O/T:- Ukraine [Incorporating 'Congrats to Russia' thread]

[Old_pie]

I did too and I quite liked his speech. I didn’t find anything in it to disagree with.

Interesting that you thought the audience wasn’t genuinely receptive, given that his popularity ratings are rather high. Then again, I’m sure you probably believe the western media propaganda that Putin is an authoritarian dictator that rules with an iron fist. The fact is that among Russian political circles he’s actually quite a moderate.

How do you seeing it resolving Andy?

How's the band?

[andy6025]

How do you seeing it resolving Andy?

How's the band?

It’s hard to see a way out of this. Russia sees Nato expansionism into Ukraine as existential threat (which I agree with), so they’re not going to back down. They will do whatever it takes to achieve their objectives. And the Russian people will be right peeved if they don’t take Odessa as well.

On the other hand, the Americans don’t at all want to back down either, despite Ukraine not being of any significant geopolitical strategic importance to them. They’ll definitely be up to more nefarious acts (like blowing up the Nordstream pipelines) to escalate this conflict. Fortunately it seems that Europe is almost run out of any significant support they can give Kiev, not only because European economies are quickly going down the toilet, but also because they just don’t have much more hardware they can provide.

We’ll see if Russia’s troop surge works in Ukraine, just as America’s worked in in Iraq. I don’t see Moscow using nuclear weapons - they has a no first use policy. And I think the media tends to misrepresent Putin’s so called nuclear threats. If you read the text of his speech he said that (paraphrasing), ‘those who dream of using nuclear weapons against us, we have such weapons too and it can blow right back at you.’ This was directed at many western and Ukrainian politicians that have threatened the use of nuclear weapons against Russia, including Zalensky who, a few weeks ago, called for NATO to conduct a preemptive strike against Russia - which our media has ignored.

While I’m hesitant to make predictions I think ultimately America will back down as they have far less interest in Ukraine than Russia does. But it is extremely profitable. It’ll be a while before we get there, but eventually all things come to an end.

Edit: I’m with a new band now... just gearing up to do our first gigs shortly.

Edit 2: In contrast to Russia having a ‘no first use’ policy on nuclear weapons, America used to as well, but removed it in April - which also hasn’t been reported much by our media.

[Old_pie]

It’s hard to see a way out of this. Russia sees Nato expansionism into Ukraine as existential threat (which I agree with), so they’re not going to back down. They will do whatever it takes to achieve their objectives. And the Russian people will be right peeved if they don’t take Odessa as well.

How do you reconcile Nato expansionism into Ukraine with the block on countries joining Nato where there is internal conflict? Surely if Nato had really wanted unlimited expansion then they'd welcome Ukraine with open arms and put some serious troops up against the (real) Russian borders after clearing up the junk and low life on the way.

And of course Putin's actions have encouraged the previously neutral Finland and Sweden to apply for membership, a bit of an own goal there wouldn't you say?

I'm quite surprised you are in Canada and not Cuba. Is it too hot there? Or have you sent an invite to Putin to claim territories as Russian?

Edit: I’m with a new band now... just gearing up to do our first gigs shortly.

Any gigs booked for Moscow? Or in the "new Russian territories"?

[magpie_mania]

Reuters:

Russia's official military deployment principles allow for the use of nuclear weapons if they - or other types of weapons of mass destruction - are used against it, or if the Russian state faces an existential threat from conventional weapons.

So, how would they interpret it if Ukraine refuse to recognise the annexation recently, and took any military action? Would that be an existential threat?

[Old_pie]

Reuters:

Russia's official military deployment principles allow for the use of nuclear weapons if they - or other types of weapons of mass destruction - are used against it, or if the Russian state faces an existential threat from conventional weapons.

So, how would they interpret it if Ukraine refuse to recognise the annexation recently, and took any military action? Would that be an existential threat?

Some analysts suggested that was the reason for the annexation. Ukraine tries to re-take/defend its own borders and Putin can get even dirtier.

[andy6025]

How do you reconcile Nato expansionism into Ukraine with the block on countries joining Nato where there is internal conflict? Surely if Nato had really wanted unlimited expansion then they'd welcome Ukraine with open arms and put some serious troops up against the (real) Russian borders after clearing up the junk and low life on the way.

And of course Putin's actions have encouraged the previously neutral Finland and Sweden to apply for membership, a bit of an own goal there wouldn't you say?

I'm quite surprised you are in Canada and not Cuba. Is it too hot there? Or have you sent an invite to Putin to claim territories as Russian?



Any gigs booked for Moscow? Or in the "new Russian territories"?

Ukraine had already become a de facto member of NATO since early in its civil war. It’s forces had been armed by Nato and trained up to Nato standards since 2015. All that was missing was a formal declaration and welcoming party. Ukraine had changed its constitution post the 2013-2014 coup to explicitly join Nato, and at the Nato conference in 2008 it was announced that Ukraine would become members.

Also, Nato dropped the pretence of being a defensive organization since attacking both Serbia in 1999 and Libya in 2011. The latter campaign bombed the country back to slavery.

