Russia has invaded Ukraine

[jfman]

Your second paragraph outlines entirely why it’s a fools errand. Their capabilities are defined by people with no interest in their success or survival. If anything the next White House could be worse - the best outcome is the status quo.

The policy is flawed because Ukraine cannot win, will not return to 2022 borders and not recapture Crimea. Conscripting Ukrainian men in this full knowledge, essentially being lied to by their own Government that has censored all opposition, is the objectionable part.

In World War 2 everyone had the same goal.

Originally Posted by jfman

In World War 2 everyone had the same goal.

To win ?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Paul

To win ?

Yes. With a clear, obvious, defeat for the Nazis.

Not everyone resourcing Ukraine has the exact same goal.

Originally Posted by jfman

Yes. With a clear, obvious, defeat for the Nazis.

Not everyone resourcing Ukraine has the exact same goal.

… which doesn’t affect the point I was making, with regards to conscription and suspension of elections in Ukraine, which you have floated as acts delegitimising Ukraine’s effort at national survival. The comparison with the UK in WW2 is entirely valid and instructive.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

… which doesn’t affect the point I was making, with regards to conscription and suspension of elections in Ukraine, which you have floated as acts delegitimising Ukraine’s effort at national survival. The comparison with the UK in WW2 is entirely valid and instructive.

Did we ban sections of the press, intimidate journalists, ban opposition parties and trade unions?

Link to journalist intimidation from that well known Putin mouthpiece “the Guardian”:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-intimidate-us

My view is Zelensky has gone much further, even setting aside 20th century principles being applied in a 21st century war. He’s banned parties that added up to over 2 million votes at the last parliamentary election. Banning trade unions silences the voices of largely working class men who will be sacrificed in this escapade given the levels of corruption that will ensure the political class, their sons and their brothers dodge the draft.

In World War 2 the Chamberlain government collapsed. I doubt there’s any mechanism by which Ukrainian opposition to Zelensky (within his own party or the opposition that haven’t been banned) to do the same. Other than the previous mentioned bullet, of course.

Originally Posted by Chris

The facts are accurate. The inference is not. In WW1 we didn’t conscript until 1916, after the initial swell of volunteers pretty much stopped. There were demonstrations against it but enough men accepted it as necessary, if undesirable, for the policy to work.

We conscripted from the outbreak of WW2 but extended it to unmarried women and all men up to 60 in 1941 because ancillary services (civil defence, police, women’s army auxiliary) were getting too few volunteers.

The British armed forces have never wanted to go back to conscription because it always causes training and discipline issues you don’t get in a willing, professional volunteer army. There is no reason to suppose human nature is very much different in Ukraine today.

So, yes, jfman’s words are factually correct. But like a sort of Farage of the Far Left, he is very good at leaving inferences hanging in the air (which he might later deny he made if they prove objectionable). And the inference here is that people being conscripted against their will is evidence that the war does not have popular support, and that the Ukrainian ‘regime’ is unpopular, avoiding democratic accountability and possibly illegitimate.

As others have noted, we faced our own existential struggle between 1939 and 1945. In that time, as well as conscripting people into various forms of national service far more broadly than Ukraine has done, Parliament passed Acts on 2 occasions extending its own life beyond the norm (The Prolongation of Parliament Acts, 1940 and 1942). There is nothing happening in Ukraine that is out of the ordinary for a democratic state facing an existential threat. Unless of course you’ve been captured by that part of Russia’s information operations that has led you to think otherwise. Note, they don’t need you to think Russia is in the right. They just need you to think Ukraine might be in the wrong for your voice to contribute to their wider aim of making support for Ukraine in democratic western states harder to sustain.

Originally Posted by jfman

Did we ban sections of the press, intimidate journalists, ban opposition parties and trade unions?

Link to journalist intimidation from that well known Putin mouthpiece “the Guardian”:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-intimidate-us

My view is Zelensky has gone much further, even setting aside 20th century principles being applied in a 21st century war. He’s banned parties that added up to over 2 million votes at the last parliamentary election. Banning trade unions silences the voices of largely working class men who will be sacrificed in this escapade given the levels of corruption that will ensure the political class, their sons and their brothers dodge the draft.

