Germany is not struggling with the absence of Merkel Frenchie - but rather with the legacy of Stalingrad. At that time Russia was faced with a combined Axis army from Germany, Romania, Italy, Croatia, Hungary and Finland - they lost 20 million dead (12 million of those civilians) - that is the ghost haunting Germany, not Merkel. This is why Russia sees the value of being surrounded by buffer states and why German weapons should never again be used.
I might have over simplified matters for the sake of avoiding a too long screed, but the impression given to those outside of the country was that until the last years Merkal was a unifying politician who could bring different viewpoints to a conclusion that most would go along with, if not like. Since her departure it looks as though the new government wants to be more involved and see the demise of Putin, yet is struggling just how far to go. They have tanks I am told, (I know nothing about military hardware) that have been idle for years, and could with six weeks work be made serviceable and useful for the Ukrainian forces. I read that they will do it, then they won't, and now they are thinking about it. Would this indecision have been going on with Merkal? She certainly was prepared to go out on a limb for policies she believed in such as taking in refugees. That is what I meant when I stated the country was struggling to formulate a policy without her.
Putin has certainly been emboldened by the fact that there is a dirth of real statesmen in the World at the moment Frenchie. The Whitehouse is in the hands of an idiot, Westminster in the hands of a clown and Berlin in the hands of someone feeling his way. Scholz is a very measured politician who calculates everything from all sides and his way of presenting himself is also very measured - not flamboyant and only says what is necessary - very Hanseatic in this respect, which you would expect coming from an old Hamburg family. Merkel - having got off to a very bad start with Putin due to his dog, came to have a good relationship to him in the end and would have been a good mediator at the current time - she also speaks fluent Russian and he speaks fluent German. However, Germany would always have had a problem responding to this due to its history and due to the fact that it runs against every aspect of the constitution to supply arms to a conflict area. What has been astonishing here is the dramatic U turn of the Green Party here - something which I as a party member am disgusted with. When people say they want the killing to stop and respond by ploughing deadly weapons into the picture then something is seriously wrong with their reasoning. Putin has said that the war is over as soon as the Russian speaking Dombass is under their control - the idea that this is simply a beginning to establishing a new Russian empire is only a western interpretation on this. So who is prolonging the bloodshed ? Is it Zelenskiy who would rather sacrifice lives than concede Russian speaking areas to Russia and sign an agreement of neutrality ? Is it the West through prolonging this whole thing with deadly weapons and inflationary rhetoric ? Or is it Putin himself ? The fact is that this will only come to an end when the Russian and Ukrainian populations within the Ukraine are partitioned from each other and the West is preventing exactly that from happening.
We'll put it this way - whilst I was aware of how the closing part of my last text could come over I have come to a conclusion. I no longer believe in happy endings ! The happiest ending would be if the Russians realize their mistake and withdraw peacefully - they then accept NATO on their doorstep forever and dismantle their nuclear arsenal - Putin is deposed and replaced by a friendly neighbourly Russian who embraces the West as friends. The Ukraine would then declare neutrality and also give self government to the areas where ethnic Russians are the majority - either that or they would all hug and kiss each other as friends. The Ukraine would then develop into a democratic friendly country without an enemy in the World. The problem is that none of this is going to happen ! The problem started in 2014, not last month. It began with an illegal and unconstitutional coup in Kiev, this toppling a democratically elected president and subsequently dumping their constitution. They even dismissed the constitutional court. This being all supported by the USA even though the latter knew that the success of this coup was dependent upon the active involvement of a Neo Nazi organization. In the absence of any constitutional authority only direct democracy could fill the gap - hence in the Crimea the parliament there took the only step available and asked the people what they wanted - they voted to join Russia and asked for help against the probable reaction in Kiev - needless to say Russia readily responded. Those ethnic Russians not living in the Crimea ie. 17% of the population - and forming a majority in urban areas of the Dombass, faced a more uncertain future. A future which has seen their language banned from all official use, and has seen them banned from all political representation. Whatever the Dombass really wants will never be known because the government in Kiev bans all referendums in those areas. In addition the ukrainian government sends its armed forces (spearheaded by its Fascist divisions) to 'restore' law and order. This leads to an 8 year war which appears to have slipped under the radar as far as the Western press is concerned - also including the deaths of 14,000 citizens and the shelling of cities. For 8 years the separatist governments of the Dombass have asked for Moscow to recognize their independence yet only now has Moscow responded. But all this is history - as far as the Western press is concerned it only blew up a couple of months ago ! Can the ethnic Russians and the Ukrainians live as neighbours after this is over ? If the answer to that is no then we need to be looking for other solutions which bypass the staged rhetoric of Zelenskiy. This is not to say that I want the bullies to win - as has been insinuated.
Again that is one version of what happened.. I think this is more balanced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea And this may be an even more balanced version Yorkie. Was it an inspiring liberal revolution of a far right coup ? Understanding that is central to our understanding of what followed.
I should add that I don't necessarily believe everything in the article I put up, but the same is true of Wiki. in fact I don't believe much which comes out of the ukraine or Russia. We'll just say that the whole thing of Euromaidan is shrouded in mystery just like the Ukraine itself. What I can say is that the list of far right wing groups in the Ukraine is endless and that their over representation in the army is remarkable. The Right sector. the Social-National Assembly / Patriot of Ukraine, the OUN, the White Hammer, UNA-UNSO, Bratstvo and the C-14 affiliated with Svoboda had their own paramilitary formations and various degree of control over special police and army units such as the Azov Regiment and Dnipro, Donbas, Aidar and the St. Mary's battalions all central to the war in Donbass. The place is such a mess that I would hesitate to send weapons there - end of story. All we are doing is prolonging the killing and contributing to a powder keg situation to follow.
