EPTRusso-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 331
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
KwarK
United States42695 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11515 Posts
On December 31 2022 01:53 KwarK wrote: bracala, why not head down to a recruiting office like a good patriot. Putin just signed a new law that says that Russian soldiers can keep any “gifts” they’re “given” in the annexed “Russian” territory. You could bring home something valuable like a washing machine or 180,000 tungsten balls. Looting only works while you are winning. Losing armies rarely get good loot to go home with. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5559 Posts
On December 31 2022 02:00 Simberto wrote: Looting only works while you are winning. Losing armies rarely get good loot to go home with. Not necessarily. They've looted every city prior to retreating and there's still a lot of territory to retreat from. bracala shouldn't lose hope just yet. ;-) | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17993 Posts
On December 31 2022 01:44 bracala wrote: Dude my close family worked in Lybia for more then 10 years,i was totaly aware about situation and trust me people lived so much better with Gadafi. Look Lybia now and before USA bring "democracy" Your close friends died in Nis and your family is from Libya. *cough* BULLSHIT *cough*. Also, the US wasn't bringing Freedom and Democracy to Libya. It was mostly Libyans trying to bring freedom and democracy to Libya, and the French dragging the US along to help them. Also, Khadaffi, one of the most brutal dictators in Africa, holding the country together through repression was going to end at some point. Unless you thought Khadaffi was going to live forever, or his bloodthirsty son would be a good successor? Turns out that when you remove a dictator who has been ruling for decades, without some plan for transiting to a different free-er government, you end up with a power vacuum. I don't think the US has much blame there other than supporting the rebels with some bombs. As for the Balkan wars, NATO did some pretty dumb shit, but the intention was to end the genocides on Albanians and Bosnians (and really anybody non-Serbian). Maybe look up what happened in Srebrenica where NATO forces very publicly failed in their mission. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5559 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42695 Posts
The Arab Spring happens and the BBC is reporting on Libyan soldiers slaughtering protestors and someone points out that we gave him those guns. That violated the primary rule of the deal, “keep things off the fucking news and we all get rich” and so Britain had to replace him. It’s not pretty, I was against it at the time and I’m against it now. + Show Spoiler [Old post of mine on Libya] + On November 24 2012 05:16 KwarK wrote: I suspect you're feigning idiocy in order to fail to understand a fairly basic point but whatever, I'll run you through the timeline again. 1) BP lobbied Blair to make a deal with a Gaddafi knowing he was a dictator in order to gain access to the raw materials to invest and exploit them. BP signed a deal with Gaddafi on the same day that Blair agreed to hand over the Lockerbie bomber. This isn't a spy novel, it's a matter of public record. 2) Blair sold Gaddafi guns as part of the deal, again, a matter of public record. 3) BP invested in Libya and its operations there, again, public record. 4) Gaddafi jeopardised BP's operations by being unable to quietly repress his people without causing any bad PR. You said this yourself, he announced his intentions to commit major atrocities that would damage those affiliated with him. 5) Britain, despite originally arming Gaddafi against his opposition, switch to providing military support to his opposition, again, public record. 6) BP continues to engage in exploration of Libyan waters and continues to reap the benefits of Libyan oil which, by the way, is sold on private contracts and not the open market. No part of this is untrue. It is literally a textbook marriage of corrupt business and political interests meddling in the affairs of a foreign nation. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9198 Posts
On December 30 2022 23:15 warding wrote: There have been a few multi-country sourveys on public support for Ukraine. Here's one on approval of EU support for Ukraine (done in Autumn of this year): https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20221205IPR60901/eu-citizens-support-for-ukraine-is-solid-eurobarometer-survey-finds Actual survey: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2932 North and Eastern Europe with high levels of support, along with Iberia. Lower levels in Greece and southeastern Europe. Can anyone explain why only 47% of Slovaks approve of EU support for Ukraine? EDIT: Found this one, also relevant: https://tgmresearch.com/war-in-ukraine-2022-global-survey-results.html This is what I found. There's more in the article, I'm copying only the most important observations below. Considering the political preferences of respondents, supporters of the currently ruling centre-right party OĽaNO and the opposition liberal parties SaS and Progressive Slovakia want a Ukrainian victory the most. More neutral views are declared by voters of the coalition party Sme rodina and the left-wing Hlas-SD party of former Prime Minister Peter Pellegrini. By contrast, the biggest supporters of the Russian win include those voting for Robert Fico’s left-wing Smer-SD and the extreme right (Republika, ĽSNS). In terms of the geographical distribution of respondents, it can be seen that the residents of Bratislava country want Ukraine’s victory the most. This can be explained by the fact that it is the richest region of Slovakia and one of the richest regions in the EU. Liberal parties, which are pro-Ukrainian, also have relatively high support there. In contrast, those living in the Nitra and Prešov regions were more likely to support a Russian victory. It is puzzling that support for Russia is so high in the Nitra region, located in the western part of Slovakia. In contrast, the Prešov region lies in the economically less developed eastern part of the country. In this case, economic issues – high