Russia invades Ukraine

[Killingworth]

The only “discrimination” they faced was that the Putin Puppet was thrown out of office after the Maidan Revolution in 2014. And how’s life for them in the Donbass these days, their kids being thrown into Putin’s meat grinder.

Putin’s immediate response was to invade the country and, in the process, deliberately murder 300 people on a civilian airliner. The West let him, so he came back for second dibs.

The “discrimination” was and is a Russian lie, exactly the same as it was and is in South Ossetia and in Transnistria.

And the meat grinder will continue as long as more arms keep being thrown in. The germs of truth in the lies are enough to keep it grinding. Too much of WW1 all over again.

 

[ainsworth74]

And the meat grinder will continue as long as more arms keep being thrown in. The germs of truth in the lies are enough to keep it grinding. Too much of WW1 all over again.

So if we (Europe) and the US stop sending supplies to Ukraine what do you suppose will happen?

 

[Tetchytyke]

And the meat grinder will continue as long as more arms keep being thrown in.

It’s worth pointing out that both wars were started by Russia. Putin will keep throwing men into the meat grinder until he gets what he wants.

That’s one resource Russia isn’t short of: the sons of poor people. Putin will just throw them into the grinder.

The germs of truth in the lies are enough to keep it grinding.

Nonsense. You’re just regurgitating Russian propaganda now. Don’t be silly.

 

[Yew]

Trump is capricious and, ultimately, you’re for him or against him. He doesn’t do appeasement. Starmer’s going to have to pick a side.

So far, it seems he has done quite a good job at avoiding tarrifs, but also building up relations with Europe.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So if we (Europe) and the US stop sending supplies to Ukraine what do you suppose will happen?

Well, we’d have “peace”, at least for a while.

And then, in a couple of years after he’d restocked, we’d start hearing about how Russian minorities in Estonia and Lithuania are being “victimised”, and then we’d have the same thing all over again. And this time it really would be on our doorstep.

Putin did it in South Ossetia and the west let him. So he did it in the Donbass, and we let him. I suspect he thought we’d let him this time too, and that he’d have been in Kyiv by Christmas. Roll over after all this time and you just signal to him that Estonia will be fair dibs.

When Finland decides to join NATO, you know they’re scared. I don’t blame them.

 

[Yew]

And the meat grinder will continue as long as more arms keep being thrown in. The germs of truth in the lies are enough to keep it grinding. Too much of WW1 all over again.

Given that Putin has been doing things such as raiding prisons for soldiers, sending injured troops back into combat, and using tanks that are almost at retirement age themselves, I don't feel it's a massive leap to suggest that force sustainment for Russia is not straightforward.

 

[RT4038]

how much of Kent and Sussex would you give up if France invaded?

How many willing people have you got to fight with, how much finance and logistics for supplies? How much are your allies going to support you (manpower, finance, resources)? If the answer is not enough to retain Kent and Sussex, then they've got to be given up...... (temporarily at least)

 

[Tetchytyke]

So far, it seems he has done quite a good job at avoiding tarrifs, but also building up relations with Europe.

That’s only because Trump has been focusing on shredding NAFTA. The EU hasn’t yet faced his wrath.

 

[Killingworth]

I note you dodge the question. Could you provide an answer?

I only wish I could.

I've looked at where Putin came from and when. He hates the west. The world seen from post 1940s Leningrad where he grew up looks very different from London and New York.

Those dealing with him should understand the skin he lives in. It's a strength, but a weakness. Does Trump have that understanding? He may do a little, but probably not enough! Only time will tell.

 

[DarloRich]

I've looked at where Putin came from and when. He hates the west. The world seen from post 1940s Leningrad where he grew up looks very different from London and New York.

Those dealing with him should understand the skin he lives in. It's a strength, but a weakness. Does Trump have that understanding? He may do a little, but probably not enough! Only time will tell.

Still no answer beyond confirming you are on Team Putin. Good day to you.

 

[Falcon1200]

We haven't had to face these issues for centuries, or maybe we have, Ireland!

