Russo-Ukrainian War - 2022 Edition - Part 8

[tetrasect]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635737540337565710

 

[rambo919]

BS. You clearly support Russia. And the UN is working very well. Look at the last few votes as an inication of how the whole world (other than other bad actors) despises Russia. Russia, and its lap dogs are the main bad actors in the UN and the fact that Russia was on the security council was the only thing that largely made the UN toothless.

No I just don't support who you want me to support and in my opinion Russia holds the most superior cards in this particular conflict both short and long term, for now at least. The UN has always been toothless when it comes to hard power and it's soft power has been eroding especially in the last few decades.... it's rotting away. When WW3 comes it will simply bee a large complex where people impotently fuss and fight without result. Then it will either dissolve or be re-organized. Africa alone is filled with UN failures and even some atrocities that can be laid at it's door nvm the times where it helped tyrants remain in power. Morally the UN has no leg to stand on.

Basically I do not do false dichotomies and the thing good vs evil is stupid and short sighted especially when it comes to wars. Morals have never once won any wars but it constantly loses them if you lean on them at the expense of logic. You either outsmart your enemy or he outsmarts you.... screeching at him about how even he is only destabilizes you.... not him.

Anyways, people who support the Russian invasion are exactly the same type of people who supported Hitler. End of story. People like that disgust me. Russia has been invading and annexing neighbors for years, it has murdered so many innocent people. The only reason they do it is because they despise those people and want to control them, just like the Nazi's did back in the day. There is such overwhelming evidence of how backwards and evil the current Russian regime is. Any justification of them is ridiculous and sad. The way they treat free media, opposition politicians, neighboring states, and even non ethnic Russian's within their own borders is so overwhelmingly evil. If I could have one wish it would be that all these idiot armchair supporters of Putin could go to the front lines as part of a Russian unit and see how much Russia cares for human lives, even if its their own people.

No, Putin is much smarter than Hitler, so far. He has not made over extensions or given into ridiculous propaganda ideals or those impressive wig flipping speeches etc.... it's a completely different much more intelligent animal especially psychologically, he loves screwing with foreign leaders.

You can hate him all you like but do not make the mistake of childishly choosing to not respect him, everyone underestimating him is what he wants.

Go Ukraine! Somebody has to stop Putin. What you are doing now will be remembered and compared to how the UK stood against Hitler almost alone for years but held until help could build up and stop him.

Zelenski is not Churchill, he is a clown pretending to be a strong leader who is in way over his head. He is a mere puppet for the DNC who does more PR than actual leading. It might be that they humble Russia but it does seem more inevitable that Russia will succeed in it's aims.... since how I feel about that is irrelevant and counterproductive I don't bother to feel... that is all.

 

[buka001]

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

It is Russian propaganda. It allows Russia to play the victim and to get sympathy from people out there. It makes it seem that Russia is under siege.

They twist and lie to create disinformation so that pro-Russian people out there, who are unable to to do basic fact checking, will believe it and spread it as fact.

Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. …

Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it well known his antipathy towards NATO, claiming the Alliance took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. Steven Pifer argues that no such promises were...

www.brookings.edu

 

[rambo919]

Okay, which point of the agreement do you think they would try to claim was violated?

Does the details actually matter? Russia does not think like a lawyer in details and clauses, it thinks on principle and power.

And why are Russian interests acceptable in Ukraine but not American?

Proximity and paranoia.

And yet the terms in your list are far more condemnatory of Ukraine than they are of Russia, for someone who supposedly blames both sides, your choice of language is very slanted against Ukraine and very forgiving or Russia...

Examples.

There have been less solid pretexts used in the past in other conflicts, if a populace ethnically identical to country A is being threatened in neighboring country B and annexation is the best option to permanently end the the threat..... the populace of country A will demand annexation.

The only reason that more people were killed in the last year is.... Russia f-d up it's invasion. Simple as that no morals required, in that aspect they were surprised and recovered badly.

There is no solid pretext for annexing a part of another country,

History would disagree.... especially funny since this means Murica was immoral in annexing Texas given it happened under similar circumstances.

