Russia Attacks Ukraine

[Diogenes]

For the first time since 1939 a major European power, Russia, has attacked another country in Europe, Ukraine. We have not seen an analogous situation since Germany attacked Poland setting off World War 2. Surprisingly we have Neville Chamberlain like appeasement/isolationist responses from Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson. Besides the 180 turn from traditional Republican politics, to what extent are these events relevant to Christianity?

[AgnosticBoy]

It's actually sickening, millions and millions of people are now going to suffer all because a bunch of nutjobs insisted on expanding NATO.

Why would you take Russia's side and not want Ukraine and other INDEPENDENT nations to be able to maintain their independence by a voluntary alliance with others fearing Russia?

Is it that black-and-white? While some may be quick to label Sherlock pro-Russian, but I'd rather ask him if that's what he is. Furthermore, just because someone supports individual policies of Russia doesn't mean that they'll accept everything Russia has to offer or has done. Just because someone is critical of American/Western policy doesn't necessarily make them anti-American. When we are quick to label someone, then we overlook that distinction (also refer to my signature).

While you may not see a problem with NATO expansion because it calls itself as "defensive alliance", but its weapons are still a threat. And let's face it, they are certainly not on Russia's side. SO I think Russia has good reason to be concerned that there's a strong military alliance that has the potential to expand right up to their borders. My difference with Sherlock is that I believe Russia should've handled this without force since Ukraine did not pose such a threat (perhaps, not yet).

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's actually sickening, millions and millions of people are now going to suffer all because a bunch of nutjobs insisted on expanding NATO.

Why would you take Russia's side and not want Ukraine and other INDEPENDENT nations to be able to maintain their independence by a voluntary alliance with others fearing Russia?

Is it that black-and-white? While some may be quick to label Sherlock pro-Russian, but I'd rather ask him if that's what he is. Furthermore, just because someone supports individual policies of Russia doesn't mean that they'll accept everything Russia has to offer or has done. Just because someone is critical of American/Western policy doesn't necessarily make them anti-American. When we are quick to label someone, then we overlook that distinction (also refer to my signature).

While you may not see a problem with NATO expansion because it calls itself as "defensive alliance", but its weapons are still a threat. And let's face it, they are certainly not on Russia's side. SO I think Russia has good reason to be concerned that there's a strong military alliance that has the potential to expand right up to their borders. My difference with Sherlock is that I believe Russia should've handled this without force since Ukraine did not pose such a threat (perhaps, not yet).

By and large I agree, it is easy for some people to fall for the "which side are you on" view of world affairs, I learned many years ago that this is not the best way to look at these kinds of situations.

I'm pro-peace and in a world filled with liars being pro-peace means trying as hard as we can to also be pro-truth, strive for honesty and hold all parties accountable, judge all parties by the exact same standards.

This is hard work though, it means we must seek information for ourselves, avoid relying on biased sources as best we can, check what the press say against other sources, recognize and accept that the press blatantly lie and engage in censorship by omission.

It's not "anti American" to challenge the geopolitical policies of the US any more than it would have been "anti German" for a German to challenge German rearmament in the 1930s!

Much of what I've said is easily checked, sure I might be inaccurate here and there, got dates wrong here and there but by and large I am confident that what I've said is a much more realistic summary than what either the Russian or Western press and TV are saying.

The West has an easily checked track record of destructive military intervention far beyond either Russia or China, some will deny this then when shown the lengthy lists of targets will accept it but then argue that it was somehow justified, done with good intentions and so on.

If we look at every Western escapade through the spectacles of "this was justified" and "he was a dictator" and "there was a growing threat" and so on, then you'll always go along with it and many do, that is the hard part of this, to wean oneself off the media and TV and reach out further to dissenters, smaller news sources, alternative sources, specialists authors, dissenting historians and so on, its hard work and these source can't be assumed to be perfect, reliable, unbiased but there's a lot of truth out there that is just so far off Joe Public's radar.

That the TV and press are biased has been scientifically established, tons of evidence, Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent is basically a treatise on this subject, backed up with tons of data.