The Falkland Islands? At the cost of many lives the invasion was repelled and the aggressor deterred (so far, but for 40 years and counting) from trying again.

 

[Cloud Strife]

He hates the west.

I don't think Putin actually hates the West. He's never really shown any actual hatred towards the West, and most of what he's been doing has been about restoring Russian power to the level that they had in the early 1980s or so. He's more likely to feel (which is common with Russians his age) that he has a 'right' to the Near Abroad, which is rooted in the deeply immense paranoia that the Soviet Union had about being invaded again.

Źelensky knows the Russian speaking minority was suffering some discrimination, not least because Russian is his first language.After 2014 efforts were made to ease that but Ukranian remains the official language. Who knows what difference it would have made if models used in countries like Switzerland and South Africa had been adopted. They weren't.

I feel that this needs fact-checked:

There wasn't discrimination against the Russian speakers in Ukraine. Kyiv and Odesa are still heavily Russophone when it comes to informal communication, and in places like Crimea, Russian was absolutely dominant. It's important to note that the Russian speakers are and were Ukrainian in most cases, and even the ethnic Russians who speak Russian didn't have problems in their daily lives in Ukraine. They were fully integrated into normal life, and no-one was excluded (unlike in Estonia and Latvia for instance) for being a Russian speaker.

On a practical level, Russian also dominated in business before 2022, even among Ukranians. If someone from Lviv was doing business from someone from Kharkiv, then Russian would almost certainly have been used, not Ukrainian. It's also important to note that the Russian speakers in places like Odesa absolutely despise Russia. They don't identify with the "discrimination" rhetoric, and while young people in Odesa are now switching over quite quickly to Ukrainian, there's still a huge amount of Russian speakers there who don't feel discriminated against and they identify firmly with Ukraine, not Russia.

It was different in Crimea, but again, they had an autonomous parliament and republic, and the Russian majority in Crimea wasn't discriminated against before 2014.

With the Donetsk Oblast, there was no real demand for autonomy there before the Donetsk Mafia started stirring up stuff for their own personal gain, combined with the Russian fear of what would happen if the Orange Revolution was repeated in Russia. While I agree that they should have had autonomy from the early 1990s so that their local leaders would be forced to make difficult deindustrialisation decisions themselves rather than Kyiv, there was no discrimination against the ethnic Russians and Russian speakers there.

 

[Annetts key]

The situation is complex. However it’s not difficult to get some clarity.

It doesn’t matter what Russia says, what Putin wants, what “reasons” they have given for this war. All of that is irrelevant in deciding what to do. Why? Because there is nothing that they have said that can ever justify how many people have been killed and injured. Putin decided war was how he was going to try to impose his rule.

It’s the same with Trump. It doesn’t matter what he says, what his “team” says, or what he wants, what “reasons” they have given for their decisions. All of that is irrelevant in deciding what to do.

Both Russia and Trump use lies and misinformation.

So we have to judge them on their actions. Russia shows absolutely no sign that any Western peace or ceasefire plan would be acceptable. Until the situation that Russia finds itself in gets substantially worse, I don’t see any chance of Putin changing his mind. Russia will continue fighting to get closer to their objective, whatever that is.

Trump doesn’t like anything that goes against his idea (because I’m not at all sure he ever had a meaningful plan). And you just can’t trust him. Not after how he treated other allies.

So what do we do?

We need to acknowledge that if Russia won’t enter meaningful negotiations with Ukraine and the other European countries, that we must help Ukraine as much as possible so that they can at least continue to defend themselves.

If the U.S.A. will no longer support Ukraine, we also have to assume that the U.S.A. may not support any other allies. In which case, we have to assume that Europe cannot rely on help from the U.S.A.

The European countries have to step up. The E.U. has to sort out a “mineral” deal with Ukraine. Frozen Russian funds under the control of European banks need to be used to buy whatever U.S.A. made weapons are needed. They should be purchased directly from the relevant American companies, not via the U.S. government. If we (Europe) are going to pay “top dollar” we want new weapons, not second hand obsolete stuff.

