Russia/Ukraine

Antony Beevor is a famous writer and ex British Miltary officer- solid British estbalishment. He started writing about the battle of Stalingrad then battle of Berlin, but what he discovered from that alot of the WW2 on the Eastern Front was a continuation of the very bloody Russian Civil War 1918-21. The communist clearly won that war, but Ukraine was the last stand of the Whites who were anti communist forces formed from a mixture of Tsarists, Ukrainian nationalists, Cossacks,
(and to begin with, Poles, Czechs, British, French, Americans interventionist troops) all according to Beevor. These past events do leave a legacy of mistrust and hatred . In the 1920s Stalin collectivised most farms i.e. nationlised farming in Ukraine which led to famines and created a hatred of Russian communists at the time amongst many Ukrainians, particularly former farm owners

In WW2 many in the Baltic States and Ukraine had in fact fought with the Germans or at least supported them, some saw the Germans as liberators. So among the 20 to 27 million dead, were Soviet citizens fighting for the Germans or often Jewish citizens killed in effective 1940s pogroms, often by the local population, egged on by the Germans (see the prize winning book "Hitler's Willing Executioneers"). Many Germans and their supporters saw the Jewish population as working hand in hand with the communists (not true but this was what believed, possibly pointing to Trotsky (Jewish) and Marx (Jewish) as evidence), There are legacies today of what happened in the period 1918 to 1945 and through Russian and Ukrainian histories before that - on both sides.

The history of Ukraine (modern boundaries) from what I know is different to many of the nations of Eastern Europe. who say were fully independent nations for considerable periods. Poland in fact dominated most of modern day Ukraine for 300 years and was at war with the local population of Cossacks and later Cossacks allied with Russians.

See Hollywood film


Odessa a major port in modern Ukraine and was founded by Catherine the Great of Russia. In 2015 her stature was removed by the Ukrainian Government. Hence I tend to use the word complex to describe the area covered by the modern boundaries of Ukraine. To a British person I would say think of the island of Ireland.

Ref Donbass offering a wealth of minerals - I think its more like South Wales now, its days as a mineral powerhouse have passed, It was famed for its coal and steel, but that peaked many years ago.

There are quite a lot of subjective opinions on this thread. For example statement like NATO is a defensive organisation.... was invading Iraq and Afganistan a defensive move? NATO can be defensive and aggressive - its there primarily to serve the interests of its members. In the two wars mentioned NATO troops went in to non NATO countries to remove a perceived threat.

As said for the last 2 years the way forward to stop the war is to do some negotiating, otherwise I can't see it ever finishing or even worse it starting a bigger conflict.
 
Last edited:
Antony Beevor is a famous writer and ex British Miltary officer- solid British estbalishment. He started writing about the battle of Stalingrad then battle of Berlin, but what he discovered from that alot of the WW2 on the Eastern Front was a continuation of the very bloody Russian Civil War 1918-21. The communist clearly won that war, but Ukraine was the last stand of the Whites who were anti communist forces formed from a mixture of Tsarists, Ukrainian nationalists, Cossacks,
(and to begin with, Poles, Czechs, British, French, Americans interventionist troops).

In WW2 many in the Baltic States and Ukraine had in fact fought with the Germans or at least supported them, some saw the Germans as liberators. So among the 20 to 27 million dead, were Soviet citizens fighting for the Germans or often Jewish citizens killed in effective 1940s pogroms, often by the local population, egged on by the Germans (see the prize winning book "Hitler's Willing Executioneers"). Many Germans and their supporters saw the Jewish population as working hand in hand with the communists (not true but this was what believed, possibly pointing to Trotsky (Jewish) and Marx (Jewish) as evidence), There are legacies today of what happened in the period 1918 to 1945 and through Russian and Ukrainian histories before that - on both sides.

The history of Ukraine (modern boundaries) from what I know is different to many of the nations of Eastern Europe. who say were fully independent nations. Poland in fact dominated most of modern day Ukraine for 300 years and was at war with the local population of Cossacks and later Cossacks allied with Russians. Odessa a major port in modern Ukraine and was founded by Catherine the Great of Russia. In 2015 her stature was removed by the Ukrainian Government. Hence I tend to use the word complex to describe the area covered by the modern boundaries of Ukraine. To a British person I would say think of the island of Ireland.

Ref Donbass offering a wealth of minerals - I think its more like South Wales now, its days as a mineral powerhouse have passed, It was famed for its coal and steel, but that peaked many years ago.

There are quite a lot of subjective opinions on this thread. For example statement like NATO is a defensive organisation.... was invading Iraq and Afganistan a defensive move? NATO can be defensive and aggressive - its there primarily to serve the interests of its members. In the two wars mentioned NATO troops went in to non NATO countries to remove a perceived threat.

As said for the last 2 years the way forward to stop the war is to do some negotiating, otherwise I can see it ever finishing or even worse it starting a bigger conflict.
"As said for the last 2 years the way forward to stop the war is to do some negotiating, otherwise I can see it ever finishing or even worse it starting a bigger conflict"

This exactly.
 
I keep asking myself the question. If NATO is such a terrible organisation why do some many of Russia's neighbours wish to join?

Why is Britain America's poodle? Why do we always do what America wants? Because it is seen as advantageous to ally with the main superpower in the Western hemisphere and foolish to oppose it's wishes. America wants NATO on Russia's border as a way of projecting power and intimidating Russia. It usually gets what it wants in these matters. I also suspect it may have something to do with the coming tussle over oil, gas and mineral rights in the Arctic.
 
