Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

The Invasion is ongoing...Part 5

999 replies

Damnloginpopup · 01/03/2022 15:57

Unbelievable to think that a few days ago the world was starting to look more positive..ye we find ourselves on a fifth thread discussing the horrors of the war in Europe. An unbelievable change has happened to the world we live in.

Some incredible firmed posts have been written, informing, discussing, and occasionally derailing. Let's hope the news is more positive by the end of this one.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
DrBlackbird · 01/03/2022 22:06

Afraid to say I think Russia's justifications of the possibility of a hostile military alliance right along their border had some merit. Would the US contemplate Chinese or Russian forces on its Mexico/Canda border? We knew today could come

I’m thinking about this analogy but it doesn’t seem right to me. First of all, why or how could the Ukraine be hostile to its neighbour nuclear super power? Why would NATO be hostile to Russia as in instigate first strike aggression? The idea of US forces stationed in the Ukraine instigating a NATO organised attack against Russia is risible.

The whole Russian forces based in Canada (supposing Canada somehow entered into a military alliance with Russia) being a tangible threat to the US is likewise an illogical analogy in that the US would utterly squash any such attack instantly with its massive military capabilities. Likewise Russia would utterly squash an Ukrainian incursion into Russia.

…stuck to the accession for Ukraine and arrogantly denying Russia’s status as a great power

arrogantly denying Russia’s status as a great power …. Just wtf is that? That is such pathetic appeasement. Like Farage sucking up to Trump.

dreamingbohemian · 01/03/2022 22:07

But I prefer to accept the reality of geopolitics as it is rather than base policies on wishful thinking in which we can all just be friends and not worry about an alliance containing countries which have went to war numerous times in the past two decades in order to produce regime change.

It's true, Western states invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya. The Soviet also invaded Afghanistan once but whatever.

But NATO is not going to invade Russia. None of those states had nuclear weapons or even strong conventional armies. So you can't compare them at all.

Putin knows full well that NATO is not going to invade or occupy Russia. It's just impossible as long as Russia has nukes. So the idea that it's reasonable for him to be afraid of NATO, because NATO invaded all these other completely weak states, does not pass muster.

Wrongkindofovercoat · 01/03/2022 22:07

@supermoonrising is Ukraine tactically better for Europe in the event of WW3 than any other Nato country ? The way I understand it is that all nuclear countries have the capability of causing destruction to other countries should they so wish, especially taking into account submarines. So if Ukraine doesn't and won't have nuclear weapons then the odds are the same ?

DuncinToffee · 01/03/2022 22:07

BBC reports
More than 90 protesters were arrested in the western Russian city of St Petersburg on Tuesday while protesting against the war in Ukraine, according to the BBC Russian Service.

The protest took place at the Gostiny Dvor shopping centre on Nevsky Avenue in the city centre.

Russian police arrested the protesters, and at least one journalist, in the space of 30 minutes, our colleagues report, citing the Zaks.ru publication.

A day earlier, police in the city detained some 900 anti-war protesters.

TokyoSushi · 01/03/2022 22:08

The 10pm BBC news is pretty grim tonight. Clive Myrie seems pretty convinced that the convoy is lining up to do 'something' fairly soon.

The Ukrainians are amazing, so brave, I'm just in awe of them.

dreamingbohemian · 01/03/2022 22:10

Particularly as due to the specific geography of Ukraine, it's extremely strategically advantageous in a war against Russia.

Again, Ukraine has no strategic usefulness in a nuclear war against Russia. Even if you want to propose that NATO and Russia could fight a conventional war, or that NATO would for some ridiculous reason invade a nuclear superpower, NATO already has the Baltics, Norway, Turkey, Romania etc.

Ukraine is advantageous if you want to send a massive land force into Asia but this is the 21st century.

Wrongkindofovercoat · 01/03/2022 22:12

Particularly as due to the specific geography of Ukraine, it's extremely strategically advantageous in a war against Russia

Is that Ukraine without Crimea or with Crimea, because obviously Russia annexed Crimea a while back, so you could conclude that Russia is no longer on the back foot strategically ?

EsmaCannonball · 01/03/2022 22:12

Of course sanctions are going to cause hardship for ordinary Russians but painless sanctions would be pointless, wouldn't they?

I'm worried the Russian convoy is holding back because the Russians are planning to pulverise Kyiv.

Yeahthat · 01/03/2022 22:13

@dreamingbohemian

But I prefer to accept the reality of geopolitics as it is rather than base policies on wishful thinking in which we can all just be friends and not worry about an alliance containing countries which have went to war numerous times in the past two decades in order to produce regime change.

It's true, Western states invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya. The Soviet also invaded Afghanistan once but whatever.

But NATO is not going to invade Russia. None of those states had nuclear weapons or even strong conventional armies. So you can't compare them at all.