Announce that the longer term plan is to buy weapons from European and other reliable countries rather than U.S.A. made weapons. Couple that with a plan to help European weapons manufacturers so that they can expand and develop.

All the countries that support Ukraine also need to impose even more harsh and extensive sanctions on Russia or any other country or commercial company that helps Russia. Eventually the economic pain will affect Russia.

Europe needs to lead. Europe needs to make it look like Trump is irrelevant. No country needs to think of or treat Trump as a world leader anymore.

I think a trade war is inevitable. We must prepare for that. The instant that Trump announces tariffs on the E.U., they should announce that imports from the U.S.A. will be subject to embargo and that U.S.A. aircraft and ships or aircraft and ships carrying goods from the U.S.A. will be subject to sanctions.

When Trump announces tariffs on the U.K. we do the same. Other countries should also do this.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to tell the American Military to leave our bases. That just gives Trump a reason to try to break up N.A.T.O.

A lot of what Trump and his “team” do in public is about setting the scene so they can later on use that as justification for actions that they intended to do anyway.

It’s got nothing to do with America first, but everything to do with making themselves and their mates richer and powerful.

Has anyone heard any announcements on cutting back that expensive space programme? You know, the part of the government that funds a certain space company?

 

[357]

There wasn't discrimination against the Russian speakers in Ukraine. Kyiv and Odesa are still heavily Russophone when it comes to informal communication, and in places like Crimea, Russian was absolutely dominant. It's important to note that the Russian speakers are and were Ukrainian in most cases, and even the ethnic Russians who speak Russian didn't have problems in their daily lives in Ukraine. They were fully integrated into normal life, and no-one was excluded (unlike in Estonia and Latvia for instance) for being a Russian speaker.

On a practical level, Russian also dominated in business before 2022, even among Ukranians. If someone from Lviv was doing business from someone from Kharkiv, then Russian would almost certainly have been used, not Ukrainian. It's also important to note that the Russian speakers in places like Odesa absolutely despise Russia. They don't identify with the "discrimination" rhetoric, and while young people in Odesa are now switching over quite quickly to Ukrainian, there's still a huge amount of Russian speakers there who don't feel discriminated against and they identify firmly with Ukraine, not Russia.

My wife is from Crimea and says this is 100% accurate.

She also asked me to add that Ukraine never banned the russian language, simply the law was passed that applied to all languages that telephone conversations etc needed to start off in Ukrainian and then switch to russian, English, German etc unless previously arranged to be in another language.

My wife, her family, and many of our friends consider themselves as Ukrainian but speak russian as a first language - and they don't want any help or protection from russia

 

[edwin_m]

I think a trade war is inevitable. We must prepare for that. The instant that Trump announces tariffs on the E.U., they should announce that imports from the U.S.A. will be subject to embargo and that U.S.A. aircraft and ships or aircraft and ships carrying goods from the U.S.A. will be subject to sanctions.

Replying to that on the Trump thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/thoughts-on-the-trump-presidency.280458/page-26#post-7189011

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't think Putin actually hates the West. He's never really shown any actual hatred towards the West, and most of what he's been doing has been about restoring Russian power to the level that they had in the early 1980s or so. He's more likely to feel (which is common with Russians his age) that he has a 'right' to the Near Abroad, which is rooted in the deeply immense paranoia that the Soviet Union had about being invaded again.

I'd agree with that.

It's all about 'spheres of influence'. When Ukraine was firmly under Russia's sphere of influence there was no issue. Even after the Orange Revolution, pro-Russian Yanukovych came back and was President from 2010 to 2014.

What changed was the Maidan Revolution and Yanukovych having to flee to Russia. That happened in February 2014, the war in the Donbass started in April 2014. Putin saw that Ukraine was moving ever further away from the Russian sphere of influence and took steps to change that.

It's always been the way with Putin. Georgia started to move away from Russia and so Russia created issues in South Ossetia and Abkhazia; the former also resulted in a direct war between Georgia and Russia. That was "Russian discrimination" too. You see similar in Transnistria as Moldova seeks to edge away from Russia and towards Western Europe.

The only difference between the current war and the previous wars in South Ossetia and Transnistria is that the west stepped in to help Ukraine.

