• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Russia invades Ukraine

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,969
Location
Taunton or Kent
There is increasing alarm at deepening economic ties between NATO member Turkey and Russia:


Western capitals are increasingly alarmed about the deepening economic co-operation between Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Vladimir Putin...

I think this is partly being driven by Turkey's economy being a basket case, with 80% inflation a particular problem. There are threats being made of secondary sanctions, but I certainly think this sort of arrangement should be barred among NATO members, and their needs to be a way to expel members who behave like this.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
...but I certainly think this sort of arrangement should be barred among NATO members, and their needs to be a way to expel members who behave like this.
If NATO was at war with Russia then that would be justified, but since they have been at pains to stress that NATO isn't a party to the war/special military action between Ukraine and Russia there's no grounds* for expelling Turkey from economic collaboration with Russia.

*By the letter of the law.
 

Pete_uk

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2017
Messages
1,250
Location
Stroud, Glos
I hope I am aloud to post this, it's a chunk of a comment piece in The Telegraph

COMMENT

Amnesty is now utterly morally bankrupt
Its anti-Western obsession has driven it into the gutter

STEPHEN POLLARD
6 August 2022 • 3:00pm
Stephen Pollard

For anyone who has followed Amnesty International in recent years, its attack on Ukraine for daring to defend itself against Russia and thus “putting civilians at risk” was entirely in character. The organisation that was once a beacon of hope for political prisoners has become a de facto offshoot of Stop The War. It now operates with the same agenda as other groups on the fringes of extreme left politics, pushing the same hardcore anti-Western obsessions (infamously for some time even teaming up with Cage, the British Islamist group) but with more PR success than most, as it trades on its former reputation for good deeds.

According to Amnesty, Ukrainian forces in Kharkiv, Donbas and Mykolaiv have broken international law by operating from residential areas. “We have documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated areas,” Agnes Callamard, its secretary general, wrote. No matter that the only reason the Ukrainian forces are in residential areas is to defend them from Russian invaders – who are murdering, torturing and capturing Ukrainian civilians. As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky put it in response, Amnesty is trying to “shift responsibility from the aggressor to the victim.”

The Russian Embassy in the UK greeted Amnesty’s “report” with glee, tweeting: “@Amnesty confirms #Ukraine tactics violate international humanitarian law & endanger civilians... exactly what #Russia has been saying all along. #StopNaziUkraine”

Just in case anyone might doubt where she stands, Ms Callamard responded to the dismantling of her slurs by the Ukrainian government by equating it with the Russian invaders - and, for good measure, dismissing Ukrainian ministers as trolls.
 

TwoYellas

Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
258
Location
Birmingham
I hope I am aloud to post this, it's a chunk of a comment piece in The Telegraph

COMMENT

Amnesty is now utterly morally bankrupt
Its anti-Western obsession has driven it into the gutter

STEPHEN POLLARD
6 August 2022 • 3:00pm
Stephen Pollard

For anyone who has followed Amnesty International in recent years, its attack on Ukraine for daring to defend itself against Russia and thus “putting civilians at risk” was entirely in character. The organisation that was once a beacon of hope for political prisoners has become a de facto offshoot of Stop The War. It now operates with the same agenda as other groups on the fringes of extreme left politics, pushing the same hardcore anti-Western obsessions (infamously for some time even teaming up with Cage, the British Islamist group) but with more PR success than most, as it trades on its former reputation for good deeds.

According to Amnesty, Ukrainian forces in Kharkiv, Donbas and Mykolaiv have broken international law by operating from residential areas. “We have documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated areas,” Agnes Callamard, its secretary general, wrote. No matter that the only reason the Ukrainian forces are in residential areas is to defend them from Russian invaders – who are murdering, torturing and capturing Ukrainian civilians. As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky put it in response, Amnesty is trying to “shift responsibility from the aggressor to the victim.”

The Russian Embassy in the UK greeted Amnesty’s “report” with glee, tweeting: “@Amnesty confirms #Ukraine tactics violate international humanitarian law & endanger civilians... exactly what #Russia has been saying all along. #StopNaziUkraine”

Just in case anyone might doubt where she stands, Ms Callamard responded to the dismantling of her slurs by the Ukrainian government by equating it with the Russian invaders - and, for good measure, dismissing Ukrainian ministers as trolls.
Whilst I believe Putin is a war criminal and that Ukraine has the right to defend itself against aggression (and should be assisted within reason) it's usually never as simple as 'good vs evil'.

