"BRITISH SPECIAL FORCES TROOPS PREPARE TO DEPLOY TO UKRAINE" Topic

NY Post article

link

I read they had 400-600 troops between SAS and Paras ready to go. That's a nice speed bump for a Russian corps. But I suppose the images of dead NATO troops would help escalate things nicely.

If Russia had planned to occupy Ukraine, it would have done so back in 2014. Why does Russia need territories with a disloyal population and an eternal partisan war? It is in the interests of Russia to prevent the "cleansing" of the rebellious territories. Russian troops will intervene in the event of a Ukrainian attack on unrecognized states.

I would tend to agree Russia won't go in…u less Ukraine has a real shot at joining NATO. Putin has made it clear that's a red line. What matters is does Putin believe this is int he works. If he does I believe the Russian army will roll in before NATO admitted Ukraine

If Putin wants to reassemble the old Soviet Empire than invading the Ukraine might make sense from his point of view.

For decades, Ukraine was the Soviet bread basket.

If there is no need to feed the 15 former Soviet republics, then Russia can quite cope with providing itself with food itself.
As for the restoration of the empire – as they say here in Russia: "minced meat cannot be turned back into a piece of meat"))) The era of conquest is long gone – now is the era of voluntary alliances, like the European Union. War and occupation are expensive and not rational. Well, except for situations when the overwhelming part of the population wants to secede from one state (together with the territory of residence), and join another (example of Crimea).

VERY INTERESTING. I AM SURE FOLK WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS.

I absolutely do not understand what British troops would be doing in the Ukraine. Going to the border of Poland and Belarus however should mean that the British have a plan for the solution of the crimes of Lukashenko. That I (and no doubt many with me) would applaud !

According to a German message I saw that Britain has sent ten (10) soldiers to the Polish border. Source: Politico.

Well it would not surprise me if the UK and/or US may have a small group of Spec Ops types in Ukraine. IIRC the US has/had Tank or Mech Hvy Bde in Poland and the UK had troops there too …? Maybe a Mech Bn ?

And then there is this – link

Those 400-odd aren't any kind of invention force they along with the the other European troops are almost certainly tasked with evacuation of foreign nationals should the need arise.

Fairly certain that Putin isn't going to play the invasion card – he'd loose the game. Just reminding the Ukrainian's that they aren't allowed to control their sovereign territory…just in case they were getting any ideas.

Well, except for situations when the overwhelming part of the population wants to secede from one state (together with the territory of residence), and join another (example of Crimea).

*cough*Chechnya*cough*… sorry, coughing fit bought on by laughing so hard. I would believe that if the territory had been a UN mandate at the time of the referendum and the ballet truly independent! And that's without the rights of the indigenous population being considered. Also I wonder just how loud the howls of 'colonialism' and 'imperialism' would be from the Kremlin if a chunk of the former British Empire with a significant ethnic-British population with overt UK military support did that?

Interesting.

Rumors are the Russkies will re-invade Ukraine again in January, since there is a buildup of forces in the region.

Gen. Jack Keen seems to throw cold water on that, and thinks the troop movements are just from the field to more "hardened" Winter bases in the region, and if anything, suspects the forces may be intended for Belarus, if anything, over further misadventures and errant vacations by lost units, in the Ukraine, as have happened previously.

Of course, given the takeover of Crimea, and the weakness of those opposing Putin in the West, anything IS possible I suppose.

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa you have not forgotten that power in Ukraine was seized by armed group of nationalists (including outright Nazis), and overthrew the legally elected president? A successful mutiny is usually called a "revolution"))) It was such events that preceded the events in Crimea. This makes the picture more objective. Maybe it makes sense to roll back the situation to the pre-revolutionary one? Return President Yanukovych, expel nationalists and their accomplices from power, return the legal basis … Will it not work anymore?
Obviously, staging a nationalist revolution in a multinational country is a bad idea. This usually leads to inter-ethnic wars.

And what about Chechnya? Didn't the West support the "desire of the freedom-loving Chechen people" for freedom? Why does he not support such an aspiration in Crimea? Cough … Excuse me – it seems that it is not in the interests of the West?))) And what about the problems of Kosovo, the Basques in Spain. Regarding Britain … How is the situation in Ulster?