There was no ethnic cleansing or language ban

Ukraine adopts language law opposed by Kremlin

Fears Russian speakers will be marginalised but backers say move bolsters national identity

www.theguardian.com

This is no different to the way the ANC is attempting to slowly eradicate Afrikaans or the way the British tried to do it.... how solid it was or not the Ukrainian government attempted to de-Russify it's Russians.

The idea that Ukraine started the fighting and the Russian funded insurgence was just defensive....

Ukraine stupidly started allowing occasional indiscriminate shelling of neighborhoods as a method of intimidation..... giving Russia room to respond. No morals required to call this strategically stupid.

Zero mention of Russia reneging on any treaties, including the Budapest memorandum

Because if Russia regarded Ukraine as becoming a threat or having done so first the treaties would be treated as null and void.

The idea that Russia was very patient and wasn't fuelling an insurrection in another country the whole time...

Your supposed neutrality is pretty darn suspect.

Sure they wanted to restructure Ukraine and put in candidates of their choosing..... so did Murica. If Russia succeeded in entrenching it's candidates it would be Murica feulling insurrection.

You seem to miss my obvious cynicism.

 

[rambo919]

It is Russian propaganda. It allows Russia to play the victim and to get sympathy from people out there. It makes it seem that Russia is under siege.

They twist and lie to create disinformation so that pro-Russian people out there, who are unable to to do basic fact checking, will believe it and spread it as fact.

Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it well known his antipathy towards NATO, claiming the Alliance took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. Steven Pifer argues that no such promises were...

www.brookings.edu

That is a blanket accusation not an explanation.

What year did it start and who started it?

You need a better source of information than Gorbachev who has no problem with telling lies when it is in his interests.

 

[buka001]

That is a blanket accusation not an explanation.

What year did it start and who started it?

You need a better source of information than Gorbachev who has no problem with telling lies when it is in his interests.

A better source than the Russian president, who was at the negotiation?

Care to suggest a better source than that?

Strange how you were happy to use Gorbachev as your "source" when you incorrectly believed he had negotiated that NATO should not expand.

When I show you that Gorbachev himself said no this did not happen, you equivocate and demand a better source?

Can this be the most obvious indication of how biased you are? How you are so obviously pro-Russian?

Well, yes, yes it is.

 

[rambo919]

A better source than the Russian president, who was at the negotiation?

Care to suggest a better source than that?

Strange how you were happy to use Gorbachev as your "source" when you incorrectly believed he had negotiated that NATO should not expand.

When I show you that Gorbachev himself said no this did not happen, you equivocate and demand a better source?

Can this be the most obvious indication of how biased you are? How you are so obviously pro-Russian?

Well, yes, yes it is.

What is important is Russia believes it's true not that Gorbachev believes its true.

It could well be untrue but that he told his people at the time it was to calm them down..... I could go with that.

EDIT: unless someone is going to find the actual memo's spoken about to contradict this here is a good enough explanation

Op-Ed: Russia's got a point: The U.S. broke a NATO promise

Moscow solidified its hold on Crimea in April, outlawing the Tatar legislature that had opposed Russia’s annexation of the region since 2014.

www.latimes.com

In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.

That's all the Russians actually need and it corroborates Gorbachev saying no formal deal was struck.

 

[Cray]

Does the details actually matter? Russia does not think like a lawyer in details and clauses, it thinks on principle and power.

So Ukraine actually obeys treaties and international law, Russia does whatever the f*** is wants, but, according to you, both are to blame for this mess?

Proximity and paranoia.

So not a legitimate reason at all?

History would disagree.... especially funny since this means Murica was immoral in annexing Texas given it happened under similar circumstances.

Before the idea of international law was even a thing...

Ukraine adopts language law opposed by Kremlin

Fears Russian speakers will be marginalised but backers say move bolsters national identity

www.theguardian.com

This is no different to the way the ANC is attempting to slowly eradicate Afrikaans or the way the British tried to do it.... how solid it was or not the Ukrainian government attempted to de-Russify it's Russians.

So they were afraid it might be marginalized, in other words, not a ban at all? Lots of countries have an official language for government interactions.

Afrikaans is still spoken by more people in this country than any other, I really can't see this eradication you are referring to.

