War on Our Doorstep: How do we respond?

[reohn2]

All Putin wants is some of the Ukraine.

And the Ukrainians have said no you can't have part of what's our sovereign country,so he decided he'll try and take all of it,whilst levelling as many villages,towns and cities,murdering and raping civilians in the process.Nice them Russians aren't they?
A bit like someone coming to your home and demanding part of it because they once owned it and when you refuse and tell them to do oje,they start knocking it down with a JCB whilst tryingnto killyou and your family in the process!

The campaign so far has proved the Russian army is not particularly good and certainly not the efficient, deadly organisation people thought it was.

Yes it's proven what was suspected that the Russian army are a bunch of undisciplined murderering thieves led by a murdering gangster,an army that can't even look after itself in the field or even read a map by all accounts that's if they had one of Ukraine!

NATO was formed as an anti Russian military alliance and has remained so for the last 70 years. Is it surprising Russia doesn't want such a large, hostile alliance right on it's borders? What would America have done if Mexico had tried to join the Warsaw Pact?

NATO was formed to protect western Europe from what we're now seeing in Ukraine,that's Russia's land grabbing brutality and attempted domination of the whole of Europe.

[pwa]

NATO is also an alliance that nations choose to join, and can leave at any point. Nations are not coerced into being members. Russia attempts to coerce nations into not joining, as can be seen by recent threats to the likes of Sweden and Finland, who are now reported to be considering joining in the light of Putin's aggression. Putin is guaranteeing future NATO expansion and investment in NATO's capabilities. If a contraction and weakening of NATO is what he wanted, he is bringing about the opposite. He will probably end up controlling a bit more territory in eastern Ukraine, and he may keep the rest of Ukraine out of NATO, but he has forced the rest of the world to wake up to the threat he poses and he will now find Russia further ostracised, and with a lot of guns permanently pointing that way. Russia must now become a junior partner to China, the only major economic power likely to want to do much business.

[Ben@Forest]

By the time NATO was formed the Soviet Union had already moulded Eastern bloc governments the way it wanted them to be. They helped overthow the democratically elected government in Czechoslovakia and had blockaded Allied-controlled West Berlin (which led to the Berlin Airlift). The idea NATO was not reacting to an already aggressive Soviet posture is laughable.

[mattheus]

You're missing the point completely as usual.

There's nothing funny about sinking that ship no matter where it was or what it was up to which was my point.

I'll repeat I rejoice at the destruction of the Russian military and I've no problems laughing and feeling content at the destruction of it and the Moskva.
Enough perspective for you?

I've served with plenty of ex RN folk none of them would be laughing at this sinking. I lost three relatives on ships in the war including the Hood. It's easy to laugh from the comfort of your own keyboard at tragedies unfolding on either side due to one man. A military result for Ukraine yes, I've always said that but the laughing and funnies - no, that's a step too far in my book.

Have to agree with ossie.

You can sympathise with the Ukrainians - the ones with lives at risk, with loved ones dying around them - having almost any kind of reaction.
But this isn't our war, those Russian sailors aren't shooting at us. We should mourn them, not mock them.

[reohn2]

As the murder continues to gather pace.....

[Cowsham]

All Putin wants is some of the Ukraine.

And the Ukrainians have said no you can't have part of what's our sovereign country,so he decided he'll try and take all of it,whilst levelling as many villages,towns and cities,murdering and raping civilians in the process.Nice them Russians aren't they?
A bit like someone coming to your home and demanding part of it because they once owned it and when you refuse and tell them to do oje,they start knocking it down with a JCB whilst tryingnto killyou and your family in the process!

The campaign so far has proved the Russian army is not particularly good and certainly not the efficient, deadly organisation people thought it was.

Yes it's proven what was suspected that the Russian army are a bunch of undisciplined murderering thieves led by a murdering gangster,an army that can't even look after itself in the field or even read a map by all accounts that's if they had one of Ukraine!

NATO was formed as an anti Russian military alliance and has remained so for the last 70 years. Is it surprising Russia doesn't want such a large, hostile alliance right on it's borders? What would America have done if Mexico had tried to join the Warsaw Pact?

NATO was formed to protect western Europe from what we're now seeing in Ukraine,that's Russia's land grabbing brutality and attempted domination of the whole of Europe.

+1

[ossie]

But this isn't our war, those Russian sailors aren't shooting at us. We should mourn them, not mock them.

Indeed. My lad's an Army officer, he's also spent a great deal of time attached to the Royal Navy and the the Royal Marines so done time on ships. No mocking from him, or many other members of our extended family who are military or ex. More surprise at the incompetence of Russia, shock naturally at the death and destruction but they all know how Russia operate when they get serious, more so than most civilians who now have a front row seat thanks to social media.