Actually for once I agree Fez But Russia has always been that way. They were screwed by the Czars, screwed by the so called Communist Party, screwed by the Oligarks and are now being screwed by Putin. The only half socialist who ever ruled Russia was Gorbachov. I have no reason to take Russia's side on anything because they destroyed Communism (it was never meant for them anyway - if you doubt that read up on what Marx said about the Russians, and the reason why Lenin revised his works for public consumption - not that many Russians read him anyway). Russia is, of course, ruled by propaganda but that isn't the point here because it isn't getting through to us. What is getting through to us is that all the information we know about the ukraine now comes through a Zelenskiy smokescreen and can only be taken with a pinch of salt. To an extent this is predictable because the Ukraine has had to build a propaganda machine in order to increase Western support - it has to emphasize the Russians as being brutal, the ukrainians as brave, and has to emphasize its own successes and the incompetences of the Russian army. It also has to partially rewrite aspects of its history as being more deserving of our support. All this is to be expected. But it means we can only trust about 5% of the information flow coming out of the place. Do we have enough evidence to arm this country to the teeth ?
...and I guess some of these groups have developed as a reaction to Russian influence..... You will find such groups all over central Europe.. doesn't justify invasion IMO I think you might be in danger of polarizing yourself in the good/bad stereotyping...... I agree re Gorbachev and Russia....sadly Russia is now run by a criminal mafia.......there is good and bad in every country.. one reason why I am not an ardent nationalist.... but what is needed is an end to war and oppression..... asap
The question I would ask is what would have happened if the west had not armed Ukraine? Whatever the propaganda the practical effect of staying away would have been that Russia could have taken control of the country, and imposed a despot regime. If Putin had seen no resistance from western countries he would have believed that he could extend his expansion elsewhere, and goodness knows where he would go next. No wonder that Finland wanted to join NATO. The Ukraine has decided it wishes to be aligned with the west, which is not surprising when you see the difference in living standards of the population. There is no place in the modern world for rogue leaders to use their military might to impose their will on other countries.
Is there any real evidence that Putin wants to extend his expansion elsewhere Frenchie, other than in the minds of some Western leaders ? The difference in the Ukraine is that the country is host to 8.3 million ethnic Russians. Just to add to that Russia has been very clear about its aims here ie. a neutral Ukraine and the separation of the ethnically Russian Dombass region. You say that the Ukraine has decided to move to be aligned to the West against Russia - it hasn't, only the Western Ukraine has decided this over the heads of the Russian population there !
No polarizing here Yorkie so don't try to cast me in some kind of category. I have said elsewhere that I have no doubt that Putin is the villain of the piece, but I am also certain that Zelenskiy is not the hero. There is a very long history behind what is happening now and it would be good if some in the West took time to study it before jumping in with guns blazing. The West also thought that Osama bin Ladin was a hero at one time, and Saddam Hussein - as well as totally misreading what was happening in Yugoslavia. But one question for you - are you still in the Green Party, and how is the reaction of the English Greens to weapon exports to Ukraine ? I ask this out of interest, not as a point scoring exercise.
Ukraine has been invaded, we need to arm them enough. I miss Gorbachev. Shame the russians tried to run before they had learned to crawl out of their soviet skin.
If the 8.3 million Russians were so unhappy living in the Ukraine, they could have been welcomed home without resorting to war. Did Putin try repatriation schemes? Did he actually want them back, or are they a good excuse for invasion? Does he want to expand further? Well this is what Evelyn Farkas a former Russian defence secretary had to say. It’s clear now that Putin’s endgame is nothing short of a revanchist imperialist remaking of the globe to take control of the entire former Soviet space. He has complete disregard for international law, norms and human rights and will only be stopped by maximum economic, political and military pressure. Russia is nothing less than a rogue state on par with North Korea and Iran. Or from statements that Putin has made. Belarus has been de facto annexed. In Ukraine, Putin wants the elected government removed, a puppet restored, the dismemberment of Ukrainian history and identity. Adding Moldova, with little territorial defense of its own, would not take long. In his pretext speech and declaration of war, Putin described Finland and maybe Sweden as part of his domain, and he discussed the Baltic states and Poland, which are NATO members, as “results of the Second World War” that belong to Moscow.
The 8.3 million Russians living in the Ukraine are already 'at home' Frenchie - they are ethnic Russians who have always lived in the Ukraine. There are actually some who have been repatriated to Russia because about 800,000 have become refugees there as a result of the Dombass War - stilll their home is in the Ukraine. Evelyn Farkas is not Russian - she is American and served as American national scurity advisor under Obama. As for the last bit it falls apart in the middle because there was no ''declaration of war'' - how could there have been if you're not allowed to refer to it as a war in Russia ?
Are words cologne. You stated that Ukraine was playing host to the Russians. That would imply they were guests, not part of the country. Still waiting for visas like many in the UK? You are right that there has not been a declaration of war. Does a "special operation" sound better although it has turned out to be the same thing?
