The invasion is a Week Old...Part 7

[Damnloginpopup]

Unbelievable. Thread 6 is almost full, to be found here : www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4495271-The-Invasion-is-ongoing-Part-6?pg=1

Still a fascinating and thoughtful set of documentation of our evolving thoughts, fears, questions, analyses and updates. And still a credit to the eyes, ears and knowledge of those on here.

Pinched from one poster on thread 6 whose name I can't recall:

Latest claims from both sides about casualties
Ukraine's army regularly puts out updates on the damage it says it's inflicting on Russian forces, which continue to press on key cities, particularly in the south.

We should stress that the BBC can't verify this information, but the latest update from the General Staff of the Armed Forces says that approximately 9,000 Russian personnel have been killed or wounded.

It also says Ukrainian forces have destroyed:

217 tanks
90 artillery systems
31 helicopters
30 planes or other aircraft
For its part, Russia yesterday for the first time gave a specific number for casualties it had suffered in Ukraine, saying 498 Russian soldiers had died and nearly 1,600 had been wounded.

It said it had killed 2,870 Ukrainian soldiers and "nationalists".

Bluebells we all know Azov are horrible but banging on about a militia of maybe 2000 men in a country of 40 million is a little off when cities are being destroyed and a million people have fled their homes.

I think it’s clear we won’t really know what’s going on behind the scenes but I actually don’t think the backlash against the oligarchs wholesale is good. Setting aside how they became so wealthy for now (not to minimise it) they have power because of their wealth and certainly aren’t all friends with putin! There’s the guy he put in prison for instance who was on france 24 the other night

But Catalonia although they tried to declare total independence in 2017, and tried to pass paperwork to this effect, which was not recognised by the international community and in response Spain triggered a internal article which dissolved the then sitting Catalonian Parliament, and a new election was held afterwards.

No other super power marched in and said "Catalonia is now independent and sent in troops"

Can whoever starts the next thread please put Thread 8 in the title? :)

Irony of you telling anyone what's relevant when you seem to regard this war as an opportunity to criticise the tories and bang on about Corbyn

This country, particularly its capital, is steeped in Russian money. But yeah Corbin🤔

a militia of maybe 2000 men

...who've been set the task of fighting a larger number of similarly-despicable men sent to invade their country by a neighbouring country.

I'm by no means excusing who they are or their beliefs but it's clear that they've got an 'official' status for one reason only.

knowing how easy it is to sway a population to vote for something not always in their best interests

Disclaimer - you only need to sway a tiny minority, the rest will have their own reasons and done their research etc

Well to be fair it was Tony who smoozhed Putin And apparently supported or helped his election? The West loved Putin??

Tone went to st Petersburg.... etc.

We gave Putin a state visit under Blair whilst the Cheyna war was going on.

@Lonelycrab

But yeah, Corbyn - Is totally irrelevant to the war in Ukraine.

The important part of that sentence is...to vote.

To vote.

To be able to vote freely in a democracy, is the most important thing.

Everything else is hot air.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0bsc8v5/seven-days-that-changed-the-world

From a basement in the centre of Kyiv, BBC correspondent, James Waterhouse, has been reporting on the seismic developments in Ukraine as the Russian bombardment continues.
In this special programme, James speaks with colleagues from BBC News across Ukraine and Russia on the extraordinary impact of seven days that have changed the world

This was very harrowing.

@FatFredsFriedEgg

History will say:

Russia invaded E Ukraine in February 2014.

Azov Battalion formed May 2014 to fight Russian invaders on their own terms.

Chicken, egg.

I don't think that is right. I am saying this in a non partisan way. There is a lot of footage of normal civilans, riots, interviews, from 2014 shot by an american organisation, it is definitely people wanting to be independent, it is definitely not Russia invading E Ukraine at the outset. There is also footage indicating that there were civilians (azoz?) on the Ukrainian "side" which were infiltrating, stirring things up, and hunting down and kidnapping separatists and so on. It is not clear at all. And who was funding the Ukrainian side? And what other developments over the years? Under the Minsk agreement Ukraine should have given some autonomy to the separatists and didn't. And so on. It is a lot more complicated than chicken egg I think.

[quote Yeahthat]@Lonelycrab

But yeah, Corbyn - Is totally irrelevant to the war in Ukraine.[/quote]
@Yeahthat YeahCorbyn was also totally irrelevant almost every other time it has been trotted out to.

Anyway, shall we get back to discussing the despicable behaviour of the state sponsored terrorists that have been trying to break Donestk and Luhansk away from Ukraine?

Reference to more funding and possibly more members.