Putin knows full well that NATO is not going to invade or occupy Russia. It's just impossible as long as Russia has nukes. So the idea that it's reasonable for him to be afraid of NATO, because NATO invaded all these other completely weak states, does not pass muster.

As I just stated, NATO is not going to invade Russia because it's strong. Not because of international law or principles.

Therefore, it's rational for them to ensure their own survival by not being encircled by what is a historically hostile and aggressive alliance.

It's not only to do with what capabilities Russia and NATO have, but what they can nullify. How about how having Ukraine as a wealthier neighbour in the future, with a NATO alliance and hellbent on recovering Crimea could have worked out?

I don't believe that it was likely. I don't believe that Russia's behaviour is just. It's abhorrent.

But attempting to understand it as a rational actor may have been more productive than simply making unilateral demands, applying wishful thinking, and saying "but we're the good guys, you've got nothing to worry about".

supermoonrising · 01/03/2022 22:14

@dreamingbohemian
I didn’t say you “needed” bases on your enemies border, just that it would be an advantage. And of course there are multiple advantages of having close proximity to your enemy - which is why the US has bases all over the world.

letmesleep123 · 01/03/2022 22:15

@dreamingbohemian

I think people are kidding themselves that Putin would accept Ukraine's 'neutrality', especially if they think this could include EU membership.

You may be forgetting that this whole conflict started in 2013 when Ukrainians wanted to sign an agreement of closer cooperation with the EU. Not even trying to become an EU member, but an agreement on closer relations. That was enough to spark the annexation of Crimea and occupation of eastern Ukraine and years of war.

Putin does not distinguish between the EU and NATO. He sees the EU as a sort of trojan horse for NATO. There is absolutely no way he would consider any kind of close relationship with the EU as 'neutral'.

And he's made it very clear in the last week that he does not want Ukraine to be neutral anyway. He wants it back in the Russian fold. He wants it to be another Belarus, a puppet.

Anyway a neutrality that is coerced is not real neutrality. Switzerland chose to be neutral. It's not the same thing. Of course Ukraine doesn't want to be neutral, look where staying out of the EU and NATO has got them.

It's misleading to reference the 2013 agreement on closer cooperation with the EU and not mention the coup when Yanukovich was overthrown in 2014. The annexation of Crimea followed shortly after.

At this point I should shut up and go away, but your comment on "occupation of eastern Ukraine" is hitting where it hurts. I am from Eastern Ukraine and it makes my blood boil when you mention "occupation". It was Eastern Ukraine not agreeing with the coup and holding a referendum, where the vast majority voted to leave Ukraine and become independent (NOT part of Russia) and Ukraine then bringing in the military to suppress "the rebels". For 8 years Ukraine did to its own citizens what Russia is now doing to Ukraine - heavy bombing, Azov battalion atrocities, 13,000 civilian casualties. For 8 years Eastern Ukraine had no right to vote. There was no media coverage, no outrage at pictures of dead children. 13,000 died and continue dying.

If only Ukraine had a leader that would offer peace - i.e. recognise Russian as 2nd language, give some autonomy to the East, so many lives could have been saved. Instead they (and i say they as 3mln people in the East were not allowed to vote - democracy at it's best) elect an actor, who is great at PR, media relations and selfies, but has no interest in conflict resolution.

Rant over. I am going away before I get accused of being a "Russian bot" or whatever other offence you want to throw my way.

28birthdays · 01/03/2022 22:16

@timetochangeusername

A friend has just started leaving reviews on trip advisor for Russian restaurants with information about what's happening in Ukraine. I think it's worth a go.
Great idea. I'm now doing the same. Thanks for the tip.
RedToothBrush · 01/03/2022 22:17

[quote continu]@RedToothBrush
If it wasn't the stuff about NATO it would be something else. Because thats the mindset of dictators. Especially ones with domestic issues they are trying to paper over the cracks of

He would still be having this crisis of mortality and wanting to secure his legacy

Its ingrained into the personality of the man

As much as its tempting to cling to the idea that its about NATO, I'm afraid I just don't buy it. He'd just create another narrative

And we'd have more countries perhaps exposed and even more potential problems and not really knowing what to do.

how do you check your own thinking here? Putin has made many, many in depth speeches over the years, answered journalist questions, verified and translated by the likes of Sky News, all pretty consistent, Russia has made many announcements, there have been meetings between Putin and Zelensky which can be watched on youtube (have you watched all these?) , there have been many commentators explaing the history of the tensions, all of it points to the issues being in relation to Donbass, Crimea, encroachment of NATO, etc etc

But you say you don't buy all this, the real reasons are as you see it or how you intuit it maybe? Where do your strong views come from?[/quote]
Psychology. A lot term plan to undermine and destroy democracy from within. And the idea of the Military–industrial complex but applied to Putin's Russia rather than America

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex

To use a few quotes from the article which explain it:

There has been a concept of an class of military, business, and political leaders, driven by mutual interests, were the real leaders of the state, and were effectively beyond democratic control.
Sound familiar?

