jakarta
Well-known member
Really - why not? Basically this is giving NATO Nations (especially the US) an excellent workout of their inventory of hardware.
I think you would find in terms of GDP the US at least could carry on indefinitely...
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)
- Thread starter vegster
- Start date
Really - why not? Basically this is giving NATO Nations (especially the US) an excellent workout of their inventory of hardware.
I think you would find in terms of GDP the US at least could carry on indefinitely...
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 7,422
And politically as well.
Military support for Ukraine is a wildly popular policy in NATO countries
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,497
trouble is do they want to go back? majority are ethinc Russians and a strong historic case for being Russian. maybe settlement should be a UN led referendum to determine. if its the difference between peace and perpetual conflict, Crimea should at least be for discussion.
SeagullinExile
Well-known member
Now yes. But will it be so popular IF the Russians pull back to pre-February positions?
I’m not so sure.
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 7,422
Ukraine want it back for exactly the same reason Russia wanted to take it. The strategic significance of large ports on the Black Sea
How would the Crimean's self determine, I've no idea, but I'm entirely confident the referendum held in 2014 was a sham.
It's actually a difficult target to hit with a big enough warhead from the range they currently have.
Also leaving an escape route is a valid strategy - but we can't really guess the thinking at present.
Well, yes, it was one of the excuses that Hitler used. But don't forget, after WW2 about $60bn (ish) was paid to victims of the holocaust. The allies also used German PoWs for manual labour for some 5 years after the German surrender.
I'm not aware that we have suffered "hatred" from the German nation for the WW2 reparations.
Reparations for losing a war go back a couple of millenia.
The German people were very much punished for their actions in WW2. If the German people had opposed Hitler then there would have been no WW2. If the Russian people didn't support Putin, we wouldn't be where we are now.
Psychobilly freakout
HellBilly
Maybe because there is an offensive planned to take back Crimea
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,497
dont have the range to hit it currently. if they did, strategic and long term benefits to keeping it. give Russia an exit plus its a valuable infrastructure for the future.
But also worth noting many of the reparations were eventually swallowed up under the Marshall Plan when the US essentially paid to prop up western European governments in the years after the war to prevent the spread of communism.
It's an interesting point that Crimea was actually part of Russia until 1954. Khrushchev then handed it to Ukraine as part of an administrative reorganisation. So it's not like it's been a part of Ukraine since the beginning of time, and one could argue (although I am most emphatically NOT arguing) that when the Russians took back Crimea they simply were righting a historical wrong. I'll restate for the hard of hearing that I am NOT saying that, but I do think that saying 'Crimea is Ukrainian' isn't as straightforward as saying 'Sussex is English'.
Another, vaguely interesting, point is that I always thought Khrushchev was Ukrainian (like another Soviet era leader, Leonid Brezhnev) and took Crimea from Russia to 'big up' his own birthplace. However I've recently discovered that he was born about 10 miles over the border in Russia itself and didn't move to Ukraine until he was 14. So I dunno why he did it, other than perhaps he thought it was a minor internal reorganisation like moving Poole between Hampshire and Dorset. Little did he know that the USSR would collapse and its constituent parts would start fighting each other.
Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 8,558
It's an interesting point that Crimea was actually part of Russia until 1954. Khrushchev then handed it to Ukraine as part of an administrative reorganisation. So it's not like it's been a part of Ukraine since the beginning of time, and one could argue (although I am most emphatically NOT arguing) that when the Russians took back Crimea they simply were righting a historical wrong. I'll restate for the hard of hearing that I am NOT saying that, but I do think that saying 'Crimea is Ukrainian' isn't as straightforward as saying 'Sussex is English'.
Another, vaguely interesting, point is that I always thought Khrushchev was Ukrainian (like another Soviet era leader, Leonid Brezhnev) and took Crimea from Russia to 'big up' his own birthplace. However I've recently discovered that he was born about 10 miles over the border in Russia itself and didn't move to Ukraine until he was 14. So I dunno why he did it, other than perhaps he thought it was a minor internal reorganisation like moving Poole between Hampshire and Dorset. Little did he know that the USSR would collapse and its constituent parts would start fighting each other.
It depends how far back you go back really as to what constitutes Russia whicht was a small but powerful country which established an empire over its neighbours and incorporated those bits into its own state. The Crimea was definitely not Russian from day one, it was a semi-independent 'state' within the Ottoman Empire until the late 18th century.
The fact of the matter is Russia annexed part of an independent country in 2014 in the same way it has been interfering in places like Georgia and Chechnya.
Yes it did. Undoubtedly. Any rational person would see that. Borders had been drawn and agreed and the Russians acted despicably. But because Crimea's history isn't straightforward arguments can be made both ways; although as I inferred in my original post by their actions Russia have now forefitted the right to make theirs - not that it'll stop them from making it of course.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,497
its always been a bit of an odd-bod settled or ruled by various groups, independent from Ukraine. the crucial point is it wasnt part of the original Ukrainian state declared when the Russian empire collapsed.
and a bit more read finds, it was independent briefly after the USSR collapsed too.
Last edited:
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
The recent postings on this thread has brought this classic wordsmiths song to mind
https://youtu.be/WlfVNu2FFzE
https://youtu.be/WlfVNu2FFzE
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 7,422
To me the only long term satisfactory outcome with Crimea is a referendum. An actual one, not the sham poll that they ran last time.
It would have to be overseen by an agreed international body. It wouldn't be perfect, of course it wouldn't. But I can't see another way
But you weren't making a point, Brighton Lines was. He mentioned that Russia could flatten Ukraine and I said that would require nuclear weapons, so it doesn't really mean anything, we could flatten Russia too. As for how many minutes it would take - who cares? The UK really has enough nuclear weapons to end all human life in Russia.
The problem with even that is that with Russia in control of Crimea, if they thought they'd lose a referendum, they'd simply remove anyone whom they'd expect to vote Ukraine.
Not liking these sham 'referendums' that are being announced today.
They may seem like an odd and pointless diversion, but actually there's a pretty sinister agenda here.
That's because the results will, of course, conveniently show huge majorities voting to join Russia (ie 120% in favour and other Communist classics).
Which means Putin can then say (mainly to the Russian public, but with a fake veneer of 'international justification'):
"These territories are now legally part of Russia, the people have voted so. Therefore it's not actually Ukraine defending them any more, it's us. And Ukraine is now the invader. Therefore we have no choice but to declare war to defend ourselves, and mobilisation and nuclear response are justifiable".
Ie he's creating grounds to flip the entire narrative to the Russian nation, and thus move instantly to having 'just cause' for full-on war, mobilisation, nuclear 'defensive' strikes and more.
They may seem like an odd and pointless diversion, but actually there's a pretty sinister agenda here.
That's because the results will, of course, conveniently show huge majorities voting to join Russia (ie 120% in favour and other Communist classics).
Which means Putin can then say (mainly to the Russian public, but with a fake veneer of 'international justification'):
"These territories are now legally part of Russia, the people have voted so. Therefore it's not actually Ukraine defending them any more, it's us. And Ukraine is now the invader. Therefore we have no choice but to declare war to defend ourselves, and mobilisation and nuclear response are justifiable".
Ie he's creating grounds to flip the entire narrative to the Russian nation, and thus move instantly to having 'just cause' for full-on war, mobilisation, nuclear 'defensive' strikes and more.