I've looked on the Amnesty International website and there is a lot of criticism of Russia there. Whether this particular criticism of Ukrainian forces has any merit I'll let the fog of war clear before making judgment. To be honest the criticism above of Amnesty sounds a little OTT.

The Independent has also reported that AP journalists have relayed stories similar to Amnesty's.
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,289
Location
Up the creek
I agree it is not Amnesty’s finest hour, but the prominence it is being given in the Telegraph is more because of that paper’s hatred of an organisation that periodically criticises the British Government than anything else. The paper is being, not for the first time, highly selective and is rather more concerned about its own pet hates than the wider picture.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
If what I heard on the late evening TV news, suggesting that Russian forces in the Ukrainian nuclear facility have now begun to use it as a military base from which to attack the Ukrainian forces under a nuclear shield, that seems to be a most cynical move to have made.
 

TwoYellas

Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
258
Location
Birmingham
If what I heard on the late evening TV news, suggesting that Russian forces in the Ukrainian nuclear facility have now begun to use it as a military base from which to attack the Ukrainian forces under a nuclear shield, that seems to be a most cynical move to have made.
I really hate these weapons, the sooner the world is free of this curse the better!
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
I agree it is not Amnesty’s finest hour, but the prominence it is being given in the Telegraph is more because of that paper’s hatred of an organisation that periodically criticises the British Government than anything else. The paper is being, not for the first time, highly selective and is rather more concerned about its own pet hates than the wider picture.
Agreed. The Torygraph Telegraph has made no bones about their deep-seated hatred of Amnesty International - this is a dig at the organisation for exactly the reason you highlight.
 

TwoYellas

Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
258
Location
Birmingham
Just had another read on Amnesty's website. Plenty of criticism there of Russian crimes. Including highlighting a story of a Russian Municipal councillor sentenced to 7 years for opposing the war.

In the reports about residents concerns about the proximity of Ukrainian forces to their homes people have asked why they are in residential areas and not elsewhere and one person said they feel they have no say. Imagine being in their shoes and living next to a military target, I'd be feeling very anxious and remember some people can't move for various reasons.

Seems to me Amnesty International are doing a good job in voicing the concerns of civilians and their reporting seems balanced. So it poses the question who has the 'obsession', doesn't seem to me to be Amnesty.

I'd like to hear views as to why AI are wrong to voice these concerns, are they making it all up because they hate the West? Sounds like rubbish in the DT.
 

gingerheid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,490
Anmesty International are wrong for the same reason as they have often been wrong in recent years.

They make great efforts to be what they think is even handed, but as the equality act knows treating people the same is not the same as treating people equally. If one treats a wrongdoer and a victim the same, and if one judges the actions of someone dealing with a wrongdoer by the standards that would be applicable if they were not dealing with a wrongdoer, one is showing the most terrible bias in favour of the wrongdoer.

Context is everything. Should you hit someone with whatever object is closest to hand while shouting "Get out! **** off!" and putting on your scariest face? Usually not. If you're in a shopping centre and you've just seen your granny walk towards you then this would be a terrible idea. If however someone has just broken into your flat, ...

The Telegraph is... this is going to stick in my throat a bit... The Telegraph is on this particular occasion right to identify this as a problem of the recent further left than centre left. It's a problem that's been typified for quite a few years by people like Jeremy Corbyn responding to a real life and extent problem by criticising the response to the problem as it exists, and by offering as an alternative an aspirational view of what the response to the problem could be in an idealised world where the problem was different or did not exist; "Y is undesirable. I don't like X doing Y, I'd prefer if X could sit down with Z over a cup of tea and sort things out". You shouldn't have sworn or got physical or threatened people. Swearing and getting angry and hitting and threatening people is undesirable. I'd prefer if people sat down with a cup of tea and explained it would be better not to break into people's flats in the first place.
 
Last edited:

TwoYellas

Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
258
Location
Birmingham
They make great efforts to be what they think is even handed, but as the equality act knows treating people the same is not the same as treating people equally. If one treats a wrongdoer and a victim the same, and if one judges the actions of someone dealing with a wrongdoer by the standards that would be applicable if they were not dealing with a wrongdoer, one is showing the most terrible bias in favour of the wrongdoer.
The overwhelming amount of stories regarding Ukraine on AI website is highlighting Russian crimes. So you are effectively arguing that they shouldn't highlight the concerns of ordinary civilians because it's 'the most terrible bias in favour of the wrongdoer'. Doesn't make any sense, I'd say AI are doing their job and go further and say the newspapers here should also (although The Independent did). It's also easy for you to say, I want to hear voices that may not get heard.

