Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

Evidence suggests that Ukrainians in areas under occupation are being denied healthcare unless they accept Russian passports.

[Refugees] spoke of relentless pro-Russian propaganda in the occupied lands.

One refugee from the occupied territories, Larysa, told the EBU's Investigative Journalism Network that one of her friends was not provided with insulin for her diabetes - a key part of treatment - until she applied for a Russian passport.

Another friend had to become a Russian citizen to have her broken arm treated, Larysa said.

"Pensions are not provided without Russian passports, food is not provided without Russian passports, and medical services are out of the question. There are lots of checkpoints on the roads. And every time they stop you, they check your documents, and then say they will not let you through without a Russian passport next time."
Click to expand...

Larysa's account of pressure to obtain Russian passports is corroborated by other refugees.

Ukraine war: Locals forced to take Russian passports, report says
 
When I was back in Stockport I met up with a mate of mine who works at one of the Job Centres in Manchester. He specialises in helping Ukrainians find employment and said that he had some Ukrainian males who had taken similar routes on his caseload.

www.bbc.com

Swimming rivers and faking illness to escape Ukraine’s draft

After Russia's invasion, most Ukrainian men were banned from leaving, but many are escaping abroad.
www.bbc.com
 
We have people here confidently talking about how many or most Ukrainians are willing to fight to the end, or whatever, rather than accepting a compromise settlement. In one case seemingly based on conversations with Ukrainians in the UK, but it turns out that while they might "want to kill Russians" they aren't people who are actually going to go to the frontline and put own their lives at risk.

And we have the fact that Ukrainian men have been banned from leaving the country with many going to some lengths to escape.

I get it, the desire to believe that the Ukrainian people will do whatever it takes to get the Russians out, and the desire to believe that a victory is somewhere around the corner.

But if this is just wishful thinking, and if it's the thinking that prevails in "the West" then the result is that Ukraine continue to be given support but not too much support. Enough to keep the line in about the same place, not enough to actually do the job. And that just means people killing each other, day after day, month after month, and to no end.
 
teuchter said:
We have people here confidently talking about how many or most Ukrainians are willing to fight to the end, or whatever, rather than accepting a compromise settlement. In one case seemingly based on conversations with Ukrainians in the UK, but it turns out that while they might "want to kill Russians" they aren't people who are actually going to go to the frontline and put own their lives at risk.

And we have the fact that Ukrainian men have been banned from leaving the country with many going to some lengths to escape.

I get it, the desire to believe that the Ukrainian people will do whatever it takes to get the Russians out, and the desire to believe that a victory is somewhere around the corner.

But if this is just wishful thinking, and if it's the thinking that prevails in "the West" then the result is that Ukraine continue to be given support but not too much support. Enough to keep the line in about the same place, not enough to actually do the job. And that just means people killing each other, day after day, month after month, and to no end.
Click to expand...

I think most of the talk on this thread about how willing or not Ukrainians are to fight is speculation based more on what people wanted to believe than anything of real substance.

But I'm also a bit suspicious about the idea that "the West" is giving Ukraine enough support to keep fighting, but not enough to "actually do the job", which is something which seems to have popped up a few times.

The reason I'm suspicious is because it suggests that this is the deliberate policy of "the West", to keep the war and the loss of life on both sides going indefinitely, and this suggestion is as little rooted in substance and as much based on what those making it want to believe as any claims about the willingness or otherwise of Ukrainians to fight.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that Ukraine has now gained bridgeheads, not just footholds, on the east/left ban in the area from Kherson to just below where the dam was, and is gradually [very gradually] expanding those areas. This has including bringing over armoured vehicles, not sure if that includes tanks.
Again, they are crossing heavily mines areas, plus the problems of locating mines washed out or moved from areas nearer the Dnipro which were flooded after the dam was destroyed. Also, the russians have had time to build extensive fortifications & bunkers, however, the loss of leaf cover may make some of these strongpoints more visible. Both of which means progress will be slow, painstaking and somewhat attritional in character ...
The stated aim is to push the invaders back beyond tube artillery range ie about 25km to stop the majority of the shelling of civilians. Probably that means the russians will use drones / missiles instead. This aim probably accounts for at least some of the attacks on logistics & supplies in rear areas, including Crimea.
Some recent attacks have been "double tap" ie when a second missile / drone follows on by enough time for the rescue work to be underway ...

{I'm summarising / paraphrasing information from recent ISW daily reports}
 
The left bank has the challenge that the land is largely low-lying and marshy, and thus not brilliant for dug-in defences, which is partly why the Ukrainians have been able to start occupying it. The other reason is that it is mainly held by low-grade Russian troops, as they strip their more effective units out to fight on the Zaporizhzhia and eastern fronts.

