Ukraine (Mod Note & Threadbanned Users in OP)

To veer off into this for a moment..

Pretty much every country condemned the violent oppression and brutal crackdown during protests in Syria. That violence only escalated. Over the years Assad carried out an estimated 70 chemical weapons attacks total. After one chemical attack, Obama went to congress to get a greenlight to hit Syria with punitive strikes, he didn't get it. After another chemical attack later on, Trump just straight up ordered limited strikes on an airfield. That's pretty much it. The "West" and most of the world criticised, sanctioned, and even soft-armed (badly) Syria but there was no largescale military action (except for Russia in support of Assad). After Iraq 2003 and then the Arab spring, the Western world has learnt that if some dictator starts to slaughter people, no matter how black/white the situation, we can't really intervene militarily on any large scale, and certainly not preemptively (Bush and co put paid to that). Separately Russia, the US, Israel, Iran and most countries did however work together (independently) to fight ISIS, however that was a unique situation, and ISIS was identified by everyone as a critical regional and global threat that had to be dealt with.

There are always geopolitical interests and complexities, unfortunately there are some individuals always assume the worst geopolitical intentions possible in every scenario. Likewise they cherry-pick history and generalise about complex situations in order to consistently paint certain countries (or groups of countries) in the worst possible light. In some cases going to far that they end up indirectly (or directly) supporting totalitarian leader or brutal dictators.

I took part in marches against the Iraq war, and followed it on a daily basis. Despite being opposed to that war I understood that Bush and co didn't want to "destroy" Iraq or "conquer" it, they were just on a very naive and ill-informed mission to liberate the Iraqis from systematic dictatorship and had notions that somehow it would set a domino effect in countries in the region with dictatorships. It was botched from the start, a horrendous mistake, they used faulty info, and they indirectly created a much larger mess. However any comparisons between that and Russia/Ukraine are far and few between.

The problem is that certain individuals lazily portray that situation as e.g. the "same" as Russia invading Ukraine. Their agenda being to systematically paint the US/West/whatever as "the same" as Russia (or worse). This is a technique that Putin consistently uses himself. This constantly false equivalence. They are invading Ukraine? "So what, look at what America did in Iraq, Libya". It's a deflective technique that hides context. It's also a big red flag.

In terms of the current war, Russia under Putin is invading Ukraine, a lot of the unconnected past is simply whataboutery to satisfy some partisan world views and often has no place in normal objective discussion.

When I switch on and see that Irish MEP, whatever her name is, it's immediately clear she is obsessed with blaming the West for everything, assuming the worst geopolitical intentions, absolutely fanatical and partisan in her world views. Unfortunately I see some of her (and Putin's) talking points mirrored in these thread. It's fine to criticise administrations (they absolutely deserve it) but within reason. When individuals step outside that it's a slippery slope.

Anyway back to the Russia/Ukraine situation..

With the Caveat that this is entirely my opinion - off the top of my head

I dont really buy into any of the supposed 'religious goals/crusade' angle- I doubt Putin personally gives a rats about Religion in general. The Russian Orthodox Church is a useful tool for Putin, and he has used it for years.

An obvious example is Russia's mistreatment of the LGBTQ community.

• The church are 'naturally' opposed to the community
• Putin sees a way of bringing Church-goers into his base
• Laws are passed against the community
• Voila - job done -

Now there are those within his administration that probably are rather fanatically religious - but again i would speculate that this is merely useful idiots for the 'dear leader'

Putin engages in a kind of 'catch all' political machination - if a large group of people in Russia (or a powerful group like a church) believe something - then, he believes it, and provided it doesnt overlap with his own plans - he will adopt new views at the drop of a hat.

