Current Affairs Ukraine

[bluestevon]

Roger Waters gigs in Poland cancelled amid Ukraine backlash

The musician was due to play gigs in Poland but faces outrage over his comments on the Ukraine war.

www.bbc.com

And to provide even more context here is an open letter he sent to a teenage Ukraine girl, about the war and Putin.

It took me literally 2 minutes to source these three articles, two of which the BBC report chose to ignore in this latest article. One of which directly counters the article about him absolving Russia of blame. In fact he states the opposite.

Roger Waters Calls Putin's Invasion of Ukraine 'The Act of a Gangster'

Roger Waters has condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine in an open letter.

www.rollingstone.com

If you read the three links and still feel the BBC article is a fair representation to what Waters is saying in full then fair enough.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

It is the title of his new album. It's a concept piece with the title based upon a suggestion from Putin to Zelenskyy not to respond/defend their turf.

It isn't really.

I don't want you losing any pub quizzes at my behest. ?

 

[LinekersLegs]

They will still have their hangovers/injuries from the conscription, you have to wonder whether they will actually orovide anything positive to the forces they are “reinforcing”

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Tag who?

@dholliday

 

[LinekersLegs]

Also as I hate abridged or a few plucked lines being used in a report with zero link to the full 'what was said' then here's also the full contents of waters letter

An Open letter to Mrs Olena Zelenska from Roger Waters

Dear Mrs Zelenska, My heart bleeds for you and all the Ukrainian and Russian families, devastated by the terrible war in Ukraine. I’m in Kansas City, USA.

www.pressenza.com

Thanks for the link.

However I don’t think the BBC bit of

“ The controversy was triggered by an open letter Waters wrote to Ukraine's first lady, Olena Zelenska. In it, he said, "extreme nationalists" in Ukraine "have set your country on the path to this disastrous war".He accused her husband, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, of failing to fulfil his election campaign promises to bring peace to the Donbas region and and made no mention of Russia's responsibility for the war.

Is that distorted a representation of this as I cannot see any bit of this letter that assigns any responsibility for the war with Putin.

“One can only assume that your husband’s electoral policies didn’t sit well with certain political factions in Kiev and that those factions persuaded your husband to diametrically change course ignoring the people’s mandate. Sadly, your old man agreed to those totalitarian, anti-democratic dismissals of the will of the Ukrainian people, and the forces of extreme nationalism that had lurked, malevolent, in the shadows, have, since then, ruled the Ukraine. They have, also since then, crossed any number of red lines that had been set out quite clearly over a number of years by your neighbors the Russian Federation and in consequence they, the extreme nationalists, have set your country on the path to this disastrous war.”

I agree that the second letter to the Ukrainian girl provides more context of his full views (or at least a moderation of his initial stance) and a link should have been included for completenesses.

 

[tsubaki]

They will still have their hangovers/injuries from the conscription, you have to wonder whether they will actually orovide anything positive to the forces they are “reinforcing”

A couple of provisos should be added to that:

i) how recently these people (the ones deployed straight away) left the RuAF (quite a few conscripts and contract personnel will have left during this year so probably would not need much extra training, if any)
ii) what they are actually doing when they get there (there are a whole load of roles that would not have needed weeks of extra training - medics, logistics staff, clerks, even combat roles such as artillery or operating things like SAMs, radios or EW platforms that they were familiar with during their service etc)

If the conscripts go to areas where their skills and current levels of training are relevant (and how much of an if is the question) then this could potentially provide quite a few positives to the forces they are reinforcing. Unfortunately I think a lot of people have seen Enemy at the Gates and think the opening ten minutes of that film is whats going to happen here.

 

[Tramps_mate]

It's terribly sad..

 

[LinekersLegs]

A couple of provisos should be added to that:

i) how recently these people (the ones deployed straight away) left the RuAF (quite a few conscripts and contract personnel will have left during this year so probably would not need much extra training, if any)
ii) what they are actually doing when they get there (there are a whole load of roles that would not have needed weeks of extra training - medics, logistics staff, clerks, even combat roles such as artillery or operating things like SAMs, radios or EW platforms that they were familiar with during their service etc)

If the conscripts go to areas where their skills and current levels of training are relevant (and how much of an if is the question) then this could potentially provide quite a few positives to the forces they are reinforcing. Unfortunately I think a lot of people have seen Enemy at the Gates and think the opening ten minutes of that film is whats going to happen here.

Both fair points, could especially see the value in additional medics as both a morale booster and a way of reducing the awful fatal casualty rate.

 

[bluestevon]

Thanks for the link.

However I don’t think the BBC bit of

“ The controversy was triggered by an open letter Waters wrote to Ukraine's first lady, Olena Zelenska. In it, he said, "extreme nationalists" in Ukraine "have set your country on the path to this disastrous war".He accused her husband, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, of failing to fulfil his election campaign promises to bring peace to the Donbas region and and made no mention of Russia's responsibility for the war.

Is that distorted a representation of this as I cannot see any bit of this letter that assigns any responsibility for the war with Putin.

“One can only assume that your husband’s electoral policies didn’t sit well with certain political factions in Kiev and that those factions persuaded your husband to diametrically change course ignoring the people’s mandate. Sadly, your old man agreed to those totalitarian, anti-democratic dismissals of the will of the Ukrainian people, and the forces of extreme nationalism that had lurked, malevolent, in the shadows, have, since then, ruled the Ukraine. They have, also since then, crossed any number of red lines that had been set out quite clearly over a number of years by your neighbors the Russian Federation and in consequence they, the extreme nationalists, have set your country on the path to this disastrous war.”