I suspect that one of the goals of this operation is to challenge Russia across more fronts, so as to further thin out their experienced troops, and thus weaken them further east. It is also possible that significant advances by Ukraine on that front puts aspects of the Crimean front at risk, too.
 
andysays said:
I think most of the talk on this thread about how willing or not Ukrainians are to fight is speculation based more on what people wanted to believe than anything of real substance.

But I'm also a bit suspicious about the idea that "the West" is giving Ukraine enough support to keep fighting, but not enough to "actually do the job", which is something which seems to have popped up a few times.

The reason I'm suspicious is because it suggests that this is the deliberate policy of "the West", to keep the war and the loss of life on both sides going indefinitely, and this suggestion is as little rooted in substance and as much based on what those making it want to believe as any claims about the willingness or otherwise of Ukrainians to fight.
Click to expand...
It's what Ukrainian politicians have complained about tbf
 
andysays said:
I think most of the talk on this thread about how willing or not Ukrainians are to fight is speculation based more on what people wanted to believe than anything of real substance.

But I'm also a bit suspicious about the idea that "the West" is giving Ukraine enough support to keep fighting, but not enough to "actually do the job", which is something which seems to have popped up a few times.

The reason I'm suspicious is because it suggests that this is the deliberate policy of "the West", to keep the war and the loss of life on both sides going indefinitely, and this suggestion is as little rooted in substance and as much based on what those making it want to believe as any claims about the willingness or otherwise of Ukrainians to fight.
Click to expand...
Well, what do you think it is that determines the amount of support that Ukraine is given?

I wouldn't say that keeping the loss of life going indefinitely is necessarily "deliberate" as such, but it appears to me to be the most likely outcome of the current approach, and it is facilitated by wishful thinking (by people who are nowhere near the sharp end of things).
 
andysays said:
The reason I'm suspicious is because it suggests that this is the deliberate policy of "the West", to keep the war and the loss of life on both sides going indefinitely, and this suggestion is as little rooted in substance and as much based on what those making it want to believe as any claims about the willingness or otherwise of Ukrainians to fight.
Click to expand...

'The West' is clearly not acting as a single bloc on this. The Ukrainians are scrounging different resources from different countries. Off the top of my head they've had artillery from Germany, planes from the US, drones from Turkey, tanks from Poland etc etc. But nobody outside Ukraine has co-ordinated that. It's all a question of what each country can spare, how much they're invested in a particular outcome, their domestic political situation etc. Poland might have less resources to throw around but also a more pressing reason not to want the Russians to reach Kyiv.

I don't think stalemate suits anyone, I don't think it's something anyone decided to make happen.
 
SpookyFrank said:
'The West' is clearly not acting as a single bloc on this. The Ukrainians are scrounging different resources from different countries. Off the top of my head they've had artillery from Germany, planes from the US, drones from Turkey, tanks from Poland etc etc. But nobody outside Ukraine has co-ordinated that. It's all a question of what each country can spare, how much they're invested in a particular outcome, their domestic political situation etc. Poland might have less resources to throw around but also a more pressing reason not to want the Russians to reach Kyiv.

I don't think stalemate suits anyone, I don't think it's something anyone decided to make happen.
Click to expand...
What happened to NATO?
 
teuchter said:
We have people here confidently talking about how many or most Ukrainians are willing to fight to the end, or whatever, rather than accepting a compromise settlement. In one case seemingly based on conversations with Ukrainians in the UK, but it turns out that while they might "want to kill Russians" they aren't people who are actually going to go to the frontline and put own their lives at risk.

And we have the fact that Ukrainian men have been banned from leaving the country with many going to some lengths to escape.

I get it, the desire to believe that the Ukrainian people will do whatever it takes to get the Russians out, and the desire to believe that a victory is somewhere around the corner.

But if this is just wishful thinking, and if it's the thinking that prevails in "the West" then the result is that Ukraine continue to be given support but not too much support. Enough to keep the line in about the same place, not enough to actually do the job. And that just means people killing each other, day after day, month after month, and to no end.
Click to expand...

"Seemingly" are you intimating that I am a liar?

I relayed what those I taught told me. These include one who was robbed and raped by the occupying Russian forces and others have had friends killed fighting. My point was that within Ukrainian as in Palestine many are willing to actively resist occupation. As to willingness to go to the frontline I've also taught military personnel on leave. These are people driven by anger and a desire for liberation not being led astray by manipulative politicians.

Personally, I'm not surprised either that there are also many Ukrainians keen to avoid being sent into battle. I assume I would be to.