Another element which after this war is likely to strengthen the tendencies in this direction will be some of the men who during the war have tasted the powers of coercive control and will find it difficult to reconcile themselves with the humbler roles they will then have to play [in peaceful times].
Sound familiar?

"Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military–industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy."
Sound familiar?

Its the whole idea of if things are going badly at home, just start a bloody good war to sort it all out. No reason why it would be a philosophy restricted to the US. It works for any power that has the ability to throw its weight around and not be easily challenged militarily directly. It causes a shock which throws the balance of power. Which is why Putin might seek to take such a risk.

The irony in it is that in recent years, Oligarchs have been some of the big beneficiaries of Disaster Capitalism. And not just Russian ones. Not got a crisis? Create one. Trump was certainly big on the idea. I think British politics has its far few representives (not just blue coloured I might add).

In this sense I wouldn't be surprised if Putin, can turn this around still and use it as a wedge to drive and almost isolate the West in the long run. The whole 'western hypocrisy' thing is a massive issue to exploit in the rest of the world and to exploit within the West itself. (The West needs to get a grip on this because its fuelling a growing mistrust in politicians and the media - which in turn makes people look for alternatives. If institutions that are supposed to stand for justice and representation don't work, why not get rid and just have your own dictator). Pakistan making a business decision to trade with Russia is an example of this wedge on the international scale.

So yeah, if it wasn't NATO it would be something else. And Soviet / Russian Identity almost relies on having to have an enemy to rail against, to drive the need for the leader to have complete control 'as a strong man'. Why do you need a strong man leader if you are safe? And if you have a leader, he must be a 'strong man' otherwise he's not doing his job and you might not be safe. If you don't have an outside enemy then you might also start looking inwards about whether your leader is actually your enemy instead.

(Sorry, rambling a bit, but I hope that makes sense. Not easy to explain and I admit I'm struggling to verbalise it well too).

Wannago · 01/03/2022 22:17

[quote katem98]@Wannago Could you please repeat your post? A few people talking about it but I'm unable to find it and now intrigued! [/quote]
Sorry, been off and doing dinner and helping unblock a sink!

It was in response to a poster talking about the ongoing flirtation of NATO with the Ukraine and suggesting that is was responsible for our current situation.

Also not sure how to repost an existing post, so will just copy and paste my bit (with typo corrected):

"I have two problems with this analysis:

a) Putin made a speech right before he went in saying, as I understand it, it had nothing to do with Nato, and everything to do with Ukrainians and Russians being one people. If the real issue was NATO, then why would he say what he said?

b) for all the "flirting", there was no "engagement" or "marriage" yet. After he amassed all of his troups on the border - why didn't he say "we are going to go in unless the Ukrainians renounce any claim to Nato"? Or alternatively "We want NATO assurances that Ukraine will not join, otherwise we are going in". There were lots of communication opportunities, with Macron, Liz Truss etc. If that is your end game, you don't say - "No, we are not going to war", "we are not going to war" "we are just doing exercises", and then invade if what you really want to do is stop the flirting before it turns into more. You do this if you want to crush the current government and put in your own puppet, or you hold that really Ukrainian territory is Russian territory, historically part of your empire, and you want it back.

So while I can understand that flirting with Ukrainian membership of NATO might have been not a wise thing to do, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what has actually played out."

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 01/03/2022 22:18

The WaPo Opinion piece is available on web.archive.org if you put the URL in the search box there.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/01/vindman-zelensky-ukraine-putin/?

Extracts

Spread propaganda about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election

As early as 2017, Trump began voicing the conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 presidential election. This was one of the things Trump pressured Zelensky to “investigate” while withholding military aid.

Ousted the well-regarded U.S. ambassador to Ukraine

Trump pushed out Marie Yovanovitch in 2019, after his lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani mounted a smear campaign against her.

Froze military assistance to Ukraine

Well before extorting Zelensky, Trump alarmed officials by freezing military aid to Ukraine that Congress had appropriated, but without meaningful policy justification. Crucially, officials subsequently testified that granting this aid was important in dissuading Russian aggression, which would be in European and U.S. interests.

Withheld a White House meeting from Zelensky

In 2019, Trump communicated in various ways to Zelensky that a much-sought-after White House meeting would be conditioned on doing his corrupt dirt-digging on Joe Biden.

Turned Ukraine policy over to Giuliani

This was one of the most shocking subplots: Trump repeatedly instructed Zelensky to contact Giuliani to discuss what Zelensky would be required to do to please Trump. Giuliani’s circumvention of national security protocols deeply alarmed officials.