I agree that the second letter to the Ukrainian girl provides more context of his full views (or at least a moderation of his initial stance) and a link should have been included for completenesses.

The thing is LL a lot if whst he's saying in all the two letters and the CNN interview is bloody well true.

Zelensky was elected with a huge majority on principally two policies, a diplomatic solution to the war in Donbass and ending corruption.

The first he pushed ahead with and agreed the Minsk agreement but never implemented it, why? A lot of veiled and direct threats where made against him by a variety of the far right leaders, during this period. And rather than implement an agreement he signed, military operations increases in the Donbass and as if January a huge 60k force had been amassed including all of the military far right units which had now been incorporated into the standing army - but who still contained the same commanders and senior staff.

What changed, why the change.

 

[LinekersLegs]

The thing is LL a lot if whst he's saying in all the two letters and the CNN interview is bloody well true.

Zelensky was elected with a huge majority on principally two policies, a diplomatic solution to the war in Donbass and ending corruption.

The first he pushed ahead with and agreed the Minsk agreement but never implemented it, why? A lot of veiled and direct threats where made against him by a variety of the far right leaders, during this period. And rather than implement an agreement he signed, military operations increases in the Donbass and as if January a huge 60k force had been amassed including all of the military far right units which had now been incorporated into the standing army - but who still contained the same commanders and senior staff.

What changed, why the change.

That is an entirely different question than whether I feel the BBC accurately represented Waters letter!

I’m not even going to pretend to understand all the complexities of Ukrainian politics and the lead up to the invasion but have to say with my limited understanding if I was in his position the massing of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border which iirc happened early 2021 and continued throughout that year would have influenced my thinking on whether any agreements would be honored.

It isn’t unheard of for politicians to change their mind once in office either - Obama’s foreign policy when in office had some substantial differences than what he campaigned (eg troop drawdown in Iraq) and even on some domestic policies such as immigration there were substantial differences between campaign/first term/second term.

Facts and your own understanding can change plus “No plan of operations can be at all relied upon beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main force.“ applies to more than just war.

 

[bluestevon]

Edit times me out, but this is the rest of what I was trying to highlight.

What changed, why the change. As one example I'll include this link

Right Sector’s Dmytro Yarosh Told 2019 Interview, ‘Zelenskyy Will Hang’

Yarosh is currently the commander of the UVF which the army incorporated at the start of 22.

Then on corruption, his backer was the same oligarch Kolomoisky who not only owned the network his show was on but whom also funded the far right groups. His government now is filled with a combination of former colleagues from the network, and in some cases childhood friends.

The deputy now I believe defacto head of the sbu (the equivalent of the KGB,) ran the tv studio of his show - and is his childhood friend. The head of the administration was given to Kolomoisky's lawyer. The deputy president is a former producer on his network.several of his scriptwriters from the show where given prominent positions also.

This all happened several years before the Russians invaded.

The oligarch was pushed out - by accounts on US instance he was distanced, but the entire thing stinks to high heaven and Zelensky and the government have been literally whitewashed in the media.

I'll use a whatsboutism, in the same (greater scale obviously) way in WW2 and for a period after Stalin in the west was portrayed in a positive light ignoring everything that would counter that image. The same way Israel are never rebuked and the Saudis get fist bumps of the president etc.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

I'll use a whatsboutism, in the same (greater scale obviously) way in WW2 and for a period after Stalin in the west was portrayed in a positive light ignoring everything that would counter that image. The same way Israel are never rebuked and the Saudis get fist bumps of the president etc.

Can you not just accept that it is reprehensible that Russia have invaded and are murdering Ukrainians in their homes?

 

[LinekersLegs]

Edit times me out, but this is the rest of what I was trying to highlight.

What changed, why the change. As one example I'll include this link

Right Sector’s Dmytro Yarosh Told 2019 Interview, ‘Zelenskyy Will Hang’

Yarosh is currently the commander of the UVF which the army incorporated at the start of 22.

Then on corruption, his backer was the same oligarch Kolomoisky who not only owned the network his show was on but whom also funded the far right groups. His government now is filled with a combination of former colleagues from the network, and in some cases childhood friends.

The deputy now I believe defacto head of the sbu (the equivalent of the KGB,) ran the tv studio of his show - and is his childhood friend. The head of the administration was given to Kolomoisky's lawyer. The deputy president is a former producer on his network.several of his scriptwriters from the show where given prominent positions also.

This all happened several years before the Russians invaded.

The oligarch was pushed out - by accounts on US instance he was distanced, but the entire thing stinks to high heaven and Zelensky and the government have been literally whitewashed in the media.

I'll use a whatsboutism, in the same (greater scale obviously) way in WW2 and for a period after Stalin in the west was portrayed in a positive light ignoring everything that would counter that image. The same way Israel are never rebuked and the Saudis get fist bumps of the president etc.

I can well believe that there has been some overly rosy takes on Zelensky - media in general likes to have a simplified good guy/bad guy dynamic rather than a more nuanced and time consuming analysis of their flaws/attributes.

However invading Ukraine was a very counterproductive move in getting both Ukrainians and Westerners to focus on any defects of his government - the grisly death of kids tends to push charges such as nepotism onto the backburner.

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[bluestevon]

Can you not just accept that it is reprehensible that Russia have invaded and are murdering Ukrainians in their homes?

Stated numerous times Russia invaded, stated numerous times I disagree with it profoundly, stated numerous times any war crime should be punished.

Can you not except that?