I've also had students from Russia who have gone into exile to avoid conscription and Russians who support the the regime.

I certainly don't believe that victory is "just around the corner". I assume that this will all end in bloody stalemate.
 
,"Joe Biden, America’s president, set objectives at the start of Russia’s invasion: to ensure that Ukraine was not defeated and that America was not dragged into confrontation with Russia. This means that arms supplied by the West have been sufficient in sustaining Ukraine in the war, but not enough to allow it to win. "

Ukraine's chief military commander Valery Zaluzhn, speaking three weeks ago. The occupied territory has changed little in 18 months. The They Don't Dare For Us To Win complaint has been around for ages.
 
tim said:
"Seemingly" are you intimating that I am a liar?
Click to expand...

No, that it seemed, from the below exchange, that you were saying you had direct contact with many Ukrainians who were willing to go and fight themselves (or see close friends & family do so).

teuchter said:
I see a lot of statements that seem quite confident that the majority of Ukrainians want to keep fighting to the end. But what does that actually mean? Wanting your military to keep fighting is not the same thing as being willing to risk your own life, or those of your friends and family.
Click to expand...
tim said:
For me it means sitting in class with students saying they want to kill Russians.
Click to expand...
teuchter said:
They actually want to go to the front and kill Russians?
Click to expand...
tim said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

That's why I asked the question

teuchter said:
Why are they not fighting, are they too young? Who are these students - are they school students? Are they in the UK or Ukraine or somewhere else?
Click to expand...

Which you chose not to answer, or at least, only partially in a response to someone else.
 
SpookyFrank said:
'The West' is clearly not acting as a single bloc on this. The Ukrainians are scrounging different resources from different countries. Off the top of my head they've had artillery from Germany, planes from the US, drones from Turkey, tanks from Poland etc etc. But nobody outside Ukraine has co-ordinated that. It's all a question of what each country can spare, how much they're invested in a particular outcome, their domestic political situation etc. Poland might have less resources to throw around but also a more pressing reason not to want the Russians to reach Kyiv.

I don't think stalemate suits anyone, I don't think it's something anyone decided to make happen.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.

I don't think a stalemate is something anyone decided to make happen either, but some of the posts here* about "the West" allowing Ukraine enough resources to keep fighting but not enough to win come across as suggesting that "the West" has deliberately decided to limit the amount of support they give in order to create that stalemate and prolong the war.

* and some statements from the Ukrainian government, TBH, one of which ska invita has kindly quoted as an example
 
Last edited:
ska invita said:
,"Joe Biden, America’s president, set objectives at the start of Russia’s invasion: to ensure that Ukraine was not defeated and that America was not dragged into confrontation with Russia. This means that arms supplied by the West have been sufficient in sustaining Ukraine in the war, but not enough to allow it to win. "

Ukraine's chief military commander Valery Zaluzhn, speaking three weeks ago. The occupied territory has changed little in 18 months. The They Don't Dare For Us To Win complaint has been around for ages.
Click to expand...

Zaluzhn and others clearly want more arms and other support, but just because they want something doesn't mean they should automatically get it, unless you think Biden should do something which would lead to America being dragged into confrontation with Russia or that attempting to avoid such escalation is inherently illegitimate.

The "They Don't Dare For Us to Win" complaint is part of that demand for greater support, greater involvement from the West. It's part of the Ukrainian state's propaganda narrative, but that doesn't mean it's true, so it's disappointing to see that you and others appear to have accepted it uncritically
 
The US is holding back because there is presently potential for three major conflicts around the world. Its also not helped that Republicans are trying to de-couple overseas funding and ensure Israel gets all it needs but not Ukraine.

For those who missed it, Nikkormat in post #27,598 posted the Rachman review that discussed the 'stalemate'. Which was in part a cue taken from Zaluzhnyi who seems to think a technological edge will be the deciding factor in the conflict.

The guest speaker on Rachman pushed back on the idea of there being a 'stalemate' indicating Europe hasn't supplied the ammunition it promised; Russia has initiated something akin 'total war' mode and the west hasn't woken up to this and Ukraine prioritised mobilising ex-reservists and did this at the expense of providing sufficient military training which has now been rectified. If these are corrected good things will follow.

With Russian elections looming and doubts about the success of the counter-offensive being brought to the surface, Russia is upping its meat waves. This will begin to chip away and I suspect they may make moderate gains everywhere bar the south bank of the Dnipro. For me, even if Ukraine was abandoned, I can't conceive of Ukrainians acquiescing in Russian rule and for that reason we should do all we can to support them. I also can't see how the losses Russia is incurring are sustainable.
 
andysays said:
Zaluzhn and others clearly want more arms and other support, but just because they want something doesn't mean they should automatically get it, unless you think Biden should do something which would lead to America being dragged into confrontation with Russia or that attempting to avoid such escalation is inherently illegitimate.

