Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

"the war against good and evil"...?

So he supports mediocre nothingness then?

Just like his acting, I suppose.
Sure a war against today's outdated morality would be a war against good and evil. Have you never seen nietzsche's book, 'beyond good and evil?
 
Last edited:
"the war against good and evil"...?

So he supports mediocre nothingness then?

Just like his acting, I suppose.

It’s a reasonable Nietzschean position to take. Eschew inventions of the moral consciousness. All is will to power. Dugin would probably be fine with it.
 
Quite a contradictory article. On one hand the US will offer security agreements , on the other hand there's frustration that Biden won't be coming to Zelensky's peace conference and doesn't want 'things' to upset the US election period. Anyway sums up perceived tensions and frustrations between US and Ukraine. .


"Several members of Zelenskyy’s own government said they are beginning to worry about the methods employed by their president to communicate with the US. One said that Zelenskyy was “very irritated” with Biden, adding they were concerned about “openly provoking” the White House.“What do you say in America?” a fourth Ukrainian government official asked the FT. “Do not bite the hand that feeds you.”

 
Steven Seagal looks like shit these days but what comes out of his mouth is even worse

Staring down at a prepared text, the Under Siege star dispassionately urged those in attendance to “come together and fight for truth and justice” against Nazi propaganda after the Russian president awarded him the Order of Friendship for his “great contribution” to international cultural cooperation.

Reciting a list of the Kremlin’s fantastical claims about Ukraine about as convincingly as if he were reading the ingredients on the back of a cereal box, Seagal wondered aloud why the world would not wake up to Ukraine’s supposed history of “human trafficking, organ trafficking, narco trafficking, child sex trafficking”—just about all the traffickings—“bio-chemical warfare labs, fascism and nazism.”

“And these are the things that we still tried to make them our brothers,” he said clumsily in English. “This war that we are currently embroiled in was started and financed by the West, and has come to involve the entire world in the fight against good and evil.”


We need reasonable posters of his calibre to show us the error of our ways
 
The USA's "no targets in Russia" restriction has started to loosen


The Biden administration has quietly given Ukraine permission to strike inside Russia — solely near the area of Kharkiv — using U.S.-provided weapons, three U.S. officials and two other people familiar with the move said Thursday, a major reversal that will help Ukraine to better defend its second-largest city.


“The president recently directed his team to ensure that Ukraine is able to use U.S. weapons for counter-fire purposes in Kharkiv so Ukraine can hit back at Russian forces hitting them or preparing to hit them,” one of the U.S. officials said, adding that the policy of not allowing long-range strikes inside Russia “has not changed.”
It's a thorny issue inside the Biden administration apparently. Sec. State Blinken wants to lift the restrictions, Nat. Sec. Advisor Sullivan doesn't.
 
Putin's palace in Altai, the one he pretends is a Gazprom sanitorium that for some reasons needs the presidential guard to be stationed there, it caught fire yesterday. More clumsy smokers I guess...

 
"We should not give in to pessimism. Victory in Ukraine is not just about territory. If Ukraine joins Nato, even without some territory, then that’s a victory because it will be placed under the Nato umbrella."
Kaja Kallas Estonian PM


Is that how both sides "win". Russia keeps everything it sezied and what's left gets to join NATO?
 
"We should not give in to pessimism. Victory in Ukraine is not just about territory. If Ukraine joins Nato, even without some territory, then that’s a victory because it will be placed under the Nato umbrella."
Kaja Kallas Estonian PM

Is that how both sides "win". Russia keeps everything it sezied and what's left gets to join NATO?
I am not entirely confident that a truncated Ukraine would find a ready home in nato given the longstanding prohibition on accepting members with border disputes. Ukraine would have to give some assurances, I imagine, that they wouldn't pursue a revanchist agenda for territory east of the dnipro not to mention crimea. Obvs rules may change and this could come to pass but given the desire for unanimity in accepting new members I wouldn't be surprised if a Ukrainian candidacy was rejected.
 
Last edited:
Is that how both sides "win". Russia keeps everything it sezied and what's left gets to join NATO?
She tends to be one of the most hawkish NATO supporters within the EU and one with quite a lot of support in west. So she’s not setting a high bar . I wonder if Macron and Shultz will support the NATO is more important than Ukrainian land issue?
 
He doesn't come across isolated at all, he's just making it clear how bad a Trump victory will be for Ukraine, as well as the rest of the world.

Are you now going to start bigging-up Trump?
TBF he is acting increasingly erratic - the badmouthing of Biden for not coming to his "peace" conference (its nothing of the kind btw) looked desperate and counterproductive. His temper seems frayed...not surprising really, its a fucked up situation...and Ukrainian public opinion of him is far from solid
 
We've clearly gone past victory is the return of the 2014 borders, it now looks like victory is NATO membership might be in doubt, which just leaves victory is joining the EU.


 
We've clearly gone past victory is the return of the 2014 borders, it now looks like victory is NATO membership might be in doubt, which just leaves victory is joining the EU.


Despite what some might have hoped, it was never on the cards. That's just Biden re-stating the obvious.
 
We've clearly gone past victory is the return of the 2014 borders, it now looks like victory is NATO membership might be in doubt, which just leaves victory is joining the EU.


That ship will sail too as the Ukraine economy is so fucked it'd never pass any test. It'll be victory looks like joining the tufty club.
 
Whats the difference between de facto membership and membership ?
Presumably, it wouldn't be all NATO countries involved in such a hypothetical treaty. Or even half of them. And it's extremely unlikely to include an Article 5-ish guarantee. More like "Britain, France, and the United States (pending the 2024 election) will be very, very cross if something bad happens".

