Russian money in the ruling party.

Facts, eh ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc07qyLcx2U

I’m not at all interested in anything said by Corbyn or Abbott but the view highlighted is one I absolutely cannot comprehend. The idea that Ukrainians are not free to pursue their own alliances is pure Putin propaganda.

 

[Guinness Boy]

In many ways, the first strike is irrelevant. If it’s London, Moscow, Paris, St Petersburg, Los Angeles or Volgograd; once the nuclear bomb is dropped, we are all doomed. Even those in the corners of the world would succumb to the nuclear winter that follows.

It’s a binary situation in my opinion; it either happens it it doesn’t. In that sense I’d stop ruminating about it. After some days, I have. It is out of the ordinary man’s control.

Yep. Exactly where I am too.

 

[carlzeiss]

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/molotovs-proposal-the-ussr-join-nato-march-1954

Molotov's Proposal that the USSR Join NATO, March 1954

 

[Eric the meek]

This is obviously filmed before the invasion, and should be seen in that context.

What problem do you have with what Corbyn said ? Made perfect sense to me.

NATO courting Ukrainian membership has been a flash point in that region.

As he correctly points out, the UK supported Putin and Corbyn was amongst the first to point out the dirty Russian money in the ruling party.

Facts, eh ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc07qyLcx2U

You claim that NATO is/has been courting Ukrainian membership.

Well, it's a long courtship, and frankly, a bit one-sided. Unrequited love. We've all been there.

'Ukraine has been trying to join NATO for 15 years by obtaining a Membership Action Plan' - Edgars Rinkēvičs, Latvian Foreign Minister.

 

[The Clamp]

This is obviously filmed before the invasion, and should be seen in that context.

What problem do you have with what Corbyn said ? Made perfect sense to me.

NATO courting Ukrainian membership has been a flash point in that region.

As he correctly points out, the UK supported Putin and Corbyn was amongst the first to point out the dirty Russian money in the ruling party.

Facts, eh ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc07qyLcx2U

It isn’t enough that some idiotic posters fall for Johnson’s lies, now they fall for Putin’s.

Shame on them.

 

[beorhthelm]

This is obviously filmed before the invasion, and should be seen in that context.

What problem do you have with what Corbyn said ? Made perfect sense to me.

NATO courting Ukrainian membership has been a flash point in that region.

As he correctly points out, the UK supported Putin and Corbyn was amongst the first to point out the dirty Russian money in the ruling party.

Facts, eh ?

the West accepted Putin. we did exactly what Corbyn is asking, we talked, got along. we gladly bought their goods and sold ours to them.

trouble is Putin wanted wars to show his strength. thats the bottomline, no amount of sanctimonious talk of peace is going to stop someone who wants to build an empire.

 

[The Fits]

If Putin (and historically Russia) simply use their nuclear weapons as an idle threat, and people are saying they’d never actually use them (Raab has said similar on the media rounds this morning), then what is the actual risk in escalating things? If a no fly zone was created for instance? If the Russian military are struggling so much against the smaller Ukrainian one, and its civilians, what realistic chance do they have if the rest of the World turns up? Again, no doubt I’m showing naivety, but I’m struggling to understand why ‘we’ aren’t just going in there and getting the Russians out. I know there’s been a total bollocks up in the past when we’ve intervened in other parts of the World, but this seems far more simplistic - no different religion factions in fighting, no terrorist and splinter factions hiding in hills and caves. Just a massive convoy stuck on a motorway that could surely be destroyed in seconds. Like what exactly is the current end game here? Hope the Russians give up? Try and rehome the entire Ukrainian population and let their country become a Russian owned wasteland?!
I’m really struggling to understand why it’s been absolute fair game to get involved all over the bloody World previously but not here.

 

[Poojah]

If Putin (and historically Russia) simply use their nuclear weapons as an idle threat, and people are saying they’d never actually use them (Raab has said similar on the media rounds this morning), then what is the actual risk in escalating things? If a no fly zone was created for instance? If the Russian military are struggling so much against the smaller Ukrainian one, and its civilians, what realistic chance do they have if the rest of the World turns up? Again, no doubt I’m showing naivety, but I’m struggling to understand why ‘we’ aren’t just going in there and getting the Russians out. I know there’s been a total bollocks up in the past when we’ve intervened in other parts of the World, but this seems far miner simplistic- no different religion factions in fighting, no terrorist and splinter factions hiding in hills and caves. Just a massive convoy stuck on a motorway that could surely be destroyed in seconds. Like what exactly is the current end game here? Hope the Russians give up? Try and rehome the entire Ukrainian population and let their country become and Russian owned wasteland?!
I really struggling to understand why it’s been absolute fair game to get involved all over the bloody World previously but not here.

