US and NATO escalation of conflict with Russia is leading to war - PART 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nicodeamus

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
14,477
ToxicBunny said:
Oh no... I'm not...

I'm part of the "take the piss out of the stupid crap Nico posts on myBB" type thats all.

But it is telling that you think my posts taking the piss out of your stupid shyte would put me in any specific camp.
Click to expand...

but you're here defending John McCain's stupid attempted coup.
 
M

Mirai

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
11,241
ToxicBunny said:
Well its getting better.. now the US of A is an imperialist naughty boy... gets better and better every day.
Click to expand...

Nico does not want to admit that he uses different standards here. Russia was a continuation of the Russian SSR which never had free elections. USSR never had free elections. USSR came about in a bloody revolution which was partially funded by German money and the original idea was to get the Tsarist Russia out of WW1. That plan backfired on the Germans when in 1945 the Red Army took revenge on their women. But we can't judge Ukraine differently to Russia. If 2014 was a real coup and overthrow of a genuinely freely elected democratic government, let's take that for argument's sake and then the following elections when Zelenskyy was elected were free and fair then this is no different to Belarus or Russia. But the elections there were more free and fair.

For Nico, the hampering of Russian agitation in elections is called imperialism. You see he considers Ukraine to be Russian sphere of influence and so Russia can affect changes there but other people, even with Ukrainian will may not do that. That's imperialism for him.
 
N

Nicodeamus

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
14,477
Mirai said:
Nico does not want to admit that he uses different standards here. Russia was a continuation of the Russian SSR which never had free elections. USSR never had free elections. USSR came about in a bloody revolution which was partially funded by German money and the original idea was to get the Tsarist Russia out of WW1. That plan backfired on the Germans when in 1945 the Red Army took revenge on their women. But we can't judge Ukraine differently to Russia. If 2014 was a real coup and overthrow of a genuinely freely elected democratic government, let's take that for argument's sake and then the following elections when Zelenskyy was elected were free and fair then this is no different to Belarus or Russia. But the elections there were more free and fair.

For Nico, the hampering of Russian agitation in elections is called imperialism. You see he considers Ukraine to be Russian sphere of influence and so Russia can affect changes there but other people, even with Ukrainian will may not do that. That's imperialism for him.
Click to expand...

no it's elementary logic here, international law prevents the use of threat against other countries.
Does America have a higher ground here if they instigated a coup d'état in 2014 and then when on a comedy show to brag about it?

Is this really about "democracy" in the Ukraine or is it just another regime change attempt?
 
M

Mirai

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
11,241
Nicodeamus said:
no it's elementary logic here, international law prevents the use of threat against other countries.
Does America have a higher ground here if they instigated a coup d'état in 2014 and then when on a comedy show to brag about it?

Is this really about "democracy" in the Ukraine or is it just another regime change attempt?
Click to expand...

Ukraine had free and fair elections. They are fighting and not surrendering en masse. They are not under some Nazi occupation by CIA / Blackwater.
They are naturally resisting.
Even with conscription, it would be easy for Ukrainian soldiers to just surrender to the Russians.

Your whole spiel is just wrong Nico. You live in a fantasy land.

If current Ukraine is illegal, than Russia is also illegal. Both have the same genesis.
 
Fulcrum29

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
55,037
Emjay said:
Just a reminder. This little clip is not going to disappear into oblivion as much as people want it to.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1499188212383850501
Click to expand...

Better to have the whole conversation, and the transcript (with BBC commentary),


www.bbc.com

Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call

A transcript of the alleged conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt discussing the crisis in Ukraine.
www.bbc.com

Here is a transcript, with analysis by BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus:

Warning: This transcript contains swearing.

Voice thought to be Nuland's: What do you think?
  • Jonathan Marcus: At the outset it should be clear that this is a fragment of what may well be a larger phone conversation. But the US has not denied its veracity and has been quick to point a finger at the Russian authorities for being behind its interception and leak.
Voice thought to be Pyatt's: I think we're in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader]. And I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad that he said what he said in response.
  • Jonathan Marcus: The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its own game-plan. The clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs.
Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.

Pyatt: Yeah. I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok, the other opposition leader] and his guys and I'm sure that's part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.
Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.

Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that's right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?
Nuland: My understanding from that call - but you tell me - was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a... three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?

Pyatt: No. I think... I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that's been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn't like it.
Nuland: OK, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.

Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.
Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can't remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?
  • Jonathan Marcus: An intriguing insight into the foreign policy process with work going on at a number of levels: Various officials attempting to marshal the Ukrainian opposition; efforts to get the UN to play an active role in bolstering a deal; and (as you can see below) the big guns waiting in the wings - US Vice-President Joe Biden clearly being lined up to give private words of encouragement at the appropriate moment.
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.
Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, **** the EU.
  • Jonathan Marcus: Not for the first time in an international crisis, the US expresses frustration at the EU's efforts. Washington and Brussels have not been completely in step during the Ukraine crisis. The EU is divided and to some extent hesitant about picking a fight with Moscow. It certainly cannot win a short-term battle for Ukraine's affections with Moscow - it just does not have the cash inducements available. The EU has sought to play a longer game; banking on its attraction over time. But the US clearly is determined to take a much more activist role.
Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there's a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep... we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.

Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president's national security adviser Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden's willing.

Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks.
  • Jonathan Marcus: Overall this is a damaging episode between Washington and Moscow. Nobody really emerges with any credit. The US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal in Ukraine than it publicly lets on. There is some embarrassment too for the Americans given the ease with which their communications were hacked. But is the interception and leaking of communications really the way Russia wants to conduct its foreign policy ? Goodness - after Wikileaks, Edward Snowden and the like could the Russian government be joining the radical apostles of open government? I doubt it. Though given some of the comments from Vladimir Putin's adviser on Ukraine Sergei Glazyev - for example his interview with the Kommersant-Ukraine newspaper the other day - you don't need your own listening station to be clear about Russia's intentions. Russia he said "must interfere in Ukraine" and the authorities there should use force against the demonstrators.
Click to expand...
 
M

Mirai

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
11,241
Blu82 said:
You can mission kill an tank with an AR-15 if you know what your are doing. You just have to kill the optics.
Click to expand...
True.

I think the idea is that the if US military were to fight their own people it would face a price beyond the obvious dislike for fighting their own people. People could shoot back. So yes that can happen but mere gun ownership makes things much harder than just unarmed guys who can only stand in the way of a tank.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top