Take victims for example, the Western press is spending a lot of time and column inches and pictures on the plight of Ukrainian victims, refugees, bombing victims and so on. I do not object to covering the plight of victims, I do object to the selectivity that's shown by the press though. When NATO bombed Serbia in 1999 there were hundreds of victims, limbs blown off, homes destroyed, power stations obliterated, maternity hospitals bombed and so on. The plight of the victims was never given much coverage, certainly at most a tiny fraction of what we see with Ukraine, no flag waving, no public ourage.

The coverage was dominated by the endless "press conferences" about "precision bombing" and the "degrading of Milosevic's assets" and the occasional "Serb atrocity" and so on, every day, over and over, framing everything for us, telling us all how to "really" look at it all, the same was done with Iraq.

I find it very upsetting when I think of the huge numbers of victims of Western militarism that were simply ignored, their plight never put on the front page or the evening news, sad, forgotten, worthless lives.

I mentioned the NATO bombing of a TV station in Belgrade - akin to the recent Ukraine one - and how it was described during a press conference as necessary because it was generating "propaganda", well do you know what that "propaganda" was? it was daily coverage of victims in Belgrade and elsewhere, it was all the news and reports revealing NATO lies that the Western press did not cover. They tried hard, a small local TV station staffed with young people who loved their country, trying to get the word out, get some sympathy, how nice it would have been to see people waving Serbian flags everywhere back then, but sadly no, in their case the onslaught continued day and night for 78 days (Ukraine has been under attack for 7 days) and the victims to all intents and purposes simply did not exist, nobody really cared.

[Purple Knight]

So given that NATO has grown over the past thirty years by including these fifteen additional states and installing military bases and weapons controlled mostly by Washington, inching closer and closer to the Russian border, why is "Russia restoring the USSR" even remotely regarded as unreasonable?

It's not unreasonable. Russia has the right to feel reasonably safe and doesn't have to allow hostile bases and weapons to close in around it. Simultaneously, the Ukraine, like any People, has the right to self-determination. It's my understanding that they're significantly different from Russians on a couple of points. If NATO pushed them, even a little, into allowing the bases, they're just caught in the middle and that's sad.

It's as you said though. It's NATO's job to resolve these things peacefully. Instead, they antagonise Russia.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's a good report, broad information and includes an interview with an American Ukrainian, Matt Duss.



Probably best to fast forward to about 11:30

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's more hypocrisy - cluster weapons.

All over the news "Russia is using cluster munitions", well read this from 1999:

Both the U.S. and Britain have acknowledged using cluster bombs in Yugoslavia already. U.S. F-15E and F-16 aircraft have dropped CBU-87 cluster bombs, and British Harrier GR7s began dropping RBL755 cluster bombs on April 6. The CBU-87 and RBL755 weapons have been used against airfields, communications and early-warning sites, vehicle concentrations on roads, Yugoslav Army command posts, troop compounds and concentrations, artillery, and armor units. There have been reports of cluster bombs being used at Batanica airbase near Belgrade and Podgorica airfield in Montenegro, as well as in the following areas in Kosovo: an "agricultural school" on the outskirts of Pristina, near Belacevac, Djakovica, Doganovic, Lukare, Mt. Cicavica (northwest of Pristina), Mt. Pastrik (near Prizren), and Stari Trg (near Kosovska Mitrovica).

Though probably no more than a few hundred air-delivered cluster bombs have been used to date in Yugoslavia, there reportedly already have been civilian casualties. A NATO airstrike on the airfield in Nis last week went off target, hitting a hospital complex and adjoining civilian areas. In an earlier incident on April 24, five boys were reported to have been killed and two injured when what was evidently a cluster bomb submunition exploded near the village of Doganovic, fifteen kilometers from Urosevac in southern Kosovo. The munition was described as having a yellow-colored jacket, identical to that of the CBU-87 or RBL755 bomblets.

and

A particular problem for the civilian population, particularly children, was the very design of the submunitions. "Toy-size bombs designed to kill tanks and soldiers [also] appear as white lawn darts, green baseballs, orange-striped soda cans," one report from Kuwait reported almost a year after the war ended. These attractively arrayed and intriguing unexploded submunitions "proved deadly to children."[43][43] Kuwaiti doctors stated that some 60 percent of the victims of unexploded ordnance injuries were children aged fifteen and under.[44][44]

The "lawn darts" referred to are Vietnam-era Rockeye submunitions that were used in huge numbers in 1991. The baseball-like remnants are from older CBU-52/58/71 cluster bombs and the ground artillery- and rocket-delivered bomblets. The orange-striped "soda cans" are the distinct remnants of the BLU-97 bomblets from the CBU-87 and the British BL755.