 

[edwin_m]

The only difference between the current war and the previous wars in South Ossetia and Transnistria is that the west stepped in to help Ukraine.

Another difference is that Ukraine had the size and power to resist meaningfully. Some, but not all, of that was down to receiving some western support beforehand.

 

[najaB]

That’s one resource Russia isn’t short of: the sons of poor people. Putin will just throw them into the grinder.

Actually, Russian demographics are such that they were already facing an aging population crisis. Removing a few hundred thousand young men from the breeding pool certainly won't have helped.

However their position is clear. They want to cut all costs for everything funded by the US government. Military aid is a very big part of the spending.

Which I could almost abide by if it was being done on deeply-held ideological basis, but it's all about tax cuts for the (ultra)wealthy.

 

[Yew]

Actually, Russian demographics are such that they were already facing an aging population crisis. Removing a few hundred thousand young men from the breeding pool certainly won't have helped.

Indeed, it turns out that having a war about 20–30 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, and it's subsequent decline in birth rates isn't some sort of 4D chess move, it's just a poor idea.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Zelensky now reported to have tweeted about regrettable ending to white house meeting and it's time to make things right.

Didn't take long after aid was cut. Suspect this may be a start in change of tactic from Zelensky.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c981p3dxnent

Zelensky calls Trump showdown 'regrettable'published at 15:49
15:49Breaking​

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed regret over his angry exchange with Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

"Our meeting in Washington, at the White House on Friday, did not go the way it was supposed to be," he writes in a post on X.

"It is regrettable that it happened this way. It is time to make things right."

 

[Gloster]

Zelensky now reported to have tweeted about regrettable ending to white house meeting and it's time to make things right.

Didn't take long after aid was cut. Suspect this may be a start in change of tactic from Zelensky.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c981p3dxnent

Alternatively, he is giving Trump et al. an opportunity to simmer down without them having to eat too much humble pie. It probably won‘t work, but European governments have probably pushed him to at least try before everybody ratchets things up a couple of gears. It is the same as Starmer not being out-and-out critical of Trump: this gives a last chance for Starmer to act as bridge and hopefully get the US to step back from the most catastrophic options. It probably won’t work either, but at least try.

 

[najaB]

Didn't take long after aid was cut. Suspect this may be a start in change of tactic from Zelensky.

He was in Washington to sign a deal that allows US companies to pillage Ukraine's natural resources. I don't think he was in anything other than a conciliatory mood.

 

[Cloud Strife]

It probably won‘t work, but European governments have probably pushed him to at least try before everybody ratchets things up a couple of gears. It is the same as Starmer not being out-and-out critical of Trump: this gives a last chance for Starmer to act as bridge and hopefully get the US to step back from the most catastrophic options. It probably won’t work either, but at least try.

I think that it's highly likely that he's been told that he should try and patch things up, but that Europe is willing to step up and arm Ukraine if Trump won't play ball. It's been very telling that people like Meloni and Le Pen are openly horrified by what Trump did, and there really isn't any significant opposition (Fico and Orban don't count) in Europe to arming Ukraine too.

Having said that, I don't think this minerals deal will be worth the paper it's written on. After all, if Ukraine refuses to cooperate, what exactly can America do?

 

[Annetts key]

I don't think the minerals bit was the sticking point. Yes the first version was extortion. But if the revised version is as per the "leaked" copy that has been made public, it's said to be considerably better.

The sticking point is that Ukraine wanted the U.S. to do more to ensure that if Russia decides to ignore a peace deal / ceasefire, there is U.S. military support in some form. But Trump won't commit to that.

 

[Harpo]

As a random aside, I wonder how long Trump's assets in the UK will remain assets. Things like golf courses only work as long as they're playable, and it doesn't take particularly much to cause serious damage to a course.

I suspect that locals realise the value of jobs and local spending that’s being generated.

Much like many English football clubs with their even more dubious sugar daddy owners.

