Brit techie shows us life in Ukraine amid Russian invasion British infosec pro Vic Harkness traveled to Ukraine to offer humanitarian help – and while taking a break in the western city of Lviv she described to The Register what it's like in the war-torn country. Harkness, who traveled to Poland with a group of friends to try to help out before crossing the border, is not there to do …
Wow - full marks to her for doing something that significant.
I think many in the UK also thing Boris is a useless buffoon, but sadly none of his party have had the balls to kick him out yet (possibly due to a shortage of alternatives that would do better than the already very low bar he has set).
Remember how the Telegraph started doing their Russia supplement about 15 years ago while Boris was a columnist there? They were being paid £400k a year by Russia for that. At the same time, a certain Mr Johnson's salary rose from £25k a year to over £200k a year. And then Boris waved through Evgeny Lebedev's entry into the Lords declaring that there was no security risk, despite the fact that Lebedev's father was not just a crony of Putin but a senior KGB officer. Do you think that Boris could have done that without the support of his party?
The Tories aren't removing Boris because they've taken the same Russian money. They took it to support Brexit; they took it to ignore the sale of London's skyline to the oligarchs; most of all, they took it to fill the party coffers and to line their own pockets. And now they have allowed the likes of Abramovitch and Deripaska to bypass the worst effects of sanctioning. Some other oligarchs weren't even added to the list.
Getting rid of Boris will achieve nothing. We need to get rid of them all.
Stewart Lee on Boris...
Icon: if only it were a joke
The Tories aren't removing Boris because they've taken the same Russian money. They took it to support Brexit
I will remind you that it was Tory government policy prior to the referendum to be against Brexit. That's why every household in the land received a pamphlet advising them to vote remain. Instead, the public chose leave, by a clear margin, in one of the largest democratic exercises in British history.
So that kind of blows a hole in your theory doesn't it? What's next, Putin hacked the brains of everyone to vote leave? All on a GDP less than that of Italy. What a criminal mastermind!
"I will remind you that it was Tory government policy prior to the referendum to be against Brexit."
I would say it was the 'old' Tory Government policy. Most of those MPs have been ousted from any position of power and replaced by 'Boris friendly' yes men / women, who will bow down to whatever he says.
I've never voted Tory in my life, but even I would admit that they used to have some good MPs. The current lot are a shower of shite and deeply mired in Russian money and influence.
'What's next, Putin hacked the brains of everyone to vote leave?'
Not saying everyone*, but the funny thing is that all the real rabid Brexiteers I know (you know the sort) ferociously claim "Russia never told me how to vote!", but then proceed to share provably fake propaganda that is known to have originated from one of the Russian 'fake news' factories. And looking back at their timeline since before the Brexit vote, it's just post after post of the stuff. They can't seem to understand that all the Russian produced propaganda they share and deeply believe is Russia telling them how to vote and is Putin hacking their brain (in a roundabout way).
*I'll add the usual caveat, because Brexitists seem so snowflakey about it if I don't: Yes, not everyone fell for the propaganda and some people had valid reasons to vote leave (still waiting to hear one though).
I would go further, and say that many of the unpopular tories who knew they were unpopular and liked it that way, e.g. Theresa May, declared themselves to be against Brexit.
Some people had valid reasons to vote leave, I'll give you two: 1. They were heavily invested in Crypto Assets, Commodity Derivatives, ForEx Spread-betting etc. and so were betting against the traditional economy and helped to cause its collapse, making themselves obscenely rich and the rest of us poor. 2. They were involved in companies that take bungs^H^H^H^H^Hcontracts from the public sector and wanted the anti-corruption rules lifted.. And then you have psychopath policemen (the kind that inhabit police stations in Minsk and Charing Cross) who would love to have all that Human Rights bollocks wiped from the statute book.. Oops sorry that's 3 "valid" reasons, depending on your definition of valid.
Who was behind the whole thing? I'm sure Dom knows. He's the sort that would've pressed the "end the world now" nuclear button, given half a chance.
That's a really lovely anti tory rant, but the Russians have more influence with the more looney left part of Labour and the Greens (with their defacto energy policy of opposing everything practical other than Russian gas for energy production which has been somewhat successful here, and wildly successful in Germany) than they have been with the Conservatives.
If the Tories were being influenced by Russian money then i'd suggest that right now the Russians would be wanting their money back, since the Tory policy of training and equipping Ukraine's army since 2014 has resulted in Ukraine having the western anti tank missiles that are currently blowing the turrets of Russian tanks into low orbit, and the anti aircraft equipment scattering Russian aircraft across Ukrainian fields.
The end result of that injection of training and equipment is that the Russians have already lost their little Ukrainian adventure; almost three weeks on they haven't yet taken their day one objectives and their day one objectives were basically "capture the president and with a gun to his head force him to sign an unconditional surrender" which won't do much now even if he manages it, since there are now a heck of a lot of people who want Russians dead for bombing their home who have been issued with arms and ammunition capable of blowing top of the line Russian tanks into orbit who don't have a home to go back to, and may not choose to surrender even if told to.
