Russo-Ukrainian War - 2022 Edition - Part 8

[Mirai]

For convenience lemme give a quick overview of the rough timeline as I understand it.

• NATO promises Russia as part of it's negotiations with the post-Soviet government it will not expand eastwards.

No such promise was made. But also the United States and NATO could not grant such a promise. US is not bound in all perpetuity as to what alliances it will form with whom and not. No such thing can exist in principle.
So this is already wrong. If Gorbachev was stupid enough to believe that division by zero is possible because someone said so in a nice tone of voice, then he was stupid. It's like buying a cell phone contract when the salesman promises you that you will get a new device every 2 years in all perpetuity and you'll never have to pay a cent extra on your original price. Such is simply NOT POSSIBLE.

• Russia joins the world markets.
• Russia realizes the organs of proto world government wishes to abolish Nationhood.

This is BS. Russian nationhood was never threatened. In fact it's Russia which is a threat to Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Polish, Ukrainian, Georgian etc nationhoods.

• Due to having constant problems with terrorism and being rebuffed by the west in 2000 with the so called War on Terror Russia starts mistrusting the intentions of the West in general.

This is BS and completely naive. Russians would have to be naive angels, innocent and pure as snow and naive to boot.

• NATO starts expanding eastwards.

NATO does not expand estwards. NATO is a club of people who join it willingly.

Now tell me RAMBO, why do you decide for my country which joined NATO that it is NOT ALLOWED to seek an alliance with a third party? Tell me this Rambo on what grounds you claim this other than Russia big and can act like 19th century imperialist?

• Russia starts withdrawing from world government organizations and becoming more insular.

Tell me when they withdraw from the UN Security Council.

• Russia starts more strongly nationalistic than before.

Russia has always been nationalistic. Learn some history.

• At some point BRICS is formed as an alternative economic alliance.

BRICS is a joke. South Africa cannot keep power on.

• Murican politicians personally invest heavily in the Ukrainian political system and essentially convert it to a Murican client state right on the border of Russia.

Ukraine has a long history of struggle for indepdence. Murica would be able to do squat as their attempts in Afghanistan and Iraq showed. Isis and Taliban was able to overcome those countries.

• Within Ukraine, Ukrainians and Russians start splitting on ethnic lines.

Or Ukrainians look Westward as so many live and work in countries like Poland and see what being part of the west is like and ask themselves, why do we have to live in this Russian pig sty?

• Tensions boil over in 2014 with Russian retaliatory interference in Ukraine providing Russia with a solid pretext for annexation.

Russia created the tensions and funded the rebels.

• Ukraine in retaliation begins a campaign of ethnically cleansing all Russian influence including banning the use of the Russian language. This is probably the single biggest mistake Ukraine made except for allowing indiscriminate shelling and torture of civilians.

There was NO ETHNIC cleansing.

• Russian Ukrainians with Russian support start fighting back.

This happened initially look 2 points back. Funny that so many of them now fight against Russia.

• In retaliation Ukraine allows units in it's military including the infamous Nazi battalions to constantly shell Russian cities and neighborhoods.

Nonsense. UN reports we cited here many times show that no such shelling actually took place. There was a war between Ukrainian legitimate forces and Russian army and rebels. In the last few years less than 30 civilians would die each year mostly due to unexploded bombs. Look at Mariupol after Russia to see what a shelled city looks like.

• In retaliation for that Russia keeps stepping in with limited responses forcing Ukraine to sign treaties

Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum to stay the fsck out of Ukraine.

• Ukraine renegs on all treaties as ethnic hostilities within it's borders continue
• Russia looses all patience with intimidation tactics and launches a full scale invasion.

Hitler also lost all patience because Poles would not give him territory. Same thing.

This war has been fought in three consecutive phases that sometimes intersected:

1. Geopolitical
2. Diplomatic with skirmishes
3. Full Kinetic Invasion

You cannot separate the third phase from the previous two.

This is complete BS. You are so misinformed it's sad. You're not even European.

 

[rambo919]

Your first point on your list is wrong.

How many times do we have to tell everyone here that Gorbachev himfu##ingself confirmed that there was no such promise. It wasn't even discussed.

Then explain to me where exactly this started then? It cannot have sprung out of nothing.

