Ukraine

[Paul G.]

Re: Ukraine

Since you are a member longer than me and appeared a legitimate human being, I've tried to respond to you as to such

Now I see and chuckle to myself - if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then probably the thousands of posts are secondary to that

Whatever, you have not responded at all because your Polish identity has been affronted in some way, (which is not my intention at all) there is history over disputed territory and regarding Russia, the adage is the enemy of my enemy is my friend....for now in geopolitics lol!
though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish...3Ukrainian_War

[Paul G.]

Re: Ukraine

Russia is run by mobsters. Does that mean we can invade Russia in order to de-mob it? Asking for a friend.

To be fair the US was run by an actual mobster for a while albeit a corpulent orange one

[LeeG]

Re: Ukraine

No, it isn't. It's an old-fashioned war of conquest, like the Romans invading Gaul, or Cromwell in Ireland. Mr Putin wants to restore the power and glory of the motherland and rebuild the USSR, or the Russian Empire before it.

Agreed. And we have a sphere of influence called the Earth covered with bases and carrier groups. Totally different than old fashioned conquest.

[Keith Wilson]

Re: Ukraine

Agreed. And we have a sphere of influence called the Earth covered with bases and carrier groups. Totally different than old fashioned conquest.

Sorry, but it is. It may be a good thing or not, but it's not the same as the British Empire, or the Roman Empire, or even the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.

Hang on a minute. Ireland was an English colony since about the 12th C. Cromwell was putting the fraction colony back in its place. Pick on another country engaged in conquest, like the early USA conquering first peoples lands, or the Spaniards in South America.

No shortage of examples; I was also going to list the Europeans in the Americas, north and south, and the Chinese in Tibet. People have been doing it since we invented armies and organized states, although more recently it's been discouraged.

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Ukraine

Sorry, but it is. It may be a good thing or not, but it's not the same as the British Empire, or the Roman Empire, or even the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.

Yer well. The US of A arrived too late to be able to conquer an empire, it was all taken when they were able to project the power, so they have had to find some other way.

[Keith Wilson]

Re: Ukraine

The US had lots of territory to conquer in North America, no need to look farther.

But no one is claiming that any other country is blameless and pristinely virtuous. 'But whaddabout . . ' is an all-too-common fallacy, for one wrong, or even ten, does not justify another.

[LeeG]

Re: Ukraine

Sorry, but it is. It may be a good thing or not, but it's not the same as the British Empire, or the Roman Empire, or even the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.

The US “projecting power” with extensive bases and arms is not the same as old fashioned empires. I really didn’t intend sarcasm on the last comment. I just get tired of the self stroking stories about Putin false justification for invading Ukraine as though we all believe that really matters, Putin has made a calculus for war just as we did.

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Ukraine

The US had lots of territory to conquer in North America, no need to look farther.

But no one is claiming that any other country is blameless and pristinely virtuous. 'But whaddabout . . ' is an all-too-common fallacy, for one wrong, or even ten, does not justify another.

I agree with your rebuttal of Osborne's claim that regime change by Srub is the same as Pooting attempted conquest.

But please choose historically accurate examples to make your argument.
B T W if the US of A is an empire, which state is home to the Emperor?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Re: Ukraine

The USA had a brief spell of Imperialism in the 1890s; it ended when the Americans realised that if they were going to be nice to their little brown brothers they would have to make them US citizens.

This consisted of Teddy Roosevelt, the Spanish American War and the Great White Fleet.

And the poem by Kipling that begins:

The United States and the Philippine Islands


“Take up the White Man's burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man's burden—
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain.
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden—
The savage wars of peace—
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden—
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper—
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go make them with your living,
And mark them with your dead!

Take up the White Man's burden—
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard—
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:—
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden—
Ye dare not stoop to less
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your Gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden—
Have done with childish days—
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!”

[LeeG]

Re: Ukraine

The US had lots of territory to conquer in North America, no need to look farther.