This leaves no victory conditions for Russia. Putin can't admit that, because to do so is to admit that he's failed totally and be deposed. This leaves him busily shoving his army into a meatgrinder where the best possible outcome is a Phyrric victory followed by an insurgency that he can't win. And his ability to win even a Phyrric victory is looking dubious since he's now having to have large units of troops behind his army shooting deserters, and he's been reduced to importing gunmen from Africa to make up his pretty horrific losses.
So yes, if that's what Russian influence looks like, then i'd suggest that somebody in that Russian department is getting fired, probably by firing squad rather than by P45.
That's a really lovely anti tory rant, but the Russians have more influence with the more looney left part of Labour
That is objectively untrue. I can do no better than quote Peter Oborne's recent article. (ex Telegraph journo who quit because they took HSBC money and didn't criticise HSBC money laundering; he's no-left wing apologist, and he has principles)
Let’s now try a thought experiment.
Let’s imagine that Corbyn had somehow won the last election. That he had then filled up Labour Party coffers with Russian money; that his party chairman had an office in Moscow to advise oligarchs; that Corbyn personally had repeatedly visited a Russian oligarch whose father had been a KGB agent and close friend of Putin, and that he had been reported to have ignored security service objections to secure this friend a peerage, and funnelled government money towards his paper.
For day after day there would have been front-page denunciations of Corbyn. He couldn’t have survived. In my view rightly so. Yet Johnson is the one who’s done all of these things. But Corbyn is the one who’s supposed to be pro-Putin.
There is a weird idea that Mr Corbyn and the left should be sympathetic to Putin's fascist dictatorship, presumably because of a sentimental regard for the form of government in Russia which ended thirty years ago.
That would be like the Tories being strongly pro-Mugabe because of their former affection for Smith.
> This leaves no victory conditions for Russia. Putin can't admit that, because to do so is to admit that he's failed totally and be deposed. This leaves him busily shoving his army into a meatgrinder where the best possible outcome is a Phyrric* victory
All wars these days are proxy wars, and this one is no different. Putin is being used, (AFAICT), by a regime much more powerful, and even more dangerous than his own.
Where now is all the public (and private!) sector money going? Who funds all our national debts? (and What happens when they call it in?) Who could we not possibly ever apply sanctions to?
The tories, with their financial self-interest, were similarly easy to use as a tool to weaken western alliances and start a war in Europe.
* I think you mean Pyrrhic victory. Ph***ic is a different word which you may have confused it with.
"the Russians have more influence with the more looney left part of Labour and the Greens"
What, because they used to be communist? That was 30 years ago. Do try to keep up
Putin and friends are about as communist as Mussolini or Franco - and about as popular with Lefties too
Its the El Reg comments section though AC, so the demographic always shines through like a beacon of ignorance. "yeah, stick it to the man" "M$". "Down with management"
Only an instagram selfie and oatmeal milk latte away getting a pitchfork out.
Russia has been accused of influencing anything and everything negative (as a leftie sees it) for years. Always completely overstated.
Many of us in the US feel the same about our dear leader.
None of his party have had the balls to kick him out, the next in line quite literally doesn't have the balls for the job (and giggles like a schoolgirl whenever she gets nervous, which is apparently a lot, and at all the most inappropriate times). The opposition party buffoon has the balls but not the brains, and also hasn't been swiftly kicked out of politics as he should have been.
We need a third party that runs on a platform more significant than "legalize weed."
The UK's help has been quite extensive, especially in the supply of things that go "bang" specifically the NLAW and other anti tank and aircraft devices which we have trained the Ukrainian locals to use over the last 7 years. While it would be nice to feel good about supplying shelter to the refugees, that is probably best supplied by countries closer to them, and we stick to helping them get Putin and his cronies out.
As 'Is it turned on' pointed out, the UK has been providing assistance to Ukraine since Putin annexed the Crimea.
The performance of the Ukrainian army has significantly improved since 2014, and while that must mostly be credited to the Ukr army itself, it's benefited from British Army training teams, with similarly training provided to the Ukr navy from the Royal Navy. I suspect many of us remember the occasion last year when a Royal Navy ship carried out a freedom of navigation exercise along an internationally established shipping route from Odessa (? Ukraine, anyway), much to the impotent fury of Putin, who had already in effect (and illegally) tried to blockade Ukrainian's eastern ports in the Sea of Azov.. Meanwhile, I understand that Germany for example increased its dependence on Russian fossil fuels after the annexation of Crimea.
The UK was one of the leading nations warning that the Russian 'exercise' was a prelude to invasion, and one of the nations that reacted before the invasion to supply Ukraine with defensive weaponry (having to do so by flying around German airspace, because the German insisted on the bureaucracy being followed, which would have imposed a two week delay to the supply; Germany also blocked Lithuania from exporting artillery systems that originated from Germany going to Ukraine prior to the war starting).
