Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-25

Has this been reported elsewhere?

It sounds plausible, but not sure how reliable Charter97 is.

No, well not yet, but as you say it sounds plausible, as there's been mounting pressure for them not to get involved.



Misleading headline there ^ he's an ex-officer.
 
So troops and officers alike are scared of dying? Whoop-de-woo, I guess we'll take it. Shame their police aren't as scared when they're battering and imprisoning protesters.
I think with the officers it’s the fear of not only being killed by Ukrainians but also being ‘accidentally’ shot in the back during a firefight.

( A tradition I’m sure goes back to at least 2525 BC when an officer from Umma was deemed to be an arrogant liability by his men tragically, yet strangely, died in an initial skirmish with Lagashian scouts.)
 
Reports that Russians have moved out of central Kherson in response to protests...


Dunno whether that's really reflected in available video, but certainly they seem to have moved to defensive positions rather than trying to control the protestors.

 
These demos in the south are amazing, considering the Russian-speaking south, is supposed to be the easiest places for the occupying troops, then there's is this also in the south.


The source, she's an executive director with the Anti-Corruption Action Centre - "We're curbing grand political corruption in Ukraine. Public finance monitoring, anti-money laundering, assets recovery."
 
It certainly is 😟

Re. Orwell: Was looking at a map of Dugin’s geopolitical conceptualisation of Russia and the rest of the world for the C21st.

The world map divided into 3 areas:

1. The Heartland (Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Mongolia, the ‘stans, parts of Afghanistan)

2. The Rimland (Western Europe, India & other south Asian countries, SE Asia and China)

3. The rest of the world (USA, Central & South America, sub-Saharan Africa, Australasia etc)

Apparently this conceptual map wasn’t designed by Dugin, but he adopted it. Originally done by Sir Halford John Mackinder in 1904, the one I saw has areas 1 & 2 designated ‘Eurasia’! View attachment 312931




I did not know that. Thanks for posting this, an informative read in other aspects too (assuming Chatham House is a reputable source; LSE I would think reliable, it’s hardly a Tory / establishment university)

So if I understood the article correctly, although there were some verbal assurances of no eastward expansion, none were legally binding.

Interesting quote from this article:

“NATO’s Kosovo campaign in 1999 did far more to shape anti-Western attitudes in Russia than NATO enlargement did. Coinciding with a period of extreme weakness in Russia, it represented a crushing defeat for Russian diplomacy”

Didn’t Russia itself asked to join NATO but was rebuffed? (Just after the collapse of the USSR if I recall correctly)
I don't know if them being given verbal assurances was the case. It's something Chomsky has always said. That it was a gentleman's agreement... Which is a bit of odd thing to say or for a state to accept when dealing with security arrangements with a competing power. From that article I gathered it was more to do with NATO troops in Germany at that time and the 'not one inch to the east' was just in relation to Germany maybe?

This really stood out to me from both articles:

In addition, the USSR signed the Charter of Paris in November 1990 with the commitment to ‘fully recognize the freedom of States to choose their own security arrangements’. The NATO–Russia Founding Act, signed in 1997, similarly pledged respect for the ‘inherent right’ of all states ‘to choose the means to ensure their own security’.

And this from Chatham House one:

Despite his public opposition to enlargement at the time, Andrey Kozyrev (Russia’s foreign minister after the collapse of the USSR until 1996) recently stated: ‘The United States and NATO were on the right side of history by admitting new democracies to the Alliance and being willing to find an accommodation with Russia. It was Moscow that returned to its antagonism toward NATO.’

That from someone who held the same position as Lavrov does now.

I did actually believe this myths true and, yes, there's probably a few nuggets of truth here and there but I'm pleased to have been further schooled reading those articles. I am surprised to hear that what I thought was true is more about myth building and shows the depths Putin's administration will go to propagandise.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't look like they are asking for full membership yet, but...

Sweden and Finland, both of which are not Nato members, have announced that they will further strengthen their security cooperation following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Reuters reports that the Finnish prime minister, Sanna Marin, made the announcement at a joint news conference with Swedish prime minister, Magdalena Andersson, today.

LINK
 
I haven't read large chunks of this thread because it's too fast moving but I just wanted to say one thing. The Russians should have been countered in Syria. The list of war crimes they are directly responsible for is unequivocal. Many lives could have been saved and we wouldn't most likely be where we are now wrt to Ukraine.
 
I haven't read large chunks of this thread because it's too fast moving but I just wanted to say one thing. The Russians should have been countered in Syria. The list of war crimes they are directly responsible for is unequivocal. Many lives could have been saved and we wouldn't most likely be where we are now wrt to Ukraine.
You're right and I know you're well versed in what's been happening in Syria since the initial revolution. In hindsight it's quite surprising that the extent of crimes committed by Russia there weren't as widely covered in western media. Perhaps they were in other countries but I don't remember hearing them covered other than Aleppo being bombed. It was never presented as Russian war crimes though.
 
I haven't read large chunks of this thread because it's too fast moving but I just wanted to say one thing. The Russians should have been countered in Syria. The list of war crimes they are directly responsible for is unequivocal. Many lives could have been saved and we wouldn't most likely be where we are now wrt to Ukraine.
Sure the argument was or would have been the same then as now, that such a thing could have led to a confrontation with Russia and so ww3
 
I haven't read large chunks of this thread because it's too fast moving but I just wanted to say one thing. The Russians should have been countered in Syria. The list of war crimes they are directly responsible for is unequivocal. Many lives could have been saved and we wouldn't most likely be where we are now wrt to Ukraine.
you musta missed this then, Fight for Ukraine
 
Doesn't look like they are asking for full membership yet, but...
If they where to join it would have to be simultaneously wouldn't it? Or the other would be an immediate target.

Although that depends on the outcome of the current mess. It could be Russia ends up in not much of a position to threaten anyone.
 
No, I didn't miss that but I am no fighter neither am I an armchair general but the fact that Russia has never been held to account for what they have done in Syria and no measures were taken to curb their excesses at the time has given them pretty much a green light for what is happening now in Ukraine.
It’s almost like many people and media outlets in the West care more about blond white Ukrainian people than Arab people…
 
Back
Top Bottom