The Invasion of Ukraine

[EACLucifer]

That fails at the first step of trying to convince us that a low-effort, entitled, lazy slug like Boris Johnson, who only wanted to be in the top job rather than actually do the job, would seek to provoke war when the UK economy is already f.cked by Brexit and Covid. Not remotely credible Russian propaganda.

Seeing as the source is Ukrainska Pravda, your last sentence should presumably read "Not remotely credible Ukrainian propaganda."

Here's the article (from May) https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/ Their quote is accurate.

So how much was circumstances (Bucha,etc) and how much was Johnson's pressure?

Johnson hadn't the power to do a thing in either direction. Not by April. Not after Bucha, not after Borodianka and Irpin and Mariupol, not with Melitopol and Berdyansk and Kherson occupied.

[Herainestold]

Well then I apologise. I didn't follow the link as the idea that Boris might do anything so energetic as to provoke a war is laughable. I do note that the piece is not putting any kind of Ukrainian view though. It's more "If only the left were in power in Britain, not you Labour, the left left, we could have negotiated a peace deal end everything would be much better".

There is a certain amount of truth to that.

A peace deal would necessarily be difficult and unpalatable, there would have to be compromises. But it would save a lot of lives on both sides.

[Martin Y]

The original article doesn't say Boris told Zelensky to stonewall negotiations. It says Boris told him the West's previous view that Zelensky should simply surrender and flee was not their view now. These are not the same thing.

[EACLucifer]

Well then I apologise. I didn't follow the link as the idea that Boris might do anything so energetic as to provoke a war is laughable. I do note that the piece is not putting any kind of Ukrainian view though. It's more "If only the left were in power in Britain, not you Labour, the left left, we could have negotiated a peace deal end everything would be much better".

There is a certain amount of truth to that.

A peace deal would necessarily be difficult and unpalatable, there would have to be compromises. But it would save a lot of lives on both sides.

No it wouldn't. It wouldn't save lives. It would cost lives. It would cost the lives of those Ukrainians who were left to be raped and tortured and murdered and persecuted for wearing blue and yellow, or singing Oi U Luzi.

And it would cost lives in Taiwan, and in other places in Europe and the rest of the world as imperialist aggressions become accepted again.

Russia is losing this war. They cannot win it. I appreciate you are deeply stupid and cowardly to the core, and so selfish you think your paranoid fears are more important than Ukrainian lives, and for this I regard you as a species of vermin, but the rest of us need to remember that Russia. Is. Losing. Ukrainian forces are still advaning into Luhansk oblast, advancing in northern Kherson. Ukrainian forces are getting stronger as Russian ones are getting weaker.

[EACLucifer]

The original article doesn't say Boris told Zelensky to stonewall negotiations. It says Boris told him the West's previous view that Zelensky should simply surrender and flee was not their view now. These are not the same thing.

Yep. Novara Media lying and misrepresenting things isn't new. It's a thing they do on days that end with a y.

[Bird on a Fire]

Well then I apologise. I didn't follow the link as the idea that Boris might do anything so energetic as to provoke a war is laughable. I do note that the piece is not putting any kind of Ukrainian view though. It's more "If only the left were in power in Britain, not you Labour, the left left, we could have negotiated a peace deal end everything would be much better".

There is a certain amount of truth to that.

A peace deal would necessarily be difficult and unpalatable, there would have to be compromises. But it would save a lot of lives on both sides.

I doubt that, to be honest. Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine was always going to defend itself. The choice for the West was to help or not.

It seems that Johnson's message was "we'll help" rather than "back down now". Corbyn might have done differently, but the rest of Europe and the US would still have aided Ukraine, so the UK would just be out of sync with its allies and look like apologists for illegal unjustifiable behaviour.

Johnson may have been lazy, but he seemed keen to publicise his support for Ukraine. I suspect what calculations he did suggested that the problem was far away, and he needed the popularity boost domestically.

[Martin Y]

There is a certain amount of truth to that.

There is a familiar amount of fantasizing to that. With a spoonful of regret that the UK public have "not yet" realised these muppets should be in charge. It's like the Judean People's Front planning how the world ought to be run, or any other bunch of c.nts who manage to talk like they're reading from a pamphlet.

[Martin Y]

... Johnson may have been lazy, but he seemed keen to publicise his support for Ukraine. I suspect what calculations he did suggested that the problem was far away, and he needed the popularity boost domestically.

There we agree.

[Bird on a Fire]

The original article doesn't say Boris told Zelensky to stonewall negotiations. It says Boris told him the West's previous view that Zelensky should simply surrender and flee was not their view now. These are not the same thing.