Since the invasion, the UK has continued to supply equipment to Ukraine, and for the most part has been amongst the most vigorous in applying sanctions.
The UK could and I agree should be doing more to support the refugees, but the inadequate response strikes more of standard UK Civil Service inertia than anything deeper.
It does rather seem that some people just want to pick on the things the UK has done poorly to attack the UK or the government, without acknowledge what the UK got right (and other nations, particularly in Europe, got wrong).
Not disagreeing. As you say we could and should do more for refugees. Pointing out how many bullets we’ve sent and whatabouting the actions of other nations just doesn’t cut it as a justification for our inaction to date. We’d be helping out both Ukrainians and our allies, particularly Poland. We can afford it, and it would be well worth the good will accrued in the long run.
In one of the more shameful episodes from recent history most European nations turned away Jewish refugees in the lead up to WW2, leaving them to their grim fate. Must never be repeated. Poland can’t keep taking in refugees indefinitely, what happens then? We have a moral obligation to stop making excuses and do our bit.
You're not disagreeing, but you still use the word "inaction".
Perhaps you missed the various discussions of this on the news last week - I went to the UK Gov site as being the easiest place to find it:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-largest-bilateral-humanitarian-donor-to-ukraine-as-uk-canada-and-the-netherlands-launch-new-ukraine-solidarity-alliance
All in all, the UK government is certainly not guilty of "inaction", and we are not making excuses.
As I alluded to in my original post, it does seem that some people would rather run down the UK than admit that we are actually doing pretty well in this case.
And all the discussion to date ignores the new refugee scheme that just launched today (which may or might not work, but shows an attempt to do better than we are currently doing).
What a lot of people fail to grasp is that these are genuine refugees, not economic migrants. They're not looking to set up a new life in a foreign land and are therefore much more inclined to choose a safe country as close as possible to Ukraine. That's why Ireland, for example, with none of the supposed restrictions and barriers associated with the UK has received similar numbers of asylum claims.
Simply put, women and children do not want to travel to the other side of Europe far from their families and men folk who are currently conscripted in the army.
> While it would be nice to feel good about supplying shelter to the refugees, that is probably best supplied by countries closer to them
I disagree, but even if I didn't - your point would only really be valid if we as a nation explicitly said that.
Rather than
- putting a little paper notice up in Calais
- lying about whether there's an office in Calais
- saying that we're taking refugees but they have to pass all the visa stuff (and pay the fees!) first.
- Complaining that the Irish have taken refugees in the way we should be, and that it might pose a security risk
So, even if your suggestion that other countries are better placed to help them were correct, the way that the Government have handled it has been woefully inadequate.
Taking in refugees doesn't really hamper our ability to supply boomsticks either, so it's not like one actually distracts from the other anyway.
I think the problem is the sheer number of refugees, from this and other crises. So Poland's taken in 1m+ so far. That's a lot of beds needed for any kind of decent standard of living, especially after trying to accomodate several million Syrian, Afghan & refugees from other conflicts. Or just a general lack of affordable housing.
It's one of those wicked problems. Build tent city refugee camps, or fill church halls, town halls, leisure centres with cots and hope it's temporary. Allow family reunion for refugees lucky enough to have support, but you still have to deal with those that don't. And those probably need the most help. Then longer term, how many refugees might be willing or able to return, once the shooting stops.
So have you volunteered?
It's an area where politicians could lead by example though. Boris says No.10 is unsuitable, but he has other homes. Lisa Nandy says government should be doing more, but hasn't said how many refugees she's taking. Family home in Bury, maybe a constituency home in Wigan, London home. So she could probably support a couple.
Also not atypical given a lot of MPs own or control mutiple properties. Plus they've given themselves a big payrise for giving us inflation and a cost of living crisis. If they expect us to reward failure, the least they could do is help some refugees.
Or just score some political points. Who's hosting the most, Labour, the Tories or the LibDems?
But Nandy was f'ng useless shadowing Energy, and is proving equally useless in Housing and video games. At least I'm assuming leveling up is gaming related. So today she's been demanding we do more. Bring in everyone, sort out paperwork when refugees are here, and in resettlement camps. But those are full of existing refugees, asylum seekers and migrants who's status is TBD.
And she should know that refugees have legal status and protections. So opening the flood gates would be great for people looking to exploit refugees, not so great for the refugees. Especially as many are female, and rather vulnerable.
So the current situation makes sense. If refugees have reached safety, process based on need. Priority might be to settle where there are already Ukrainian expats so they're less isolated and have more support. Not sure if Little Odessa, aka Brighton Beach in NY would be appropriate given it also has a large Russian population.
But such is politics. Gestures and virtue signalling might be good for your media, but doesn't solve the problems at hand. Or explain why Ukrainian and other refugees or asylum seekers get treated differently.
And she should know that refugees have legal status and protections. So opening the flood gates would be great for people looking to exploit refugees, not so great for the refugees. Especially as many are female, and rather vulnerable.