Its shallow, pseudo-populism of the lowest kind. And its been going on for years. During Euro 2016 when Russian hooligans ran rampant in France, a Russian state official (dwell on this for a moment) - responded saying the French police are probably used to dealing with gay's, as opposed to 'real men'

A senior Russian police official has claimed his French counterparts were unable to handle Russia’s “normal” football fans in Marseille this weekend because they are more used to policing “gay pride parades”. Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for Russia’s equivalent of the FBI, made the comment on his verified Twitter account. His comment follows an earlier outburst from a senior Russian football official and leading politician, who apparently praised his country’s hooligans for defending Russia’s honour. “I don’t see anything wrong with the fans fighting,” read a post on Twitter on an account in the name of Igor Lebedev. “Quite the opposite, well done lads, keep it up!”

Its depraved populism - it disgusts me. I cant think of words some times - selfish disgusting populism

@corkie I get what you are saying btw - and don't misunderstand me, its a valid question. I just think in all likelihood, given your three options

• Fascist
• Unstable Leader
• Religious lunatic

Its probably none, or perhaps all, of the above? I think fascist is appropriate if i am honest. And yet if you think about fascist leaders, they usually HAD AN ACTUAL ETHOS/IDEOLOGY? I dont think Putin has

I think he is an imperialist - pure and simple

All IMHO of course, and interested in your thoughts

Just an FYI - this special is on in 20 mins - Not exactly sure if its worth watching. It could be a complete train-wreck of an interview - but anyway - worth a watch (maybe??)

Good news at least.

I tend to agree - but Mark Austin is giving him a good grilling

He is holding him to account here - which is good

But yes everything coming out of the Russians mouth is ********t

yea - i agree

Its hard to watch

Fair play to Mark Austin though - you can tell he is seething - and he is going through everything with him btw -

But Peskov is a moral lunatic - he is literally rambling - if you replace the accent and the topic - this guy would sound like a Qanon follower

But i agree it is pointless - bewilderingly still watching though and blood pressure is increasing

Look I watched it. Yes Sky is a commercial organization but it is also a reputable news agency. I cannot see that it did any harm, as such.

Its an example of Free Western Journalism - Sky interviewed a Kremlin spokesman live and Mark Austin did a fantastic job of going through all of the lies, and propaganda. And yes Mr Peskov just waffled, and disgraced himself, and Russia.

I think it harsh to suggest Sky News have 'no interest in doing the right thing, or getting to the truth' - They are a very straight shooting news organization - commercial yes - but straight shooting

Now if you had been talking about FOX or GBNews - i would be in total agreement

My opinion

• Distort the facts
• Feed the Conspiracy theorists in the west (some of whom we have interacted with on this thread) - gives them something to point to (remember that said theorists have no interest judging sources in a credible way. So to them, the interview was bread and butter - to you n me - it was blood boiling i dare say)
• Offer a highly edited dubbed version in Russia where 'Peskov stood up to western Propagandists' - and 'defended the honor of Russia'

I mean its nonsense - he is not convincing me, or you - i dare say he will convince no one - but remember there are people who just dont buy any of this so - They probably watched that interview and cheered Peskov on. They are already convinced that NATO/EU/AMERICA/UKRAINE are to blame

@Brussels Sprout I get what you said earlier - and i felt weird watching it. Part of me wanted to switch off, it was disgusting- but i watched it, i kinda made a point to get through it

I think there might have been a bit of post war thinking at play here as well. Ukraine will be wanting to join the EU and will need our support to help make that happen.

I hear you about Hungary and Poland and the various anti democratic moves made by both countries domestically. I think what this will do is make the EU negotiate in cast iron democratic principles as part of any new countries accession treaty and punishments if they break them. I would expect that as the norm going forward. No doubt it will be some years before Ukraine do formally become an EU member. Poland for instance took 10 years from the time of application in 1994 before officially becoming a member in 2004. I do hope Ukraine ends up joining though. I think in the long term they would become a valuable member.

Comprehensive piece by Mark Felton on everything Ukraine gave up in terms of Nukes at the end of the Cold War - not just Nukes - lots of really decent equipment that would have been useful during this conflict

The EU leadership will never allow Ukraine to join, ever.