What is really happening in the Ukraine Conflict?

[B0ycey]

Apparently NATO is evil, although NATO has never actually invaded anyone.

Ehh... Yugoslavia anyone? And if we do invading NATO members, the figure is double digits.

And it was 14000 people in Donbass along with the mass graves since 2014. But I guess as you struggle to read unless there is a break between sentences, you are cutting the literature on the subject to what you can read on Twitter and Internet forums.

[cromwell]

That's non sequitur.  NATO is no more about defence than the agreements that were behind the invasion of Iraq.  Both can claim to be about defence, but it doesn't mean they are.

Non that's cobblers,it is quite logical which is more than can be said for some of your conclusions.

[Sampanviking]

Big surrender of Ukrainian Marines in Mariupol are being reported. Up to 1000 in the biggest mass surrender of the war.
Lots of footage showing long lines of prisoners appearing on the net.
It sounds as if the Azov gang in Avostal are the only group now left.

BBC made me laugh this morning when they quoted the "Governor" or Luhansk, The town of Severdontesk is about all there is still under Ukrainian occupation.
I wonder if we will hear much more from the "mayor" of Mariupol, I gather he has been in Lvov for some time now.....

Groo - NATO was responsible for the Afghanistan Invasion in 2001. Not exactly Europe is it.... But then it clearly became the fig leaf for spreading and enforcing global US hegemony when the Soviet Collapsed and it lost it legitimate reason to exist. Guess criticizing the empire is a thought crime in your book.

[Groo]

I see the reds are out in force again, relishing the deaths of innocent civilians.

What about those killed since 2014 I hear, yes those just under 4000 deaths should not have happened, well since the end of Feb, civilian deaths in one city are estimated at 20,000.

The whataboutery in this thread by some of the vilest posters I've ever experienced on message boards takes some belief.

Apparently NATO is evil, although NATO has never actually invaded anyone.

[Scott777]

NATO took no direct part in either Iraq war so therefore SW is not wrong

That's non sequitur.  NATO is no more about defence than the agreements that were behind the invasion of Iraq.  Both can claim to be about defence, but it doesn't mean they are.

[cromwell]

Oh sure, just like all military bodies are just for defence, and the invasion of Iraq was just to defend us from WMDs.  Try telling a copper that you want to carry a zombie knife around the streets, and promise it's only for defence.

NATO took no direct part in either Iraq war so therefore SW is not wrong

[Scott777]

NATO isnt the agressor . Its a defence pact.

Oh sure, just like all military bodies are just for defence, and the invasion of Iraq was just to defend us from WMDs.  Try telling a copper that you want to carry a zombie knife around the streets, and promise it's only for defence.

[B0ycey]

Well its all in one of the big Steel works where the last stands are being made. It does sound as though some Industrial chemicals got hit in an air raid more than anything else, assuming its not just fairy stories.

I do find it ironic that we can fire tear gas at protestors in the streets against our own people but for some reason not against the enemy in war. I don't know what has gone on here but what I do know is the people who are making the claims are not a reliable source and tear gas isn't exactly anthrax anyway. People need to understand that unless we can get a peace deal soon that as Russia have a vendetta against the Azov battalion at some point they will use false flags against Russia because if they don't they will get defeated. We shouldn't take anything as certain without evidence and we haven't got that because desperate people will make desperate claims.

[Sampanviking]

I noticed three far right nationalists from the Azov battalion describe symptoms that are similar to tear gas and the West seem up in arms right now @Sampanking. There is no evidence, only a single report and the reliance of the word from Nazis to go by in any case. It seems Nazis are only bad in Germany. In Ukraine, they are trustworthy.

Well its all in one of the big Steel works where the last stands are being made. It does sound as though some Industrial chemicals got hit in an air raid more than anything else, assuming its not just fairy stories.

[B0ycey]

I noticed three far right nationalists from the Azov battalion describe symptoms that are similar to tear gas and the West seem up in arms right now @Sampanking. There is no evidence, only a single report and the reliance of the word from Nazis to go by in any case. It seems Nazis are only bad in Germany. In Ukraine, they are trustworthy. 

[Sampanviking]

Well what can you say?
If an alliance that is supposed to assure the peace becomes a cause for war, then that means that the Alliance has failed in its most fundamental objective.

Which leads interestingly into Mariupol
Rumours have abounded for weeks and I have been ignoring them up to now. A number of bizarre recent incidents are making me look at them again.

It has been a given that senior Azov officers and Western Mercenaries are both present in the hold out pockets of last resistance in the city. It is even possible that some of these mercenaries are in fact serving NATO professionals having a "Donbas holiday" for plausible deniability.
The rumours though are that there are senior NATO officers in the pockets as well.

Three things make me think this should not be dismissed out of hand

1) The Russians are really taking this slow and not using its firepower to rapidly bring to a close
2) Suicide transport helicopter missions to try and bring key personnel out
3) Near suicide running of naval blockade by Ukrainian owned, Maltese flagged cargo ship to reach Azovstal plant docks for same mission
Both air and sea missions resulted in total failure.
Add to this attempts to claim pointless chemical weapon attack, to try and change the dynamic (how exactly?) add to the sense of panic in certain western quarters.

Some Western volunteers have been captured recently including Brits. Will we get "bring the boys back home" campaigns or will they be quietly thrown under the bus?

[B0ycey]

NATO isnt the agressor . Its a defence pact so why would Putin see it as anything but a border he can't cross ?  You dont hear Putin talking of invading his nieghbours Estonia or Latvia do you but sends warnings to Finland for wanting the same protection they have .
Having nuclear weapons stops ,or should stop , major conflicts . Only countries without them are at risk from agressors and is why there will now be a scramble to join NATO or even if they like the Russian federation . 