I don't understand, if refugees have legal status and protections, why would they be vulnerable? They wouldn't be forced to work in any of the sketchy under-the-table jobs that undocumented immigrants are.
So imagine I'm evil. I offer to host say, 5 Ukrainians, female, ages 18-25. Housing will be all female, except security. There will be male visitors, but typically they won't stay long. My offer would hopefully be vetted, and rejected. If not, at least social services know where they are, and could check they're not being exploited. As a lot of Eastern Europeans have been already.
Or perhaps it'd be safer to do that in more multi-national setting, supported by NGOs. Refugees should end up safe, secure and settled. That could be as simple as checking languages so people can actually communicate. There's also the tricky political stuff. Refugees & asylum seekers have pretty much the same rights as nationals, once their status is recognised. See previous news articles about the 'problem' of mass migration. Especially for the border states, because strictly, migrants or refugees are supposed to claim it in the first safe state they enter.
So imagine I'm evil.
So what's your point, that vetting works or doesn't work?
There's also the tricky political stuff. Refugees & asylum seekers have pretty much the same rights as nationals, once their status is recognised.
Their status would be the same as other legal foreign residents during their period of residency. This is how they're not exploited.
Especially for the border states, because strictly, migrants or refugees are supposed to claim it in the first safe state they enter.
Full face: Do refugees have to stay in the first safe country they reach?
This is not true, it's some kipper nonsense that just won't die. As part of the EU the UK was a signatory to the Dublin Regulation and could return refugees to the first safe EU country, but that ended with Brexit.
Also, given the numbers involved, EU countries specifically agreed to not return Ukrainians fleeing the war back to the first safe country. Sending everyone back to Poland would be absurd.
It's not nonsense, and 'full fact' may not be a reliable (or neutral) source.
Facts would appear simpler. So a Ukrainian (or other non-EU) person crosses into the EU. They'd have the same rights, obligations and status as any other visitor or tourist. Or fewer, if they enter illegally, eg no visa, no work permit, or enter under false pretences.
But basically the person would not be protected unless, or until they've asked for asylum, and that's been accepted. The UNHCR makes that clear when they talk about irregular movement and discourages asylum shopping. Things obviously get very political given public reactions to immigration issues, along with a general need to keep being able to support refugees and asylum seekers.
But it's been a growing problem. UN is aware of 25m+ refugees, and that was before adding a few million more from this current conflict. It's also something that's probably best handled at the international or supranational level. EU could issue a Directive instructing members how to process claims, and how refugees should be allocated. Which it tried in the past by setting quotas, which wasn't exactly popular with some members.
Ukrainians already had the right to visit any EU country in the Schengen area for 90 days and claim asylum. However Ireland required a visa and I imagine a visa wouldn't have been necessary for the Eastern European EU countries which aren't in Shengen.
However all EU countries voted to use the temporary protection directive of 2001 to give Ukrainians three years residency with the right to study or work across the whole of the EU.
Your posts raise a lot of questions that have already been thought of and answered.
Yup, and if you read the guidance in the link provided, you might have answered differently.
Visas are required for more than just Ireland, eg non-Schengen members as well, and TPD doesn't apply either.
Free movement is less free.
Once you are given temporary protection by a Member State, whilst you still have the right to travel within the Union for 90 days within a 180-day period, you should be able to avail of the rights derived from temporary protection only in the Member State that granted you the residence permit
So TPD is expedient, it doesn't offer the same rights and protections as asylum. Sure, you could be looking for work sooner, but your right is temporary. Good news for recruiters and gangmasters feeding the gig economy I guess.
It doesn't stop people applying for asylum, but that's slow and less certain. On which point, it also seems to fact check FakeFact
According to EU law, you must apply for international protection (asylum) in the first safe country.
One of my personal rules for fact checking is to look at who's trying to spin the truth. So sites that tell you very little in their 'About Us' section tend to raise red flags. At least that one linked it's charity and non-profit info. That can also be a red flag, ie how much (if any) money is being siphoned from the charity to the non-profit. There's generally no good reason for not having exec bios, donors and financial info in the 'About Us' section though.
Obfuscation like that is often used in astroturfing, where big donors spawn dozens of smaller charities to amplify their message, or create the illusion of popular support. Russia did this by funding anti-fraccing groups, because fraccing obviously reduces dependency on Russia's oil & gas, along with lower prices from increased supply. Then again, Russia coined the term 'useful idiots', and maybe LOLs watching ours supergluing themselves to stuff.
On the point of onward movement, when you are a third country national with residency in an EU member state, you are based in that member state but are allowed to visit others following the Shengen 90/180 day rule.
This is EU residency 101. I am unsure why you understand that means they do not have asylum rights.
According to EU law, you must apply for international protection (asylum) in the first safe country.
Nice that you're quoting the Dublin Regulation back at me, but I mentioned in this case EU countries agreed to accept Ukrainian refugees under the temporary protection directive 2001. What law or directive are you quoting that overrides that? (Hint: whatever law or directive you think it is, it doesn't.)
Asylum seekers are being met in train stations and airports and transferred away from Poland, Romania, and Hungary to other EU countries like France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Ireland because they specifically chose asylum in these countries. This is all perfectly legal.
So let me try to explain
If you have not requested asylum, then obviously you can't be officially recognised, processed or granted legally defined protections as a refugee.
If you have entered a country as a tourist, transited to another where you then risk being rejected & sent back to your point of entry. Then potentially deported from the first country because you claimed to be a tourist. Or just detained until there's a safe destination.
I quoted text from the official EU guidance.
That guidance is actually based on the Dublin Regulation. Specifically Dublin III. Which is the EU's latest attempt to clarify exactly this issue. The first Member State is responsible for processing an asylum claim, and if the person leaves that State, they can be returned.
There are of course exceptions. So there's a UN right to family, so responsibility for a claim can be transferred to another Member if they have family members living there. Simple to establish by looking at familial DNA. Asylum seekers can request transfer a claim to another Member, or State, but that request could be rejected. Which is a problem with Dublin III because it provides an excuse to bounce claims back to the EU's border members.
And then there's current events, where the EU, UK and other nations have expedited processes to deal with the large number of displaced Ukrainians. Which thus far seems sub-optimal. A logical approach would be shuttling refugees from crossing points to processing cetres, where options can be explained, claims passed to collocated national teams, and hopefully refugees de-stressed. Pointing desperate refugees in the general direction of distant cities & wishing them the best of luck isn't that helpful.
But I was chatting with a friend earlier who's done with the Red Cross in the past. One of the most welcome things can be a humble welcome/goody bag, not just essentials, but also some treats. Also simple letters that show the kindness of strangers. They had a pretty big impact on POW morale during WW2, and think some agencies are collecting and distributing those at the moment.
This is a very confused post, let's boil it down to three main points.
Firstly, the Dublin Regulation is an agreement between EU countries and the UK isn't one. Also note the 2001 directive I have cited twice and you continue to ignore. The Dublin Regulation has nothing to do with this.
Secondly, Ukrainians can claim asylum in any EU country or none at all. Family connections aren't necessary. If they decide to claim asylum they are met in large train stations and airports in an area set aside for this purpose. There are representatives from several countries, even Japan, but the UK is missing. The basic paperwork is done right there on the spot in these areas and charter coaches and planes are organised by national governments.
Third, France is offering Ukrainians free transport and accommodation, including those who wish to claim asylum in the UK (technically they still haven't got to the stage of claiming asylum, what they're doing is trying to get a visa from the Home Office).
Finally:
And then there's current events, where the EU, UK and other nations have expedited processes to deal with the large number of displaced Ukrainians. Which thus far seems sub-optimal. A logical approach would be shuttling refugees from crossing points to processing cetres, where options can be explained, claims passed to collocated national teams, and hopefully refugees de-stressed. Pointing desperate refugees in the general direction of distant cities & wishing them the best of luck isn't that helpful.
EU countries are already doing this as I just explained. The UK is still giving people the runaround three weeks later.
So much whataboutary, so little time.
> According to EU law, you must apply for international protection (asylum) in the first safe country.
That's EU law, not international law - it doesn't apply to refugees coming to Blighty.
If you read back uo the the thread, when you were given the Full Fact link you were also told this, and that we've lost the ability to send refugees back since Brexit.
So whatever "win" you think you got with this statement is only because you weren't paying attention.
And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the EU have overruled it for Ukrainian refugees anyway.
How about you stop trotting out ukip party lines and do something useful instead? Like maybe think about why it's ex-leader might still be so pro-Russia...
Ho hum. Laws are often hierarchical.
So in 1948, the UN gave the world the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Nice idea, not necessarily legally enforceable on it's members or signatories, but eventually transposed into national and international law. But because of multiple legislation, conflicts and case law also feed in.
Then there's Blighty, Brexit and Brussels. So EU law does apply, as does national & international law. So there are transitional arrangements, where UK's agreed to follow existing EU diktat. For some reason, that's temporary, and the UK didn't agree to being permanently bound by EU law without representation.
So suppose I'm a migrant who's survived the trip from Calais to Kent. On arrival, I utter the incantation given to me by my travel consultant. I wish to claim asylum in the United Kingdom. Legislation kicks in, and I'm a protected person. Then maybe the Border Force checks my prints and points out this is my 3rd attempt, and 3rd identity. Now I'm an illegal immigrant.
Then the UK could return me to my point of entry for deportation. France says 'Non!'. But France is still in the EU, bound by EU and international laws and treaties, and arguably responsible for that migrant. And then France could use Dublin III to return me to the EU point of entry, and deportation becomes that Member's problem.
So again, it's a wicked problem. It's also a very serious issue. DM ran a story about two Ukrainians who were raped by other Ukrainian refugees in Dusseldorf. Lede seemed odd because it says 'She was allegedly attacked by two Ukrainians, 37 and 26 from Iraq and Nigeria' and me thinking 'that's 4 men'. The male victim was allegedly drugged and raped by 2 Ukrainian-Morroccans.
Needless to say, the German authorities are distinctly unhappy. But there's also the question of what to do next. Obviously the rapists are criminals, and in the process of being prosecuted. Ukraine could , and arguably should be stripped of their Ukrainian identity, which could lead the rapists to being deported back to their original country. Or the Morroccan rapists might appeal deportation because they might be persecuted for being gay. And lawers will get richer defending the indefensible.
But such is politics. Plus it's been a concern pre-war around Ukraine's EU accession given Ukraine's been a bit generous in handing out (or selling) citizenship.
> Then maybe the Border Force checks my prints and points out this is my 3rd attempt, and 3rd identity. Now I'm an illegal immigrant.
>
> Then the UK could return me to my point of entry for deportation.
So now you've moved from claiming migrants need to stop in the first safe country to narrowing the scope to someone who's been labelled an illegal immigrant (for whatever reason).
Ignoring the fact that the EU rule you were referring to has been suspended for Ukrainians, it wouldn't apply to your illegals anyway.
> DM ran a story about two Ukrainians who were raped by other Ukrainian refugees in Dusseldorf.
Of course they did.
The Daily Mail never seems to reflect on things like there being *many* more rapists in our society than there are amongst the refugees coming into the country. *We* are more risk to refugees (and other vulnerables) than they are to us, but that wouldn't support the Daily Mail's typical agenda.
> Plus it's been a concern pre-war around Ukraine's EU accession given Ukraine's been a bit generous in handing out (or selling) citizenship.
There are/were a number of valid concerns in that respect, and quite a few haven't been addressed.
That has little to no bearing, though, on whether we can or should be taken refugees in. Unless you're trying to suggest there are people fleeing the war in Ukraine and opting to try and come to the UK despite having a lavish life available elsewhere?
Yes I know the ship is on fire and sinking, but how do I KNOW that you and your baby are genuine shipwreck survivors? Anyway the coxswain's still waiting to have his vetting processed so he can't actually take children. Please stop sobbing, I want to be helpful. If you swim over to that iceberg there's a shipwreck survivor validation centre, well maybe it's not open yet, but we definitely aspire to open one soon, well maybe not that exact iceberg, but one that looks quite like it....
That's a terrible analogy. They've been rescued by another ship, they're safe, they're being clothed and fed, and the discussion is now around which port they should disembark at.
Unless I missed something and Russia are now doing airstrikes on refugees in Poland, Germany, France and any other countries they're passing through on the way to the UK?
This post has been deleted by its author
While I appreciate the sentiment and very much understand where it's coming from, you're in a country with a stretched infrastructure, there's limited food, shelter and utilities and you don't speak the language. This is essentially well intentioned disaster tourism, which I recognise because I've done the same in the past.
Unless you're bringing in food, medicine, shelter, you're able to bring people out that want to leave or you're trained to patch up people or vehicles, or pick up a gun and know how to use it, it might be best to focus on what you can do best from outside the country rather than getting in everyone's way. In other conflicts I would add raising public awareness to that list, but the Ukranians have that base extremely well covered.
While I appreciate the sentiment and very much understand where it's coming from, you're in a country with a stretched infrastructure, there's limited food, shelter and utilities and you don't speak the language. This is essentially well intentioned disaster tourism, which I recognise because I've done the same in the past.
Yup. We're in "building orphanages in my gap yah" territory here. That bus seat to Hungary could have been occupied by a Ukrainian person rather than a British tourist going to soak up the chill vibe.
I will make of her this: big heart, but rather... irrational. Consider this: the cost of travel / stay / no skills considered for their usefulness _before_ travel, what do you get? Like some lads from the UK, young and old, asked by reporters at pl-ukr border: do you have any military combat experience? Some do (great!), but others, with a stupid smile: 'ehm.. none'. Now, I get the feeling, I felt the same urge to 'do something', but then I ran a short and bleeding obvious self-assessment: weapons experience: none (and a leftie, a 'bonus' on top!). General army/combat experience: none. Driving skills: none (yeah, that youtube t72 6-min crash course is great, bu come on). Medical: none. Super-ninja skills: none. Etc. So, instead of spending hundreds of quid to fly there and get in the way, I donated at least that much to a few super-urgent causes to send medical stuff over the border, buy 2nd hand ambulances, etc., and did some other stuff related to my line of work. And yeah, I've also politely asked my MP to gently push his Tory decision-wankers re. UK entry rules for refugees, because UK stand has been a disgrace since 24th Feb, and remains a disgrace.
p.s. I'm not being smug, just saying a sort of assessment instead of just going out there would be more... productive. Refugees will need places to stay, schooling, it's women with kids after all, some of this requires gov-level decision-making (see Tory decision-wankers), but some can be grass-roots, like asking your school hey, did you think how you might pre-empty the point, when (or IF) 30 kids with no English need your schooling, etc.
This post has been deleted by its author
Very interesting
It's interesting to have a report without the propaganda, it's rare these days.
The Mig-29 thing seems to be a little bit more complicated than how it's stated in the article.
An additional question: why does UK refuse that Ukrainian refugees enter the country to join their family already there?
British MPs have asked the Home Secretary that question, and the response is waffling and mumbling about security and rules.
Funny how none of that seemed to stop people bringing in sacks of dirty money, bottles of Novichok, polonium teabags etc.
I reckon the best thing we could do is to send Priti Patel in undercover to help the Russian Army with its logistics.
If Priti Patel got off her arse and went to Calais, or somewhere similar, and stamped Ukrainian passports and talked to the refugees, instead of kowtowing to the Home Office mafia; she would get some better PR, Britain might get also get PR and the poor refugees would get this country to welcome them.
Did Patel's parents have to go through all this when they fled Uganda?
It's the old white Tory racists who are dictating things. After all, if the Tory party get this wrong, they'll all go back to voting for the Brexit party, or whatever it's called now. Kicking the tories out of the party and filling it with vacuous brexit politicians was a serious effort. They didn't do all that work to get us out of the EU only to have more immigrants come from somewhere else.
Are you mental? No. more. foreigners. And bring back 1955.
The thing is, nobody actually knows what is really going on.
You can't actually go and count those Mig-29's to see if they haven't already been flown or tractored into Ukraine and the argument about it is just to prevent Russian escalation by making it look as if they haven't been sent. You also can't tell if they haven't sent entire warehouses worth of spare parts that let Ukraine build spares from all of the replacement parts.
They certainly have more anti tank weapons now than Russia has tanks; and all of those Anti Tank missiles actually work, unlike the tanks which are spread broken down across Ukraine and being towed away by Tractors left right and centre.
They have huge quantities of small arms, about which practically nothing has been said as to the source. What else are they being given? My guess is "anything they can be given that can be used with under a weeks training", and that the road from Poland to Ukraine looks like a two way version of the Russian traffic jam except all of the vehicles are moving in both directions at about 70MPH.
and if you go to the flight radar 24 site, you can see 'Jake 12', a US air force EC135 electronic reconnaissance plane doing orbits over eastern Romania. It or similar has been there each time I've thought to check.
Anyone want to ponder the odds that there is a nice rapid link for feeding data from that aircraft to the Ukrainian military in close-to-real time?
I think that would be a sucker bet.
Russia's already raised objections by bombing a training base near the Polish border. That's basically sending a message to potential UAF volunteers that their choice is not without consequences. It's probably also that supplies of weapons will also be attacked.
Pre-conflict, the RAF could fly weapons into Ukraine. Now, we can't. So military hardware gets shipped to Poland, then has to get driven across the border. As they're carrying weapons, theyd be legitimate targets, even if they're civilian trucks and drivers. That's also a 'human shield' problem, and potential war crime given it endangers civilians. So an ambulance has some legal protection, unless it's being used to transport troops. Then it could become a crime scene.
The jet omnishambles is much the same. If Ukraine were allowed to fly from Polish bases, Poland would become party to the conflict as a combatant. NATO Article 5 wouldn't apply if Poland were attacked because it's joined the conflict. So a bit tricky. Can't exactly fly towards Ukrainian border in Polish livery, then unmask UAF colours once over the border. But once inside Ukraine, they're legitimate targets again and Russia would want to eliminate them.
Ukraine's probably realised they're pretty much on their own as far as combat goes, because NATO doesn't want it's bases or populations glassed. We escalate, Russia goes nuclear, we counterstrike, and a good chunk of the world dies. We live in interesting times.
There were also AWACS systems doing circuits near Ukrainian borders.
All of a sudden, a lot of these aircraft have vanished from Flight Radar 24. It's as if they have turned off their peacetime reporting equipment or something.
But yes, in all seriousness Ukraine will be benefiting from being able to have their missile batteries turned off until they get a call saying "your going to have a Russian plane in range in 30 seconds". Missile battery turns radar on, fires and then turns radar off. Hence why Russian Air Force is not keen on flying in Ukraine.
Things like radio jammers have probably been supplied with rudimentary instructions. "it's all setup, just keep the fuel topped up and this is the on/off buttons" which explains why the Russians have no idea what's going on at the front. The Russians appear to be reduced to short range walkie talkies and paper messages carried physically, which is somewhat embarrassing for a modern army.
I suspect that satellites are busy tracking the position of Russian equipment and that's getting to Ukraine in close to realtime. The Ukrainians probably know where their forces are, and where the oppositions are where the Russians don't.
Imagine playing a strategy game where you send units forwards to attack, but instead of pushing the fog of war back then vanish into it and you lose control of them. Meanwhile while your opponent is using a map hack to see what's going on and turns up with the perfect counter, slaughters the lot and then vanishes again. That's probably more or less about the situation over there at the moment, and the saving grace for Russia is sheer numbers; an advantage that must be vanishing swiftly on three points.
