Ukraine

[Dave2002]

This of course might be fake news - not so easy to check - though plausible: https://qz.com/2166086/the-ukraine-w...sis-in-russia/

I was amused by this:

Renault’s Moscow plant, for instance, will be kept open by the government, which has nationalized it and plans to use it to manufacture the Moskvitch, a boxy, Soviet-era car.

Progess.

[Frances_iom]

File on 4 tonight (31st May) attempted to look at the role of 'useful idiots' in allowing disinformation to survive and be promulgated - in this case by a couple of academics - reminds me somewhat of the constant Nazi refrain re parts of the Ukrainian forces

[Constantbee]

This of course might be fake news - not so easy to check - though plausible: https://qz.com/2166086/the-ukraine-w...sis-in-russia/

I was amused by this:


Progess.

I'm inclined to agree with you, Dave. Sounds a bit too much like what the East Germans used to call 'Ostalgie', though (nostalgia for things from the former DDR). Great if they could get it right, though Remember all those old Soviet era Zenith B SLR cameras, and the wonderful optical equipment from Jena? Petrol, I suspect, is in more plentiful supply in the Russian Federation than it is here, so not for the likes of us, then

Oh I dunno ... paraphrasing an article that impressed me about the demographic consequences of the war: 'Depressing as it may seem Ukraine could still win this war but lose the end game of strategic competition against Russia ... the war will undoubtably kill many Ukrainians, leading to thousands or millions more fleeing the country to escape conscription. Ukraine may have to increase conscription, by integrating women more fully into the armed forces, for example, as in Israel, (or dare I say it rely more heavily on foreign volunteer forces). Its financial resources will need to be channelled into a growing defence budget, at the same time as trying to achieve economic development which could lead to a migration deficit and dwindling numbers of people of fighting age willing to fight'. I can’t see how joining the EU would alleviate any of this. Perhaps someone here can enlighten me. Stalemate

[french frank]

I can’t see how joining the EU would alleviate any of this. Perhaps someone here can enlighten me.

Or not quickly enough, anyway. However, in theory https://www.brusselstimes.com/210059...defence-clause

As for Renault to Moskvitch, so also McDonald's to an as yet unnamed brand (logo stylised two chips and a burger) opening shortly. And a new version of the internet (the'Splinternet').

[ardcarp]

I haven't read all the above posts. However I thought I'd mention that I had not realised before that Ukraine was once a nuclear state, i.e. a country with a nuclear deterrent. Their nuclear arsenal was negotiated away (apparently) by some nuclear non-proliferation treaty signed by (inter alia) the USA and the USSR, the latter being a more benign country under the leadership of another Boris.... Yeltsin, in the early 1990's. (The Budapest Memorandum?)

There was a very informative programme on Radio 4 this morning, Ukraine's Nuclear Gamble: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00187wz

At one point someone said that Russia would definitely not have invaded Ukraine if it were still a nuclear power. It seems MAD still has some rationale behind it, much as I detest nuclear weapons.

[Serial_Apologist]

I haven't read all the above posts. However I thought I'd mention that I had not realised before that Ukraine was once a nuclear state, i.e. a country with a nuclear deterrent. Their nuclear arsenal was negotiated away (apparently) by some nuclear non-proliferation treaty signed by (inter alia) the USA and the USSR, the latter being a more benign country under the leadership of another Boris.... Yeltsin, in the early 1990's. (The Budapest Memorandum?)

There was a very informative programme on Radio 4 this morning, Ukraine's Nuclear Gamble: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00187wz

At one point someone said that Russia would definitely not have invaded Ukraine if it were still a nuclear power. It seems MAD still has some rationale behind it, much as I detest nuclear weapons.

Surely Russia has long regarded Ukraine a part of itself, its nuclear arsenal as belonging to itself. As part of the USSR it would have had no need to invade since it was already there!

[french frank]

Surely Russia has long regarded Ukraine a part of itself, its nuclear arsenal as belonging to itself. As part of the USSR it would have had no need to invade since it was already there!