The indigenous population, if you mean the Crimean Tatars, wants to join Turkey.
And what should be done? Russians have lived in Crimea for 300 years (this is not counting medieval history). Are you denying them the right to decide where and how they want to live? Will you drive them out of their homes, drive them to reservations, or just want to destroy?
The ethnic composition of the population of Crimea in 2014: 65% – Russians, 15% – Ukrainians; 10% – Crimean Tatars

Well populist uprising seldom result in 'legal' changes of government. I note much was made of the nationalist credentials of the Euromaidan movement particularly in the Russian Government's English-language media at the time. But apparently its fine to use far-right nationalists as observers during the Crimea referendum in attempt to give it a veneer of international credibility?

As for Ulster…….

Well, except for situations when the overwhelming part of the population wants to secede from one state (together with the territory of residence), and join another (example of Crimea).

The territory was originally, and remains still, majority pro-British. And is recognised internationally including by the Republic of Ireland. More than can be said for those tiny pretend nations created out of Russian Governments nationalist agit-prop?

As for the lack of 'Western' intervention – real politick! Various 'freedom-loving' groups have been kicked under the geopolitical bus with far weaker backers than the Russian government.

OK. Look – these are the leaders of the Ukrainian Maidan.

Yatsenyuk, Klitschko and Tyagnibok.
Do you know who Tyagnibok is? Read:
link

And here he is with Mccain:

Where can you see evidence of the use of Russian ultra-right nationalists in Crimea during the referendum? It is the ultra-right that interests me (hatred of some other nationalities). I know that a militia was created to confront the Ukrainian nationalists, but I do not know anything about the ultra-right ORGANIZATIONS among them – share your information.

By the way, a lot of Western parliamentarians, journalists and ordinary people have already visited Crimea. Did they find proof that the overwhelming majority of the population did not want to join Russia?

Why is the nationalist agitation of the Russian governments of the unrecognized republics worse than the nationalist agitation of the mutineers who came to power in Ukraine?

And I have a normal attitude towards real politics and understand that excessive moralizing in this area is also just a political game.

A "popular uprising" in Ukraine, led by the Nazis as a strike force, overthrew the president who was supported precisely by Crimea and the eastern territories of Ukraine. Interesting – what result did you expect? Resistance was inevitable and Russia gave this movement every support. But it was the "revolution" that launched the mechanism of confrontation, not the intervention of Russia. This is an indisputable fact.

By the way, if the legitimacy of Putin or, for example, Lukashenko, really raises a lot of questions, then the legitimacy of President Yanukovych in Ukraine was indisputable – the elections were held absolutely transparently and legally, and no one doubted their reliability. The expression of the will of the inhabitants of Crimea and the South-East of Ukraine was shamelessly trampled upon by the impostors.

why is it a bad thing for Ukraine to be part of historical Russia?

I am sure nobody would like for Texas to become independent by the will of a few determined citizens.

There is no question of including Ukraine in Russia. The question is that Ukraine can be turned into a mono-national state only by forcibly turning local Russians into "Ukrainians". Western Ukrainians have forgotten how they themselves reacted to attempts to "polonize" them for many centuries, including during the Second World War. A sea of blood was spilled. Now Ukrainian nationalists have tried to do the same thing that the Poles once did.

The question is also that Russia is in Europe as some would like us to miraculously forget while NATO is essentially a tool at the service of US presence (economical and political) in Europe… two radical opposite visions.

It is becoming more and more difficult to justify Europe keeping Russia at bay rather than trying to bridge the differences.

NATO looks more and more like the dying instrument of market makers who have long seized any resemblance of democracy in the West.

You know you have been cheated out of your rights to decide your fate as a nation, you have been robbed in the name of Freedom for the interests of the few. Finance is rigged, Media is bought out and serves billionaires in most of the Western countries while healthcare, housing and eduction costs rise ever more.

They made us stand to the communists. But now, do we really believe them? Isn't there more to the eye than what they really want to feed us with.

