Ukraine Conflict - "History never looks like history when you are living through it."

[Darkpriest]

Some summary of a Russian PoV

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/eu-backs-ukraines-european-dream-putin-says-sanctions-cost-bloc-400bn-warns-fertilizer

[Mamoulian War]

I think there was a video from paramedic in Mariupol posted here as well. She has been released few days ago from Russian captivity where she was since mid-March.

https://t.me/ukrpravda_news/19237

[Raithe]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-drone-sale-ukraine-hits-snag-sources-2022-06-17/

[Malcador]

https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1534261914020331528

That's an impressive bit of combat engineering, all said.

[HoonDing]

If getting bombed to smithereens if enough to become a candidate member of EU, maybe half the Middle East and northern Africa should become candidates as well.

It's not like they're ever be allowed in anyway.

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, HoonDing said:

If getting bombed to smithereens if enough to become a candidate member of EU, maybe half the Middle East and northern Africa should become candidates as well.

It's not like they're ever be allowed in anyway.

This post really made me laugh 

[Mamoulian War]

hello Nordic friends @xzar_monty , @Azdeus , @Elerond , @Gorth  (did I forget to tag someone? :P) and @kanisatha, have you seen the interview of Stoltenberg with Finish president, which name, I am unable to remember ? Is what I read in this article legit? https://national-conservative.com/nato-sec-gen-jens-stoltenberg-suggests-ukraine-compromise-and-cede-territory-to-russia/ Or is this some american antibiden outlet? The only transcripts which, I've found was about them discussing Turkiye's security concerns.

[Mamoulian War]

Ok guys, sorry for forcing you to read that garbage, I have finally found the original transcript of the interview. The above "news" completely snippet their words out of context...

The whole transcript is here:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_196300.htm?selectedLocale=en

 

And these are the sentences, which were ripped apart out of context:
 

Spoiler

JENS STOLTENBERG: So first to the question of whether peace is possible. Yes, peace is possible. The question is what kind of peace? Because if Ukraine withdraw its forces and stop fighting, then Ukraine will cease to exist as an independent, sovereign nation in Europe. If President Putin stops fighting, then we’ll have peace. So the dilemma is, of course, that peace is always possible. Surrender can provide peace. But as we have seen, the Ukrainians, they don’t accept peace at any price. They are actually willing to pay a very high price for their independence. And again, Finland is a country that really knows the price for peace and also the price for independence and being a sovereign nation. And it’s not for me to judge how high price the Ukrainians should be willing to pay. I mean, we pay a price because we provide support, we see the economic effects of the economic sanctions. But there is no doubt, as you said Sauli, that the highest price is paid by Ukrainians every day. And therefore it’s for them to judge, not for me, what is the price they are willing to pay, for peace and for independence? So, that’s, in a way, the moral dilemma. Peace is possible, but the question, how much are you willing to forsake to pay for getting that peace? The absolute best way to achieve peace in Ukraine is for President Putin to end this senseless war. We have to remember, every morning, every day, every hour during the day, there is one man, one nation that is responsible for that – and that is President Putin. Then we have difficult dilemmas, difficult choices, but it is President Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine that has created those dilemmas. And they can be solved by . . . from his side by ending the war. Then, one more thing on this, is that as President Zelensky has stated many times, this war will end at the negotiating table. The question is what kind of position will the Ukrainians have when they negotiate a solution? Our responsibility is to make that position as strong as possible. We know that there is a very close link between what you can achieve at the negotiating table and your position at the battlefield. So our military support to them is a way to strengthen their hand at the negotiating table when they, hopefully soon, will sit there and negotiate the peace agreement. So that was ‘peace is possible’ – that’s not the question anyway, the question is: what price are you willing to pay for peace? How much territory? How much independence? How much sovereignty? How much freedom? How much democracy are you willing to sacrifice for peace? And that’s a very difficult moral dilemma. And it’s for those who are paying the highest price to make that judgement. Our responsibility is to support them. Then, on escalation, I think it’s extremely important that we remember there is a danger of escalation. Also, as you said this morning, a horizontal escalation, we always see a kind of vertical escalation – more fighting, more suffering, heavier weapons in Ukraine – but escalation beyond Ukraine. And NATO has been very aware of this risk since the beginning, actually before the invasion, because we have to remember that when the invasion came, we were very prepared. In one way, we have been prepared for this eventuality since 2014, with the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the Cold War, with the battlegroups in the eastern part of the Alliance, more defence spending, higher readiness, new command structure and all that. And then it was, actually, when we met, I remember we met, we discussed the possibility of an invasion of Ukraine. We had very precise intelligence on the nation. Russia absolutely denied. We had the meeting in the NATO-Russia Council in January, I think it was, where that was the last serious effort from our side to find a negotiated way out of this. Russia said, ‘We have no plans whatsoever to invade.’ They actually sent out pictures, days beforehand, showing some battle tanks moving over this bridge […] the strait between Azov and the Black Sea, saying that they were actually withdrawing their forces. Then they invaded. And then, that morning, we activated NATO’s defence plans and deployed significant additional troops, because we were prepared, and now we have 40,000 NATO troops in the eastern part of the Alliance. Why did we do that? To prevent escalation. Because we have this increased presence to send an absolutely clear message to President Putin, to remove any room for miscalculation, misunderstanding in Moscow about our readiness to protect and defend every Ally. And as long as that’s clear, there will be no attack. So our deterrence is to prevent escalation. I’m sad that we are in such a situation, because it would have been better for all of us if we could spend all that money we now are spending on deterrence, more weapons, more artillery, more missiles, more troops, more ships, more planes – on education, health, infrastructure. But in a more dangerous world, we have to invest in security and that’s exactly what we’ll do to prevent escalation. So, I know I’m being a bit long, but we are . . . NATO is actually doing two things to prevent escalation. One is deterrence. As we do – and we’ll also make new decisions at the Madrid summit to strengthen further our posture: investing more, more troops, more readiness. But the only thing we do, is that we don’t move into Ukraine. And that’s not an easy decision. In my conversations, my talks, with the Ukrainian leaders, including President Zelensky, it’s not easy to tell them that we are not going to impose a no-fly zone. They asked for a no-fly zone, we said no. They wanted us to – and some Allies as well – there has been some proposals that we should move with creating a humanitarian corridor. We’re not doing that. There have also been discussions about NATO reinforcing a naval corridor to get food out. To not do that, it’s not easy, because it has a cost for the Ukrainians. But we . . . but the reason why we don’t move in with NATO troops in Ukraine is to prevent escalation. So we are always, since the beginning of this war, been very mindful about the need, the moral obligation, to support a country fighting for their freedom, for democracy, for their independence. But at the same time, preventing escalation by not being directly involved in the conflict. Then the last question was about resilience?