That is surely the entire basis of its argument: Ukraine is historically a part of Russia. There is no separate 'Ukarinian people': they are all one people: Russians. The 'Ukrainists' are a neo-Nazi faction which persecutes Russian-speaking people (to the point of genocide). The identical argument which Ukraine has for fighting the Russian separatists in Donbas, Russia uses for fighting the Ukrainist separatists (controlled by neo-Nazis).

Ukraine has a huge nuclear industry, but no nuclear weapons. I daresay, like Finland and Sweden, they have no wish to have nuclear weapons targeting Russia in spite of wanting the protection of Nato membership. Russia argues that it doesn't want Nato nuclear weapons on its borders - even though that it isn't a necessary condition of joining Nato.

[Joseph K]

At one point someone said that Russia would definitely not have invaded Ukraine if it were still a nuclear power. It seems MAD still has some rationale behind it, much as I detest nuclear weapons.

And yet it was Saddam Hussein's purported possession of WMD that actually led to the US/UK invasion of Iraq.

[ardcarp]

So did the R4 programme I mentioned in #1025 get it all wrong....or did I ? I think I'm out of my depth.

[RichardB]

And yet it was Saddam Hussein's purported possession of WMD that actually led to the US/UK invasion of Iraq.

That was the story at the time, but surely people like Colin Powell didn't actually believe the self-justificatory nonsense they were spouting - they knew there were no WMDs in Iraq but that there certainly was a lot of oil. On the other hand I wouldn't say there is exactly a "rationale" behind the MAD doctrine. Yes it has probably discouraged nuclear strikes, but a far better and safer way of doing that would be for there to be no nuclear weapons at all, which could easily be achieved if there were any will to do so on the part of the governments concerned.

[Dave2002]

That was the story at the time, but surely people like Colin Powell didn't actually believe the self-justificatory nonsense they were spouting - they knew there were no WMDs in Iraq but that there certainly was a lot of oil. On the other hand I wouldn't say there is exactly a "rationale" behind the MAD doctrine. Yes it has probably discouraged nuclear strikes, but a far better and safer way of doing that would be for there to be no nuclear weapons at all, which could easily be achieved if there were any will to do so on the part of the governments concerned.

It's not just about "will", but also about "trust", which recent events have shown to be both lacking and unjustified - depending on your point of view.

It's not just about no nuclear weapons, but also about no weapons at all - or at the very least far fewer than some combatants are currently showing they have or had.

Re WMDs - probably nowadays we might call that a red flag situation - the "dodgy dossier" was dodgy even before the UK committed itself, and some of us knew that.

[Gabriel Jackson]

So did the R4 programme I mentioned in #1025 get it all wrong....or did I ? I think I'm out of my depth.

By 1994, when the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was signed, the USSR no longer existed. The three original signatories of the memorandum were the USA, the UK and Russia.

[Dave2002]

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06...ne-russia-newsLive update - EU leaders go to Kyiv, while Russia mocks them as frog eaters etc.

[french frank]

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06...ne-russia-newsLive update - EU leaders go to Kyiv, while Russia mocks them as frog eaters etc.

Looks like subscription only, but Medvedev, the Putin president puppet of some years back, tweets:

"European fans of frogs, liverwurst and spaghetti love visiting Kiev. With zero use. Promised EU membership and old howitzers to Ukraine, lushed up on gorilka and went home by train, like 100 years ago. All is well. Yet, it won’t bring Ukraine closer to peace. The clock’s ticking."

[Dave2002]

Looks like subscription only, but Medvedev, the Putin president puppet of some years back, tweets:

"European fans of frogs, liverwurst and spaghetti love visiting Kiev. With zero use. Promised EU membership and old howitzers to Ukraine, lushed up on gorilka and went home by train, like 100 years ago. All is well. Yet, it won’t bring Ukraine closer to peace. The clock’s ticking."

Indeed you may have to get at least a trial subscription to see that page.

There may be other similar sources - I have several including Washington Post and a few others - not sure if they've reported exactly the same things here, but probably have - they often use a common source.

Not so sure about Medvedev. As you write a "puppet", but he may be more moderate than his erstwhile boss - and maybe sitting on the fence waiting for things to change. The tweet - perhaps in Russian - seems suitably ambiguous.