NATO would win a conventional war against Russia, I would be confident of that. But war is war, even if it’s not nuclear. It’s still an utterly grim prospect whether you ‘win’ or not.

And it wouldn’t be a war involving the UK like those of us born after 1945 are used to witnessing, fought in some strange foreign land. It would be fought on the shores and in the airspace of our country. I don’t want bombs of any kind raining down on my house, and I’m sure you don’t either.

I don’t think it’s much more complex than that, if I’m honest.

 

[Eric the meek]

I watched the Sophie Raworth interview with General Sir Tony Radakin, Chief of the Defence Staff this morning.

An impressive interview - calm, measured, professional. No hesitations, and he knew what he could say, and what he couldn't.

A few takeaways:

1) We've known for - months - that Russia were going to invade.
2) We warned Russia that it would be catastrophic for both Russia and Ukraine.
3) The reports of waning morale amongst the Russian troops and poorly maintained kit (at least on the convoy) are absolutely real.
4) The Russian military are weaker than they were ten days ago.
5) Zelensky is being targeted by Russia, but he was unable to give details.
6) Regarding the threat of a Russian nuclear strike, he said we have discreet intelligence that would give us more warning than is generally assumed.
7) The Ukrainians have been effective in taking out advance Russian units.
8) He has a hotline (as do other Chiefs of Staff) to General Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff, which is tested every day. This is to reduce the chance of escalation due to miscalculation.
9) He condemned the escalation in violence from the Russians, as their initial tactics have failed to work.
10) He noted that Putin's comments were 'bizarre' and 'ridiculous'.
11) We have to be mindful of the risk of escalation. Anti-tank weapons are defensive. But a no-fly zone would by necessity involve taking out Russian anti-aircraft installations, and probably involve engagement with Russian aircraft.
12) He highlighted the unity and cohesion of the west's response - economically, socially, culturally, diplomatically, and militarily.
13) He wouldn't be drawn on how long he thought the war would go on for.
14) The answer lies with Putin. He can bring it to an end.

 

[peterward]

OK - This MIGHT be fake.

Treat it as entertaining fiction if you like.

The translator hasn't many followers but the document behind the translation has more providence.

[Tweet]1500301348780199937[/Tweet]

Part owner of Bellingcat checked with 2 FSB contacts and thinks it's real.

https://twitter.com/christogrozev

 

[happypig]

Is anyone else worried about Russia appearing to single out the UK above anyone else in terms of him doing something nuts? Is there anything he can actual do?

He could sack Boris Johnson

 

[WATFORD zero]

I watched the Sophie Raworth interview with General Sir Tony Radakin, Chief of the Defence Staff this morning.

An impressive interview - calm, measured, professional. No hesitations, and he knew what he could say, and what he couldn't.

A few takeaways:

1) We've known for - months - that Russia were going to invade.
2) We warned Russia that it would be catastrophic for both Russia and Ukraine.
3) The reports of waning morale amongst the Russian troops and poorly maintained kit (at least on the convoy) are absolutely real.
4) The Russian military are weaker than they were ten days ago.
5) Zelensky is being targeted by Russia, but he was unable to give details.
6) Regarding the threat of a Russian nuclear strike, he said we have discreet intelligence that would give us more warning than is generally assumed.
7) The Ukrainians have been effective in taking out advance Russian units.
8) He has a hotline (as do other Chiefs of Staff) to General Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff, which is tested every day. This is to reduce the chance of escalation due to miscalculation.
9) He condemned the escalation in violence from the Russians, as their initial tactics have failed to work.
10) He noted that Putin's comments were 'bizarre' and 'ridiculous'.
11) We have to be mindful of the risk of escalation. Anti-tank weapons are defensive. But a no-fly zone would by necessity involve taking out Russian anti-aircraft installations, and probably involve engagement with Russian aircraft.
12) He highlighted the unity and cohesion of the west's response - economically, socially, culturally, diplomatically, and militarily.
13) He wouldn't be drawn on how long he thought the war would go on for.
14) The answer lies with Putin. He can bring it to an end.

Thanks for that. Would always welcome an expert's view over a politician's one