In World War 2 the Chamberlain government collapsed. I doubt there’s any mechanism by which Ukrainian opposition to Zelensky (within his own party or the opposition that haven’t been banned) to do the same. Other than the previous mentioned bullet, of course.

Intimidation of the press in Ukraine

Two high-profile cases of harassment have involved other titles. In January, journalists at the investigative site Bihus.info found 30 SBU officers had placed hidden cameras in hotel rooms to covertly record journalists at a New Year party. Some reporters had discussed buying drugs and were taking cannabis and MDMA; the footage was released in a smear video, prompting an outcry that eventually led to the sacking of an SBU chief.

Earlier this month, Yevhen Shulhat, an investigative journalist from Slidstvo.info, who was investigating the purchase of a luxury flat by the wife of an SBU cybersecurity chief, was served with enlistment papers while he was shopping at a supermarket one evening.

Intimidation of the press in Russia…

https://rsf.org/en/country/russia

In recent years, in addition to heavy sentences, even torture, used mainly in the regions, the frequent use of fines and short-term detention under various pretexts have been added to the methods employed to intimidate journalists. The media are also under threat of arbitrary inclusion on the list of “foreign agents”, a status that comes with heavy bureaucratic hurdles and legal risks, and the list of “undesirable organisations”, which criminalises any mention of – or cooperation with – the targeted media. Faced with additional risks incurred since the start of the war in Ukraine, many journalists working for independent media outlets have chosen exile. The authorities maintain pressure by “visiting” family members or by convicting them in absentia.

Detained as of today in 2024
36 journalists
6 media workers

https://rsf.org/en/region/europe-central-asia

The Russian state (162nd) has pursued its crusade against independent journalism, while more than 1,500 journalists have fled abroad since the invasion of Ukraine. Russia’s two-place rise in the 2024 World Press Freedom Index, due to other countries falling, obscures a fall in its global score as the list of journalists and media branded as “foreign agents” or “undesirable” has lengthened and journalists continue to be jailed arbitrarily. The two rivals for the region’s lowest ranking are Belarus (167th), whose government persecutes journalists on the pretext of combatting “extremism”, and Turkmenistan (175th), whose president has unlimited power and bans all independent reporting.

Countries that have suffered significant falls include Georgia (103rd), which has fallen 26 places. Its ruling party continues to polarise society, cultivates a rapprochement with Moscow and conducts a policy that is increasingly hostile to press freedom. Azerbaijan (164th) has also seen all of its indicators fall, especially its political indicator, after cracking down on the media before its presidential election.

One of the Index’s surprises is the 18-place jump by Ukraine (61st) due to improvements in both its security indicator – fewer journalists killed – and its political one. Although the rule of law has not been enforced over the entire country since the Russian invasion, which has prevented the Ukrainian authorities from guaranteeing press freedom in the occupied territories, political interference in free Ukraine has fallen. This kind of pressure is limited by the fact that the media denounce it.

And the British Government used D Notices frequently during WW2…

[jfman]

It would strike me as an extremely low bar if your definition of an acceptable level of freedom of the press under the Zelensky regime was to be roughly similar to, or slightly better than, a country you’d all roundly condemn.

On paper at least the D notice system seems significantly different from the press intimidation reported in the Guardian article I linked to above - where conscription and intimidation by the intelligence community is cited as a method of silencing legitimate journalism. If the UK did that in World War 2 that’d be worthy of condemnation not a defence of Ukraine’s actions.

Comparing practices a century ago to now is once again questionable since technology allows greater availability of international news, satellites and even social media footage allows for greater tracking of troop movements and other resources in a way that simply wasn’t possible for the average person (and also the enemy) in the 1940s. The argument for censorship for security reasons has never been weaker - although I accept it exists the accusation against Ukraine from journalists was this went beyond that in any case.