 

[rambo919]

No such promise was made. But also the United States and NATO could not grant such a promise. US is not bound in all perpetuity as to what alliances it will form with whom and not. No such thing can exist in principle.
So this is already wrong. If Gorbachev was stupid enough to believe that division by zero is possible because someone said so in a nice tone of voice, then he was stupid. It's like buying a cell phone contract when the salesman promises you that you will get a new device every 2 years in all perpetuity and you'll never have to pay a cent extra on your original price. Such is simply NOT POSSIBLE.




This is BS. Russian nationhood was never threatened. In fact it's Russia which is a threat to Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Polish, Ukrainian, Georgian etc nationhoods.



This is BS and completely naive. Russians would have to be naive angels, innocent and pure as snow and naive to boot.



NATO does not expand estwards. NATO is a club of people who join it willingly.

Now tell me RAMBO, why do you decide for my country which joined NATO that it is NOT ALLOWED to seek an alliance with a third party? Tell me this Rambo on what grounds you claim this other than Russia big and can act like 19th century imperialist?



Tell me when they withdraw from the UN Security Council.



Russia has always been nationalistic. Learn some history.



BRICS is a joke. South Africa cannot keep power on.



Ukraine has a long history of struggle for indepdence. Murica would be able to do squat as their attempts in Afghanistan and Iraq showed. Isis and Taliban was able to overcome those countries.



Or Ukrainians look Westward as so many live and work in countries like Poland and see what being part of the west is like and ask themselves, why do we have to live in this Russian pig sty?



Russia created the tensions and funded the rebels.



There was NO ETHNIC cleansing.



This happened initially look 2 points back. Funny that so many of them now fight against Russia.



Nonsense. UN reports we cited here many times show that no such shelling actually took place. There was a war between Ukrainian legitimate forces and Russian army and rebels. In the last few years less than 30 civilians would die each year mostly due to unexploded bombs. Look at Mariupol after Russia to see what a shelled city looks like.



Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum to stay the fsck out of Ukraine.



Hitler also lost all patience because Poles would not give him territory. Same thing.



This is complete BS. You are so misinformed it's sad. You're not even European.

If this was not laced with so much hysteria and childishness... I might have responded.

This might be a game to you for your own amusement but it is not for me.

 

[Mirai]

They see things differently in that part of the world.... the kicker being a great many Afrikaners still see the SA English as indistinguishable from the UK English. You are not keeping up with what actual people think it seems.

I am from that part of the world. The only people who see this differently are Russian propagandists.

Nukes are useless unless you can bring them to bear, so far this conflict has not become the kind where they are relevant yet. If you narrow it down to outright kinetic threats then yes those had not materialized yet.... however there are other threats that over the long term are just as deadly such as the strategy of slow strangulation. The West applied the exact same strategy on Apartheid SA and it almost destroyed the country.... so don't even try to pretend it's not powerful. Russia simply went kenetic while it was still strong before what was done to SA could be done to it. That's the thing with these guys, they learn from history.

It is very easy to bring them to bear. Just put them on a Tomahawk or launch them from an F-35. Countries like Poland will soon have weapons capable of striking Moscow, 900km.

Also.... you seem to not realize that no one cares what the UN thinks is illegal. The UN is not actually in charge of world government and cannot write international law.... thus there are no international crimes. International law is merely a set of interconnected treaties.... your problem here is because Ukraine did not keep to their side of their treaties with Russia.... that makes this law perfectly legal since Russia was not the first to break with law as it were.

Seems strange that Russia still uses the UN every time it can, seems they do seem to care.

Unlike you, I am not supporting anything. I am merely seeing what led to this and what it's outcome will inevitably be.

You are supporting the aggressor by making excuses for a war similar to what Adolf Hitler started in 1939.

The age of the corrupt and inept UN is over, Russia saw this and took advantage. We are back to where we were during the cold war with the UN not being able to actually achieve a single thing or note. All the soft power the UN had is unraveling and Russia is helping it happen.

Russia does not seem to think so.

No need to get emotional about it.

The emotional one here is you. I'm sorry but your moral compass is completely warped. There really is an dramatic difference of worldviews here. It's not reconcilable.

For me, and maybe not for some others here, who knows, there is a right and a wrong way to do things. Killing innocents is wrong. Invading a country with force and death is wrong. You are not on the receiving end of this.

 

[Mirai]

If this was not laced with so much hysteria and childishness... I might have responded.

This might be a game to you for your own amusement but it is not for me.

So tell me, is my country NOT allowed to seek an alliance with whomever it wants? It's a NATO member in central / eastern Europe. And if not allowed, explain from first principles.

 

[Cray]

Then explain to me where exactly this started then? It cannot have sprung out of nothing.

Russian aggression and saltiness that Ukraine decided to align with the West rather than with it.

It's weird how people who claim to be neutral ignore the fact that Russia signed an agreement vowing to respect Ukraine's sovereignty when it gave up its Nuclear weapons, and unlike that non-existent NATO expansion thing, that was an actual signed agreement that Russia violated.

I notice your list makes no mention of the Budapest Memorandum... I would have thought a neutral would have included that as an important treaty that Russia violated.

 

[rambo919]

So tell me, is my country NOT allowed to seek an alliance with whomever it wants? It's a NATO member in central / eastern Europe. And if not allowed, explain from first principles.

Oh any country can do anything it wants but there are always consequences for it.

Ukraine did what it wanted.... and these are the consequences.

Cause and effect.

 

[Mirai]

Wrong.

They're both responsible.

Well I'm sure the Czechoslovaks and Hungarians also had it coming when they were invaded by the Russians when their communist parties wanted some reforms. If a man rapes a woman, she also bears some guilt, you see she said NO to him. If she had said YES, it would not have been rape, eh?

 

[rambo919]

Russian aggression and saltiness that Ukraine decided to align with the West rather than with it.

That does not explain the origin, "they just made it up" is not good enough.

It's weird how people who claim to be neutral ignore the fact that Russia signed an agreement vowing to respect Ukraine's sovereignty when it gave up its Nuclear weapons, and unlike that non-existent NATO expansion thing, that was an actual signed agreement that Russia violated.
I notice your list makes no mention of the Budapest Memorandum... I would have thought a neutral would have included that as an important treaty that Russia violated.

No one has clean hands. Though given the events of this war.... all is not completely clear as to who did what first so it might not be relevant or Ukraine might have not complied with it.... I dunno.

 

[Mirai]

Oh any country can do anything it wants but there are always consequences for it.

Obviously there are always consequences. Do you think Russia is acting like a civilised country in threatening consequences and attacking her neighbours, countries which want protection from Russia given the history of Russian attacks and occupations of them in the past?

Ukraine did what it wanted.... and these are the consequences.

Cause and effect.

Cool, If a woman walks alone at night, a man rapes her, those are the consequences of her walk at night.

Rambo, since you're a South African, and OK, you're an expert on this country, but you need to realise that countries and people who are not Russian will never surrender and will continue to oppose Russia. If necessary it will be like WW2 again. Hitler did not want to start a WW2. He just wanted to exterminate Poland. Well Beck the Polish minister made sure that a global war would follow by signing strategic alliances with UK and France and behind the UK, was the US which would inevitably be drawn in. The system of alliances is stronger now. So be careful. The people of Europe will do everything to not be under the Russian smelly footwrap again.

 

[Paulsie]

Well I'm sure the Czechoslovaks and Hungarians also had it coming when they were invaded by the Russians when their communist parties wanted some reforms. If a man rapes a woman, she also bears some guilt, you see she said NO to him. If she had said YES, it would not have been rape, eh?

Please stop addressing me.
I have no interest in your strawmen and spamming.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Oh any country can do anything it wants but there are always consequences for it.

Ukraine did what it wanted.... and these are the consequences.

Cause and effect.

You are on a roll for stupid posts of the day...

Why does Ukraines choice have anything to do with Russia?

 

[Mirai]

Please stop addressing me.
I have no interest in your strawmen and spamming.

I just note your incessant hypocrisy. Because you're safe in NATO it's ok for others to rot under Russia because it's good for some people in your country because Germany with cheap Russian resources can invest there. Well sorry, that will not work for you and for those people.

 

[Cray]

That does not explain the origin, "they just made it up" is not good enough.


No one has clean hands. Though given the events of this war.... all is not completely clear as to who did what first so it might not be relevant or Ukraine might have not complied with it.... I dunno

That's a cop out, you where pretty willing to judge Ukraine harshly in your list but as soon as someone points out that Russia actually broke a signed agreement you throw your hands up and and claim that it's either not clear or is somehow not relevant...

 

[Mirai]

If this was not laced with so much hysteria and childishness... I might have responded.

Explain to me how the United States is able to make a promise to never seek military alliance with another country in former Warsaw Pact.

This is not possible in principle under US law. No US president could give such an assurance. If Gorbachev believed it, he must have been mentally retarded at the time.

 

[rambo919]

The emotional one here is you. I'm sorry but your moral compass is completely warped. There really is an dramatic difference of worldviews here. It's not reconcilable.

My moral compass is not involved so how can it be warped? I am an outside observer learning lessons for possible personal application in the future.

For me, and maybe not for some others here, who knows, there is a right and a wrong way to do things. Killing innocents is wrong. Invading a country with force and death is wrong.

With the advent of the second Boer war the Republics noticed that the British were massing their troops on the border regions, when requests for this to stop were denied it became clear that Britain was going to at some point declare war. The Republics instead of stupidly waiting decided to invade British territories to stem the tide of troops thus starting the kenetic phase of that particular war.

Good luck attempting to convince me that invasion is always immoral.

You are not on the receiving end of this.

Not ATM but within a few decades (not unlikely within the next 5 years) I just might be.... I am expecting SA to fall apart and then balkanize. Then the breakaway regions might essentially be in the position the Donbass was.

What this war has taught me is the world will take the side of the ANC government or whoever is sent (probably the British) as an occupation force against the new states. At that point I might be if health allows part of the armed resistance.

So if I identify as anyone in this war it is the Donbass but only so much as is useful to me.

Here is the kicker though, Russia will ally with the ANC. Russia is an ethnic enemy of mine just as much as the Ukraine is.... so why would I take either side in any personal way?

 

[rambo919]

That's a cop out, you where pretty willing to judge Ukraine harshly in your list but as soon as someone points out that Russia actually broke a signed agreement you throw your hands up and and claim that it's either not clear or is somehow not relevant...

If Ukraine broke it first in some way it's perfectly reasonable for Russia to do so.

You fail to notice though, in my narrative Russia is not playing by the old rules any more so they might simply have reverted to treating all treaties as useful until they are not useful... that being the case if it is true.... legality becomes meaningless.

 

[ToxicBunny]

If Ukraine broke it first in some way it's perfectly reasonable for Russia to do so.

You fail to notice though, in my narrative Russia is not playing by the old rules any more so they might simply have reverted to treating all treaties as useful until they are not useful... that being the case if it is true.... legality becomes meaningless.

How did Ukraine break it first?

 

[rambo919]

Explain to me how the United States is able to make a promise to never seek military alliance with another country in former Warsaw Pact.

This is not possible in principle under US law. No US president could give such an assurance. If Gorbachev believed it, he must have been mentally retarded at the time.

So you admit that the US effectively runs NATO then?

 

[Mirai]

My moral compass is not involved so how can it be warped? I am an outside observer learning lessons for possible personal application in the future.

You put moral equivalence to violence and killing of innocents which Russia started and is conducting. You equate both Ukrainians and Russians (at best) as being morally similar.

With the advent of the second Boer war the Republics noticed that the British were massing their troops on the border regions, when requests for this to stop were denied it became clear that Britain was going to at some point declare war. The Republics instead of stupidly waiting decided to invade British territories to stem the tide of troops thus starting the kenetic phase of that particular war.

Good luck attempting to convince me that invasion is always immoral.

And no such thing happend in Ukraine. Ukraine was the one invaded by Russia. You analogy fails here.

It would still be immoral if your Boers attacked civilian British.

Not ATM but within a few decades (not unlikely within the next 5 years) I just might be.... I am expecting SA to fall apart and then balkanize. Then the breakaway regions might essentially be in the position the Donbass was.

What this war has taught me is the world will take the side of the ANC government or whoever is sent (probably the British) as an occupation force against the new states. At that point I might be if health allows part of the armed resistance.

So if I identify as anyone in this war it is the Donbass but only so much as is useful to me.

Donbas did not have a seperatist party or movement. Pre-war polls showed most people did not want to secede.

Here is the kicker though, Russia will ally with the ANC. Russia is an ethnic enemy of mine just as much as the Ukraine is.... so why would I take either side in any personal way?

Because you did not think this through and your assumptions and moral logic is incorrect.