Of course Ukraine should defend themselves but by putting civilians first. By that I mean all reasonable steps taken, I understand may not be always possible.
It's a problem that's been typified for quite a few years by people like Jeremy Corbyn responding to a real life and extent problem by criticising the response to the problem as it exists, and by offering as an alternative an aspirational view of what the response to the problem could be in an idealised world where the problem was different or did not exist; "Y is undesirable. I don't like X doing Y, I'd prefer if X could sit down with Z over a cup of tea and sort things out".
Sorry this is rubbish. If you get rid of your bias and do some research you'd find that Mr Corbyn has been criticising rolling the red carpet out for Putin long, long ago. Further he also spoke out against dodgy Russian money coming into London and influencing British politics, again for years. If you're going to criticise someone, at least criticise for something genuine rather than, sorry have to say this, propaganda which has gotten into people's minds. That DT article seems to be in a similar vein to what you've written.
 

gingerheid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,490
Sorry this is rubbish. If you get rid of your bias and do some research you'd find that Mr Corbyn has been criticising rolling the red carpet out for Putin long, long ago. Further he also spoke out against dodgy Russian money coming into London and influencing British politics, again for years. If you're going to criticise someone, at least criticise for something genuine rather than, sorry have to say this, propaganda which has gotten into people's minds. That DT article seems to be in a similar vein to what you've written.

Urm... it seems like there's a little bit of confusion in what you're saying. You may have some pro Corbyn bias...

He may have been criticising Putin for years indeed. But if you were to do what you call "some research" then you'd find that of course the practical action Corbyn has called for in this situation is that we should... not take practical steps to support Ukraine. He's instead made nebulous aspirational calls for peace to happen instead.

What he's doing is is exactly what I described and exactly what he's always done. "Y (allowing Ukraine to shoot back) is undesirable. I don't like X (Ukraine) doing Y (shooting back), I'd prefer if X (Ukraine) could sit down with Z (Russia) over a cup of tea (with the UN and the African Union and the Arab League) and sort things out"

He's encouraging us to treat Ukraine and Russia the same, and to treat Ukraine as if it did not face a wrongdoer but someone who can be treated the same as everyone else. He doesn't want a country under attack to be able to defend itself. This is not an even handed approach, because if Ukraine had not defended itself it would no longer exist. Therefore as much as he might have criticised Putin in the past, the action he calls for now is that which would cause Putin to be handed a complete and total victory.
 
Last edited:

TwoYellas

Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
258
Location
Birmingham
Urm... it seems like there's a little bit of confusion in what you're saying. You may have some pro Corbyn bias...

He may have been criticising Putin for years indeed. But if you were to do what you call "some research" then you'd find that of course the practical action Corbyn has called for in this situation is that we should... not take practical steps to support Ukraine. He's instead made nebulous aspirational calls for peace to happen instead.
Well I prefer to say I have a pro-people bias. So considering JC was campaigning against supporting Saddam (in the 80's when he was committing most of his atrocities) and against Putin (when he committed atrocities in Chechnya but was welcomed here); I've got to credit his consistency in calling a spade a spade. Even up to the present day you can see how we back some pretty atrocious regimes, not in the news all the time but doesn't take a lot of research to see. In fact, horrible crimes going on an no one bats an eyelid because it's not on the box, anyone who speaks out is called 'hard left', I'd say honest is the closer to the correct description.

Also I'd agree with the so called 'hard lefts' solidarity with anti war protests in Russia. As people are people, divided by elites and kleptokrats. So yes I'd say J.C has more integrity than all those Tory M.P's that voted for the Iraq War as well as the spineless Labour Blairites.
He's encouraging us to treat Ukraine and Russia the same, and to treat Ukraine as if it did not face a wrongdoer but someone who can be treated the same as everyone else. He doesn't want a country under attack to be able to defend itself. This is not an even handed approach, because if Ukraine had not defended itself it would no longer exist. Therefore as much as he might have criticised Putin in the past, the action he calls for now is that which would cause Putin to be handed a complete and total victory.
In my view and considering I have little faith in elites, Ukraine should be supported to defend themselves within reason i.e not so it escalates into nuclear conflict. I know J.C recently said that arms are only prolonging the war. So if he is saying they shouldn't be armed then I disagree with him on this point. I support progressive policies not characters - maybe a little idealist but I think we can do better. Now time for that cup of tea. :D
 

gingerheid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,490
I've got to credit his consistency in calling a spade a spade.