Ukraine stupidly started allowing occasional indiscriminate shelling of neighborhoods as a method of intimidation..... giving Russia room to respond. No morals required to call this strategically stupid.

First I have heard of that, sound like Russian propaganda to me.

Because if Russia regarded Ukraine as becoming a threat or having done so first the treaties would be treated as null and void.

The treaties make no mention of Russian feelings, you don't get to void international treaties just because you feel that someone is a threat despite them doing absolutely nothing threatening.

Sure they wanted to restructure Ukraine and put in candidates of their choosing..... so did Murica. If Russia succeeded in entrenching it's candidates it would be Murica feulling insurrection.

Something which is entirely hypothetical and you have no way of proving.

 

[Cray]

You need a better source of information than Gorbachev who has no problem with telling lies when it is in his interests.

I think the onus is on the one that is making the assertion that such an agreement existed to provide evidence of it. We have the leader of the USSR saying that it never happened, what is your evidence that it was in fact agreed?

 

[ToxicBunny]

I think the onus is on the one that is making the assertion that such an agreement existed to provide evidence of it. We have the leader of the USSR saying that it never happened, what is your evidence that it was in fact agreed?

But Russia believes it, thats ALL that matters cos we want Vlad to be happy you know, that is all that is important.

 

[rambo919]

I think the onus is on the one that is making the assertion that such an agreement existed to provide evidence of it. We have the leader of the USSR saying that it never happened, what is your evidence that it was in fact agreed?

See the edit.

 

[Cray]

See the edit.

I believe my point stands.

 

[rambo919]

So Ukraine actually obeys treaties and international law, Russia does whatever the f*** is wants, but, according to you, both are to blame for this mess?

Play stupid games win stupid prizes, Russia thinks like a warrior not a lawyer.

So not a legitimate reason at all?

Irrelevant, see above.

Before the idea of international law was even a thing...

International law is not actual law, it's agreed upon regional obligations.

So they were afraid it might be marginalized, in other words, not a ban at all? Lots of countries have an official language for government interactions.

Afrikaans is still spoken by more people in this country than any other, I really can't see this eradication you are referring to.

Because that's how slowly ethnic cleansing via strangulation works, of periods of centuries if it needs to.

First I have heard of that, sound like Russian propaganda to me.

I am not surprised, I would wager the first you heard of a lot of points on my timeline was when I posted it.... because you have not been getting your information from all sources.

The treaties make no mention of Russian feelings, you don't get to void international treaties just because you feel that someone is a threat despite them doing absolutely nothing threatening.

Irrelevant because Russia changed the rules for itself the same way it did in 1900, if it is succesful which I think it will be this changes the rules for everyone.

Something which is entirely hypothetical and you have no way of proving.

As if they don't have a long history of doing this in a lot of other countries including SA.

 

[AlmightyBender]

BS. You clearly support Russia. And the UN is working very well. Look at the last few votes as an inication of how the whole world (other than other bad actors) despises Russia. Russia, and its lap dogs are the main bad actors in the UN and the fact that Russia was on the security council was the only thing that largely made the UN toothless.

Anyways, people who support the Russian invasion are exactly the same type of people who supported Hitler. End of story. People like that disgust me. Russia has been invading and annexing neighbors for years, it has murdered so many innocent people. The only reason they do it is because they despise those people and want to control them, just like the Nazi's did back in the day. There is such overwhelming evidence of how backwards and evil the current Russian regime is. Any justification of them is ridiculous and sad. The way they treat free media, opposition politicians, neighboring states, and even non ethnic Russian's within their own borders is so overwhelmingly evil. If I could have one wish it would be that all these idiot armchair supporters of Putin could go to the front lines as part of a Russian unit and see how much Russia cares for human lives, even if its their own people.

Go Ukraine! Somebody has to stop Putin. What you are doing now will be remembered and compared to how the UK stood against Hitler almost alone for years but held until help could build up and stop him.

Post of the year!

 

[rambo919]

I believe my point stands.

The fact that it was not agreed to on paper is irrelevant to the Russians, that is all that matters.

This is the real world not some kind of childhood game where the unimpeachable adults make the rules.

Everyone pretends to be things they are not and all great powers act in their own best interests at all times.