levels of unemployment and the crisis related to the war in Ukraine – may have determined the pro-Russian stance. A sense of insecurity stemming from the proximity of the border with Ukraine cannot also be excluded. In the regions of central Slovakia, neutral attitudes prevail: neither pro-Ukraine nor pro-Russia. At the same time, this is a signal that there was no strong support for the Ukrainian side in the local self-governments of central Slovakia. The survey shows a correlation of support for Russia or Ukraine with the education of the respondents. The lower the education level, the more people want Russia to win the war. Conversely, the number of supporters of a Ukrainian victory increases with the education of the respondents. However, it should be noted that the less educated, and often less well-off, have been hit harder by the current energy crisis, inflation and overpricing. They may therefore be supporting Russia not because of geopolitical convictions, but rather out of a desire to end the war more quickly, and with it the economic crisis in Slovakia. There are no significant differences in attitudes towards the war in Ukraine between different age groups of Slovaks. Noteworthy, however, is the most pro-Russian attitude of those in the 30-39 age bracket. The survey results indicating ambivalent attitudes towards the conflict in Ukraine and Russia and the West are not surprising. Slovakia still remains a significant area of penetration by Russian diplomatic institutions and special services. This is due to several conditions: the country’s strategic geopolitical position, the popularity of the ideology of Panslavism among the elite and in Slovak society, the relatively high dependence on Russian hydrocarbons, and the pro-Russian stance of a significant part of the opposition. https://ies.lublin.pl/en/comments/slovakia-an-unstable-public-support-for-ukraine-and-the-west/ | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5559 Posts
| ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria818 Posts
This is how I understand the situation from my perspective as a Bulgarian: 1. Russia was the strongest recently when there was USSR (СССР). a) that worked very well for the poor and those who didn't care about politics/freedom of speech much b) it didn't work so well for the intelligent folks (Gulag, Belene, etc), a lot of repressions. Mostly during Stalin's time. 2. "We all lived well" from old generation's perspective is because everyone was equal (equally miserable if you ask me) and because old generation was young back then (nostalgia). 3. When USSR was on the brink of collapse, countries took advantage of that with one or more of the following a) declaring independence b) joining EU c) joining NATO I'm guessing due to the fact Russians still don't judge USSR negatively, they don't understand still why so many countries are in NATO. My explanation: a) Russia is too big to defend yourself alone, so alliance is needed b) to prevent USSR v2.0 Yet they think NATO is out there to get them. Nope, maybe US and Russia want to compete with each other but I believe the vast majority of NATO is for peaceful purposes. So how is this related to Ukraine? Based on personal observation, some Russians believe Ukraine was "taken" from them due to old USSR times. If you're German, excuse me for bad example, but it probably feels like Austria was to Hitler at the time. I'm not saying it's justified - it's not. But how can we resolve this issue? I think even if war ends in 2023 or 2024, we'll probably have more episodes. If we want to end this war for good, we need to find ways to encourage Russia-NATO partnership. Otherwise this could go on (Cold War, NATO-Ukraine-Russia, etc). TLDR: Russia and NATO need to go back to partnership. Only through communication both sides should resolve differences and to stop fearing each other to prevent further wars. Just my 2 cents. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42695 Posts
On December 31 2022 10:17 SC-Shield wrote: TLDR: Russia and NATO need to go back to partnership. Only through communication both sides should resolve differences and to stop fearing each other to prevent further wars. Just my 2 cents. We had partnership for years and they hated it. We had “let’s all get rich together, you’ve got gas, we’ve got western goods, let’s work together and enjoy peace and prosperity”. They don’t want communication, they don’t want peace and prosperity, they want Ukrainian blood and they won’t accept anything less. They had hundreds of billions of euros going to them every year for shit that the Germans got out of the ground for them, they didn’t even need to make their own pumps. They had giant golden palaces, billion dollar super yachts, English premiership teams, a UN Security Council seat, secure borders, peace. They hated it because of their inferiority complex. They’re like the anti-Germany in that regard. Germany spent a century feeling like it was destined to rule Central Europe, tried it a few times, then realized (with some help) that it’s actually way easier to trade with your neighbours than fight them. You don’t need to dominate your neighbours and they don’t like it when you try. No amount of wealth and peace will make Russia happy, they’re only satisfied with domination. Communication can’t fix that. | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria818 Posts
On December 31 2022 10:27 KwarK wrote: We had partnership for years and they hated it. We had “let’s all get rich together, you’ve got gas, we’ve got western goods, let’s work together and enjoy peace and prosperity”. They don’t want communication, they don’t want peace and prosperity, they want Ukrainian blood and they won’t accept anything less. Maybe it's due to some misunderstood heritage of Kievan Rus? I don't know. I know they spread lies (nazis, Azov battalion, etc) to justify that invasion when it's all about sphere of influence. I do know one thing, this war won't end for good if we don't go back to Russia-NATO partnership. Of course, without throwing Ukraine under the bus. It's difficult but hopefully there is a way. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
