[EV NXT]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

Interesting. Did the British colonize India or did the successive line of monarchs starting from 1857 . After all, it was the proclamation in their name wasn't it ? So why not say that the particular ruler inflicted a brutal regime on Indians ? What's the difference ?

The British took a very long time to plan, conquer and colonize India. There was never a single monarch who planned the invasion.

This, on the other hand, is a one man show. And will be over within a week or two.

If the British colonization of Indian was executed in a similar fashion and over within a week or two, with the single minded attitude of one ruler, you can attribute the colonization to that ruler’s determination.

There’s a complete difference between the two. As mentioned earlier, one can compare Putin with Hitler in terms of single handedly deciding whether Russia goes to war. Not the British colonization.

A bit of dramatization maybe, but gets the message across:

[das_ren_auto]

Originally Posted by am1m

Without going in to the right or wrongs of the invasion, wondering why the NATO alliance is taking so long to respond. Surely one of the scenarios they must have planned for was Russia ultimately going through with the invasion.

NATO is always like this when the opponent is strong. Even though NATO has numerical supremacy in terms of weapons and manpower, Russia is not a walkover. In case of a direct armed conflict with Russia, the end result is nothing but mutual destruction with no winners.

If we see the history, in 1968 during "Prague Springs" , when Warsaw Pact countries invaded and occupied Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, NATO was a silent spectator.

However this invasion may not last long because now it is clear that Ukraine won't be able to join NATO and once objectives are met Russia may withdraw from Ukraine. They have created two independent countries and they have also captured a land connection to Crimean peninsula.

There is no good or bad in a war, there are only "interests".

[fhdowntheline]

Originally Posted by EV NXT

The British took a very long time to plan, conquer and colonize India. There was never a single monarch who planned the invasion.

This, on the other hand, is a one man show. And will be over within a week or two.

If the British colonization of Indian was executed in a similar fashion and over within a week or two, with the single minded attitude of one ruler, you can attribute the colonization to that ruler’s determination.

There’s a complete difference between the two. As mentioned earlier, one can compare Putin with Hitler in terms of single handedly deciding whether Russia goes to war. Not the British colonization.

I hope you realize that a relatively quick action of a year or two is far different from the 90 years of formal regime preceded by unsolicited and wanton acts of aggression, interference in political affairs and subjugation. As far as the impact on those who suffered as a consequence, there is NO difference. Then again, this is all a perspective as some would argue that we reaped benefits out of those events as well. In any case, my basic point is the hypocrisy of the world politics which includes the media.

[EV NXT]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

I hope you realize that a relatively quick action of a year or two is far different from the 90 years of formal regime preceded by unsolicited and wanton acts of aggression, interference in political affairs and subjugation. As far as the impact on those who suffered as a consequence, there is NO difference. Then again, this is all a perspective as some would argue that we reaped benefits out of those events as well.

I am comparing the role of the decision maker - Putin as single handedly taking the decision. Just like Hitler.

Your comparison was with Britain - there is no single monarch in Britain who is responsible for colonization.

Impact and the consequences of various actions are too early to decide and compare as nothing is over and everything has just started and hence are not covered by my post. Neither am I saying who is right or wrong because that is a far more comprehensive discussion and gets into a political debate, something which is not permitted.

[.sushilkumar]

Originally Posted by Mr.Ogre

Very rightly said. What was the need for Ukraine to be a member of NATO. It's like poking a bear. However, this has its roots in 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian forces. From what I read things were amicable before that.

IMO, the whole saga started way back in 2012 when viktor Yanukovych was president of Ukraine. He was a Pro Russian leader and all was well. Things went haywire in late 13, when he rejected "EU association Agreement" with EU/ West & instead went for soft loans from Russia. EU / west did not tolerated this well and used their favourite weapon of Protests & square blocking as it happened with us during "farmers protests". Subsequently he fled Ukraine after he was fired upon while returning home in his car. He is is now settled in Russia.

He was impeached in 2014 and US / WEST appointed their own puppet in Ukraine. Crimea was a result of this whole saga & was the first sign of Putin,s patience weaning off with west / US allies. Ukraine on the other hand got into so called "democracy" & western influence post impeachment of victor in early 14.

Right now also, the current president is seen as puppet of US/WEST. Putin did warned NATO/US to keep Ukraine as buffer zone between them but still US / NATO went ahead with Current president issuing public statements.

Given yesterdays statement by PM & FM post phone calls, I am assured this will keep going till Putin have achieved their military objectives. I do not expect current Indian govt to support Ukraine. Ukraine have a history of poking in our internal affairs issuing many UN-necessary statements on Kashmir & Nuclear weapons etc in UN.

[warrioraks]

Originally Posted by sierrabravo98

Maybe I did not quite understand your post in the correct spirit, and do correct me if I am wrong, but you wrote and I quote :



Now the generally accepted definition of precedent is:


So you would if forgive me if I assumed that you were implying that prior such invasions were filled with ramifications/consequences for the invading nation and that the world would be done a great disservice if Russia was not made to suffer any consequences (because then such inaction would surely set a precedent).

If I am wrong in my understanding, I indeed apologize for the same.