 

[Annetts key]

The full text of the Ukraine-US Minerals Agreement
Wednesday, 26 February 2025

European Pravda publishes the final text of the "Minerals Deal," an intergovernmental arrangement that Ukraine and the United States are set to sign this week.

The completion of negotiations was officially announced on Wednesday by Denys Shmyhal, Ukrainian Prime Minister, who also mentioned that the agreement with the US includes Ukraine’s key condition to include a reference to security guarantees in the deal.

The main legal obligation for Ukraine is to begin negotiations with the US on a more detailed agreement that will regulate the activities of the "Reconstruction Investment Fund" – a bilateral structure to be created by Ukraine and the US.

* * * * *
BILATERAL AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR A RECONSTRUCTION INVESTMENT FUND

WHEREAS the United States of America has provided significant financial and material support to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022;

WHEREAS the American people desire to invest alongside Ukraine in a free, sovereign and secure Ukraine;

WHEREAS the United States of America and Ukraine desire a lasting peace in Ukraine and a durable partnership between their two peoples and governments;

WHEREAS the United States of America and Ukraine recognize the contribution that Ukraine has made to strengthening international peace and security by voluntarily abandoning the world's third largest arsenal of nuclear weapons;

WHEREAS the United States of America and Ukraine wish to ensure that those States and other persons that have acted adversely to Ukraine in the conflict do not benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine following a lasting peace;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Ukraine (each, a "Participant") hereby enter into this Bilateral Agreement Establishing Terms and Conditions for a Reconstruction Investment Fund to deepen the partnership between the United States of America and Ukraine, as set forth herein.

1. The Governments of Ukraine and the United States of America, with the aim of achieving lasting peace in Ukraine, intend to establish a Reconstruction Investment Fund (Fund), partnering in the Fund through joint ownership, to be further defined in the Fund Agreement. Joint ownership will take into consideration the actual contributions of the Participants as defined in Sections 3 and 4. The Fund will be jointly managed by representatives of the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the United States of America. More detailed terms pertaining to the Fund’s governance and operation will be set forth in a subsequent agreement (the Fund Agreement) to be negotiated promptly after the conclusion of this Bilateral Agreement. The maximum percentage of ownership of the Fund’s equity and financial interests to be held by the Government of the United States of America and the decision-making authority of the representatives of the Government of the United States of America will be to the extent permissible under applicable United States laws.
   
   Neither Participant will sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of, directly or indirectly, any portion of its interest in the Fund without the prior written consent of the other Participant.
   
   
2. The Fund will collect and reinvest revenues contributed to the Fund, minus expenses incurred by the Fund, and will earn income from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian Government), as defined in Section 3.
   
   
3. The Government of Ukraine will contribute to the Fund 50 percent of all revenues earned from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian Government), defined as deposits of minerals, hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, and other extractable materials, and other infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets (such as liquified natural gas terminals and port infrastructure) as agreed by both Participants, as may be further described in the Fund Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, such future sources of revenues do not include the current sources of revenues which are already part of the general budget revenues of Ukraine. Timeline, scope and sustainability of contributions will be further defined in the Fund Agreement.
   
   The Fund, in its sole discretion, may credit or return to the Government of Ukraine actual expenses incurred by the newly developed projects from which the Fund receives revenues.
   
   Contributions made to the Fund will be reinvested at least annually in Ukraine to promote the safety, security and prosperity of Ukraine, to be further defined in the Fund Agreement. The Fund Agreement will also provide for future distributions.
   
   
4. Subject to applicable United States law, the Government of the United States of America will maintain a long-term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine. Further contributions may be comprised of funds, financial instruments, and other tangible and intangible assets critical for the reconstruction of Ukraine.
   
   
5. The Fund's investment process will be designed so as to invest in projects in Ukraine and attract investments to increase the development, processing and monetization of all public and private Ukrainian assets including, but not limited to, deposits of minerals, hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, and other extractable materials, infrastructure, ports, and state-owned enterprises as may be further described in the Fund Agreement. The Government of the United States of America and the Government of Ukraine intend that the investment process will lead to opportunities for distribution of additional funds and greater reinvestment, to ensure the sufficient supply of capital for the reconstruction of Ukraine as set out in the Fund Agreement.
   