When they will stop to divide us with fake controversies or new social protocoles, when they will stop to keep the market for themselves and the media to fuel their propaganda we might want to take a stand according to what we are told.

Credibility of the powers to be has dived down. Red pill it is. Now is time to question what we see.

Where can you see evidence of the use of Russian ultra-right nationalists in Crimea during the referendum?

Never said that – and rather interesting you jumped to that conclusion. They were actually members of European far-right parties though 'useful idiots' or 'groupies' may be a better description.

And while I don't dispute that Crimea is a Russian majority – I would entirely dispute entirely the legitimacy of the process.

Again don't deny the presence of less than savoury elements in Ukrainian politics. But the whole spectrum of Ukrainian politics was there! I note Tyagnibok and his party appears to have turned into rather a political non-entity. Overall his comments are undeniably racist, but unfortunately hardly uncommon in the wider Eastern Europe. The other two make no sense – their political positions don't appear to match the charge.

Final point. Basically the Russian Government needs to stop with the whole Russia is under an existential threat from outsiders schtick. Its false. And more than that its dangerous. Perhaps the Russian Government should develop some self awareness as to the attitudes of its old near-abroad rather declaring any attempt to turn away from the Russian sphere of influence is part of the aforementioned threat! Attitudes often forged well before the October Revolution. Perhaps if they actually cared about ethnic Russians abroad they wouldn't destabilise the countries where they live to the point they become a target for indigenous nationalists. Also its own pronouncements on other territorial disputes are hardly consistent!

And stay away from NWO or neoliberal economic conspiracy theories as well.

do not stay away from neo-progressists and useful idiots. On the contrary, engage them on the reality of facts and the way you analyze a situation.

That's where it hurts and why debate is more than ever necessary for a healthy and robust democracy.

I like this idea repaint. It works for all sides.

Yes, various forces took part in the protests on the Maidan – not only the Nazis. But at the same time, it was the Nazis who put up organized and cohesive "fighting" detachments. These people were trained in paramilitary camps in advance (there is a mass of documentary materials on this matter). It was these detachments that confronted the police, it was they who attacked the supporters of the legitimate president (just imagine, in Kiev there was not only Maidan, but also Antimaydan – only Western media avoided showing it). It was the Nazis who were the first to plunder military warehouses in Western Ukraine and armed themselves.
What do you think their opponents in Eastern Ukraine were supposed to do? Calmly wait for the arrival of Nazi fighters with weapons to their homes?

Perhaps no one threatens Russia … But why was the coup in Ukraine supported by officials from the United States and Europe? Why are the borders of the anti-Russian (this is how it was created) and the aggressive NATO bloc (remember how many wars it fought on foreign territory) are constantly approaching the borders of Russia? Why does the United States consider it possible for itself to worry about friendly regimes in Latin America, for example, but Russia should not worry about its surroundings?

To live with wolves – howl like a wolf. You need to defend your interests, since no one will take care of you except yourself. This is the reality of this world.

And besides, the United States has officially named Russia its # 1 enemy. And what do you now expect from Russia?

the United States has officially named Russia its # 1 enemy. And what do you now expect from Russia?

That is not current. The PRC/CCP is #1. With Russia being #2.

You're just going to have to try harder. 🤩

IMO … the biggest threat to the USA in from within.
"We have met the enemy … and they is us ! " … Pogo from the funny pages … 😆🦔

You will probably be surprised, but now the official authorities in Russia (except for a few political freaks in the Duma (Russian parliament)) do not call the United States and the West in general an enemy. The expression "our western partners" is used, but the speech is only about "a potential threat from the western partners."
So we are enemies for you, and you are partners for us (in a dangerous business) :-)

So we are enemies for you, and you are partners for us (in a dangerous business)

Wrong, you are designated "enemies" by our so-called elites, and, as corrupt people, they succeed less and less at convincing us Russia is that enemy.

Russia is Russia, it has its own interest and is a European country, not some sort of far away toxic land.

Biggest mistake Nappy and Alex made was not to strike a strategic alliance in their time.