A Helsinki city councilman has putin (no pun intended) a motion to change the name of Lenin's Park in Helsinki into Zelenskyi Park.
Also there are calls in the social media to change the name of Tehtaankatu (Fabriksgatan) into Zelenskyinkatu (Zelenskyigatan), it is the street that is the home of the Russian embassy.
Coca-Cola stops all business in Russia. Finally the sanctions hit really hard!
Some interesting things going on with Poland right now. If I understand it correctly, it's essentially a three way trade:
I guess Poland is trying to encourage other countries to do the same with their MIGs.
I think the Americans will give the Poles F-16s as replacements. But even though the Ukranian air force have managed to survive this far against expextations (and he Russian AF has under-perferfomed) I think it's very unrealistic to think the Ukrainians will be able to dominate its own airspace.
NATO has senibly denied Zelenski's requests for a no-fly zone over Ukraine. One gets why he wants it, but such a zone would lead to NATO and Russian planes fighting each other. That would again lead to war between Russia and NATO. Giving the Ukranians fighter planes they are familiar with is a much better idea.
Pentagon has rejected the Polish proposal.
sounds like the US wants a 'middle man' to broker the trade.
Actually the US was Poland's middle man. The Polish PM made that clear several times. 😂
Poland gave the planes to the US at Ramstein AFB. Then All NATO countries had to agree to giving them to Ukraine before the transfer.
There can be any number of practical, legal and political reasons why the Pentagon said no
Now Blinken (his name sounds like he helps pull Santa' sleigh ...) seems to be on the fence.
Why not give the Ukranians enough anti aircraft missiles so they can set up their own no fly zone? Small teams of men with a shoulder launched missile can do lots of damage while being safe from attack themselves. If there were enough teams they could make it very dangerous for enemy aircraft to enter the airspace - too dangerous perhaps.
As far as I can see if the aircraft were delivered from Poland, they could not be dispersed well enough to evade the Russians who would (if they are not already) target the airfields. I don't know how many Ukrainian jets have been shot down, but the Russians must surely have enough anti aircraft weapons to make it difficult for them to operate - that's not to mention fighter jets which will be patrolling ready to shoot them down.
Worryingly, I read that there have been reports of the Russians using banned weapons and that they might even use chemical weapons. I don't know if this is true as it would be 'good' for the Ukrainians to claim this in order to get more support. Also, the situation around the nuclear power plants is a concern.
The Ukrainians asked spesifically for NASAMS surface-to-air missile systems made in Norway. Unfortunately the system is complex and new to the Ukranians. It's also a very powerful weapon, possibly more powerful than anything the west has donated yet, and as a small neighbour of Russia I don't think we want that kind of attention. I'm not sure, but I suspect we won't give it to them.
I guess, that Ukraina needs the polish MIGS to find Russia‘s supply convoys that run unharmed thru Ukraina.
The only factors that has stopped them in some cases so far where bad material or maintenance or both.
If indeed the Ukrainians are having problems maintaining or deploying their existing aircraft, I cannot see how any sent will not simply become unserviceable in the same way?
Even if they haven't been attacked already, would not Polish jets arriving provoke the Russians into attacking airfields just to show NATO that aircraft will be destroyed when they arrive?
I wonder how many aircraft the Ukranians have anyway?
Surely the Russian convoys will have anti aircraft missiles or guns as part of their defence which will keep the Ukranians away in most events? That is not to mention Russian aircraft patrolling as another part of that defence?
There are some times when the best weapons are the most simplest. Good SAM systems are of course very effective, but are vulnerable to attack themselves. A shoulder launched SAM team can move without being detected and the missile not known about until fired. It is my guess that modern NATO shoulder launched missiles will have a good chance of defeating flares and other counters and so would stop helicopters flying and force aircraft into high altitudes where they can be attacked by bigger, longer ranged weapons?
The Ukrainians had close to a hundred fighter planes, but obviously they've lost some of them during the last couple of weeks. Most are MiG-29s and SU-27s inherited from the Soviet Union. Since these planes aren't destroyed in their bases I assume the bases are protected well enough to receive Polish planes. Shoulder-launched SAMs ("manpads" I belive they're called) are flexible I guess, but they don't have the range of a system like NASAMS. A battery of NASAMS or two could possibly keep Kviv safe from Russian planes. (listen to me pretending to be a military expert ...... but I think this is likely)
Zelensky and world leaders (and Boris Johnson 😁) "singing" 'We're not gonna take it!'