"Roughly similar to, or slightly better"?

<snigger>

61st vs 162nd out of 180 countries…

Oh, no - you’re definitely not "pro-Russian", are you?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

"Roughly similar to, or slightly better"?

<snigger>

61st vs 162nd out of 180 countries…

Oh, no - you’re definitely not "pro-Russian", are you?

It’s you that made the comparison between the two as if it was some kind of success story, not me.

[Pierre]

I think a way of looking at this is, and this is pure opinion/observation on my part is this.


There is a lack of fighting age men volunteering, regardless of supposed support in that demographic.

Russia has failed to make any meaningful advances in two years.

The line has been held and has been static for some time.

If it was the U.K. for example, and France invaded the IoW a decade ago, where many residents considered themselves French anyway…and nothing was done.

Then France invaded the New Forest and the South Downs, but it was clear they didn’t have the capacity to advance further, and we didn’t have the capacity to push them back.

Would I want to see my son sacrificed for that, would my wife want her husband and children martyred for that? Would Scotland send their sons down for that?

The current situation is not an existential threat to Ukraine, a negotiated peace is still there to be won. Putin will be dead in a decade or so.

It’s not appeasement.

Originally Posted by Pierre

The current situation is not an existential threat to Ukraine, a negotiated peace is still there to be won. Putin will be dead in a decade or so.

I am not sure you can trust them. Russia will rearm and try again. They don't think of Ukraine as a legitimate state. They also know that any agreement with the West would be tested.

In 5 or so years they'll develop a pretext to move further in and the discussions in the West will be the same as they are now. Do we want to risk Russia using nuclear weapons? Why did we 'provoke' Russia by offering to protect Ukraine? Ukraine has already given up some land for peace in 2024, what's the harm in offering a little bit more?

I think in the near term we might enter a frozen conflict though.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

I am not sure you can trust them. Russia will rearm and try again. They don't think of Ukraine as a legitimate state. They also know that any agreement with the West would be tested.

In 5 or so years they'll develop a pretext to move further in and the discussions in the West will be the same as they are now. Do we want to risk Russia using nuclear weapons? Why did we 'provoke' Russia by offering to protect Ukraine? Ukraine has already given up some land for peace in 2024, what's the harm in offering a little bit more?

I think in the near term we might enter a frozen conflict though.

Well, it’s going nowhere.

Russia can’t advance and Ukraine is going nowhere. There will be no push back and to think they can reclaim pre-2014 borders looks fantasy.


In any event, if it’s a long game to be played, Russia will prevail.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

I am not sure you can trust them. Russia will rearm and try again. They don't think of Ukraine as a legitimate state. They also know that any agreement with the West would be tested.

In 5 or so years they'll develop a pretext to move further in and the discussions in the West will be the same as they are now. Do we want to risk Russia using nuclear weapons? Why did we 'provoke' Russia by offering to protect Ukraine? Ukraine has already given up some land for peace in 2024, what's the harm in offering a little bit more?

I think in the near term we might enter a frozen conflict though.

Nuclear weapons are no more likely in a future conflict than they are now. Only today we see US assets and cluster bombs falling on the civilian population of Russia in Crimea. If that’s not a pretext for using nuclear weapons I don’t know what is. The difference between this and America doing it themselves could be split by a cigarette paper. America have invaded two countries on the same basis as a consequence of Saudi funded terrorist operations by Al-Qaeda.

In 5 years or so Ukraine could develop and train a volunteer army. NATO countries could (and should) identify assets that could quickly be transferred, with training of Ukrainians so that this is good to go from day 1. Not F-16s when anyone can be bothered, and not something that can easily be bogged down in a Congressional deadlock.

If Ukrainians are paying in blood for a proxy war this is the least they deserve.

Originally Posted by Pierre

In any event, if it’s a long game to be played, Russia will prevail.

I’m curious to hear your evidential basis for this. I ask because it’s frequently offered as a truism. I’m not sure actual history backs this up.