What is really happening in the Ukraine Conflict?

[Borg Refinery]

Is Russia really being imperialist?  The way I see it, Russia was under threat from Ukraine becoming a NATO and EU member, so he is trying to remove that imperialist threat, by neutralising Ukraine.  He would not attack a NATO country, so is he really expanding his empire?

It was wrong to invade and take their territory full stop, just as it was to annex Crimea in 2014. They took territory from Georgia as well back in 2008 and have had designs on Ukraine since the breakup of the USSR, they've never even considered them a distinct nationality, so yes imperialist is the correct fit. You have to understand that Putin's mastermind wants an empire "from Dublin to Vladivostok" and that's in his own words (Alexander Dugin)

[Unlucky4Sum]

Well you learn something new every day. Slightly curious as to what the traded volumes are. But not that much

Outside Russia it has the status of an unofficial rate.

[Sampanviking]

It appears it does exist. Todays rates:-  Official exchange rates on selected date | Bank of Russia (cbr.ru)

Well you learn something new every day. Slightly curious as to what the traded volumes are. But not that much

[papasmurf]

I fail to see how any actual exchange rate can exist. 

It appears it does exist. Todays rates:-  Official exchange rates on selected date | Bank of Russia (cbr.ru)

[Sampanviking]

Income tax has gone from a flat rate of 13% to a sliding scale up to 22%. If you're in the 22% bracket that is a massive hike, 9% of your salary gone over night. And seeing that sanctions have already increased the cost of living massively it is an incentive to
join up, which is Putins intention.

SO pretty much as the article Smurpy posted confirms. A Progressive tax rise that only starts to take effect on those with moderate incomes and only hits the 22% bracket for those earming in excess of 50 million roubles a year. 
So what are you saying? that the Russian Army is now being manned by desperate multi millionaires struggling to live with a Tap Tier tax rate that is only slightly higher than the UK basic rate??
I think you are being disingenuous and dishonest in your original assertion.

As to your question, I did not answer as it was not that interesting or particularly relevant to the Topic of the thread, which is the progress on the ground of the actual war.

Given that the Russian banking system is suspended from the US banking system, I fail to see how any actual exchange rate can exist. Given the further restrictions and likelihood of having your dollars frozen and even stolen, I would not be surprised to see the dollar achieve little than junk status on the black market, and of little interest to anyone not involved in organised crime, with legitimate currency investors more interested in currencies such the RMB which have value and use.

Anyway, The Ukraine is now desperately relocating its forces from Sumy/Kursk back to the Donbass to try and re-establish a new viable defense line. The Southern Donetsk front has now activated and the Russian are now making big advances around Vulivhar.

Everytime the Ukrainians try and plug a gap, all they seem to do is open a new one from where the forces came from.

[BeElBeeBub]

Anyway, to swerve Scots derailing, I don't think any of the "Ukraine is full of Nazis and had it coming" brigade have answered my points about how they came to those conclusions and what they make of the fact many of their arguments bear a strong resemblance to those made by commentators funded (knowingly or unkowingly) by Russia. 

[BeElBeeBub]

And why is that relevant?  Did he make the offer, or not?

It's not up to the defendant to make those requests. 

"m'lud you cannot extradite.me.as.sweden has not responded to my request for a helicopter and a pony" 

[BeElBeeBub]

"Assange's lawyers made over 30 offers to arrange for Assange to visit Sweden in exchange for a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the U.S. over unknown charges."

So clearly he was prepeared to go to Sweden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#:~:text=In%20August%202014,%20Assange%20announced,work%20in%20the%20United%20States.%22

No.  But if there is evidence that the US wanted to extradite someone who is a whistleblower, and coincidentally another country wants him for "investigation" without any charges being filed, then yes, they should try to defend themself.  And what "charges" did you think were made against him?

"the extraditiring country won't agree to my demands" isn't a defence. 

The defendant doesn't get to make demands or impose conditions. 

An explicit blanket guarentee somebody won't be extradited onwards is not the defendants to request.

It may be something the departure country (in this case UK) might request. But it is general procedure should such onwards extradition be requested the orginal country (the UK) must agree. Which sort of covers that base anyway.

As for him not being charged -
Swedish law differs from UK (and quite a lot of other) jurisdictions. In the UK the charge comes at a very eaelymstage, when there is suspicion. The investigation then takes place whilst the person is either free on bail or remanded to custody depending on circumstance. At the end of the investigation the decision to prosecute (or not) is made. So we often charge people and then decide not to prosecute when the evidence has been gathered. 