No harm no foul buddy.

Let me clarify - My initial post was not about prior invasions. It was only in the context of the current crisis and impact on future. Ukraine situation is a black swan event and ramifications for the aggressor will set precedent for future events.

You might be fully right in saying that ramifications from previous such transgression have not set the bar high. But my point is - if a new kind of precedent is not set now to deter such things in future, other powerful countries would get encouraged to follow suit and settle long term geographical boundary issues through force.

I appreciate the humility in your last post. Hopefully I was able to explain my point of view better. Cheers!

[COMMUTER]

Originally Posted by Sebring

Exactly! US is no longer the force it used to be. Just because they have McDonalds/Pepsi and the Dollars to invest, people favour them. We should have kept China closer. The benefits are enormous

While I agree with the US being filled with wokism and illogical environmentalist's lies, being closer to China would mean getting occupied for sure. They will not be satisfied with just Kashmir, Sikkim or Arunachal Pradesh too, they would use the lull to max and wont stop until the whole nation speaks mandarin with every citizen becoming athiests.

[SnS_12]

Originally Posted by das_ren_auto

NATO is always like this when the opponent is strong. Even though NATO has numerical supremacy in terms of weapons and manpower, Russia is not a walkover. In case of a direct armed conflict with Russia, the end result is nothing but mutual destruction with no winners.

When dealing with a country like Russia the response has to be calm and measured as Putin has said it in clear words 'To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside - if you do, you will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history' . No World leader even Sleepy Joe should have doubts about that as Putin is willing to go all out on it.

Palki Sharma from WION explains in the below video how sleepy Joe gave Putin the advantage over Europe by his confused statements. Reminds me of the 'May Incident' from WWII, when Andrew Jackson May revealed the deficiencies of Japanese depth-charge tactics in a press conference held in June 1943 on his return from a war zone junket. At this press conference, he revealed the highly sensitive fact that American submarines had a high survival rate because Japanese depth charges were exploding at too shallow a depth. Various press associations sent this leaked news story over their wires and many newspapers published it. This leak has been believed to have resulted in the loss of 10 American submarines and 800 sailors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnLmMCGDZiY

[padmrajravi]

Heartbreaking scenes

https://twitter.com/Newnews_eu/statu...C5me_r58UpAAAA

With Srilanka slowly falling to bankruptcy, and China growing ever so strong, I am afraid, we or our future generations could face this too.

Whatever be the reasons behind Russia's movement, invading another country's sovereignty must have consequences in the modern world. Otherwise, it can set us back by centuries.

[rajk15]

Originally Posted by Electromotive

Still think reliance on Russia is the way forward?

Absolutely! The Russians have helped India time and again more than Uncle Sam ever has. They were the ones who kept China leashed during the '71 & '99 wars. They were the ones who sent us weapons and trained our soldiers for using them overnight while the west was "monitoring the situation". I still think cozying up to the west/uncle sam will not be very helpful for India; as it is the Russians are pretty pissed at us for the way we have been neutral and not openly supported them.

--

As for Putin, the last Chief of Army Staff of Germany had rightly said that all Putin wants is some respect but Uncle Sam is just too egoistic to respect them. Let's not forget that Putin did try to re-establish Russian-European relations many times in the past (when he had just come to power).

Russia has allayed any fears surrounding the delivery of the lethal S-400 air defence systems to India, due to the outbreak of the Coronavirus, which had its origins in China, whose similar deal for the missiles with Moscow was suspended, a month ago.

S-400 Deal: Unlike China, India Will Receive S-400 Air Defence Systems On Time - Russia

Indo-Russian relations are the bilateral relations between India and Russia. During the Cold War, India and the Soviet Union (USSR) had a strong strategic, military, economic and diplomatic relationship. After the Dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia inherited its close relationship with India which resulted in both nations sharing a special relationship. Russia and India both term this relationship as a "special and privileged strategic partnership". Owing to the bonhomie shared by the countries' respective leaders, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Vladimir Putin, the bilateral relationship has seen further growth and development. An informal meeting between them in 2018 at Sochi helped accelerate the partnership, displaying the role of interaction and cooperation between India and Russia.

Traditionally, the Indo-Russian strategic partnership has been built on five major components: politics, defence, civil nuclear energy, anti-terrorism co-operation and space.[1] These five major components were highlighted in a speech given by former Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai in Russia.[1] However, in recent years a sixth, economic component has grown in importance, with both countries setting a target of reaching US$30 billion in bilateral trade by 2025,[2][3] from about US$9.4 billion in the year 2017.[4] In order to meet this goal, both countries are looking to develop a free trade agreement.[5][6][7] Bilateral trade between both countries in 2012 grew by over 24%.[7]

India–Russia relations - Wikipedia

[.sushilkumar]

Originally Posted by COMMUTER

While I agree with the US being filled with wokism and illogical environmentalist's lies, being closer to China would mean getting occupied for sure. They will not be satisfied with just Kashmir, Sikkim or Arunachal Pradesh too, they would use the lull to max and wont stop until the whole nation speaks mandarin with every citizen becoming athiests.