The distinct shapes and colors of cluster bomb submunitions have posed particular hazards in Iraq and Kuwait, but even so, these live submunitions have been far less detectable than large unexploded bombs, particularly as they were covered by shifting sand or pools of water. In addition, with anti-handling fuses on some submunitions, and a deterioration of inexpensive electronic components caused by the passage of time and widely fluctuating temperatures, there came to exist "perhaps the most dangerous pieces of ordnance in our arsenal, from a dud-fired standpoint...They can only be blown in place or neutralized remotely."[45][45]

See and also.

[Purple Knight]

Here's a good report, broad information and includes an interview with an American Ukrainian, Matt Duss.

"What do you want, Ukraine, how can the West help?"

"A no-fly zone."

"Yeah.... no. That might escalate things with Russia."

If I hear any more empty moral posturing I may have apoplexy and die.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think Zelenskiy is beginning to lose confidence in NATO and the West, perhaps he'll now have the good sense to capitulate.

Zelenskiy says Nato has given "green light for further bombing of Ukraine" by ruling out no-fly zone
Volodymyr Zelenskiy has critisized Nato for refusing to implement a no-fly zone over Ukraine, saying the decision has given "the green light for further bombing of Ukrainian towns and villages".

"All the people who die from this day forward will also die because of you, because of your weakness, because of your lack of unity," the Ukrainian president said in an emotional nighttime address.

and

Zelenskiy said Nato countries have created a narrative that a no-fly zone would provoke Russias aggression against Nato. "This is the self-hypnosis of those who are weak, insecure inside, despite the fact they possess weapons many times stronger than we have," he said.

This is most interesting, it is beginning to suggest to me that Zelenskiy may have been eager to antagonize Russia on the assumption that this would provide a helpful pretext for NATO to get involved, he may be quite hawkish. Had he truly cared about preserving human life and civic normality then he'd have showed more willingness to compromise with Russia, who's demands - in all fairness - were not much to ask, could it really be that he thought NATO would come running in like the cavalry in a John Wayne movie?

He is the leader of Ukraine, he could have acted to avoid the assault weeks ago, he could have acted to stop the assault, all week, he has not.

This now suggests - to me - that the Russians saw this hope in Zelenskiy, that is understood what he might have been attempting, yet knowing full well NATO would never attack Russia, they played along safe in the belief that Zelenskiy will crumble under the pressure and NATO simply sit and watch, which is all they can at this point, do.

NATO leadership is likely very aware that Russia will leverage their large (10x larger than NATO's) tactical nuclear resources should they be attacked by NATO at this point.

It's also pretty obvious that Russia is showing the West that this is how it will be going forward, Russia is prepared to lose thousands of men (the West is terrified of losing men), Russia is prepared to endure sanctions, Russia is prepared to use its tactical nuclear arsenal, Russia does not care one iota about the mass propaganda, does not care about public opinion Russia will do just as much militarily if not more, than the West have been doing for decades in Yugoslavia, the middle East, and the Far East.

It's over, Ukraine (or rather its leadership) have gambled and perhaps lost their country, their own political future and destroyed untold thousands of lives.

The West has pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed and now (it was bound to happen eventually) they've been stopped, dead in their tracks, there's nothing really that NATO can do, the EU should be utterly ashamed of itself that not a single NATO member had the level headedness to say "Stop! We are of the opinion that Russia's expectations in comparison to our expansionist aspirations, are such that we should accept their concerns. We should be willing to reach an accommodation and agree, that states bordering Russia not become NATO members".

NATO are stuck, anyone can see that they are powerless, they have created a situation that has now put them on the back foot, Russia has attacked Ukraine BEFORE it became a NATO member because it would have been much more difficult AFTER they became a NATO member.

The principle of NATO "you attack one of us you attack us all" does have a reverse, "If NATO attacks use we'll attack NATO, so which member want's to be counter attacked first?".