Sometimes applying consistency is bad, for example if you consistently say thing same things in entirely different situations. He has consistently opposed the actions of NATO, and continues to do so in a situation even when those actions are not invading Iraq. I'm not saying that lacks integrity, but I am saying it lacks intelligence and reason.

So if he is saying they shouldn't be armed then I disagree with him on this point.

He only did so when appearing on a pro-Putin tv channel, into the bargain.

Ukraine should be supported to defend themselves within reason i.e not so it escalates into nuclear conflict.

And this is where we both agree with the Telegraph. The words stick in my throat and I'm gathering they jar you more than a little too.

Now time for that cup of tea. :D

I strongly suggest you don't accept a nice lemongrass and ginger (and polonium) tea from Putin.
 

TwoYellas

Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
258
Location
Birmingham
Sometimes applying consistency is bad, for example if you consistently say thing same things in entirely different situations. He has consistently opposed the actions of NATO, and continues to do so in a situation even when those actions are not invading Iraq. I'm not saying that lacks integrity, but I am saying it lacks intelligence and reason.
If you ask the people of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan then they may not look at NATO with such fondness (I know Iraq wasn't NATO, but the main players). Now I know I'm going a little against the grain, but we are open to the charge of hypocrisy now someone else decides on invading someone.
He only did so when appearing on a pro-Putin tv channel, into the bargain.
I thinks that's probably nonsense as he was against him way, way before anyone else. Sounds like propaganda.

What I'm trying to say is that nearly every war is dodgy that doesn't benefit anyone apart from maybe some big companies. Nothing trickles down to the ordinary person. And I'm calling bs on right wingers happy for any dodge pots to make money here because, say, it may benefit a business or sports club here, for example. And then jump up and down in false outrage because someone says "why do we help bad guys" or "could these issues be solved around the table before it affects millions".

These right wingers or Blairites can save me their hypocrisy about human rights.

Going back to the war, Ukraine to defend themselves then a settlement. Then wait for Putin to go and good relations with a more moderate Gov't there (too much bellicose language here actually strengthens the hardliners). And if other organisations say in Africa or Asia help bring about peace then that's no bad thing.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Ukraine should be supported to defend themselves within reason i.e not so it escalates into nuclear conflict.
While I agree that a nuclear conflict must be avoided, let us not lose track of what it is we are saying: Ukraine - a non-nuclear state - must not defend itself from a nuclear-armed aggressor so effectively that the aggressor employs nuclear weapons in response.

That is, as the kids would say, messed up AF.
 

TwoYellas

Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
258
Location
Birmingham
While I agree that a nuclear conflict must be avoided, let us not lose track of what it is we are saying: Ukraine - a non-nuclear state - must not defend itself from a nuclear-armed aggressor so effectively that the aggressor employs nuclear weapons in response.

That is, as the kids would say, messed up AF.
Yes they should defend themselves. But not to an extent that it escalates out of hand (nuclear). I'm no expert, but apparently Russia have a point of view which existed before Putin, even Yeltsin snd Gorby had concerns about NATO expansion to their borders. Obviously, Putin has gone way over the top and in an ideal world should face a trial but suspected war criminals usually don't face trial they get VIP treatment everywhere including here.

But what I'm saying is it's got to be sorted around the table eventually. Whether it's European, American, African, Asian organisations or a mix that bring about a suitable settlement doesn't really matter.

Anyway I've given my thoughts, it been emotional ;).