100,000+ Russians decided that they were going to slaughter, destroy, rape, and pillage their brothers and sisters in the name of a supposed ethnonationalist superiority trumpeted by bloodsucking parasites in human skin, and now they are dead in service to a monster that gladly orders their place in the killing field be replaced, to be vilified and ultimately forgotten about by the uncaring force of history, with the only positive facet of their entire lives being that their decaying corpses will fertilize new life to replace the life they ended once their comrades have joined them in hell or retreated into the hole they crawled out of if they're lucky enough to not end up in the Hague where they belong. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4110 Posts
What's important to understand is that such claims come from a place of sincerity. The people who spread them do firmly believe that they're true, and even the strongest evidence to the contrary can't convince them otherwise, because they interpret information however it feels right to them (as we all do sometimes) instead of how things truly unfolded. This building and maintaining of a narrative is essential to the continuation of the war efforts. The Ukrainian government does exactly the same thing (just with a lot more credibility; but of course I'd say that, because I believe my views are correct, which is generally a common belief for people to have) to keep morale high and the donations coming. The opposing narratives create a long-term rift between Russia, Ukraine and other countries. The situation with Germany was different, because they were occupied by four different allied forces after the war, until long after the alliance broke. Germany was forced into submission and an ideological cleansing took place. This will not happen to Russia, and so their narrative will not collapse. This makes cooperation impossible for an unforeseeable time. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42695 Posts
On December 31 2022 10:36 SC-Shield wrote: Maybe it's due to some misunderstood heritage of Kievan Rus? I don't know. I know they spread lies (nazis, Azov battalion, etc) to justify that invasion when it's all about sphere of influence. I do know one thing, this war won't end for good if we don't go back to Russia-NATO partnership. Of course, without throwing Ukraine under the bus. It's difficult but hopefully there is a way. Might as well say “WW2 won’t end for good if we don’t get back to British-Nazi partnership”. There is no partnership to be had. Russia doesn’t want partnership. They had it for years and they still bit the hand that fed them. They want blood. The war will end when they have been defanged. You don’t cuddle the rabid dog. | ||
|
pmp10
3323 Posts
On December 31 2022 10:17 SC-Shield wrote: So how is this related to Ukraine? Based on personal observation, some Russians believe Ukraine was "taken" from them due to old USSR times. [...] But how can we resolve this issue? We don't. Once this much blood has been shed there is no changing of people's minds. The sacrifice must be worth the results so they will always pursue total victory. The best you can do it improvise some security arrangement and hope future generations will get over it. | ||
|
Yurie
11841 Posts
On December 31 2022 17:54 pmp10 wrote: We don't. Once this much blood has been shed there is no changing of people's minds. The sacrifice must be worth the results so they will always pursue total victory. The best you can do it improvise some security arrangement and hope future generations will get over it. This war is on a national level a massive case of sunk cost. Throw more into a losing business hoping it turns around. For the political leadership it is worse. They could have backed off quickly when things broke down. Then they kept investing into it and now feel stuck, worried they will get deposed/killed if they pull out. Crimea being the sticking point that is now an issue, while being a possible negotiation point before the bad decision to invade (again). | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
Most of Europe was forced to de-imperialize and come to terms with the end of its empires. We now mostly have different narratives - about economic cooperation, prosperity, pacifism and so on. The thing is that many of us now don't understand the imperialistic view of the world that Russians have and that was one of the factors that made so many of us get caught off guard with the invasion. Russia will always be like this until it's forced to reckon with it's past. It's past: starting WW2 together with Hitler, committing countless genocides of nearly every nation next to them and within them, the disaster that was the Soviet Union, being almost the only country in Europe unable to build democratic political institutions. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5559 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21689 Posts
On December 31 2022 10:36 SC-Shield wrote: The way I see it is that the problem with (economic) partnership between the West and Russia is that it exposes Russia, and its periphery, to the standards of living and quality of life we in the West enjoy. Maybe it's due to some misunderstood heritage of Kievan Rus? I don't know. I know they spread lies (nazis, Azov battalion, etc) to justify that invasion when it's all about sphere of influence. I do know one thing, this war won't end for good if we don't go back to Russia-NATO partnership. Of course, without throwing Ukraine under the bus. It's difficult but hopefully there is a way. And nothing is more dangerous to an authoritarian regime then it's people seeing that life is better under a different form of government. One by one the countries around Russia are seeking an approach to the West because it brings prosperity that Russia cannot offer. And as all Russia can offer is threats of violence those countries also need protection from Russia, Which only Nato can provide through its mutual defence clause. An agreement with Russia and (some of) the West is not enough, because that is exactly what Ukraine had prior to the Crimean invasion. So long as this holds true, Russia being authoritarian and wanting to maintain its sphere of influence through violence, there can be no long term cooperation. Because this same scenario will play out again and again. | ||
| ||