I see it playing one of two ways. If Russia can play from a position of great strength, they may get their wish for a Ukraine devoid of any foreign military presence and a stripped down Ukrainian Army. In which case, they'd be at the Polish border before western Europe wakes up and there's very little the West can do about it short of actually invading Ukraine to remove the Russians. Which is... I'll say unlikely. If Russia exhausts itself and doesn't manage to play from a strong enough position to make their demands stick, it's pretty good for Ukraine. A smattering of foreign troops playing peacekeeper doesn't sound like a lot, but bear in mind what the Ukrainian Army has achieved so far when no-one expected anything of the sort, and that dead French and American troops can be quite a motivator.

As for the Americans... I don't think they really care any more. If Russia does finally overrun the rest of Ukraine, they'll be in no shape to bother anyone more significant than Georgia for a good long time. And if they don't, it's even better. Either way, they've got what they really want out of it which is Russia being no threat beyond nuclear sabre rattling. The whole dribble of support thing just seems purpose made to kill the most number of people - Russian and Ukrainian - to achieve a goal.
 
Presumably, it wouldn't be all NATO countries involved in such a hypothetical treaty. Or even half of them. And it's extremely unlikely to include an Article 5-ish guarantee. More like "Britain, France, and the United States (pending the 2024 election) will be very, very cross if something bad happens".

I see it playing one of two ways. If Russia can play from a position of great strength, they may get their wish for a Ukraine devoid of any foreign military presence and a stripped down Ukrainian Army. In which case, they'd be at the Polish border before western Europe wakes up and there's very little the West can do about it short of actually invading Ukraine to remove the Russians. Which is... I'll say unlikely. If Russia exhausts itself and doesn't manage to play from a strong enough position to make their demands stick, it's pretty good for Ukraine. A smattering of foreign troops playing peacekeeper doesn't sound like a lot, but bear in mind what the Ukrainian Army has achieved so far when no-one expected anything of the sort, and that dead French and American troops can be quite a motivator.

As for the Americans... I don't think they really care any more. If Russia does finally overrun the rest of Ukraine, they'll be in no shape to bother anyone more significant than Georgia for a good long time. And if they don't, it's even better. Either way, they've got what they really want out of it which is Russia being no threat beyond nuclear sabre rattling. The whole dribble of support thing just seems purpose made to kill the most number of people - Russian and Ukrainian - to achieve a goal.
They tried the United States and Britain iirc before and you can see how well that worked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chz
They tried the United States and Britain iirc before and you can see how well that worked.

Didn't a couple of prominent nato countries give Ukraine guarantees before?

Genuinely PM, have you not - despite endlessly referencing the Budapest Treaty - actually read it?

The Treaty says that the signatories - The UK, Russia and US - promise not to attack, or coerce Ukraine, and that if it is attacked, that they will raise the matter in the UN.

Nothing in the treaty says that any of those states will come, militarily, to Ukraine's aid if it is attacked.

It's not difficult stuff, it's not written in legalese.

 
Genuinely PM, have you not - despite endlessly referencing the Budapest Treaty - actually read it?

The Treaty says that the signatories - The UK, Russia and US - promise not to attack, or coerce Ukraine, and that if it is attacked, that they will raise the matter in the UN.

Nothing in the treaty says that any of those states will come, militarily, to Ukraine's aid if it is attacked.

It's not difficult stuff, it's not written in legalese.

'legalese' should be capitalised, or it might not hold in the courts.
 
Genuinely PM, have you not - despite endlessly referencing the Budapest Treaty - actually read it?

The Treaty says that the signatories - The UK, Russia and US - promise not to attack, or coerce Ukraine, and that if it is attacked, that they will raise the matter in the UN.

Nothing in the treaty says that any of those states will come, militarily, to Ukraine's aid if it is attacked.

It's not difficult stuff, it's not written in legalese.

Yeh raising the matter in the un has worked really well over the past ten years. I can't think of an occasion over the past 110 years when a guarantee has preserved a country from attack - didn't work so well for Belgium or Poland, certainly. Can you name a time a guarantee by powers has worked?
 
Presumably, it wouldn't be all NATO countries involved in such a hypothetical treaty. Or even half of them. And it's extremely unlikely to include an Article 5-ish guarantee. More like "Britain, France, and the United States (pending the 2024 election) will be very, very cross if something bad happens".

I see it playing one of two ways. If Russia can play from a position of great strength, they may get their wish for a Ukraine devoid of any foreign military presence and a stripped down Ukrainian Army. In which case, they'd be at the Polish border before western Europe wakes up and there's very little the West can do about it short of actually invading Ukraine to remove the Russians. Which is... I'll say unlikely. If Russia exhausts itself and doesn't manage to play from a strong enough position to make their demands stick, it's pretty good for Ukraine. A smattering of foreign troops playing peacekeeper doesn't sound like a lot, but bear in mind what the Ukrainian Army has achieved so far when no-one expected anything of the sort, and that dead French and American troops can be quite a motivator.

As for the Americans... I don't think they really care any more. If Russia does finally overrun the rest of Ukraine, they'll be in no shape to bother anyone more significant than Georgia for a good long time. And if they don't, it's even better. Either way, they've got what they really want out of it which is Russia being no threat beyond nuclear sabre rattling. The whole dribble of support thing just seems purpose made to kill the most number of people - Russian and Ukrainian - to achieve a goal.

Thanks, some useful speculation to think about in there.
 
Back
Top Bottom