But no one is claiming that any other country is blameless and pristinely virtuous. 'But whaddabout . . ' is an all-too-common fallacy, for one wrong, or even ten, does not justify another.

When people appeal to some higher principle of self determination or respecting sovereignty of another nation it isn’t whataboutism or falacious reasoning to point out that reasoning is irrelevant to the powerful.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Re: Ukraine

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1666480705637851136.html

[gypsie]

Re: Ukraine

NATO will meet to discuss a response to the dam busting. Kosovo came to my mind, but that's a long bow.
In my minds eye there is some logic to NATO taking a strong position, and even intervening on this issue. It could demonstrate a willingness to intervene at some future point when say, a nuclear power plant is destroyed.

[Paul G.]

Re: Ukraine

NATO will meet to discuss a response to the dam busting. Kosovo came to my mind, but that's a long bow.
In my minds eye there is some logic to NATO taking a strong position, and even intervening on this issue. It could demonstrate a willingness to intervene at some future point when say, a nuclear power plant is destroyed.

At present both sides are claiming the other is responsible, and there are some fairly solid arguments for both. if Nato is the policeman of an international rules based order then due process would include an investigation, evidence, hearings etc.
But in reality there is no such thing as an "international rules based order" its a construct to justify doing whatever we with the power wish to do. International rules are essentially meaningless, especially in geopolitics, we see the contradictions on a daily basis yet the media simply ignores it. By the media I mean the material we read or consume as a product in our "world" take the recent posturing in the South China Sea for a glaring example. Taiwan is recognised as part of China officially by the US, you know the one China policy etc but we now have the entertainment of watching the righteous and surprised indignation of a port starboard incident in so called international waters 5 minutes from the Chinese mainland yet we all know what would occur if the Chinese conducted similar exercises in the Florida Straight.

Traditionally in geopolitics might is right and weaker nations are subject to whatever the stronger ones dictate, even a cursory examination of the International Criminal courts actions shows that its just a political instrument and I fully support the US in not being a party to any treaty recognising it since its a clown car. All this talk of civilian infrastructure destruction being terrorism, well all I can say is Dresden..... crickets. The world is full of people we would like to see receiving justice, the problem is that the truly powerful have to agree to it and that is never going to happen.

[gypsie]

Re: Ukraine

Solid arguments for both?

Here's what i see for Russia;
Russia has been attacking civilian infrastrutre sonce the start of the war and for the last 9 months or more has almost exclusively targeted civilian resources only, behind the front. They have very active form in this space.
In October last year the Russians mined the dam as part of their retreat out of Kherson. They needed it in place for the retreat because it was one of the few bridges left in the region. But they wanted to close the door behind them.
At the time Ukraine bombed the small bridge on the southern side of the Dam to prevent Russians from escaping. The Dam itself offered a far bigger target at a time when it would have made far more strategic sense to blow it - trapping 20,000 russian troops north of the Dnipro. But Ukraine wanted to preserve it.
Since then Russia has maintained tactical control of the Dam.
You have had testimony from structural and mechanical engineers here in the forum who align on the amount of explosives and the logistical challenge of doing the damage that has been done. Its clear that only Russia had the access needed to carry it out.

Blowing it up finally, closes the door behind Russia. As illustrated in these pages, the floods are a pause on any attacks, plus the quagmire of mud upstream will make amphibious attacks across the khakovka reservoir all but impossible there.


What are the solid arguments for Ukraine to do it?
To deny themselves an avenue for attack?
To cause massive destruction to their own citizens homes? And generally make life harder all round?
To, for the first time since the invasion, attack civilian infrastructure? (and for some reason they decided to pick their own?)
To have something to rebuild after the war?

[JayInOz]

Re: Ukraine

Ukraine would have known what the consequences of the dam failure could be, and there's no way they would do that to their own people. Putin on the other hand couldn't give a flying f### for the welfare of civilians.