Why is Britain America's poodle? Why do we always do what America wants? Because it is seen as advantageous to ally with the main superpower in the Western hemisphere and foolish to oppose it's wishes. America wants NATO on Russia's border as a way of projecting power and intimidating Russia. It usually gets what it wants in these matters. I also suspect it may have something to do with the coming tussle over oil, gas and mineral rights in the Arctic.
That's a fair question, and what got us into Iraq, where we should never have been involved..

I guess it's in part because of the history surrounding the two World Wars. We'd have lost both without the US.

I do wonder if the US is privately keen to support the RF, in the hope of a better future relationship; even a partnership against China, who would like bits of former China back.
 
I keep asking myself the question. If NATO is such a terrible organisation why do some many of Russia's neighbours wish to join?
Finland and Sweden recently joined for the protection of a large organisation. No one is saying NATO is wrong, but NATO will act for the benefit of it members and these actions can be aggressive and/or defensive. The arguments is if you were Russian and Ukraine join NATO how would you feel takin into account your main naval base would be in NATO territory.
 
The coming war over Arctic resources.

 
So is it a fair assumption to say they want to join NATO to shield themselves from Russian aggression?

Sweden has been a neutral country since the early 19th century. It has been neutral throughout two world wars and the cold war. There is nothing special about the current situation that justifies relinquishing its neutral status on the grounds of vulnerability. I think one should look to other causes.
 
Sweden has been a neutral country since the early 19th century. It has been neutral throughout two world wars and the cold war. There is nothing special about the current situation that justifies relinquishing its neutral status on the grounds of vulnerability. I think one should look to other causes.
Sweden has been directly threatened by Russia for decades, but particularly in recent years. Sweden is anything but neutral where Russia is concerned. In this conflict they trained and equipped (and paid the salries of) an entire division of the Ukrainian army (21st) long before the issue of joining NATO arose.
They also had a defensive alliance (with Russia specifically in mind) with its Nordic/Baltic neighbours before Turkey dropped its opposition to Sweden joining NATO.

This is because they had in their possession, Putin's greater expansionist plans.... for which Russia would have had to take Gotland in order to secure access in and out of the Eastern Baltic.

The General leading the Kursk offesive was born in Donetsk but has been given Swedish citizenship and is now a Swedish Army General, though attached to the Ukraine and EUEDF.
 
Last edited:
Sweden has been a neutral country since the early 19th century. It has been neutral throughout two world wars and the cold war. There is nothing special about the current situation that justifies relinquishing its neutral status on the grounds of vulnerability. I think one should look to other causes.
Other causes such as?
 
So is it a fair assumption to say they want to join NATO to shield themselves from Russian aggression?
As said its chicken and egg. The Ukraine Government said in 2013 it wanted to join the EU and NATO, before the current conflict began. In Russia joining the EU is also seen as extension of joining NATO.

The other issue as said is where are the geographic boundaries of Ukraine. For example is Crimea part of Ukraine. The current Ukrainian government says Crimea is part of Ukraine, but the local population don't consider themselves Ukrainian (in the main).

Putin of course is exploiting the situation to amplify his own power base within Russia and push Russian influence that was lost in the 1990s using military might when politics fails to work. He also sees himself as protector of Ethnic Russians and also wants to have full control of the Russian Naval base in Sevastopol (Crimea). He is wrongly demonising all Ukrainian Nationalists as right wing fascists based on historical legacies of the past when they joined invading Western Powers trying to overthrown Russian Communist Governments in Moscow.
 
The other issue as said is where are the geographic boundaries of Ukraine. For example is Crimea part of Ukraine. The current Ukrainian government says Crimea is part of Ukraine, but the local population don't consider themselves Ukrainian (in the main).

The geographic boundaries of Ukraine are complex, like much of Europe - ethnicities, linguistic groups and nationalities straddle borders. The “Russkiy Mir” promoted by the Kremlin is also more complex and diverse than simply Russians and Russian speakers.

Crimea voted to be part of Ukraine and Ukraine’s borders were internationally ratified and recognised through treaties that Russia also agreed to.

Like many unfortunate groups during the horrific years of Stalin, the Crimean Tatars were entirely deported as potential traitors and only allowed to return after many years of death and hardship, so you could argue that the peninsula is neither ethnically Russian or Ukrainian, despite the mass immigration of Russians since they pinched it. It’s true it was ‘gifted’ to the Ukrainian SSR from the Russian SSR by Khrushchev, but it was only Russian in the first place through conquest… much like all those Western territorial acquisitions if we’re looking at both sides.

Modern Russia under Putin is a revanchist imperial state in the death throes of European empires, the West is far from perfect but I’m happy we can all freely state our opinions without fear of arrest and all that would entail if some of us lived in Russia…
 
Are those slagging NATO off (including the UK) but kinda justifying Russia’s actions in the process traitors??

No, we’re allowed to voice concerns about the people and organisations that wish to rule, control and influence us.
 
There are quite a lot of subjective opinions on this thread. For example statement like NATO is a defensive organisation.... was invading Iraq and Afganistan a defensive move? NATO can be defensive and aggressive - its there primarily to serve the interests of its members. In the two wars mentioned NATO troops went in to non NATO countries to remove a perceived threat.
Just to correct the record - the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were not carried out by NATO.

Some countries that are members of NATO took part in those invasions, but that's not the same thing.
 
Just to correct the record - the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were not carried out by NATO.

Some countries that are members of NATO took part in those invasions, but that's not the same thing.
I was about to post the same, almost word for word.
 
No, we’re allowed to voice concerns about the people and organisations that wish to rule, control and influence us.
What evidence is there that NATO wish to rule, control or 'influence' us?

For the record NATO have never unilaterally attacked another country, and NATO forces have been deployed almost exclusively to protect lives not take them.
 
Back
Top