If we look back at the early days. Russia went in with their Special forces, light vehicles etc expecting a quick and decisive victory and the country to buckle. There are numerous reports from civilians that the occupying force behind them were initially half decent. When it all went wrong very quickly we saw the true colours of some of these Russian troops (chuck a load of Chechens in the mix) and it mostly comes down to discipline or lack of. They have a different command structure, whereas we have non commissioned officers with experience and the 'clout' to keep troops in check, they don't. Our NCO's basically run the UK army (same with the US). Notwithstanding we don't have conscription.

It's probably the first time we've seen the Russian military up close and personal (and under the microscope ) .Initially a shambles but they are sorting themselves out.

I guess there's two ways of looking at this conflict. You can gnash your teeth, express your displeasure at these 'murderers' on a daily basis or drill down to look at the military side of things as ultimately its the latter that will be the deciding factor. Like many I'm probably getting hardened to some of these images, which naturally isn't a good thing. Unfortunately I can't see this coming to an end anytime soon. Its going to be the modern Beirut on a much larger scale.

[thirdcrank]

With a bad language warning, here's a dissident POV from somebody with prominent connections to pro bike racing

Russian oligarch lambasts country's 'massacre'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61163546

[Ben@Forest]

Interesting cartoon from Mitteldeutsche Zeitung. It reads 'Thanks Mr Zelensky. Do you need more fodder for your high horse?”

The horse is depositing his manure on the German eagle, the question is - is the cartoonist reflecting the position of the German people or the German government in saying 'Germany is a victim here'?

[reohn2]

Interesting cartoon from Mitteldeutsche Zeitung. It reads 'Thanks Mr Zelensky. Do you need more fodder for your high horse?”


FQTOd5wXwAEuDIu.jpg


The horse is depositing his manure on the German eagle, the question is - is the cartoonist reflecting the position of the German people or the German government in saying 'Germany is a victim here'?

Looks more like a shy talk to me

[pete75]

It may be influenced by Western narrative but the USSR seems to have been the more hostile side of the two.

I disagree. The most hostile actions by either a Warsaw Pact or Nato nation were by the USA in Vietnam along with their dropping of over 2 million tons of bombs on Cambodia.

[Ben@Forest]

It may be influenced by Western narrative but the USSR seems to have been the more hostile side of the two.

I disagree. The most hostile actions by either a Warsaw Pact or Nato nation were by the USA in Vietnam along with their dropping of over 2 million tons of bombs on Cambodia.

You're (deliberately) conflating NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Vietnam wasn't an action by NATO, just as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan wasn't a Warsaw Pact action.

It is though interesting that in the Wikipedia entry for the Vietnam War the Soviet Union is listed as a belligerent for North Vietnam and all the other WP countries are listed as supporting North Vietnam's military efforts; not that they will have had much choice. On the other side the only NATO nation listed at all is the USA.

[reohn2]

For those who think the Russian military are anything but undisciplined scum of the earth animals as is their leader and as such shouldn't be treated as such.
LOOK at what they've done and are still doing in Ukraine!

[Ben@Forest]

Russia is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, as such it is supposed to teach its soldiers what its provisions are - i.e. what they may or may not do in combat, how to treat civilians etc.

I read recently Russia doesn't bother teaching the GC to its soldiers. I don't know whether it's true - but the actions of their troops (and worryingly their commanders) suggest it is true.

[pete75]

It may be influenced by Western narrative but the USSR seems to have been the more hostile side of the two.

I disagree. The most hostile actions by either a Warsaw Pact or Nato nation were by the USA in Vietnam along with their dropping of over 2 million tons of bombs on Cambodia.

You're (deliberately) conflating NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Vietnam wasn't an action by NATO, just as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan wasn't a Warsaw Pact action.

It is though interesting that in the Wikipedia entry for the Vietnam War the Soviet Union is listed as a belligerent for North Vietnam and all the other WP countries are listed as supporting North Vietnam's military efforts; not that they will have had much choice. On the other side the only NATO nation listed at all is the USA.

I said Warsaw Pact or Nato nation not Warsaw Pact or Nato. The USA is a Nato nation.
Britain supported the USA during that war too, in particular with shipping, kept very quiet though. A former engineering officer I worked with said customs officials confiscated their US awarded Vietnam campaign medals when they arrived at Heathrow. He got the impression that Heathrow officials had been pre-warned to watch for their arrival. They'd been based in San Diego and made several trips carrying jet fuel to Vietnam.
A few years earlier Britain had been engaged in a similar conflict in Malaya. It would be very surprising if the USA and Australia weren't given training or advice based on experience gained there.