Russo-Ukrainian War - 2022 Edition - Part 8

[Mirai]

So you admit that the US effectively runs NATO then?

Who was present at this meeting? Baker?

NATO would be irrelevant. You do know that the US has already assured Finnish and Swedish peace? If Russia attacks them, US will attack Russia, WW3. No need for NATO.

Do some more reading.

 

[Mirai]

So you admit that the US effectively runs NATO then?

Please read.

The myth of the Donbas separatism

"Cause I'm TNT, I'm dynamite. TNT, and I'll win the fight"

eastsplaining.substack.com

 

[ToxicBunny]

So you admit that the US effectively runs NATO then?

How did you come to that retarded conclusion from his post?

 

[Cray]

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

Okay, so can you point to an event before the annexation of Crimea that you would regard as Ukraine violating the agreement?

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.

We know that Russia are doing whatever they want, the point is that you seem to want condemn Ukraine when it's clear to most people that Russia is entirely at fault for this war.

 

[rambo919]

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.

I divorce myself from the situation. My morals are meaningless so I do not bring them to bear. It's none of my business anyway, I have no right to interfere with their business just as they have no right to interfere with mine.

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.

And the British colonies were invaded by the Boer Republics, the Boere fired the first shots. Then they did the stupid thing of conscripting colonists in the territories they invaded, that's the only immoral part which they paid for dearly.

It was not modern war so the casualties were not the same, if it was then there would have been a lot of collateral damage the same way there is with this war.

You people seem to pretend collateral damage never happened in any war since 1900.....

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

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

They did after 2014, that's all that matters.

 

[rambo919]

Okay, so can you point to an event before the annexation of Crimea that you would regard as Ukraine violating the agreement?

I do not know the details of it but the Russians would definitely interpret allowing Murican interests to gain influence as a violation.

We know that Russia are doing whatever they want, the point is that you seem to want condemn Ukraine when it's clear to most people that Russia is entirely at fault for this war.

I condemn both sides, I do not believe the myth of only one side being entirely at fault when it comes to most wars, probably all wars. Ukraine just happened to be the more stupid party in this one.

 

[Dave]

Oh this is funny, even Wikipedia admits this war started in 2014.

War in Donbas (2014–2022) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Are you feeling ok? I don't think anyone here (except a few PutinBots) doesn't think the war started with the 2014 Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

 

[rambo919]

Are you feeling ok? I don't think anyone here (except a few PutinBots) doesn't think the war started with the 2014 Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

The invasion only started last year. Everything before that was skirmishes and almost wars threatning to draw Russia into the civil war which only happened last year. Russia only then became an active kinetic belligerent.

 

[rambo919]

Well I am going to bed now. Have fun amongst yourselves strawmanning and steelmanning and projecting feelings and morals at me pretending I am emotionally taking Russia's side just because I am not falling all over myself to support the Ukraine.....

 

[Dave]

The invasion only started last year. Everything before that was skirmishes and almost wars threatning to draw Russia into the civil war which only happened last year. Russia only then became an active kinetic belligerent.

No, the invasion started in 2014 when Russian troops invaded eastern Ukraine and armed their proxies and invaded and annexed Crimea.

 

[Matata]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1636080268384559104

A small excerpt of the article:

Appearing on the state TV show, Evening With Vladimir Solovyov in November, Simonyan said: “Let me tell you that if we manage to lose, the Hague — whether real or hypothetical — will even come for the street cleaner sweeping the cobblestones behind the Kremlin.” The same month, Olga Skabeeva, the host of the state TV show 60 Minutes, likewise predicted that if Russia loses its war against Ukraine, every Russian will be considered guilty. She argued that a resounding victory was the only way “to avoid tribunals at the Hague, criminal cases, and having to pay reparations.”

As the months go by, these concerns have not subsided. During Solovyov’s show on March 6, Vitaly Tretyakov, dean of Moscow State University’s Higher School of Television, worried out loud about the statements from “significant” Western figures expressing the demand that Putin and other Russians face war crimes tribunals.

The Kremlin’s propagandists have plenty of reasons to be concerned; street sweepers and other average citizens rather less so. The agitation for war crimes against Ukrainians (described as animals and worse), the descriptions of them as Nazis, and the delight at the attacks on their homes and civilian energy grid have, after all, not been broadcast by people on the street. From the lowliest pawns on Putin’s chess board to the queens of propaganda like Simonyan and Skabeeva, the state-controlled media has played a central part in prompting, encouraging, rationalizing, and normalizing the Kremlin’s massacre of its next-door neighbors.

 

[SNLV30]

It says it will happen on April fools day so my guess is...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635973670123233282

 

[Mirai]

I divorce myself from the situation. My morals are meaningless so I do not bring them to bear. It's none of my business anyway, I have no right to interfere with their business just as they have no right to interfere with mine.

You pass a moral judgment on the actions of each country. Hence you follow some moral system. You can't say you're divorced because in that case you should not comment here. You also moralise here about the UN etc.

You either believe attacking another country and killing its people soldiers or civilians who were not actively preparing to attack you is moral or immoral. I and many others happen to think that attacking and killing innocent people is morally wrong. Russia is morally in the wrong here.

And the British colonies were invaded by the Boer Republics, the Boere fired the first shots. Then they did the stupid thing of conscripting colonists in the territories they invaded, that's the only immoral part which they paid for dearly.

So no soldiers and no plans to invade Russia. Donbas was and is a part of Ukraine. Transvaal and Free State were not part of the British Empire until then. So this analogy fails. I don't know the Boer wars well enough but if there was evidence that Brits were going to attack and were massing forces and if the pre-emptive war the Boers carried out was not targeting civilians there would be possibly be some justification. Alas this was not the case with Russia and Ukraine. Russia invaded Ukraine and not vice versa. In fact Russia had a long history of doing this, including starving millions of Ukrainians to death in 1932-33.

It was not modern war so the casualties were not the same, if it was then there would have been a lot of collateral damage the same way there is with this war.

You people seem to pretend collateral damage never happened in any war since 1900.....

Collateral damage is only justified if the war was justifed. If you start a war of aggression all collateral damage is not justified because it follows from your unjustified war. Power and resources are not justifications. Otherwise we end up with a world full of war and no more rules.

They did after 2014, that's all that matters.

That would be like the British landing in Transvaal with soldiers and suddenly Transvaal wants to be part of the British empire. There was no grass roots, local, indigenous, actual movement but an artificial one created by Russia. That doesn't count.

You should be interested in actual truth and not a sham pseudo-truth. The last indications and polls showed that Donbas people did not want to secede from Ukraine.

Most people in separatist-held areas of Donbas prefer reintegration with Ukraine – new survey

What do the people of the Donbas want for their future?

theconversation.com

 

[tetrasect]

Think it's time for the ignore button again. Last few pages have been pure BS.

 

[Mirai]

It says it will happen on April fools day so my guess is...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635973670123233282

That's the Russian way. These children will grow up and refer to the Ukrainians as "hohols".

 

[Mirai]

Well I am going to bed now. Have fun amongst yourselves strawmanning and steelmanning and projecting feelings and morals at me pretending I am emotionally taking Russia's side just because I am not falling all over myself to support the Ukraine.....

You're not only not supporting Ukraine, you're attempting to justify Russia's actions and blame Ukraine for wanting to decide its own future. You are moralising whether you like it or not. You should travel to the region and learn some actual history of it and not merely follow what's popular, i.e. Russian history because that's all you read about. Read about some other countries in the region and what Russia did to them.

 

[Mirai]

I do not know the details of it but the Russians would definitely interpret allowing Murican interests to gain influence as a violation.


I condemn both sides, I do not believe the myth of only one side being entirely at fault when it comes to most wars, probably all wars. Ukraine just happened to be the more stupid party in this one.

So you condemn both sides, yet only one side has children killed RIGHT NOW as we speak.
Only one side, Ukraine, has Russian missiles land on its apartment blocs. Ukraine is not throwing missiles at Russian homes.

 

[hexagon]

The History Between Ukraine and Russia - Part 2

Russia still considers Crimea to be a part of Russia because the circumstances surrounding the transfer happened in what they view as shady conditions. 13 members who turned up, out of a 27 group voted in favour in of the transfer within a 15 minute session, which for quite a large land mass is extremely and suspiciously fast.

This happened under the Khrushchev Presidency, a Presidency most Russians eye as being suspicious, as Khrushchev typically had support from America, and even his son, Sergei, even opted to live and die in America. During this same year of 1954, Soviet Russia applied to join NATO and were refused.

The History Between Ukraine and Russia - Part 3

The CIA wanted to ‘save the Ukrainians from themselves’ and intervene, upsetting the careful see-saw balance. It would come to a head in 2014, where violence had broken out only a month earlier in Ukraine. The CIA backed UCCA helped organise rallies in cities across the US in support of the EuroMaidan protests. This was not a clandestine, secretive effort in Ukraine either, it was done explicitly by supporting Nazi organisations, in public, unbashedly, without shame.