It says:

Johnson’s position was that the collective West, which back in February had suggested Zelenskyy should surrender and flee, now felt that Putin was not really as powerful as they had previously imagined, and that here was a chance to "press him."

Three days after Johnson left for Britain, Putin went public and said talks with Ukraine "had turned into a dead end".

Maybe Novara Media went a bit far describing that as "pressuring". Ukraine might already have wanted to break off the talks and were grateful for Johnson's support in doing so.

But we all seem in agreement that (1) the West didn't want Ukraine to back down, and (2) Ukraine shouldn't have backed down.

The Novara piece seems more about the endgame: does Ukraine need to fight to retake every inch of lost territory, or is a compromise possible? I'm not sure I agree with their weighting of the risks vs benefits of doing so, but it's a reasonable question to ask.

[Herainestold]

It depends upon how you see the endgame. Russia isn't going to win in any sense of the word, but they may not lose either. We keep hearing about Russian military collapse , and it has happened in some sectors. It isn't happening in a more general sense. Russia still occupies about 20% of Ukraine,
and has the resources to hold on to them, but a very high cost. A high cost for both sides.

The best result would be regime change in Russia, the corrupt kleptocratic Putinist state replaced by some sort of post Soviet Russian socialist entity, but that seems impossible. Its more likely to be a hard right militarist regime bent on conquest. They are unlikely to take Ukraine, but they could make life pretty miserable for Ukraine and other countries in the region.

[Martin Y]

Well, the West didn't want Ukraine to give in. What the West though Ukraine could bargain for is less clear. I believe they offered concessions such as dropping any attempt to join NATO for example.

[jimbob]

Well then I apologise. I didn't follow the link as the idea that Boris might do anything so energetic as to provoke a war is laughable. I do note that the piece is not putting any kind of Ukrainian view though. It's more "If only the left were in power in Britain, not you Labour, the left left, we could have negotiated a peace deal end everything would be much better".

There is a certain amount of truth to that.

A peace deal would necessarily be difficult and unpalatable, there would have to be compromises. But it would save a lot of lives on both sides.

The last sentence is wrong. It would save a lot of Russian lives. It would kill more Ukrainians.

How would peace have stopped Russian atrocities in their occupied territories?

Zelensky offered lots of concessions before the invasion.

[Martin Y]

... Its more likely to be a hard right militarist regime bent on conquest.

Whatever replaces Putin is indeed likely to be hard right and militarist and corrupt and gangsterish as all hell. But it will be many years before they have the means to credibly threaten anyone, especially now people have a demonstration of the idea that a smaller country can defend itself against a bully if other countries are willing to arm it.

[EACLucifer]

Well then I apologise. I didn't follow the link as the idea that Boris might do anything so energetic as to provoke a war is laughable. I do note that the piece is not putting any kind of Ukrainian view though. It's more "If only the left were in power in Britain, not you Labour, the left left, we could have negotiated a peace deal end everything would be much better".

There is a certain amount of truth to that.

A peace deal would necessarily be difficult and unpalatable, there would have to be compromises. But it would save a lot of lives on both sides.

I doubt that, to be honest. Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine was always going to defend itself. The choice for the West was to help or not.

It seems that Johnson's message was "we'll help" rather than "back down now". Corbyn might have done differently, but the rest of Europe and the US would still have aided Ukraine, so the UK would just be out of sync with its allies and look like apologists for illegal unjustifiable behaviour.

Johnson may have been lazy, but he seemed keen to publicise his support for Ukraine. I suspect what calculations he did suggested that the problem was far away, and he needed the popularity boost domestically.

This is on the money.

[EACLucifer]

The original article doesn't say Boris told Zelensky to stonewall negotiations. It says Boris told him the West's previous view that Zelensky should simply surrender and flee was not their view now. These are not the same thing.

It says:

Johnson’s position was that the collective West, which back in February had suggested Zelenskyy should surrender and flee, now felt that Putin was not really as powerful as they had previously imagined, and that here was a chance to "press him."

Three days after Johnson left for Britain, Putin went public and said talks with Ukraine "had turned into a dead end".

Maybe Novara Media went a bit far describing that as "pressuring".

They are pretty ridiculous to suggest there's meaningful causation at all. But then, Bastani

[bjn]

Rumblings from Lukashenko about Belarus joining the party....

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/be ... 022-10-10/

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said on Monday he had ordered troops to deploy with Russian forces near Ukraine in response to what he said was a clear threat to Belarus from Kyiv and its backers in the West.

Also reports of large movement of Russian troops into Belarus...

https://twitter.com/officejjsmart/statu ... 5202781184

Could be about to kick off again in the North of Ukraine.

[EACLucifer]

Rumblings from Lukashenko about Belarus joining the party....

