Russia Attacks Western Ukraine
Refugees, Covid-19, and destroyed cities—are peace talks stalling the inevitable?
The Ukraine conflict has been ousted from the front pages in the UK by the unethical actions of P&O Ferries, that hosted a mass firing via a Zoom message to 800 workers yesterday. However, there appears to be a Russian link too, and this is the kind of action we see from disreputable companies, and not ones that hope to remain in business. DP World owns P&O Ferries, but also is linked the the RDIF (Russian Direct Investment Fund since sanctioned) where an article on the joint venture appeared to have been removed online recently. They may have chosen to hire cheaper staff to save money, but there is little point when customers choose to go elsewhere, for many will not use the company and anyone that does will be vilified for doing so. The only people who benefit are the agency who make at least 50% on the fees they charge, and the company will get substandard staff (because good ones will move on) and poor service means customers will not return.
There are many humanitarian concerns over the Ukraine conflict, and people are focusing on those because they can do something about those issues, unlike disapproving of NATO that goes over their heads. However, my concern is that commentators are looking at resolving the humanitarian issues by pursuing/pushing for a ceasefire for selfish reasons rather than looking at the underlying cause—that being Ukraine as a country needs to be protected from Russian attacks. Do these refugees, who one day wish to return to Ukraine want to go back to a country that is not free and that is partly occupied by Russia, and who will always be under threat of more attacks?
From what I can see, countries that are sticking their noses in regarding the negotiations for a ceasefire seem to be keen for Ukraine to give up part of their sovereignty to stop the Russians attacking and killing people. That is a partial surrender, but isn’t this also selfish for countries that are taking in refugees and sending humanitarian aid and arms would rather not spend that money if they had the choice? If these countries pushing for a ceasefire were actually committed and part of the war, then they have a say but they are half in, and half out when it suits them.
Should Ukraine be forced to give up part of their land to Russia (in order to appease other nations to achieve a ceasefire), then isn’t NATO and the other international countries to blame for allowing Ukraine to fall into the clutches of the Russians? History will record Zelenskyy asking for the skies to be protected every day, and his pleas were ignored because other countries didn’t want to get involved, and because NATO were suddenly faced with actually carrying out what they were supposed to do and it was like stage fright—they didn’t know how to respond and repeated a few statements that sounded good and that was that!
Some media outlets appear to be making out that Zelenskyy has an obligation to the world to accept a ceasefire quickly to halt the humanitarian crisis, but does Zelenskyy owe the world when they haven’t exactly come running to his aid, but are happy to dish out lots of back slapping and standing ovations? However, by giving up part of your sovereignty to an entity who has bullied you into the action, and through pressure from ‘allies’ is all wrong. The question is, why should Ukraine give up their rights to a a bully and dictator who will continue to bully them unless they are stopped once and for all? You give them a bit, and they will come back for more. Zelenskyy is answerable only to the people of Ukraine, and that is his only obligation.
The media appear to have interpreted Zelenskyy’s comments on NATO as him giving up on NATO membership (thus he would concede to never joining a military alliance), but in fact what he is saying is that NATO membership doesn’t appear to be of much use in times of conflict with too much discussion and no action. His proposal of U-24 (United for Peace), a task force to respond to countries in a time of a crisis asserts his desire for Ukraine to be part of a military alliance—but one that is less politically governed, and focused on problem solving. It is not that Ukraine doesn’t wish to join NATO, but NATO doesn’t seem to be welcoming the country and opening the doors…
As I said to a friend, if you have a snake in front of you that is playing with you and that you know is waiting to strike and kill you, do you wait until they have bitten and poisoned you before you defend yourself, or cut off their head before they can attack you?
These are some of the issues that have arisen so far from this crisis:
The huge refugee crisis means that other countries will feel the social and economic impact, and as some countries are poor ones, they will struggle as their infrastructure is not equipped to handle a sudden increase in population.
There are issues of people smuggling, especially trafficking children or women. These slip through the net during a crisis. The same goes for Russian spies, and criminals who can bypass some checks.
The language barrier and culture change might be an issue for refugees to communicate and to resettle.
Covid-19 is still prevalent and with masses huddled together and moving, those with Covid-19 could spread the virus across the borders. In such situations it is hard to quarantine and test people, and can lead to outbreaks. The Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin tested positive during his visit to Washington D.C., so, the virus is still very much a concern. Some refugees may have contracted the virus while being displaced, and have no home to go to in order to rest and recuperate. They are the lucky ones who have escaped with their lives. I write this and feel helpless, that the West seem more concerned about protocols (that they could work around) than finding a solution to prevent people being attacked, killed, and being forced to flee the country to a foreign one.
Families are separated and for some, the cities and towns they lived and grew up in have now disappeared and will have to be rebuilt.
There are also issues over the Russian casualties. Who is taking care of them?
Day 23 (18 March)
Odesa prepares for a Russian attack. They have been waiting for this and knew the Russians would come at some point.
More than 1000 people are still trapped in the bombed theatre in Mariupol.
Turkey has acted as a go-between by relaying Putin’s demands for a peace deal. Turkish President, Recep Tayip Erdogan gave details of the what Putin has laid out on the table. Can the Turks be trusted, or is there something in it for them?
The main news is that Lviv has been attacked by air missiles, where an aircraft repair centre near the airpot has been destroyed. The city expected to be attacked and is near the Polish border (50 miles).
Zelenskyy says that EU membership is being fast tracked.
Putin holds a rally in Moscow to celebrate the eight anniversary of the illegal annexation of Crimea. Some people are coerced to attend to have a day off work or school.