 

[hexagon]

Battle of Bakhmut: Ukrainian soldiers worry Russians begin to ‘taste victory’

Just days before heading back to fight in the Battle of Bakhmut, a Ukrainian soldier Volodymyr, 54, said he felt ill-prepared.
"When they drive us to Bakhmut, I already know I'm being sent to death," Volodymyr told the Kyiv Independent during his brief stay in Kramatorsk, a city in Donetsk Oblast some 25 kilometers west of the front line.

"(The Russians) keep firing at us, but we don't have artillery – so we have nothing to attack them back with," Volodymyr said. "I don't know if I will return or not. We are just getting killed."

Ukrainian infantrymen interviewed by the Kyiv Independent described the fighting in Bakhmut as a desperate survival challenge against Russia's "infinite" stocks of artillery munitions and manpower. With just their machine guns and rifles, they say they braced relentless Russian mortar and artillery attacks until their hideout was eventually destroyed.

Valeriy, a Ukrainian infantryman, says that most of his fallen comrades were fatally wounded by projectile fragments.

"It's a pity that probably 90% of our losses are from artillery – or tanks and aviation," Valeriy told the Kyiv Independent a few hours after leaving the Bakhmut front. "And much less (casualties) from shooting battles."

Valeriy counted that "only a few" of the original 27 members of his platoon got out of the Bakhmut front with him, though he explained that most of them were wounded, not killed.

"The Russians have so many weapons, and there are so many of them," Valeriy said. "They are firing at us all the time. Sometimes, you hear an incoming every second."

 

[Unhappy438]

Russia thinks like a warrior

 

[hexagon]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1623760449752768519

Crazies in Canada posing with verified Nazi collaborator:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1281005259201097728

 

[Cray]

Play stupid games win stupid prizes, Russia thinks like a warrior not a lawyer.

And you defend them all day long despite them behaving like a bunch of thugs.

Irrelevant, see above.

Same response, see above.

International law is not actual law, it's agreed upon regional obligations.

So if Russia decides to violate it that means everyone else can too? Interesting world you are advocating for...

Because that's how slowly ethnic cleansing via strangulation works, of periods of centuries if it needs to.

I don't think you know the meaning of ethnic cleansing, people deciding to speak a different language over time is not ethnic cleansing.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethnic cleansing

ethnic cleansing - the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of an ethnic minority by a dominant majority in order to achieve ethnic homogeneity

People preferring a certain language after centuries is entirely normal, it's most certainly not ethnic cleansing. How many Afrikaaners that have now emigrated to Australia/New Zealand do you think will still learn Afrikaans as a first language in 100 years time?

I am not surprised, I would wager the first you heard of a lot of points on my timeline was when I posted it.... because you have not been getting your information from all sources.

Is this the part where I ask for your sources and you clam up because they are all Russian?

Irrelevant because Russia changed the rules for itself the same way it did in 1900, if it is succesful which I think it will be this changes the rules for everyone.

I think it will change the rules of dealing with Russia, not one will ever trust a treaty that Russia signs again. And NATO will have even more countries wanting to join because no one trusts Russia to behave like a civilized country.

 

[Cius]

No I just don't support who you want me to support and in my opinion Russia holds the most superior cards in this particular conflict both short and long term, for now at least. The UN has always been toothless when it comes to hard power and it's soft power has been eroding especially in the last few decades.... it's rotting away. When WW3 comes it will simply bee a large complex where people impotently fuss and fight without result. Then it will either dissolve or be re-organized. Africa alone is filled with UN failures and even some atrocities that can be laid at it's door nvm the times where it helped tyrants remain in power. Morally the UN has no leg to stand on.

So you admit you support Russia? Politics always has been and always will be messy. The UN is a reflection of this. However when an organization like the UN holds a vote to condemn Russia for this illegal war and the % of countries condemning Russia is that high it makes it clear that Russia is in the wrong, and is a force that is destabilizing world peace. That matters, I will explain why shortly.

Basically I do not do false dichotomies and the thing good vs evil is stupid and short sighted especially when it comes to wars. Morals have never once won any wars but it constantly loses them if you lean on them at the expense of logic. You either outsmart your enemy or he outsmarts you.... screeching at him about how even he is only destabilizes you.... not him.