Much like the Monroe doctrine where America would not allow any challenges to its interests in the entire Western Hemisphere, and as most noticeably put into practice during the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, whereby America trained Cuban dissidents and flew air support for them, as well as the resultant Cuban Missile Crisis standoff, the Russians also take their national security interests on their borders very seriously. The conclusion of those particular incident were arrived at by negotiations between John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev. The latter agreed to withdraw from the planned nuclear missile in Cuba, and Kennedy, in secret, agreed to withdraw America nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey. This did not stop the Americans attempting countless assassination attempts on Fidel Castro, the most famous being that the CIA attempted to rig his cigars with explosives. The assassination attempts came to an end only under the direction of Jimmy Carter.

Through the decades, the Americans and Soviets worked to reduce the threats posed by the possibilities of nuclear war. These treaties worked together for two specific but interrelated purposes: to keep in place a policy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and prevent an arms race from spinning out of control. The concept is this; so long as each ‘side’ does not develop weapons or ‘defensive’ system that can be used as part a nuclear ‘first strike’ that prevents the other from retaliation, then destruction is mutually assured, and each side will be deterred from attempting such a gambit. This meant that time frames from launch strikes to their impact had to remain long enough to allow the other ‘side’ to evaluate and retaliate, as well as that neither side should develop defensive systems that could, in theory or practice, intercept missile. Ie.,neither side could build a ‘missile defence’ system. This led to an important series of treaties that included the INF Treaty, the Start series of treaties, Anti Ballistic Missile Treaties, Open Skies Treaty and more. However, not wanting to be restricted by these treaties (possibly even of the chance to actually win a nuclear war), the United States has unilaterally withdrawn from almost each and every one of them (I only say ‘almost’ because I fail to think of a single one that the US hasn’t withdrawn from, but I may have forgotten one).

To the Russians, just like it did to the Americans in 1960s Cuba, this poses an existential threat. And they have said so many times. As has been observed, the Russians themselves have wanted, since the fall of the Soviet Union, cooperation with the Americans and Europe on European security arrangements. They even asked to be part of NATO on numerous occasions, but have been denied each time. To the Russians, and to this observer, the West has taken a very hostile and aggressive attitude towards Russia and Russian interests for a very long time. The West has also used Ukraine very poorly in the process. Far from being genuinely interested in Ukrainian ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’, or even their simple well-being, they’ve used the Ukrainians as pawns in order advance their own interests in antagonizing Russia for their own perceived group-political purposes.

To answer a few others’ questions:

I don’t move to Russia (or North Korea, or anywhere else) because I have my home, my family, friends, work, and life here. While I do speak a little Ukrainian (half of my family is originally from western Ukraine), and by default that means a little Russian too, I’m nowhere near fluent and am far more comfortable in English. Just like many who don’t move out of England when Labour come to power, or vice-versa, my
choice of location isn’t defined by politics. That said, I have lived in several different countries for stints at a time through my life (including China), as well as travelled extensively (including Russia and Ukraine). I find that for the most part there are good people are corn holes everywhere. There are also people everywhere that take an interest in politics, and those that barely pay attention. I also notice that the quality of main stream media is by and large poor everywhere, but that generally people are somewhat better informed in the east than in the west. Perhaps it’s because western media has developed spin and deception into a science better so than in the east (and that goes for both publicly owned broadcaster or the privately owned (cough) ‘free and independent media’. Or perhaps it’s because our investment in ‘information wars’ are so much higher. Or last, it may be that the cost of a quality education in the west has become so expensive, that those who aren’t from the moneyed classes now tend to spend it on getting trained for vocations rather than on developing critical thinking skills, so fewer and fewer people are ‘calling bull****.’ Take the pipeline bombings as one instance, for example. Are there any mainstream western publications that even mention the possibility that the Americans are the culprits? I can barely find a single line dedicated to the most obvious conclusion.

Some interesting but highly accessible sources for those genuinely interested in the topic:

The late professor Stephen Cohen (Princeton and NYU) on American-Russian relations after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the lead up to the Ukraine crisis:
(He starts speaking at 3 minutes in)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-pUj3Vqptx8&t=1050s

Professor Cohen interviewed by Aaron Maté on the Maidan coup and Trump’s ‘Russiagate’:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bpASSqz1hGc

Former Swiss intelligence officer Jacques Baud, who worked for NATO in Ukraine during the civil war, discusses the civil war and the immediate lead up to the Russian invasion:

https://www.thepostil.com/the-milita...n-the-ukraine/

Chaz Freedman, American former assistant to the secretary of defense and diplomat, interviewed by Aaron Maté on the lead up to war and how the western media has falsely portrayed the war during its first month:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0vxufUeqnuc

RAND report that advises the US to destabilize Russia by providing lethal aid to Ukraine (see p.4). Note for those who don’t know: The RAND Corporation is an American think tank that offers offer research and analysis to the United States Armed Forces. It is financed by the U.S. government and private endowment, corporations, universities and private individuals.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...ND_RB10014.pdf

Edit: we only intend to gig locally. But if a kind benefactor would fund us to take the show to Russia, I would gladly reconsider.