   The Participants reserve the right to take such action as necessary to protect and maximize the value of their economic interests in the Fund.
   
   
6. The Fund Agreement will include appropriate representations and warranties, including those necessary to ensure that any obligations the Government of Ukraine may have to third parties, or such obligations that it may undertake in the future, do not sell, convey, transfer pledge, or otherwise encumber the Government of Ukraine’s contributions to the Fund or the assets from which such contributions are derived, or the Fund’s disposition of funds.
   
   In drafting the Fund Agreement, the Participants will strive to avoid conflicts with Ukraine’s obligations under its accession to the European Union or its obligations under arrangements with international financial institutions and other official creditors.
   
   
7. The Fund Agreement will provide, inter alia, an acknowledgment that both the Fund Agreement and the activities provided for therein are commercial in nature.
   
   The Fund Agreement shall be ratified by the Parliament of Ukraine according to the Law of Ukraine "On International Treaties of Ukraine".
   
   
8. The Fund Agreement will pay particular attention to the control mechanisms that make it impossible to weaken, violate or circumvent sanctions and other restrictive measures.
   
   
9. The text of the Fund Agreement will be developed without delay by working groups chaired by authorized representatives of the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the United States of America. Contact persons responsible for preparing the Fund Agreement on the basis of this Bilateral Agreement are: from the Government of the United States of America: the Department of the Treasury; from the Government of Ukraine: Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Economy.
   
   
10. This Bilateral Agreement and the Fund Agreement will constitute integral elements of the architecture of bilateral and multilateral agreements, as well as concrete steps to establish lasting peace, and to strengthen economic security resilience and reflect the objectives set forth in the preamble to this Bilateral Agreement.
    
    The Government of the United States of America supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace. Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments, as defined in the Fund Agreement.
    
    
11. This Bilateral Agreement is binding and will be implemented by each Participant according to its domestic procedures. The Government of the United States of America and the Government of Ukraine commit to proceed forthwith to negotiate the Fund Agreement.

Signed in English and Ukrainian languages, both texts are equally authentic.

For the Government of the United States of America:

Scott K. H. Bessent

Secretary of the Treasury


For the Government of Ukraine:

Yuliia Svyrydenko

First Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine – Minister of Economy of Ukraine

Link to the article

 

[brad465]

Before today it was possible Trump just didn't care about Ukraine. But after the decision to stop sharing intelligence with Ukraine, and telling European countries to stop getting involved (after previously saying they needed to do more), there is no doubt now Trump actively wants them to lose to Russia. Europe as a whole needs to accept this and stop thinking it can win him over. We can't, so must move on from their reliance for good.

 

[REVUpminster]

Before today it was possible Trump just didn't care about Ukraine. But after the decision to stop sharing intelligence with Ukraine, and telling European countries to stop getting involved (after previously saying they needed to do more), there is no doubt now Trump actively wants them to lose to Russia. Europe as a whole needs to accept this and stop thinking it can win him over. We can't, so must move on from their reliance for good.

and Europe must move on from relying on Russian gas; especially Germany who got it cheap to undercut their competitors.

 

[Ivor]

Before today it was possible Trump just didn't care about Ukraine. But after the decision to stop sharing intelligence with Ukraine, and telling European countries to stop getting involved (after previously saying they needed to do more), there is no doubt now Trump actively wants them to lose to Russia.

Without question & by withholding the sharing of intelligence any Ukrainian man, woman or child killed tonight & the days to come Trump will have his share of blood on his hands as well as his pal Putin.

 

[Annetts key]

Before today it was possible Trump just didn't care about Ukraine. But after the decision to stop sharing intelligence with Ukraine, and telling European countries to stop getting involved (after previously saying they needed to do more), there is no doubt now Trump actively wants them to lose to Russia. Europe as a whole needs to accept this and stop thinking it can win him over. We can't, so must move on from their reliance for good.

I agree, seconded.

Besides which, who here actually thinks that Russia would agree to stop fighting now that Trump has given them hope that they now have a better chance?