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/be ... 022-10-10/

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said on Monday he had ordered troops to deploy with Russian forces near Ukraine in response to what he said was a clear threat to Belarus from Kyiv and its backers in the West.

Also reports of large movement of Russian troops into Belarus...

https://twitter.com/officejjsmart/statu ... 5202781184

Could be about to kick off again in the North of Ukraine.

I mentioned this on the other thread. Could be a demonstration, to try and pull troops away from the frontline without actually committing.

One thing that needs to be made very clear, though. If Belarus invades Ukraine, there should be no restrictions on the use of western weapons to strike Belarusian territory, in accordance, of course, with the laws of armed conflict, nor would Ukrainian forces going into Belarus lead to any drop in western support. In fact, Lukashenko should be told directly that additional equipment would be provided for that purpose.

And the various Belarusian exiles fighting for Ukraine, such as the Kastous Kalinouski regiment, should be enabled to go home and link up with anti-Lukashenko Belarusians. Offer Lukashenko the chance to retire alive, but make it clear that option will be removed from him if his troops enter Ukraine.

[jimbob]

Rumblings from Lukashenko about Belarus joining the party....

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/be ... 022-10-10/

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said on Monday he had ordered troops to deploy with Russian forces near Ukraine in response to what he said was a clear threat to Belarus from Kyiv and its backers in the West.

Also reports of large movement of Russian troops into Belarus...

https://twitter.com/officejjsmart/statu ... 5202781184

Could be about to kick off again in the North of Ukraine.

I think that would be quite risky for Lukashenko. There is a lot of dissent that nearly became a full-on revolution after the last fraudulent elections. He probably needs his military to quash that. His main sponsor is looking far weaker, and why would Lukashenko chose now to come in on the losing side rather than in March when it looked more in the balance?

[TopBadger]

...why would Lukashenko chose now to come in on the losing side rather than in March when it looked more in the balance?

He might "come in" due to thinking that either:

a) they could win it (or at least drag things closer back to a stalemate so Russia stops losing so badly) and therefore be super popular with Putin whilst some peace deal is brokered.
Or
b) that when Russia loses Ukraine will turn it's attention north and start to support (politically and otherwise) his pro-independence opponents such that his puppet government is toppled and Russia loses Belarus as an ally whereas Ukraine gains an ally (which will cause less sleepless night in Kyiv).

In short - he might believe that Russia's loss will in turn become his loss and that not getting involved has the higher % of his head being on a Belarussian or Russian spike.

[EACLucifer]

...why would Lukashenko chose now to come in on the losing side rather than in March when it looked more in the balance?

He might "come in" due to thinking that either:

a) they could win it (or at least drag things closer back to a stalemate so Russia stops losing so badly) and therefore be super popular with Putin whilst some peace deal is brokered.
Or
b) that when Russia loses Ukraine will turn it's attention north and start to support (politically and otherwise) his pro-independence opponents such that his puppet government is toppled and Russia loses Belarus as an ally whereas Ukraine gains an ally (which will cause less sleepless night in Kyiv).

In short - he might believe that Russia's loss will in turn become his loss and that not getting involved has the higher % of his head being on a Belarussian or Russian spike.

It could be fear that if Putin loses, he goes too, as you say.

It could also be Putin has something on him that we weren't aware of previously. I'd be surprised, because if so, we'd have expected Belarus to have been dragged in earlier, but perhaps Putin's desperate enough to try something like "do it, or someone will cover your beloved potatoes with novichok"

[jaap]

A commentator on tv made the point that even though Russia's missile attacks are being touted as a reaction to the bridge explosion, it could not have been organised so quickly. The list of civilian targets must have been planned and prepared much earlier, so it was ready and waiting for whatever setback was deemed serious enough to trigger it.

[Herainestold]

Does Belarus have nukes?

[EACLucifer]

A commentator on tv made the point that even though Russia's missile attacks are being touted as a reaction to the bridge explosion, it could not have been organised so quickly. The list of civilian targets must have been planned and prepared much earlier, so it was ready and waiting for whatever setback was deemed serious enough to trigger it.

Or just planned anyway. The movement of Tu-160 "Blackjack" bombers to launch many of the missiles was quite recent, but still before the blast on the Kerch Straits Bridge.*

It's partly been done for domestic consumption. I haven't seen the bastards this happy in a while.

*The movement triggered an "OMG, they've gone to a base that has NUKES! response, as if they hadn't also moved away from one where nukes are stored.

[Millennie Al]

Does Belarus have nukes?

No. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... _republics

[Gfamily]

Does Belarus have nukes?

No. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... _republics

Interesting note from that article

On 28 February 2022, Belarus held a constitutional referendum, in which it dropped its "Non-nuclear" status, in light of Belarusian involvement in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine