The Economist Interviews President Zelenskyy

Uncategorized 4 Comments

Recently a team from The Economist travelled to Kyiv for an interview with President Zelenskyy. Here is the 30min interiew

If nothing else, this interview is a study in grace under pressure.

Zelinskyy is president of a country that has been in a war for 8yrs, seen that war expand on two other fronts, and spent this past month asking for support to prevent destruction of civilians in their homes. And while there is a lot of support for Ukraine around the world, the one thing being asked for, closed skies, has not happened. As a consequence, towns have been flattened, and civilians, of all ages, have died.

And Putin? He’s living in luxury, a thousand kilometres away, sending 200,000 Russians, some of them conscripts, to do his dirty work.

Who would you rather have, as your President?

Please continue to support Ukraiina. They need all sorts of support.

There is the RedCross/RedCrescent in all countries.
In Canada, we also have the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC) and Canada-Ukraine Foundation who are raising money for humanitarian aid. You can donate via this link
NB:Cloudfare has been intercepting the above link and possibly become confused by my browser. In case you are having similar issues, this link gets you directly to the CanadaHelp page that UCC is using.

Please also continue to thank your MP for their support, and continue to ask for the skies to be closed.
You can find your Canadian MP here. Just scroll down the page, and enter your postal code.
You can find your British MP here. Just enter your postal code.

Ukraiina is being pounded to nothingness. More than humanitarian help is required.

biker says:

We all use computer/phone software. Here is a perspective on life today in Ukraiina’s software industry, from ZDNet.

biker says:

An open letter from someone who survived a three and a half year war in Sarajevo.

“Never lay down your arms ”

Doug Holman says:

As I understand it, the UK/NATO position is to provide military support in the form of weapons, intelligence and logistics, plus financial and humanitarian support for the Ukrainian victims. The logic behind the decision NOT to deploy American, British and other air forces to impose a “no-fly zone” is that there is deemed to be a high probability that Putin would use the shooting down of a Russian aircraft by a NATO plane to “justify” the escalation of the conflict. At first, this might be limited to European NATO member countries but it’s not hard to imagine involvement by other members of the deranged dictator club, which leads inexorably to WW3. Putin has made no secret of his willingness to use his vast nuclear arsenal, creating global Armageddon. If there’s a persuasive counter-argument, I’ve yet to hear it, certainly not from anyone purporting to be an expert on military strategy. Who could deny that imposing a “no-fly zone” was bound increase the risk of a paranoid despotic tyrant committing the most irrational crime of all time?

So far, the damage to the Russian armed forces has been inflicted from the Ukraine by the Ukrainians. As far as I’m aware, the supply of missiles by a third party to a country seeking to defend itself from hostile attack does not constitute an act of war. Reports of heavy losses incurred by the Russians, low morale and mass troop desertions, default on loan repayments and empty supermarket shelves suggest that Putin’s days may be numbered but we are under no illusion about the on-going suffering of the Ukrainian people in the weeks and months ahead. When it’s all over, perhaps the hundreds of billions of oligarch dollars “frozen” as part of the sanctions program could be repurposed, to rebuild Ukrainian cities, clear minefields and compensate victims. Meanwhile Russia’s “permanent” membership of the UN Security Council should be terminated. If that’s not possible, the non-totalitarian members should set up a replacement, with or without China.

With the benefit of hindsight, countries such as Finland appear to be re-assessing their policy of neutrality or acting as a “buffer” with Russia and/or its remaining satellite states. Russia already shares borders with NATO member countries and if the long term outcome of this conflict leads to an increase in their number, it will be yet another example of the “Law of Unintended Consequences” to add to Putin’s collection!

biker says:

I agree that Russia being on the UN Security Council is strange. No code of ethics apply?

When Putin began planning all this, he must have watched ‘Yes, Prime Minister’ clip to understand how the western countries would react.

As for sanctions?
Still buying coal, oil, gas, gold, etc……from Russia. The price of all these items MUCH higher than last year. And those payments for oil&gas are still getting to Russia. Putin demanding payment in roubles, has already strengthened that currency……

While financial systems are implementing their sanctions, Russia has it’s own payment system, setup with the help of the World Bank, in 2017.

Net result? While there is a lot of talk about sanctions, Ukrainians are still dying, Putin is making money, and the western media attention is drifting off. Just as it did in 2014.


NB: The UK does appear to be doing a lot more with military help than others. Poland is doing an outstanding job helping with refugees. And the USA is sending monies by the bucket. But while Putin can strike at any target with impunity, it is not enough!