Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,149 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 4 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So do I. But supposing Russia did attack Sweden, what could Britain do? Fight a war with Russia on its own? In fact if Britain could do anything then there’d be no need for Sweden to join NATO. Like I said, it’s meaningless posturing, typical of Borys.
I wish I had your optimism that this is not pushing us toward a nuclear holocaust, but it looks like it is.
Putin’s decision not to call the invasion a war actually helps Russian troops to oppose participation, according to this article of Russian army resistance to the war
The result that Putin originally envisioned is clearly not where he is now. Ukrainian has not been a walkover and rather than intimidating Sweden, Finland, NATO, et al, it has made the the Scandinavians more western facing and NATO more bullish.
To make an comparison Stalin under estimated Finland and this influenced Hitler to attack the USSR. I hope the U.S. and the Europeans don’t make the same assumptions.
I think the rest of the world knows that Boorish and his mates are effectively the Tory Party 3rd 11, after the failure of Cameron et al, May et al, left the Tory party in the hands of the back woodsmen and small business faction of UK capitalism.
Another demonstration by Ukrainian families for the rescue of the besieged soldiers.
“…Relatives and supporters of the Ukrainian fighters holed up in the Azovstal steel plant demonstrated in Kyiv on Thursday, pleading for them to be rescued.
Many of the civilians holed up at the plant have been evacuated but no deal has been reached with Moscow on allowing out hundreds of fighters, some of whom are wounded.
Demonstrators, mostly women, marched through central Kyiv, holding banners and chanting, “Save defenders of Mariupol, save Azovstal,” “Glory to the heroes of Mariupol,” and, “Save the military of Azovstal.”Maria Zimareva, whose relative is among the Azov battalion fighters, said tearfully:
“I want all the defenders who are there to return home so that they can continue a normal life with their children and relatives.”
“People holed up in the steelworks were dying of wounds that could normally be treated,” said Tetiana Pogorlova:
“Nobody attempts to save them. There is nothing we can do except for gathering at such demonstrations and making demands on our authorities.”
Mariupol resident Alina Nesterenko was also at the demonstration in the capital:
“The conditions they are in are horrible. I have no words to describe them. That’s why we are here. We are begging, we are pleading in every possible way, we are asking for our loved ones to be saved.”
I stand to be corrected but the Russians offered surrender terms and permit their evacuation to these forces which was rejected by the Ukrainian government who prefer martyrs.
Ukraine starts the war crime trials
A small soldier is going to pay for the crimes committed by the generals and governments of both sides
Revealing passage in the obituary in yesterday’s Times of Leonid Kravchuk, a former member of the Soviet nomenkltura who was the first president of independent Ukraine from 1991-94, who died on 10 May:
“Relations with Russia remained tense after the end of Soviet Russia. Yeltsin had warned him against pursuing too close a relaionship with the West, saying:’Ukraine has been, is and will remain within the system of strategic naional interests of Russia’”
This shows the stupidity of regsrding the current Russian invasion of Ukraine as due to the character of the particular head of the Russian government at the present time. It is clear that whoever is in charge of the Russian State will regard Ukraine as falling “within the system of stategic national interests of Russia.”
They can hang Putin (if they can catch him) but that won’t make any difference to any ruler of Russia regarding Ukraine as essential to its strategic interest as a capitalist state. It’s not a question of personalities, but structral. If they were Russian politicians Boris woild be Putin and Truss would be Lavrov.
Under the new treaty, the UK will have to go to war with Russia if the latter attacks Finland, even if Finland does not join NATO.
What’s the crack anyway with Finland and Sweden joining NATO? It isn’t as if govts act simply because the population is nervous. Is NATO really planning something against Russia? Otherwise, why?
“Ben Wallace has said Britain would “definitely come to the aid militarily” of Finland and Sweden if such a scenario became necessary.
The Defence Secretary, speaking with The Washington Post, said the UK’s position in the Joint Expeditionary Force (which also includes Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway) meant it would “reassure” countries like Sweden and Finland that it would be “inconceivable” not to help them if attacked.“But
“The entire British Army today has the people, equipment and stocks to defend only half the Donbas region” (General Sir Richard Barrons, letter in the Times today).
This could be Borys’s chance to play Churchill again since the last time Britain sent an “expeditionary force” to Russia was in 1919 when Churchill was Minister of War:
“North Russian Expeditionary Force, Dvina River, actions against Bolsheviks
They called it “Churchill’s War,” “The Great Russian Gamble,” and “Whitehall’s Folly.” More than 600 British and Commonwealth soldiers were killed and wounded …” (see 1954 article here: https://naval-history.net/WW1z05NorthRussia.htm)Are you seriously saying they are considering putting dupes on the ground in Russian or Ukrainian territory? What Expeditionary Force outside of NATO’s borders are they planning?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.