SAULI NIINISTÖ: Resilience, yes.

JENS STOLTENBERG: Yes. I think what we have learnt is that, of course, the strength of a nation is not about capabilities – number of battle tanks, number of planes or armoured vehicles and so on – but it’s very much about will. And I think that the will of the Ukrainian people to stand has been extremely impressive. The political courage of their leadership, the professional armed forces, has impressed the whole world. That’s first and foremost their responsibility, their courage. But I’m also glad that NATO has helped to train them. We have to remember that we have been there, NATO Allies and NATO have been there since 2014, training tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers, which are now on the frontline in the fight, and that has proven extremely effective. For instance, I know, I visited Yavoriv, the base they bombed quite earlier, west near Poland, that was one of the centres where they had significant NATO and NATO Allies training Ukrainian soldiers, which are now playing a key – and officers – which are now playing a key role, and actually help them to maintain and keep up the resilience of their armed forces.

SAULI NIINISTÖ: Okay. Yes. Making peace is not an easy task. I think that we, like I reminded you, told you about, the Second World War and the Finnish position when we had to make the peace. But nevertheless, losing Karelia, Petsamo too, but specifically Karelia, well Finns actually, I guess, never have forgotten it, and it took decades that people had in their minds all the time that a very, very wrong thing was done to Finland and Finnish people. So from that basis, I guess we understand that it is very difficult for Ukraine after all these victims, after all this fighting, to give up their land, not even partly. So that makes it difficult. But seeing that Russia would lose all its holdings is not maybe at all, at this point, foreseeable, who knows? But all this tells that gaining peace is absolutely difficult. I would go now to NATO membership and us, Finns, Finland. During the years past, let’s say, especially past ten years, when we have been enhanced partner in NATO, we have increased, developed all the time, the cooperation. And it was said that, actually, Finland and Sweden are, well, at least fitting well other each member country of NATO. The question is only that the official nomination is not there. That was kind of the discussion spirit. And that surely led us also thinking in a way that we are, well, meeting all the criteria’s and still have the feeling. So I just want you to understand that the Turkish intervention here was kind of surprising, because according to our studies, our legislation, our position with Turkey’s terrorism, or being against that, is on average NATO-country level. So I just want to point this out so that we know why it has amazed a bit, Finnish people – understanding very well that we that we have to continue, like I said, discussions with Turkey and trying to find answers – but somehow we have a feeling that it’s not only Finland, it’s not only Sweden, but they want to somehow to point out to all NATO, and maybe even outside NATO countries, their own problem like they . . . they have it, like they tell. Just . . . yeah.