1) The Ukrainians kill the Russians.
2) The Russians get out of their tanks and start walking home, and end up being killed by their own side as deserters. The Russian equipment gets towed away by Tractors and becomes Ukrainian equipment.
3) Ukrainian mobilisation of reserves reaches the point that new divisions are deployed to the front
Imagine being asked to advance along a road that's liberally scattered with burned out tanks and dead mates. It's going to be a bit of a morale hit, to say the least. How long will people keep doing that for?
Actually, to be absolutely fair Ukraine asked for those on the basis that they used to operate a conscription system up until about a decade ago and so everybody over a certain age were trained with those soviet era weapons so basically they can just issue them, give a brief refresher course and ship the troops straight to the front with them.
While the equipment might be crap, and some of it may have passed the "best before" date sheer numbers deployed may make up for that to some extent even if some don't work. It's certainly going to be rather useful for rear area security. (where you don't think the Russians will go, but they might have a go at launching a heli bourne assault.)
Comedy statistic: Based on recorded losses and captures, Ukraine now has more MBTs (Main Battle Tank) than it had in mid-February.
There are 65 confirmed losses, and 99 confirmed Russian tanks captured. What's less certain is how many of those Russian tanks are now in a farmer's barn waiting for the war to end to be sold for scrap.
That's also been a bit... murky.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine ended up with huge amounts of 'Russian' tanks, APCs, artillery, Buk SAM systems, nuclear weapons etc etc. Some of which they promptly sold, probably most infamous being the pirating of the MV Faina by Somalis. Who then found out the cargo was 33 T-72 tanks, plus a lot of other assorted weaponry. Awkward. Then made more awkward by questions about end user licenses, who owned the ship, who paid the ransom. And then Ukraine claimed they were sold to Kenya, until the US pulled out photos of the tanks being unloaded in South Sudan.
And then there was 2014, and various claims of 'Russian' weapons. Despite those being the same weapons Ukraine had in massive stockpiles in both sides of the civil war. Which also extends to the current conflict given both sides are using much the same kit. A T-72 is a T-72. Who's it was is less clear, unless it had mods that were uniquely Russian. It's easier if it's more modern kit, especially non-export variants. Same can be true for the infamous Z marks. So a wrecked Z vehicle north of Kiev might be fake, or the driver was very lost given Z marked units advancing from Crimea. Other battle groups use different identifiers.
Oh, and spraying a Z on a Ukrainian vehicle is technicaly perfidy, which is a war crime. As is removing (or not having) uniform markings. No uniform, no POW protections, and a risk of summary execution for perfidy again.
I dunno. I think the person had good intentions, and wanting to help is part of human nature. But when a situation is chaotic & confused, it can be hard to know how best to help. Aid agencies should have a better idea of what's needed. Sometimes that's logistics, either products or drivers, or sometimes specific skills. For example, there's a rapid response group who's name I can't remember that specialises in restoring communications. Downside is they were based in France, and volunteers needed to be local.
My first thought was "how brave, well done", but the more I thought about it, the more I'm thinking "How utterly stupid". For someone working in Infosec I have to call into question their judgement. She was completely unprepared and her actions literally put her into physical danger, possibly leading to death, not only for her but for anyone else that may have had to come to her aid had she been unlucky. Any chance this was done for social media exposure, i.e. being seen to be doing the right thing.
Does she approach her Infosec work with the same amount of level headedness, planning and execution?
It’s not an invasion, it’s just legitimate political discourse. Pony boy Putin just wants all Russians, everywhere, to be part of a big, happy, friendly, Mother Russia. Anyone who has a problem with his methods obviously hates motherhood, and Mother Russia, and the Shirtless Brony himself. Not necessarily in that order. Those haters must be crushed, without mercy.
I propose a way to help: send Boris the Clown, possibly with the Queen of Carnage and perhaps one or two more current and former Tory ministers, to assist the Shirtless Brony in his efforts to reunite all Russians everywhere. (With a name like ‘Boris’, the Clown just _has_ to be Russian, doesn’t he?) Who knows what levels of legitimate political discourse the Brony can achieve with their assistance…
Their website says they've been holding up signs to welcome fellow believers evacuating from the conflict area, and assist them with places to stay etc.
Of course it's nice to help ANYone, but even better if you have something in common to chat about while you're at it I guess.
while its terribly nice thought, airbnb is one of the worst ways to go aout this between fee's to credit card companies and employee's wages who are accountable to shareholders basically its NOT GOOD
we have a great way to donate time/money/resources to those caught in a warzone (setup specifically for this)
please share and donate what you can
https://vostok-sos.org/en/ukraine-under-fire-support-vostok-sos-aid-operation/
Not saying anthing against the UK red cross but these people are working on the ground in Ukraine.
Thank you! I've been looking for a small charity who can give immediate help, and for whom a bit of money makes a difference, instead of these big corporate ones that spend so much on executive salaries and marketing.
Beer, because that seems to be what Ukranians are missing most right now :'(
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