The borders that have changed regually over the centuries will be set again and the peace restored ,  until the next time .
 

When China signed a "defence pact" with the Solomon Islands the other day, did Australia see this aggression I wonder? I can't see why the Yanks sent a team of delegates to a small island in the Pacific over a sovereign nation decision to join an alliance given this is exactly their argument for Ukraine joining up with NATO. Haven't you noticed yet, that the narrative changes depending on what nation is speaking and China and Russia are using Western tactics against them.

The truth is there is nothing defensive about NATO. It origins was to counter the Warsaw pact and to stop Russian expansion West because such expansion was seen as a threat against us (the reverse of today). The Cold war is now over and as such so its original purpose but the irony is the reason for its continued existence is to enhance Western dominance and interests in a world where the world order is becoming more multipolar. In that sense it is a threat to Russia even if it isn't in terms of military conflict because Russia has made it clear yesterday that they want to change the world order and any expansion to their border of this alliance is seen as a threat to this objective. It maybe that Finland and Sweden join NATO for what is a false assurance of protection. But if they do they can expect a counter measure. Russia have made it clear that they do no see it as the same threat as Ukraine given the border is the North of Russia and frozen land and as such not likely to send a ground offensive but they will no doubt station agressive weapons nearer the border and even build an army base there too. So in that sense Finland at least becomes more at risk actually then they would be had they stayed neutral given the potential ground offensive will be set up there.

Nonetheless we can't do much about Estonia and Latvia given they gave joined up to NATO. And given their size and location it isn't the same case or threat to Russia as Ukraine would be as a NATO member anyway. But for the sakes of continental security, both sides would be wise to form a barrier of neutral nations in any case don't you think? I don't think Finland at least should even consider joining NATO as they would be at any risk of Russian aggression in the future but if they do they put a target on their back and I guess we will have to see what happens here next if we continue to poke the bear.

[Streetwalker]

I'm sure Putin is thinking the reverse: NATO is a bully, and the more Russia expands into Ukraine, the less room NATO has for expansion, and that's a defensive move.  But you won't see the other side with tunnel vision.

NATO isnt the agressor . Its a defence pact so why would Putin see it as anything but a border he cant cross ?  You dont hear Putin talking of invading his nieghbours Estonia or Latvia do you but sends warnings to Finland for wanting the same protection they have .
Having nuclear weapons stops ,or should stop , major conflicts . Only countries without them are at risk from agressors and is why there will now be a scramble to join NATO or even if they like the Russian federation .  

The borders that have changed regually over the centuries will be set again and the peace restored ,   until the next time . 
  

[Scott777]

Its pretty obvious now  if it wasnt already that being a member of NATO is the only  defence against Russian agression . Putin is a bully and issues threats when things dont go his way , the more NATO members the less room he has for expansion .

I'm sure Putin is thinking the reverse: NATO is a bully, and the more Russia expands into Ukraine, the less room NATO has for expansion, and that's a defensive move.  But you won't see the other side with tunnel vision.

[johnofgwent]

I read that Finland wishes to join NATO and Russia is already threatening their destruction. Why does Russia imagine that they have that right?

Well

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-it-would-have-rebalance-if-finland-sweden-join-nato-2022-04-07/

What they ACTUALLY said according to Reuters was

If the two countries join, "we'll have to make our western flank more sophisticated in terms of ensuring our security,"

However, he said Russia would not see such a move as an existential threat, of the kind that might prompt it to consider using nuclear weapons.

Now this one I can speak about personally, having actually stood ON the border in question.

Sweden of course does not have a border with Russia and did not have one when I went there in 1982 but it was noticeable that they were exceptionally prickly at the thought of the Soviets getting narked at a British win over the Falkland Islands. But the "border" between Sweden and Finland at the time was a bit of chain link fence if you were lucky. Step forward to 1995(ish) and I'm working for a company in the UK building a Finnish National Air Traffic Control and Air Sea rescue system and in that capacity i got a jolly to the regions of Finland I'd call their equivalent of the arse end of nowhere.

If DD's reading this think Sennybridge in December and take about ten degrees C off and add the Aurora on a clear night (my bloody luck it was cloudy every bloody day I was there)

It was a hell of a shit place to install a radar mast and we who went to see it and test it were all handed hand held Magellan GPS receivers and were given a stiff warning that a) there was NO fence where Finland stopped and Russia started b) it may look deserted but the commie bastards were there and c) they knew exactly where the bloody border was and they shot first and returned the corpses to the Finnish Government later.

The strangest conversation I ever had in my entire defence freelance career was out there, when i was checking off the requirements for their Search And Rescue User Interface.

In common with the Mountain Rescue Coordinaton Centre for the Brecon beacons, the User Interface used by coordination staff setting up a search operation for missing or overdue ramblers recorded the size of the group, their ages, whether they had deposited a definite plan with anyone, how overdue they were, how they were clothed, whether they had appropriate clothes for the weather, f they took tents or similar shelter, if they had lights, if they had matches......

But the Finnish Air traffic Search And Rescue Service also asked if they had BUCKETS. I had never seen that and asked the question why did they want to know that.

After a few seconds the Finnish Project Manager said "Because that is the most heart sinking thing you can ever record on a Finnish missing person in the mountains case. It means they went berry picking and the finest bushes are on the land right nest to the border and there is no fence and we generally get ten to twenty corpses a year returned to us with Russian bullets in them"

So if these bastards are saying "if the Finns join Nato we'll have to put a proper fence up" I'm all for it. Because if they do I think NATO should put claymores all along the boundary, facing eastwards.