Lessons to teach children about the Crimea are set to be part of the curriculum called ‘My Country’ and include details of the Ukrainian invasion. Propaganda and brainwashing?
Poland is to propose a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine. Isn’t that an obvious step?
While the media speculate on the battle tactics of each side, it isn’t something new to see Russia seize the borders that are not NATO countries. Then to attack the west, some 350 miles from Kyiv is no surprise either, forcing some troops to move across to the west, leaving Kyiv a little more vulnerable, and also mounting an attack on Odesa. By forcing the Ukrainian army to be dispersed geographically it leaves Kyiv more vulnerable, and that is the key target. This is not a new military tactic and you can read the Greek and Roman classics for that is how wars are fought. Stalled action doesn’t mean they don’t have troops, but they are waiting for an opportune time to strike, like a bird of prey.
Some will say whatever must be done, should be done to stop the killing and the refugee crisis, but surely the Ukrainians should have a say in the matter rather than politicians who may never had stepped foot in Ukraine? Many wish to stay and defend their cities and their country, for what is the point of surrendering and being taken over by a foreign entity? Don’t the West have a moral obligation to try and defend and save Ukraine, so that the refugees have a country to return to? There are some who have chosen to stay to defend their city and they will not run and allow the Russians to take what doesn’t belong to them. How would Americans feel if they were invaded and part of the deal was to handover Texas, California, and Florida as part of the ceasefire deal?
We all know that Putin won’t stop, and will eye up other weak former Soviet states where parts have been annexed or are prime for occupying. It is sad to say that the West appear to be keen to hold Ukraine’s hand virtually, and are happy to give them some tools to defend themselves, and will help them pick up the pieces( letting those pieces fall), all the while believing that they did all that they could. This is not a domestic conflict over a piece of land, but an invasion of a country trying to occupy another. We’ve been here before, and the invasion of Ukraine is similar to the that of Czechoslovakia, where Hitler then pounced on Poland after ‘promising’ not to. No one really believed he would keep to his word, and he didn’t. That was how the Second World War began. Must we relive history again when we can prevent a greater war by intervening in a smaller one now?
Good afternoon, all! We had friends visiting and I had to absent myself for a couple of days, so I am just catching up here. I should say that Ukraine was the subject of endless conversation around the table, and beyond the immediate horror, the secondary feeling was along the lines of plus ca change plus c'est le meme chose. Cynicism and helplessness regarding the world, and the ugly realisation that Might, does indeed, make Right - still. And that is a very dangerous by-product of this all too visible demonstration of same. It's one thing to watch this after growing up in countries where a competing outlook has never taken hold. It's another to grapple with it after growing up in a region where the competing mythology is sold to us from primary school on.
I think, for what it's worth, that Putin is also stuck in the past. Not just in terms of the Russian "empire", but in terms of being flexible enough to realise that he's throwing good money after bad, that this isn't Chechnya any longer, and that things have changed since 1999 (and even then, it took ten years and the population, I believe, is under two million) by continuing to kill children and bomb theatres and schools he's going to end up losing more than he can gain by crushing a much larger country and ending up a world pariah afterward.
Putin is stuck like a fly in amber in the Chechen era, but doesn't realise that this time it's going to cost him far more. What in reality does he gain by crushing Ukraine to be able to say that is part of Russia, when he knows full well that he's sitting on burnt ashes and the global economy is going to isolate him for the foreseeable future, leaving him totally dependent on China, partially on India and places like Syria and Iran, and that he's going to be fighting a ten-year insurgency of a much larger country being armed by the West, when, really, he could find better things to do with the next decade?
If anything should demonstrate to the West how hopeless is the idea that Putin can be contained and reasoned with without resorting to extremely enhanced military help to Ukraine, the last week should. The West's contortions are beginning to look as looney as Putin's reasoning.
What happens if and when Putin is done, Ukraine is crushed, and Poland, Romania, the Baltic states, Finland, Sweden, find a lunatic Russian madman in control of a large country parked right on their borders? What, exactly, is NATO going to do then? Mass forces installed in those countries?
It's the kick the can down the road strategy that lost Syria, lost Europe in 1939, lost Georgia, Chechnya, the Crimea, Hungary in 1956, Bosnia 25 years ago, Campuchea in the 1970s - how long, oh Lord, before the penny drops? For how much carnage are we willing to express our horror and regret, but not risk a thing to stop? Without even the excuse that it was an internecine civil war on another continent, cf. Rwanda and Darfur and the Dem Rep of Congo and Campuchea? Look at what is raging in Ethiopia now.
How many times can we do this and still moan about how absolutism is making a comeback globally, and still sell our Freedom and Democracy product in schools, churches, on the BBC, SKY News, the TIMES (both of them), the Guardian, etc., etc., ad nauseam ad infinitum?
The problem with the modern era is there is nowhere to hide because of the reach of modern media. They can't say they didn't know what was going on, as they did with the camps until they opened them in 1945.
This will end with no benefit to anyone. The fact that it won't benefit Putin, as well, is small comfort. TC
Quite frankly, IMO, if Putin was serious about the possible cease-fire and deal that Turkey and other pundits are throwing about, then we would’ve had a bit of stoppage in all the shelling and other military activities. As we know, there has been absolutely no stoppage any activities from the Russian side of things, which to me is a clear indicator that Putin is talking smoke and mirrors. Saying what NATO and others want to hear, while all the time he has no intention whatsoever of giving up his pursuits of taking over the Ukraine and onward to other countries. NATO Has completely failed in the one thing it was formed to deal with. Very disappointing and extremely discouraging.