Zelensky's Battlecry 2022 - We’re Not Gonna Take It - YouTube
While it failed to stop the invasion, I think the last few months have been a triumph for the intelligence services of the NATO countries. They missed the date of the invasion, but only by a few hours! I also liked how the US shared their inteligence findings with other nations and teh public, showing Russia's cards all the time. This must be a comeuppance for these organisations after the disasterous intel before the Iraq invasion in 2003.
@Number24 I thought you would have mentioned the Norwegian computer expert that has created a website that enables anyone to send an email to 150 Russian people at a time informing them of the truth about the Ukraine invasion…? Unless you did further up and I missed it 😬
Actually I missed it completely. Brilliant initiative!
In my opinion the main factor in these events is probably the Russian people. Will the Russians learn the truth about what's happening, and combined with the sanctions this will make Putin too unpopular to continue?
Or will they belive Putin's story that the rest of the world is an enemy of Russia and close tanks around him?
This is an interesting point. The state control of the media and the very astute politicking of its representatives, particularly at the U.N. where they use arguments which you can disagree with, but which are valid fears - yesterdays debate on chemical weapons being a prime example - no one knows how many countries covertly possess or manufacture chemical or bio weapons and I include the UK and USA in that - creates a completely blinkered view for many Russians.
I recently met a Russian friend who works in Moscow, London and Paris; she was adamant that the Ukraine administration is peppered with Nazis and that NATO has been covertly boosting the Ukraine defences in preparation for an attack of Russia. She reads and watches western news, but insists the Russian media tells the best truth - her description.
"It's terrible," she said, "how the Ukraine people hate us and want to annihilate us." I mentioned the historical catastrophe of of the Soviet famine, pointed out that the Russian army had previously entered Ukraine territory to annex the Crimea and that the current military operation was an aggression far beyond 'peace keeping' in Donbas, the original stated intention. My suggestion Putin wished to return Russia's borders to those of the old Soviet Union was met with derisive laughter. "Have you seen the internet?" she said. "All the pictures of the Nazi graffiti in Kiev?" I mentioned that we had Nazi graffiti in London but that didn't make Britain a nation of fascist extremists [I almost laughed myself at that one !]. When I proffered that regime change from outside was a crime against a sovereign state and that my reasons for objecting to Russian advances were similar to the objections I raised over the Second Iraq War, she failed to even acknowledge the possibility of regime change as being an aim of the Russian government. I was quite shocked, as this is an intelligent woman, well travelled and educated, who simply won't accept there is another side to the story, even when world wide condemnation of her country is in full cry. For a brief moment, I genuinely thought she appeared as dishonest as the politicians we see on television. Quite quickly, she got extremely agitated, and rebuffed any attempt to discuss the issue further. "I don't want to talk about it. War is sad," she said. To which I replied, "All wars are sorrowful and that's why I'm so distressed your country is involved in one." Cue shrugs.
We changed the subject and discussed which restaurant to visit; food was a less divisive subject.
A good, but disheartening observation. My impression is that most people behind the iron curtain had learnt not to trust their media at least by the 70's and 80's. But Russian state-controlled media is more skilled now and agressive nationalism is more popular than communism was. The war in Ukraine will be a failure for Russia anyway, regardless of what form the Ukrainian resistance will take over time. The reaction of the Russian public will indeed be the real deciding factor.
Religious art has changed during the last week ........
I agree with you that the war in Ukraine will indeed be a major shift in world affairs, in Europe and no doubt further afield too. As you say, it is an event of the magnitude of the fall of the Soviet Union and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001 that ushered in the "War on Terror" that ultimately led to the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War. Since then we have seen the rise of radical Islam in the form of Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. In other words, the unrealistic and self-assured prediction from the halcyon days of the early 1990s of "the end of history" and a "New World Order" obviously never came to pass with the all too brief vacuum that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe and with the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and the fall of the Soviet Union itself in late December 1991.
Instead of an "end to history" (whatever that rather vague term ever meant in the first place?) it of course just carried on in a new way. First there was the trouble of the nationalism that had been long-suppressed under the satellite Communist regimes of Eastern Europe that formed out of the countries behind the Iron Curtain after World War II. That exhibited itself in the "ethnic cleansing" of the Bosnian War of 1992-1995, Then there was the Rwandan genocide that took place under the cover of the Rwandan Civil War of 1994 (sound familiar?) where the Tutsi minority were killed by armed militias, with estimates of the total deaths of Tutsis ranging from 500,000 to 800,000. The takeaway for the student of History is that, though there may be brief vacuums between major events and eras of history there is certainly no such thing as "an end to history". Much like the interminable soap operas that plague our television sets history just keeps going on and on and if we fail to learn the lessons of history we are damned to repeat its mistakes and failures again and again, with suitable variations on a theme of course. What is it they say about history? It repeats itself because nobody listens the first time around. The period we're all living through now is as solid proof of that as any other.