 

[xzar_monty]

3 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

Ok guys, sorry for forcing you to read that garbage, I have finally found the original transcript of the interview. The above "news" completely snippet their words out of context...

I read four sentences of the first article you linked, the one on that national-conservative site. It was enough to convince me that it was either extraordinarily bad journalism or intentionally nasty stuff.

One of the worst aspects of internet is that all kinds of rubbish can quite easily be made to look at least somewhat legit.

[kanisatha]

5 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

hello Nordic friends @xzar_monty , @Azdeus , @Elerond , @Gorth  (did I forget to tag someone? :P) and @kanisatha, have you seen the interview of Stoltenberg with Finish president, which name, I am unable to remember ? Is what I read in this article legit? https://national-conservative.com/nato-sec-gen-jens-stoltenberg-suggests-ukraine-compromise-and-cede-territory-to-russia/ Or is this some american antibiden outlet? The only transcripts which, I've found was about them discussing Turkiye's security concerns.

@Mamoulian War, I've never ever seen this outlet (and I read an axtremely wide range of news and academic sources).

[Malcador]

What, you don't read right wing rage bait sites ? Might as well read WND or OAN

Edited June 19, 2022 by Malcador

[kanisatha]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

What, you don't read right wing rage bait sites ? Might as well read WND or OAN

No I don't. And I also don't read the same kind of sites on the left.

[Darkpriest]

I'm not sure, if this is smart and what is the point of making lifemore miserable for people living in Kalinsgrad area. Seems like goading Russia. Sanctions on that part have zero impact on Russia, but have impact on regular people there, and give an ample reason for Russia to treat this as a hostile action and goad them to invade baltics... 

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/eu-just-implemented-risky-anti-russia-measure-could-trigger-ww3-few-are-taking-notice

[xzar_monty]

An article written by a bloke called "Tyler Durden", with the first paragraph containing expressions like "media establishment" and "singular event". It would take some effort to get further away from credible reporting. It's doable, of course, but takes effort.

[Darkpriest]

@BruceVC

There is nothing funny about it. Ihave some estate in  Estonia, because 'reasons'. I'd hate to have it bombed or some Poland coastal stuff bombed as well... 

I need time to relocate capital investments to Spain/Portugal

[Darkpriest]

2 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

An article written by a bloke called "Tyler Durden", with the first paragraph containing expressions like "media establishment" and "singular event". It would take some effort to get further away from credible reporting. It's doable, of course, but takes effort.

Ehhh... Did you actually read it and the linked sources? 

Why for some reason people get so attached to the name, that covers as the author? 

First, that name is a front name for ZH staffers, unless there is a link to external source at the top, usually covering 'authored by', then it is just to provide an op-ed space and have ZH staffer insert some of their own comments in the original text (usually highlighted). 

Do they have an anti-Biden and anti-far left Dems bias in their own coverage? Yes, hence when reading, you look into the linked sources in the 'paper'. Do they have an anti-corp media bias? Yes, but the corp media are mostly as unreliable as any other political activist site. There is a reason why those tank in viewership and they are caught often running unverified stories or even fabricating some. 

-----

On the topic of the article itself, do you really believe that cutting off Kalingrad from the rest of Russia and breaking various treaties is a smart and right thing to do in the current circumstances, or is this just giving unnecessary ammo to Rusian propaganda and pave way to a nartative of liberating 'besieged' Russiam citizens? 

What on a strategic level such a breach of a treaty would bring in terms of political gains and paving way for a diplomatic solution near term? 

[BruceVC]

12 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

@BruceVC

There is nothing funny about it. Ihave some estate in  Estonia, because 'reasons'. I'd hate to have it bombed or some Poland coastal stuff bombed as well... 