While china may have numerical advantage over Us, we are not pushover either that they risk opening a front. They got a bloody nose recently. Moreover, we have Himalayas as natural barrier in between & Chinese supply lines are stretched already into Tibet.

Other hand, china is invested heavily in west/ US and fear the sanctions a lot. china is a export oriented economy.
On the opposite, Russia is not dependent on west for anything, In fact it is west which is dependent on them for Oil & gas. yesterday, EU / US could not agree on banning Russia from SWIFT

[rAijin_]

Disclaimer: I do not justify war. War should be avoided in any way and for as long as possible. It will never be the answer. My heart goes out to the innocent Ukrainians who are suffering due to the current situation.

Philosophically speaking, WAR should always be avoided. Everything should be resolved peacefully and through diplomatic channels.
Practically speaking, if you push someone into a corner, they will either give in to the pressure or become very aggressive. Now, this is Russia we’re talking about, so aggression it is.

Let’s try to understand the core reasons for this conflict.
1. Russia vs USA
We all know about Russia and USA post WW2 relations and Cold War. So, without getting in detail, we can conclude that Russia doesn’t like USA and USA doesn’t like Russia. Russia doesn’t like USA presence in its geopolitical space and vice-versa.

2. The Black Sea
While Russia has the largest land mass, most of its ports are frozen in winter, which means major sea-based trade is limited to the Black Sea. Countries that have access to the Black Sea are Ukraine, Russia, Georgia, Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania. USA plans to corner Russia by enrolling these countries as NATO members. Of these, Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania are already NATO members. Then USA and NATO allied countries tried to enrol Georgia and now Ukraine. They ( US and NATO ) gave them ( Georgia and Ukraine ) false hopes of security and support in case of War with Russia.

How did Russia respond to this?
- Russia - Georgia War in 2008.
- Russia - Ukraine War in 2022.

3. USA setting up NATO allies near Russia border.
Similar to Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania, US also tried to enrol other Russia neighbouring countries to NATO. As a result, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland are NATO members. Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Afghanistan are NATO allies. Only Ukraine, Georgia, and China remain that are neighbours with Russia and have not joined NATO. China would never join NATO, so Ukraine and Georgia remain.
In order not to be surrounded by its arch rival USA and its NATO allies, Russia has taken action.

Could Russia not do it peacefully?
Actually, Russia tried. It tried to convince the USA, NATO, and Ukraine to not enroll Ukraine in NATO. However, no one listened.

How Russia stopped Georgia and Ukraine from joining NATO with WAR?
As a condition to joining NATO, a country must not have a border dispute with another country, or be at war with another country. So, Russia has created border disputes and a state of war with both Ukraine and Georgia.

Should India support Russia?
As the Flag bearer of peace, India would never support war.
Yet, Russia has always helped India. In the 1971 war (when Pakistan was a close ally of the US), India would have been part of Pakistan along with Bangladesh if not for Russia. There were USA warships in the Indian Ocean, and the only thing standing between them and attacking India were Russian warships. For more details, you can Google it.
It is because of this that India has not issued any statements against Russia and instead has been issuing neutral and diplomatic statements.

[SoumenD]

Looks like chernobyl is under Russian army control now and they are closing in on Kyiv.

Have been following news whenever I get time from work and one thing I noticed is people are being shifted to ‘bomb shelters’. While watching it an airforce jet just flew by and I got thinking what if we are struck this way? Do we have bomb shelters? Where are they?

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

That's why we have a nuclear bomb.

Doesn’t answer my question. Nuclear bomb is like the last resort and all our major hostile neighbors have one AFAIK. Am asking about initial state. Nobody starts a war with nuclear bomb.

[ValarMorghulis]

Originally Posted by SoumenD

L...While watching it an airforce jet just flew by and I got thinking what if we are struck this way? Do we have bomb shelters? Where are they?

That's why we have a nuclear bomb.

[delusional_fool]

Originally Posted by .sushilkumar

He was impeached in 2014 and US / WEST appointed their own puppet in Ukraine. Crimea was a result of this whole saga & was the first sign of Putin,s patience weaning off with west / US allies. Ukraine on the other hand got into so called "democracy" & western influence post impeachment of victor in early 14.

Why is Viktor Yanukovych called a pro-Russian leader where as the next president a puppet of west? Either both are puppets of Russia/West or pro-Russian/Pro-west leaders. And the majority of people seem to side with Pro-West for nearly a decade now.

Any way, Ukraine kinda got themselves into this situation in a way. US/EU slyly pulled Ukraine towards EU away from Russia but forgot/didn't care that Putin don't have to play this game. Ukraine saw NATA/EU as a way to stop being a slave to Russia forever but forgot Putin is an aggressive bully who likes to have things his way.
Neither West nor Russia actually cared about Ukraine, West wanted to keep Russia completely under check using Ukraine and Russia wanted to use Ukraine as a buffer.

I don't think India has any role here except for remaining neutral and silent. But it is definitely scary to see a country being invaded and the entire world cannot do anything other than just watching.

If China grows bigger in the next decade or so to a level where sanctions won't affect them, I'm pretty sure they will invade Taiwan and Bhutan (some parts) while the entire world would just be watching.