Now time for a spot of Commonwealth Games.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
Sorry this is rubbish. If you get rid of your bias and do some research you'd find that Mr Corbyn has been criticising rolling the red carpet out for Putin long, long ago. Further he also spoke out against dodgy Russian money coming into London and influencing British politics, again for years. If you're going to criticise someone, at least criticise for something genuine rather than, sorry have to say this, propaganda which has gotten into people's minds. That DT article seems to be in a similar vein to what you've written.
But what about his sinister propensity for wearing Russian Hats.
He may have been criticising Putin for years indeed. But if you were to do what you call "some research" then you'd find that of course the practical action Corbyn has called for in this situation is that we should... not take practical steps to support Ukraine. He's instead made nebulous aspirational calls for peace to happen instead.
Perhaps this is because the UK government had already announced a package of support measures?
What he's doing is is exactly what I described and exactly what he's always done. "Y (allowing Ukraine to shoot back) is undesirable. I don't like X (Ukraine) doing Y (shooting back), I'd prefer if X (Ukraine) could sit down with Z (Russia) over a cup of tea (with the UN and the African Union and the Arab League) and sort things out"
Would you not prefer it if the situation could be settled peacefully?
He's encouraging us to treat Ukraine and Russia the same, and to treat Ukraine as if it did not face a wrongdoer but someone who can be treated the same as everyone else. He doesn't want a country under attack to be able to defend itself. This is not an even handed approach, because if Ukraine had not defended itself it would no longer exist. Therefore as much as he might have criticised Putin in the past, the action he calls for now is that which would cause Putin to be handed a complete and total victory.
Again, could you provide a direct quotation to support this.
 

gingerheid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,490
Perhaps this is because the UK government had already announced a package of support measures?

It was those he was opposing.

Would you not prefer it if the situation could be settled peacefully?

I have many unrealistic dreams.

Again, could you provide a direct quotation to support this.

His interview with Al Mayadeen on 30 July in which he opposed military aid for Ukraine
 
Last edited:

Broucek

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2020
Messages
490
Location
UK
Whatever one might think of Boris, I think we should be glad that Corbyn is not PM at a time like this
 

gingerheid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,490
Whatever one might think of Boris, I think we should be glad that Corbyn is not PM at a time like this

Keir Starmer was of course also exactly correct when he said of the opponents of help for Ukraine:

“At best they are naive, at worst they actively give succour to authoritarian leaders who directly threaten democracies. There is nothing progressive in showing solidarity with the aggressor when our allies need our solidarity and – crucially – our practical assistance now more than ever.”

"Unequivocal condemnation" of Russia doesn't help Ukraine. Practical assistance helps Ukraine.
 

Sm5

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2016
Messages
1,013
The main risk (as I see it) is an increase in Chinese support for Russia’s war in Ukraine; the posturing in the Taiwan Strait itself is just that.
Apparently a train load of Chinese flagged military hardware was filmed on Telegram at Rostov on the Don last Friday.
(Its viewable on both twitter and telegram).

Turkey has always played both warring sides as long it benefits itself… it extends back before ww1.…

Whilst sitting on a neutral fence, they have no qualms at doing deals with either side and usually both sides will be falling over themselves to gain influence, but all parties know where they stand, and loyalty is down to the deal in hand, not the future or the past, as events can change overnight.

I doubt Bayrakter sales will be affected at all, indeed he’d probably sell them to Putin if Irans werent cheaper. But of course they will buy cheap Russian gas, as well as Cheap Russian munitions (S400), whilst also buying Nato hardware.

Turkeys beaches are full of Russians, and Istanbul airport is the gateway to French beaches for Russians… its ports are sanctuary for Ukrainian grain, and in return for F35’s Finland and Sweden will join Nato.

However I suspect Turkey knows where to draw the line, the straights remain closed to military and Russian/Nato hardware wont cross between sides. If either side try it on, Turkey will step on it without second thought.

Think of from their view point.. Europe and Russia have both been at war with Turkey Several times over the centuries, Egypt probably has a similar perspective.

Only a few years ago Turkey shot down a Russian plane, 6 months later they were friends again… Right now Turkey wants land in Syria, both Russia and Nato will turn a blind eye to that Special military operation, as both Russia and Ukraine want grain exports, Turkey is the only broker that can make that happen.

Any war in the ME or Black sea involving Russia or Europe makes it never a better time to be Turkish.
 
Last edited:

TwoYellas

Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
258
Location
Birmingham
Only a few years ago Turkey shot down a Russian plane, 6 months later they were friends again… Right now Turkey wants land in Syria, both Russia and Nato will turn a blind eye to that Special military operation.
Is that where the Kurds gets left stiched up again? Or am I wrong on that?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Though as a NATO member they shouldn't be neutral at all...
Again, given that NATO isn't at war with Russia - and goes to great pains to make that clear, they don't (by the letter of the law) have to be partial to either side.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
Again, given that NATO isn't at war with Russia - and goes to great pains to make that clear, they don't (by the letter of the law) have to be partial to either side.
True though it does seem Turkey is rather more chummy with Russia than perhaps is ideal and certainly more so than many other NATO members are at present.
 

Top