Svoboda’s leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, whom then Senator John McCain stood on stage with and US Diplomat Victoria Nuland joined in a photoshoot, once called for the liberation of Ukraine from the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia.”, harking back to the days of when Ukraine’s OUN-B collaborated with the Nazis against Communist Russia.
It was evident by the presence of two prominent US politicians, and they weren’t ashamed about it either. Victoria Nuland was caught on tape explicitly planning the plot to overthrow democratically elected Yanukovych, and the video showing the leak stayed up for 8 years before YouTube decided to censor the truth.

John McCain, Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt made their involvement in the undemocratic violence even more explicit. Nuland and Pyatt “visited the square after the violence had broken out”. Violence from known Nazis.

This wasn’t purely observations from the Russian side either. Anti-fascist groups in Ukraine made similar observations, commenting:

There are lots of nationalists here including Nazis. They came from all over Ukraine, and they make up about 30% of protesters.

Protestors seized Parliamentary buildings in their undemocratic coup, and as if Svoboda’s ties to Nazi Bandera wasn’t painfully obvious enough, they were made even more explicit in a way that would be more befitting a satire piece:
"Protestors had begun occupying Kiev City Hall in December [2013], with a portrait of Ukraine’s World War II fascist leader Stepan Bandera hanging from the rafters"

The Ukrainian government continued to face further violent protests, and in January 2014, the Guardian reported:

[…] protestors broke into the Agriculture Ministry building in Kiev and occupied it. On the same day barricades were set up near the presidential headquarters. Government buildings in the west of the country had also been occupied. [...]

It is worth noticing it doesn’t say ‘the east of the country’.

As a result of this, Russia considered - reasonably so - the actions by the US in light of Ukraine to be subversive, and did not view the Ukrainian government as being legitimate.

Russia’s extreme suspicion of what happened in Ukraine spurred them to take back the Crimea as soon as late February 2014, barely a month after Yanukovych was forced to flee government.

Crimea, a region that Russia viewed as having been given away in similar suspicious circumstances as Yanukovych’s impeachment - where half of the voting party were absent - was seen as a dubiously given away gift to Ukraine.

A gift with extreme strategic importance to Russia’s naval operations in the Black sea and the sea of Azov, per the Russo-Turkish wars many centuries earlier. Russia were clearly wary of it falling into the wrong hands and potentially being used against them.

The West naturally condemned the move, with Russia declaring it was to allow the people to self-determine their futures. Russia saw what the US did in Ukraine as nothing short of a coup, an undemocratic effort.

Russia’s entry into Crimea was not without some democratic precedent: Russia declared they had been invited to take over by referendum, and the majority of formerly Ukrainian armed forces in Crimea defected to Russia, of which ~16,000 were re-employed by Russia to continue to defend the area. Not exactly violent invasion of the century.

Despite tens of thousands of armed people being involved, only three people in total were killed, one on the Russian side and two on the Ukrainian side, suggesting the takeover was largely peaceful and indeed democratic. A far cry from the violence in Kiev.

Russia declared it would abide by the later voting result of May 2014 in Ukraine, although judging by the referendum and defections in the thousands, it is clear Crimea wanted to remain with Russia.

 

[Mirai]

The History Between Ukraine and Russia - Part 2


The History Between Ukraine and Russia - Part 3

The Russian Federation in previous agreements and in the Budapest Memorandum accepted Ukraine's borders and her sovereignty. The time to have raised this was back in the USSR days and it was not raised. It was not raised in the years of Yeltsin and not even in early Putin years. So this is a post facto justification, a retroconning like the whole BS promise of non-expansion of NATO.

 

[Mirai]

Russia treats weaker neighbours like sh-t, suddenly it feels insulted that the US did not allow them to maintain their barbaric control over Eastern Europe. Why should the US do that. The US is far stronger than Russia. Hence the US should allow Russia to eat her own medicine, "Bitch, you're the weaker party, take the deal. You lost the Cold War. The spoils go to the victor". And the spoils go willingly to the victor. Nobody wants smelly Russian footwraps but people want to be in the American led camp.

Russia wants to be treated with honour, something she won't do with her weaker neighbours. The US has been more than honourable with Russia. Russia was in the freaking G8. Russians wanted more. Self entitled losers with history of mass murder of millions want to be kings when they bring nothing to the table but misery.