The "They Don't Dare For Us to Win" complaint is part of that demand for greater support, greater involvement from the West. It's part of the Ukrainian state's propaganda narrative, but that doesn't mean it's true, so it's disappointing to see that you and others appear to have accepted it uncritically
Click to expand...

What, you think that assigning an extra 100,000 artillery rounds is going to be considered a greater escalation that allowing provision of F-16s, providing tanks etc? with the US it's a little bit of (arguably justified) paranoia about weapons stocks, a lot of politicking around budgets and some limited concern around escalation. But the latter I don't think applies so much to quantity as it does to type of thing provided.
 
Last edited:
RedRedRose said:
The US is holding back because there is presently potential for three major conflicts around the world. Its also not helped that Republicans are trying to de-couple overseas funding and ensure Israel gets all it needs but not Ukraine.

For those who missed it, Nikkormat in post #27,598 posted the Rachman review that discussed the 'stalemate'. Which was in part a cue taken from Zaluzhnyi who seems to think a technological edge will be the deciding factor in the conflict.

The guest speaker on Rachman pushed back on the idea of there being a 'stalemate' indicating Europe hasn't supplied the ammunition it promised; Russia has initiated something akin 'total war' mode and the west hasn't woken up to this and Ukraine prioritised mobilising ex-reservists and did this at the expense of providing sufficient military training which has now been rectified. If these are corrected good things will follow.

With Russian elections looming and doubts about the success of the counter-offensive being brought to the surface, Russia is upping its meat waves. This will begin to chip away and I suspect they may make moderate gains everywhere bar the south bank of the Dnipro. For me, even if Ukraine was abandoned, I can't conceive of Ukrainians acquiescing in Russian rule and for that reason we should do all we can to support them. I also can't see how the losses Russia is incurring are sustainable.
Click to expand...
What is the US's role in these three major conflicts?
 
It sees its role as a guarantor, because potentially they underpin its financial and geopolitical role of either itself or its allies.
 
teqniq said:
This is fucking grim:

newlinesmag.com

Once Again, Russian Tyranny Is Forcing Young Men in Ukraine Toward a Moral Precipice

As Putin drafts soldiers from the country’s occupied east, the author reflects on why his father fought with Germany against the Soviets in WWII
newlinesmag.com newlinesmag.com
Click to expand...
Absolutely grim in that this is an article not only whitewashing the OUM and the Waffen-SS Galicia Division but also omitting to mention the role of West Ukrainians who supported the Nazi occupation and used its protection to identify and slaughter the local Jewish population. This article is a great example of the postwar revisionism that began to dominate the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada, the US, the UK and Australia aided and abetted by the Banderites threatening and often killing any rivals or opposition and the US and UK's support for them in the Cold War.

Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe's chapters in Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Fascist: Facism, Genocide, and Cult on the construction and reconstruction of the Bandera myth are an excellent read.
 
dylanredefined said:
First the Russians came and murdered people then the Nazis came and murdered people then the Russians came back.
Ukraine WW2 history is horror on horror.
Click to expand...
Which conveniently, and dismissively, rules out the agency of the OUN itself ( which is what the article is about) . Even Wikipedia describes it as pursuing 'a strategy of violence, terrorism, and assassinations with the goal of creating an ethnically homogenous and totalitarian Ukrainian state.'
 
The39thStep said:
Which conveniently, and dismissively, rules out the agency of the OUN itself ( which is what the article is about) . Even Wikipedia describes it as pursuing 'a strategy of violence, terrorism, and assassinations with the goal of creating an ethnically homogenous and totalitarian Ukrainian state.'
Click to expand...
Between the Nazis and Stalin's Russia slaughter. OUN crimes are barely a drop in the ocean in comparison. Ukraine trying to get big up a resistance movement even one as dodgy as they are is kind of understandble if repellent the more you learn about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

platinumsage
Ukraine and the Russian invasion, Feb 2022 - tangentially related crap
29 30 31 32 33
Replies
987
Views
52K
Dogsauce
Dogsauce
tim
The 2023 Russian Coup.
51 52 53 54 55
Replies
2K
Views
69K
_Russ_
_Russ_
Dogsauce
The Russian defenestration thread
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
maomao
maomao
platinumsage
Ukraine invasion memes and viral content
70 71 72 73 74
Replies
2K
Views
123K
The39thStep
The39thStep
Pickman's model
Ukraine after the war
2 3
Replies
62
Views
6K
phildwyer
phildwyer
Back
Top Bottom