Tigersonvaseline · 01/03/2022 22:18

Ok.
Let's say Ukraine did join NATO back in 2014 would we be here with today's situation.

A democratic country wouldn't see NATO as a threat.it exists to supposedly protect each others from these mad bastard's

DrBlackbird · 01/03/2022 22:24

I still struggle to see Russia/Putin’s reaction as being a rational actor. I’m in agreement with dreamingbohemian that NATO is (was) not going to invade or occupy Russia

Who knows what’s actually going on in Putin’s mind and, for that matter, none of us here have any factual idea of what was said in the diplomatic negotiations ie what was asked for/promised/not promised. All speculation. Maybe this is Putin’s incredible strategy to drive up Russian gas prices?? Not really… but just to highlight that we don’t know.

I just feel terrible for the Ukrainian people dying and being driven out from their homes and countries.

continu · 01/03/2022 22:25

@Tigersonvaseline

Dreaming bohemian I absolutely agree

We can listen to thousands of reasons why Putin doesn't want Ukraine X y And z.

One man's obsession/dream doesn't mean it impedes on others.

I don't agree with bohemium at all, to negotiate successfully you need to fully understand the other side's position and find a reasonable solution to meet both sides' fundamental issues. This wasn't done before the war, nowhere close. This was highlighted many times if you watch the footage. Truss went into one meeting not even knowing who owned what, how can you progress negotiations on that basis? I do not support war but I think that there was a massive failing on the part of the West in dealing with these issues more effectively, for years.

It is telling that most people hadn't a clue what was going on when Biden suddenly annoucned that war was imminent and everyone scrambled around trying to work out what was going on and what the issues were - if this had been being handled properly there would have been far better and more coverage of it.

Negotiation is certainly not about you deciding unilaterally what should happen or projecting about what people think. Problem as I see it is that Truss and Johnson appear to think like this too, and I am not sure they understand the issues, it is all a bit desperate really.

The lack of knowledge in the media is quite scary at times too, i have heard interviewers mix up NATO with UN with EU membership.

I think you are being too simplistic and too subjective was the tldr I should have put at the top of the post.

vera99 · 01/03/2022 22:25

A biased and difficult watch from Oliver Stone who has been something of a Putin apologist to put it mildly but it provides sufficient background and history if treated with kid gloves to more fully understand why we are here and why Putin and some of Russia may think as they do.

The caveats are important I know this is propaganda and I know Stone is a jaundiced commentator.

Yeahthat · 01/03/2022 22:26

@Tigersonvaseline

Ok. Let's say Ukraine did join NATO back in 2014 would we be here with today's situation.

A democratic country wouldn't see NATO as a threat.it exists to supposedly protect each others from these mad bastard's

Members of NATO have been the principle drivers of wars of aggression for the past two decades.

They/we have waged war all over the world for the purposes of regime change, creating millions of refugees in the process.

Therefore, any state which has a historical rivalry with the countries which lead this organisation may in fact conceptualise it as a threat.

Wrongkindofovercoat · 01/03/2022 22:26

@letmesleep123 It was Eastern Ukraine not agreeing with the coup and holding a referendum, where the vast majority voted to leave Ukraine and become independent (NOT part of Russia)

Did Eastern Ukraine have any idea of how it was going to achieve this independence from both Western Ukraine and Russia ? Who told them this would be possible ?

Tigersonvaseline · 01/03/2022 22:26

Re Belarus Man!!

It's beyond farce and look's staged !! Are they trying too warn us!!
Look Moldova is next look!!

dreamingbohemian · 01/03/2022 22:27

As I just stated, NATO is not going to invade Russia because it's strong. Not because of international law or principles.Therefore, it's rational for them to ensure their own survival by not being encircled by what is a historically hostile and aggressive alliance.

I did not say they would not invade because of international law. I said they would not invade because of nuclear weapons.

NATO is not encircling Russia (there are no NATO states in the Caucasus, Central Asia or East Asia).

Russia IS strong. No one is going to attack Russia militarily. It is Putin who feels weak, who worries about the Russian people turning against him.

continu · 01/03/2022 22:28

@DrBlackbird

I still struggle to see Russia/Putin’s reaction as being a rational actor. I’m in agreement with dreamingbohemian that NATO is (was) not going to invade or occupy Russia

Who knows what’s actually going on in Putin’s mind and, for that matter, none of us here have any factual idea of what was said in the diplomatic negotiations ie what was asked for/promised/not promised. All speculation. Maybe this is Putin’s incredible strategy to drive up Russian gas prices?? Not really… but just to highlight that we don’t know.

I just feel terrible for the Ukrainian people dying and being driven out from their homes and countries.

none of us here have any factual idea of what was said in the diplomatic negotiations ie what was asked for/promised/not promised. All speculation correct - there is some footage and some reportage but I think to recognise that there is a lot of speculation going on here is right