In Sweden the charge takes place at the end of the investigation when the evidence has been weighed and the decision to prosecute has been made. In essence the Swedish charge is similar to the UK decision to prosecute. The defendant is bright to court to be formally charged, the judge then (unless they decide to refuse the charge) sets the various trial.procedures going.

It was this process that JA was wanted for. They needed him to stand in a Swedish court to be formally charged and then moved onto trail. 


So to conclude. the investigation into JA had concluded and the prosecutors believed there was enough evidence to go to trail and so sort him for the charging and trial process to begin.

There were no extradition requess to the US and should one have been made once he was in Sweden JA would have the protection of both the UK, Swedish and the Echr courts against extradition to face torture.

[Unlucky4Sum]

And why is that relevant?  Did he make the offer, or not?

Probably not in the words you used.

[Unlucky4Sum]

No, you can read it, thanks, and let me know when you have decided what your point is.

That you were posting complete bollocks - again.

[Scott777]

That was the gospel according to Nils Melzer a Swiss lawyer with a long term obsession with Assange.

Shame you didn't read the very next paragraph in your link:

'More than 300 human rights lawyers and law professors from numerous countries sharply criticized Melzer in response. In an open letter, they said that on the issue of sexual violence, Melzer's intervention was "both legally erroneous and harmful to the development and protection of human rights law."

He also indulged in victim blaming for the way he interviewed one of the women.  link

And why is that relevant?  Did he make the offer, or not?

[Scott777]

That would be the imagined law that doesn't exist then.

Go on go read BOTH parts of Article 11 of the ECnHR  https://prd-echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_eng 

(also appears in Schedule 1 of the UK HRA)

or if you want to use Article 12 of the EU charter of rights best you read Articles 51 and 52 in it too https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT#d1e751-393-1

No, you can read it, thanks, and let me know when you have decided what your point is.

[Scott777]

Not absolute.

Article 11
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions. Anyone has the right to organise private or public meetins, association and political parties. Authorities have an obligation to take appropriate steps not to dissuade citizens from exercising their right to freedom of peaceful assembly.


But case law. Finds that

"the freedom of peaceful assembly on the public highway (demonstration): states must guarantee the freedom of peaceful assembly. In order to ensure law and order, prior authorisation from the public authorities is legitimate if it is provided for by law."

And?  It doesn't say prior authorisation from the public authorities is REQUIRED, does it?

That IS the state must provide mechanisms for you to protest but can put restrictions on to ensure order.

Irrelevant.  Are you gaslighting again?  We are not debating "restrictions .. to ensure order".  We are debating prohibition of gatherings and protest.  You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

[Unlucky4Sum]

"Assange's lawyers made over 30 offers to arrange for Assange to visit Sweden in exchange for a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the U.S. over unknown charges."

So clearly he was prepeared to go to Sweden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#:~:text=In%20August%202014,%20Assange%20announced,work%20in%20the%20United%20States.%22 . . 

That was the gospel according to Nils Melzer a Swiss lawyer with a long term obsession with Assange.

Shame you didn't read the very next paragraph in your link:

'More than 300 human rights lawyers and law professors from numerous countries sharply criticized Melzer in response. In an open letter, they said that on the issue of sexual violence, Melzer's intervention was "both legally erroneous and harmful to the development and protection of human rights law."

He also indulged in victim blaming for the way he interviewed one of the women.  link

[cromwell]

You said "if you look at what Blair and bush did they are as criminal as Putin". I would interpret that as you considering B&B's actions as being on a par with Putins actions. Incorrect?

Now, I don't disagree with alot of the second part of your post. Iraq and Afghanistan were terrible mistakes and put world would probably be better if they hadn't happened.

But the key factor here is *regaedless* of the outcome of B&Bs actions the motivations were different.  Even past that B&B are no longer in power. The decision to back Ukr is being made by different people in the west vs the same person in Russia.

Is you argument that Gulf War 2 means the west has no moral grounds for supporting Ukraine against Russia?

Quick note on the Arab Spring, whilst it's true the west was generally cheering on the various revolutions it didn't get involved physically. Putin however did - his direct military support of Assad was vital to preventing his fall and thus set the stage for a long grinding civil war filled with atrocities committed by the side Putin actively backs.

My whole post was based around that Sampan had a valid point and that given the deeds of people like Bush&Blair the west has little moral ground to stand on and the fact they are no longer in power is irrelevant.

That the grinning bastard has his foundation and he's still there being consulted by modern day politicians is a stain on our country.