I need time to relocate capital investments to Spain/Portugal

Nah  Im not worried about the Baltic states being attacked by Russia because they part of NATO which means it would be an attack on NATO and that means  the majority of NATO  countries will respond and retaliate. And the US would respond and we can see by the  long list of Russian military problems with Putins War that Russia wouldnt last very long against the US

Remember in that type of war the Russian military would not be able to do things they demonstrated they good at which includes bombing cities to the ground from miles away using artillery

In a war with NATO the Ruskies would have to fight a traditional war and they would fail miserably at that if you consider the lack of training, resources and corruption that we have seen throughout the invasion of Ukraine

So Im not worried but not because Putins not capable invading any sovereign country, he is a warmonger and he has shown time and time again he doesnt respect  international borders 

Im not worried because of the reality of NATO...thank goodness for NATO. Imagine how much anxiety would exist if countries couldnt join NATO?

@majestic Hopefully we can all buy some NATO cheese to support this important institution ?

 

 

 

[xzar_monty]

34 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

Ehhh... Did you actually read it and the linked sources?

No. The first paragraph was enough to convince me that this was adolescent stuff. You just don't write language like that if you want to be taken seriously as a political commentator.

Edited June 20, 2022 by xzar_monty

[Darkpriest]

27 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Nah  Im not worried about the Baltic states being attacked by Russia because they part of NATO which means it would be an attack on NATO and that means  the majority of NATO  countries will respond and retaliate. And the US would respond and we can see by the  long list of Russian military problems with Putins War that Russia wouldnt last very long against the US

Remember in that type of war the Russian military would not be able to do things they demonstrated they good at which includes bombing cities to the ground from miles away using artillery

In a war with NATO the Ruskies would have to fight a traditional war and they would fail miserably at that if you consider the lack of training, resources and corruption that we have seen throughout the invasion of Ukraine

So Im not worried but not because Putins not capable invading any sovereign country, he is a warmonger and he has shown time and time again he doesnt respect  international borders 

Im not worried because of the reality of NATO...thank goodness for NATO. Imagine how much anxiety would exist if countries couldnt join NATO?

@majestic Hopefully we can all buy some NATO cheese to support this important institution ?

 

 

 

There are opinions that NATO is too weak to defend the Baltics. 

https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/plus239329029/Soenke-Neitzel-Dann-halte-ich-es-fuer-realistisch-dass-Putin-einen-Punkt-macht.html

 

Event the so venerated article that urges NATO to reaction is not an immediate and auto-declaration of war and military action. Read it in detail. Some even say, that with the current fragmentation in NATO, the response would not be so swift and by the time real decisions would be made, it's possible Russians would be half way through Poland... (this i find exaggerated given Russian tactics in UA, but baltics would be lost for sure) 

[BruceVC]

31 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

No. The first paragraph was enough to convince me that this was adolescent stuff. You just don't write language like that if you want to be taken seriously as a political commentator.

@Darkpriest

Can I tell you what my concern is with  all Zero Hedge article. I question where the journalism comes from and who writes the initial article

For example,  here is your original link

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/eu-just-implemented-risky-anti-russia-measure-could-trigger-ww3-few-are-taking-notice

And you see the same article gets repeated, and in some cases acknowledged, word for word on other right-wing, pro-Russian and similar websites like the ones below 

https://therussophile.org/did-europes-latest-little-noticed-anti-russia-move-just-push-the-world-closer-to-ww3.html/

https://tradeforprofit.net/2022/06/did-europes-latest-little-noticed-anti-russia-move-just-push-the-world-closer-to-ww3/

https://www.philstockworld.com/2022/06/19/did-europes-latest-little-noticed-antirussia-move-just-push-the-world-closer-to-ww3/

This reminds me  of the numerous fake news websites and propaganda websites the Russians are famous for and played a part in the interference in the 2016 US elections . And I did some quick research and all the Zerohedge articles seem to be same

Are they credible and are they examples of any real journalism?

 

 

 

[xzar_monty]

14 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Are they credible and are they examples of any real journalism?

No, and no. This, of course, does not mean that they might not contain truthful information. But I think it would be quite foolish to regard them as reliable sources.

I wonder whether they themselves regard what they do as journalism, or whether they purposefully write adolescent stuff like that(*). It's hard to know. But as I said earlier, the language itself is a total giveaway right from the start: any journalist who knows anything about the craft will not use language like that. (I started my journalistic career in the 1980s.) Now, you would get away with stuff like that in The Sun or the now-defunct News of the World, but that's rubbish, that's not proper journalism.

(*) We do know there are troll factories in Russia, but I don't know if this is an example of that kind of work.