It's more echoes than repititions of history I think.
Zelensky said today that Ukraine realisticly can't be a NATO member. I think this may be the out Putin needed to agree to peace with "honour". Time may be short because Russia may go bankrupt on Wednesday like Argentina in 2001.
Ah, maybe Putin's Georgian like Stalin? I bet that's it. 🤨
China's ambassador to the US says they didn't know about Russia's plans for war of Ukraine,
"Let me say this responsibly: Assertions that China knew about, acquiesced to or tacitly supported this war are purely disinformation. All these claims serve only the purpose of shifting blame to and slinging mud at China,"
"In Ukraine, China's position is objective and impartial", – the ambassador said. "The purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter must be fully observed; the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, including Ukraine, must be respected; the legitimate security concerns of all countries must be taken seriously; and all efforts that are conducive to the peaceful settlement of the crisis must be supported"
This can actually be true. Chinese citizens in Ukraine were not pulled out before the invasion, but actually dangerously late. It's possible the story that China knew and asked Russia to wait untill the olympics were over is true, but China was only told it was a limited "special military operation" in the east. I don't know.
But China is against the sanctions:
"Neither war nor sanctions can deliver peace. Wielding the baton of sanctions at Chinese companies while seeking China's support and cooperation simply won't work",
China also (obviously dosn't see any paralells between Ukraine and Taiwan:
"Ukraine is a sovereign state, while Taiwan is an inseparable part of China's territory. The Taiwan question is a Chinese internal affair. It does not make sense for people to emphasize the principle of sovereignty on Ukraine while hurting China's sovereignty and territorial integrity on Taiwan"
Envoy clarifies China's Ukraine stance - World - Chinadaily.com.cn
@Higgins: I of course understand the sensitivities that must be observed when invoking the name of Adolf Hitler, the Nazis or any of his notorious henchmen and I didn't do so lightly. As a History graduate I saw some parallels between Hitler and what Putin is doing now in Ukraine in 2022. Of course every period of history is different and I'm sorry if it appeared that I was jumping the gun and making a four course meal out of a pan of boiling water. Hitler and the Nazis is not a topic to play around with and I'm sorry if it caused any upset to any member of the forum. Sadly, as we know, Godwin's Law states that the further an Internet discussion goes along the chance that Hitler are the Nazis will be invoked at some point gets ever nearer to one. Hitler is one of the most discussed and photographed men in the history of the world and I agree that his name and actions are invoked far more often than is healthy, often leading to exaggeration and hyperbole than making any valid or reasonable point.
You are correct in asserting that naked aggression against one's neighbouring states is not something that Hitler had a monopoly on and that Nazism was something new in that it oversaw the systematic murder of whole ethnic races such as the Jews, Slavs and Roma people during the industrialised genocide that was the Holocaust. I only mentioned Hitler and the Nazis in reference to Putin as he was the one going around calling the Ukrainians neo-Nazis and I thought that it was a false impression that needed correcting in much the same way as the bad character provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 can come into play when the defendant calls into question the witness's character. I suppose it's a case of those in glass houses not throwing stones. In any event, a lesson has been learned here and I'll certainly be much more careful in future not to bandy about the "Nazi" or "Hitler" nametags unless it is really accurate and pertinent to the debate at hand.
While I agree that the Hitler comparison is made far too often and history doesn't really repeat itself, but it can echo. (I've used that line before). We can't compare every dictator we don't like to Hitler.
The echo today are the simularities between Hitler's foreign policy in the last 2-3 years leading up to WWII and Putin's foreign policy for some years now. In both cases we're talking about a country that was larger and more powerful within living memory, but later suffered a humiliating loss. Millions of the countrymen ended up outside the border of the now smaller state and the new nationalist leader says he wants to protect them from the unjustice he claims they're suffering. He then "brings them back to the motherland" by force and trickery. The reactions from the international community is less than strong. He then goes to full-on war on a whole country.
I'm not comparing Putin to Hitler in any other way, but Hitler's foreign policy in 1938-39 is the closest historical comparison I know to what Putin is doing now. if anyone finds a better comparison I'll be happy to use that instead.
Arnold Schwartzenegger being great!
Arnold Schwarzenegger til russere: – La meg fortelle dere sannheten - VGTV
I was going to post that yesterday. It's a fantastic speech.
Honest, factual and smart. Many politicians today could learn from him.