So Russia is not evil, and good vs evil does not matter? What the actual .... Have you even read a history book like ever in your life?

So you think good vs evil does not matter, how Machiavellian of you. Thing is it does matter, and has always. In WW1 as one example up until the last minute England was out the war and had no part in it. They had no hard alliance with France or Germany or Russia, the main parties of the conflict. Then Germany moved into France through Belgium. They told the Belgians they where just passing through, and not to blow up bridges or railways or there would be reprisals. The Belgian's bravely did it anyways. The Germans in reprisal then lined up entire villages of men, women, and children and shot them all. Not special trained death squads, these where ordinary German conscript units who where in ordinary jobs shortly before. The Germans where actually kind of surprised at the outrage the world expressed at their actions. They could not understand what the world press coined "The rape of Belgium". To them they had warned the Belgians there would be reprisals and then those reprisals happened as warned.

The German people being a harsh people though it was normal to shoot women and children. They where to coin the word "evil" in terms of their culture, and acceptance of that type of thing. What it did though was cause such outrage that England then joined the war on a wave of public outrage at German atrocities and the defensive alliance they had with Belgium. So yes, it matters, always has. England went from public opinion being against joining the war to almost unanimous support very quickly because normal people care about right vs wrong.

WW2 it repeated. Everyone with half a brain knew the Germans where bad, and even before places like the USA got pulled fully into the war their leadership where doing everything in their power to stop the monster that was Hitler from getting stronger by supplying their allies like England to help stop him. Good vs evil matters, as public opinion matters. Saying Russia is stronger is immaterial. Russia is in the wrong, end of story. They keep murdering and conquering people they have no right to rule over. That is evil and has to be stopped by good men. Idiots like you just slow things down. You are what Putin would call a "Useful idiot" as you clearly want the world to stop helping Ukraine and for them to capitulate.

No, Putin is much smarter than Hitler, so far. He has not made over extensions or given into ridiculous propaganda ideals or those impressive wig flipping speeches etc.... it's a completely different much more intelligent animal especially psychologically, he loves screwing with foreign leaders.

You can hate him all you like but do not make the mistake of childishly choosing to not respect him, everyone underestimating him is what he wants.

I never implied Putin was not very capable. He is certainly more skilled and intelligent than Hitler. I consider him politically to be insanely skilled. I can think of no other leader that can play a bad hand of cards as well as that man. Russia after all has an economy about the size of Canada and look at how much they shape world politics. They should be nowhere near as influential as they currently are. However in terms of levels of evil I would rate them similar. They both are power hungry, and freely use political murders to get forward. They both care little for the lives of their own people and even less for the lives of people who are different to them while at the same time wanting to conquer those people and make them tools to their ambition.

Zelenski is not Churchill, he is a clown pretending to be a strong leader who is in way over his head. He is a mere puppet for the DNC who does more PR than actual leading. It might be that they humble Russia but it does seem more inevitable that Russia will succeed in it's aims.... since how I feel about that is irrelevant and counterproductive I don't bother to feel... that is all.

Disagree. Zelenski has balls of steel. This war would have ended in 3 days without him. Many commentators have said it. By choosing to stay in Kyiv in those first days knowing it was his life on the line if they got hold of him hardened the defense around the capital. He is an incredible leader. Selfless, focused, and inspirational. He constantly amazes me and other top world leaders have said who and what he is far more eloquently than I ever could.

The world you seem to support is one where "might makes right". Where the strong can take from the weak and kill them and its all expected. I could not disagree more. The wonderful modern world we live in is built on laws that protect people, their possessions, and their lives from the evil strong that would just take it all cause they can. Individual countries enforce it within boundaries, or don't like Zim did and face the consequences. Internationally there is no enforcement body that stops nations doing it but the UN as a body tries to at least be the moral arbitrator of these things and tells nations when they are crossing lines. Individual nations of course then move in direction for their own defense, peace, and prosperity. Just like NATO is a defensive alliance and similar alliances exist around the world. Russia has it with some of their neighbors too. Ukraine as a sovereign nation has every right to try join a group like Nato and would be stupid not to considering Russia's track record of invading neighbors.