Edited June 20, 2022 by xzar_monty

[Darkpriest]

6 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

@Darkpriest

Can I tell you what my concern is with  all Zero Hedge article. I question where the journalism comes from and who writes the initial article

For example,  here is your original link

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/eu-just-implemented-risky-anti-russia-measure-could-trigger-ww3-few-are-taking-notice

And you see the same article gets repeated, and in some cases acknowledged, word for word on other right-wing, pro-Russian and similar websites like the ones below 

https://therussophile.org/did-europes-latest-little-noticed-anti-russia-move-just-push-the-world-closer-to-ww3.html/

https://tradeforprofit.net/2022/06/did-europes-latest-little-noticed-anti-russia-move-just-push-the-world-closer-to-ww3/

https://www.philstockworld.com/2022/06/19/did-europes-latest-little-noticed-antirussia-move-just-push-the-world-closer-to-ww3/

This reminds me  of the numerous fake news websites and propaganda websites the Russians are famous for and played a part in the interference in the 2016 US elections . And I did some quick research and all the Zerohedge articles seem to be same

Are they credible and are they examples of any real journalism?

 

 

 

It depends, who they source from. They are a hub, which gives space to various op-eds from various sources, some of which are questionable to say the least, to outright propaganda pieces like some pieces authored by a guy called Escobar (i think i even linked one such piece to mock it here) 

There are however some contributions that pile in and glue together various pieces from reuters and similar, and then on top provide own narrative. I tend to overlook a lot of narrative stuff and look at a broader picture of linked events. 

I'm mostly looking there for non-political stuff, but sometimes it is hard to resist some clickbaity title to read it through with a bit reserved view. 

[BruceVC]

3 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

No, and no. This, of course, does not mean that they might not contain truthful information. But I think it would be quite foolish to regard them as reliable sources.

I wonder whether they themselves regard what they do as journalism, or whether they purposefully write adolescent stuff like that. It's hard to know. But as I said earlier, the language itself is a total giveaway right from the start: any journalist who knows anything about the craft will not use language like that. (I started working my journalistic career in the 1980s.) Now, you would get away with stuff like that in The Sun or the now-defunct News of the World, but that's rubbish, that's not proper journalism.

Yes I agree, some articles would be truthful but what concerns me is the repetition of the same story

Its makes me think their is institution somewhere that says " lets create a story about the Baltic states being invaded" and then 10-12 websites repeat the same story and pretend its journalism

But you probably right, maybe they dont consider themselves mediums of journalism? But then  what are they?

Opinion pieces?

 

[BruceVC]

10 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

It depends, who they source from. They are a hub, which gives space to various op-eds from various sources, some of which are questionable to say the least, to outright propaganda pieces like some pieces authored by a guy called Escobar (i think i even linked one such piece to mock it here) 

There are however some contributions that pile in and glue together various pieces from reuters and similar, and then on top provide own narrative. I tend to overlook a lot of narrative stuff and look at a broader picture of linked events. 

I'm mostly looking there for non-political stuff, but sometimes it is hard to resist some clickbaity title to read it through with a bit reserved view. 

Fair enough but I have found the same articles repeated around economic updates so its not just political stories

And you know how I came to  this realization? I sent that interesting link from Zero hedge about  Russia defaulting on its sovereign debt  to some of my SA and UK who work in the financial sector. And some of my UK  cousins follow the Culture Wars updates like me

One of them came back to me with the exact same Zero Hedge article on 4-5 other " economic " websites 

I felt really foolish, its not your fault of course because I sent the article out 

Anyway the point Im making is I dont take much of what Zero Hedge says seriously because I question their credibility and what are their real motives?

I would prefer they were honest about their ideological views ?

[Darkpriest]

6 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Fair enough but I have found the same articles repeated around economic updates so its not just political stories

And you know how I came to  this realization? I sent that interesting link from Zero hedge about  Russia defaulting on its sovereign debt  to some of my SA and UK who work in the financial sector. And some of my UK  cousins follow the Culture Wars updates like me

One of them came back to me with the exact same Zero Hedge article on 4-5 other " economic " websites 

I felt really foolish, its not your fault of course because I sent the article out 

Anyway the point Im making is I dont take much of what Zero Hedge says seriously because I question their credibility and what are their real motives?

I would prefer they were honest about their ideological views ?

In regards to the articles you mentiond, you'd need to check if that was one of the 'authored' ones, so basically a repaste of some original source. 

For example i guess this guy might be pasted in at ZH later today. 

https://morningporridge.com/blog/blains-morning-porridge/dismal-politics-crashing-markets-inflation-and-exogenous-shocks-excellent-get-your-buying-boots-ready/