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's a good report, broad information and includes an interview with an American Ukrainian, Matt Duss.

"What do you want, Ukraine, how can the West help?"

"A no-fly zone."

"Yeah.... no. That might escalate things with Russia."

If I hear any more empty moral posturing I may have apoplexy and die.

I don't like that the Ukranian president is inflaming the situation by making threats of his own against Russia, and then the West are encouraging him, knowing good and well that Zelenskyy doesn't stand a chance without actual NATO boots on the ground. Of course, NATO will not send any manpower there. What are they thinking this accomplishes? Making him feel good about taking a beating from Russia?

I'll be damned if I fight in a war where I know I can't win, and the West is encouraging you to fight knowing good and well that you won't win.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's a good report, broad information and includes an interview with an American Ukrainian, Matt Duss.

"What do you want, Ukraine, how can the West help?"

"A no-fly zone."

"Yeah.... no. That might escalate things with Russia."

If I hear any more empty moral posturing I may have apoplexy and die.

I don't like that the Ukranian president is inflaming the situation by making threats of his own against Russia, and then the West are encouraging him, knowing good and well that Zelenskyy doesn't stand a chance without actual NATO boots on the ground. Of course, NATO will not send any manpower there. What are they thinking this accomplishes? Making him feel good about taking a beating from Russia?

I'll be damned if I fight in a war where I know I can't win, and the West is encouraging you to fight knowing good and well that you won't win.

I agree, its incredible really, Zelenskiy is inflaming Russia, and he must be intimately aware of this, siding with NATO so openly and blatantly. I was asking myself the same question "What are they thinking this accomplishes?" but a few hours ago, reading that Zelenskiy really seems to have expected NATO to "move in" kind of explains it, he gambled, he thought that of he let the situation get to the stage where Russia attacked him, NATO would call a general meeting, they'd have a pretext and so on, he must have really believed NATO would (with sufficient 'provocation') commit themselves.

Nah, ain't gonna happen, NATO are - IMHO - stuck, dead in the water, watching from the sidelines, Putin is demonstrating very clearly "You mess with me, man, am I gonna mess with you" he doesn't care, he's old school warrior mentality.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Its interesting to read what James Baker said to Gorbachev in 1991 in a meeting, this is an excerpt from the National Security Archives as found on the George Washington University website: (emphasis mine)

And the last point. NATO is the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe. If NATO is liquidated, there will be no such mechanism in Europe. We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATOs present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.

We believe that consultations and discussions within the framework of the "two + four" mechanism should guarantee that Germanys unification will not lead to NATOs military organization spreading to the east.

From here, with more here. (scroll down the page to see the list of released documents).

It's pretty clear if you spend some time studying these, that Russia was in favor of NATO remaining and providing the security for a unified Germany (over a unified Germany that would secure its own defense, something Russia had good reason to oppose) on the understanding that NATO would not seek to expand Eastwards, yet look:

There is the clear matter here of a huge breach of trust, without understanding this, the Russian attack on Ukraine is easy to misjudge, yes, its a crime, yes it should stop, but also we - the West - have contributed to this, in no uncertain terms.

Fuel prices are rising here now and I just got told my occasional water deliveries are rising in cost for that reason. I expect more impacts soon to as a result of the Russia sanctions, this will impact people here, perhaps not as much as EU but who can tell?

We need wisdom right now, clear and honest headed decision making, the war could have been avoided yet we threw that away with our stubborn "we can do what we like" attitude, its time to concede, stop the war, review and respect Russia's security concerns, recognize that states bordering Russia must not be militarized by the West, NATO should have no presence there, honor what was said 30 years ago, work to regain the trust of Russia.

Instead we see increasing tension, Zelenskiy begging to expand the scale of the problem, inviting foreign countries to militarily engage Russia, every time he speaks this way Russia will become more determined to destroy him, I suspect he is as much the fool as the clown he has been frequently referred to as these past few years.

The press and media continue to portray Zelenskiy as some kind of honorable hero, resisting the invaders, in truth he is a direct cause of what has happened, every time he opens his mouth he is making matters worse, calling for meetings with Putin one minute and begging NATO to fight Russia the next, the press should start calling this out, there are dissenting voices in the press but they do not represent the main propaganda coming from all mainstream news.