An impromptu short notice meeting happened today:

Sauli Niinistö @niinisto*
An insightful breakfast meeting with CIA Director William Burns, who has a remarkable experience in diplomacy and negotiations with Russia.*

Thats the Finnish President btw.

I don't think now Finland is likely to apply to join NATO any time soon, recent government rhetoric is about the need to make decisions with cools heads and I just don't think this government, which is partly one party that is anti-NATO, wants to go down in history as the ones that join Finland to NATO. I thought the war might change things but Finland is ever slow to change.

Also bloody hell, its taken me all day to catch up with this thread.

• re People voting for something not in their best interests...

It has been mooted that only people of a certain level of education be allowed too vote. Then as mooted here we can cut off the older vote also.

We can nicely whittle Down , who,is allowed too vote And seeing as they don't seem too know what's in their best interests... why take a risk with votes?

Just follow Putin's route and secure the" correct" outcomes for people who don't know any better

The Minsk Agreement came after the Russian invasion.

To be able to vote freely in a democracy, is the most important thing

Indeed ! Makes you awfully unpopular with your neighbours if they happen to be a dictatorship though as Ukraine have discovered.

I have a question. If for example a NATO country has enough and goes after Russia of its own accord does that mean the rest of NATO need to get involved?

E.g if Poland shot down a Russian plane and then Russia then retaliated to this would NATO get involved

@FatFredsFriedEgg

The Minsk Agreement came after the Russian invasion.

that to @aweekoldnow

[quote Jisforjelly]@EsmaCannonball NATO is defence, not offence. Until a NATO country is at risk, we cannot get involved.[/quote]
NATO didn't have the backing of the UN Security Council when they bombed Serbia. And NATO also didn't claim a state was being attacked by another state.

All NATO members are bound by the UN charter which legitimises military action for two reasons:

1. authorisation by UN Security Council
2. Self-defence

Neither of these was present when NATO decided to bomb Serbia.

True, NATO claimed it was a humanitarian intervention, but surely Ukraine is as well?

Clinton said of the NATO bombing of Serbia:

"NATO stopped deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide....they're going to have to come to grips with what Mr. Milošević ordered in Kosovo. ... They're going to have to decide whether they support his leadership or not; whether they think it's OK that all those tens of thousands of people were killed...."

This pretty much applies to Putin's Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The above example is one that shows NATO isn't always defensive minded and CAN be offensive minded.

Indeed, some NATO members have acted militarily independently of NATO and the UN Security Council. The United States of America, the United Kingdom and France are three examples.

NATO already set the precedent in 1999 with Serbia.

So, why doesn't NATO apply the same logic with respect to Ukraine?

Simple - NATO fears Russia. It's not because NATO is meant to be a defensive alliance, really.

To make it worse, the Budapest Memorandum was meant to guarantee the security of Ukraine in addition to Belarus and Kazakhstan which was signed by the United States of America, United Kingdom and the Russian Federation amongst others.

It contained SIX obligations on the signatories:

1. Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.

2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.

4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.

Russia has broken the terms of the Budapest Memorandum and yet the West hasn't responded militarily.

Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 was a breach of this as well.

NATO and the West have been involved for a long time.....

@Tigersonvaseline why whittle it down just on age and educational outcomes, lets mix it up a bit and add in star signs, which way people hang their toilet rolls and the age of their children when they finally stop using P&C spaces

@elephantmarchingin

I have a question. If for example a NATO country has enough and goes after Russia of its own accord does that mean the rest of NATO need to get involved?

E.g if Poland shot down a Russian plane and then Russia then retaliated to this would NATO get involved

I wonder. Perhaps if it was a tit for tat situation, poland shoots down russian plane, they shoot down polish plane, but nothing more, perhaps they might consider it wiser to ignore unless it escalates.

A country led by a dictator has invaded a democratic country. That is all we need to know.

@elephantmarchingin

I have a question. If for example a NATO country has enough and goes after Russia of its own accord does that mean the rest of NATO need to get involved?

E.g if Poland shot down a Russian plane and then Russia then retaliated to this would NATO get involved

Should this happen, I think you'd see the aggravating country ejected from NATO for breeching its policy on being a "defensive alliance"

They would then have to take on Russia on their own I'd imagine.

You can't light a tinder box and burn your country to the ground and then expect the neighbouring countries fire department to rock up and put it out for you, regardless of if you had been friends for years and had lots of written agreements.

However I think Russia would see that as a "green light" to do whatever it wants on any NATO member despite the possible immediate ejection of the agitator, and that would be catastrophic.

Democracy matters as Ukrainians know.