|
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. |
Russian Federation240 Posts
On May 23 2024 11:39 0x64 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2024 22:42 a_ch wrote:On May 22 2024 17:37 0x64 wrote:On May 22 2024 03:56 zeo wrote:
A quote by Putin that might prove some insight: "Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one thing: If a fight's inevitable, you must strike first," Interesting point that only shows that the whole peace of the world is only in the hand of the west. Either the west is strong enough that the fight does not make sense, or the west will be eliminated by a surprise attack whenever a paranoid leader decide that the fight is inevitable. I think this is the core issue that divides us so strongly. You see it as a local conflict that Ukrainians have brought to themselves. We see it as an open door to world war 3. We have created a giant Karpman drama triangle with China/India, Russia and the West. Also another thing that makes obviously us mad is that mutual assured destruction only works when both sides can lose equal amount. But you have 144 millions hold the world hostage (sure we can also count north korea, Serbia (Though would you say the majority of Serbia is prorussia?) and Iran in that group). >>Interesting point that only shows that the whole peace of the world is only in the hand of the west. Either the west is strong enough that the fight does not make sense, or the west will be eliminated by a surprise attack whenever a paranoid leader decide that the fight is inevitable. -do not forget to pay tributes to your western great white masters. And also don't complain when your PM asks to install US nuclear weapons (to which Finns would not have any access in case it is approved), and your cities become permanently targeted by retaliatory nukes. But what I'm talking about, I forgot you live in a client state, so well-being of the citizens is of secondary importance. >>I think this is the core issue that divides us so strongly. You see it as a local conflict that Ukrainians have brought to themselves. We see it as an open door to world war 3. >>But you have 144 millions hold the world hostage -I'm totally disappointed in your intellectual level. It is even funny, how you missed China in this list - perhaps in a glimpse that the people count starts to be scewed in the opposite direction? Sure, I'm french living in France married to Russian but go ahead and nuke Finland because my teamliquid profiles says Finland. How about just not nuking people ok? In what way would you include china in the list of Russian allies. They are not selling you weapons. Other than that they are included in my post if you'd read it and understood but you are seeing red. Take a moment to cool down. Russia had already achieved it's goal to show the west that it can be a nuisance.
>>Sure, I'm french living in France married to Russian but go ahead and nuke Finland because my teamliquid profiles says Finland. How about just not nuking people ok?
-ok, this point makes your claim much more reasonable, I'm sorry. It is quite different to hear stuff like "fuck off with your wars" from a citizen of a country which tries to perform one of the most agressive politics, and from the one which tries to be as neutral as possible.
>>In what way would you include china in the list of Russian allies. They are not selling you weapons.
-for example https://www.reuters.com/world/uk-defence-minister-says-china-working-supply-lethal-aid-russia-2024-05-22/
|
On May 23 2024 06:14 a_ch wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2024 05:44 Manit0u wrote:On May 23 2024 02:02 Simberto wrote:On May 23 2024 00:49 maybenexttime wrote:
It's funny how our delusional fascists go completely mask off from time to time. ;-) True. It is kind of insane to see someone actually argue the hardcore Russian fascist line and apparently being serious. You always imagine that that point of view must be exaggerated in western media, because surely no one could be so callous and deluded at the same time. And then we get a_ch just spouting that absurd bullshit one to one. I know a few apparently well-educated people from US, Sweden and Poland who are also swallowing Russian point of view like young pelicans. I guess unsurprisingly they're also people who tend to read Trump's biography like a Bible, revere Elon Musk like a god and are staunch supporters of more right-wing stuff. I don't know why but somehow those few things almost always go together. -see, my problem, where all the arguing with you guys starts, is that you either know just a small part of the picture, or a completely misguided one. For example, + Show Spoiler +
>>What are you even talking about? After the Russian invasion Ukraine signed all of the Minsk agreements but it was Russia who renewed the conflict, invaded again and forced Minsk II (which Ukraine also signed).
-but this is completely wrong. Ukrainians put their forces to surround Donetsk and sever it from the border, despite the peace agreement. Then of course Russia had to intervene, because otherwise DPR forces would have been encircled and crushed, so this actually has happened with the ukrainian group (Debaltsevo 2015)
How can we not argue, when we know these basic facts so differently? And this just means that one of us has been lied to a lot, - but in case I'm wrong, someone could just provide the facts. Instead there is nothing factual (and new to me), just some most impatient guys throwing shit from times to times. And in the case you are wrong - well, why not admit it, and revise your worldviews?
I generally believe that the western media and politicians has fallen very low, to the levels well beyond late USSR in creating an alternative reality.
>>I know a few apparently well-educated people from US, Sweden and Poland who are also swallowing Russian point of view like young pelicans. I guess unsurprisingly they're also people who tend to read Trump's biography like a Bible, revere Elon Musk like a god and are staunch supporters of more right-wing stuff.
-I know almost nothing about Trump, and a little more about Musk, but well respect the 2nd; he's a very deep thinker among other qualities imho
My guy, almost nothing you've said over the past few pages has been close to being in the same universe as the truth, let alone being factually correct.
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On May 23 2024 16:38 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2024 06:14 a_ch wrote:On May 23 2024 05:44 Manit0u wrote:On May 23 2024 02:02 Simberto wrote:On May 23 2024 00:49 maybenexttime wrote:
It's funny how our delusional fascists go completely mask off from time to time. ;-) True. It is kind of insane to see someone actually argue the hardcore Russian fascist line and apparently being serious. You always imagine that that point of view must be exaggerated in western media, because surely no one could be so callous and deluded at the same time. And then we get a_ch just spouting that absurd bullshit one to one. I know a few apparently well-educated people from US, Sweden and Poland who are also swallowing Russian point of view like young pelicans. I guess unsurprisingly they're also people who tend to read Trump's biography like a Bible, revere Elon Musk like a god and are staunch supporters of more right-wing stuff. I don't know why but somehow those few things almost always go together. -see, my problem, where all the arguing with you guys starts, is that you either know just a small part of the picture, or a completely misguided one. For example, + Show Spoiler +
>>What are you even talking about? After the Russian invasion Ukraine signed all of the Minsk agreements but it was Russia who renewed the conflict, invaded again and forced Minsk II (which Ukraine also signed).
-but this is completely wrong. Ukrainians put their forces to surround Donetsk and sever it from the border, despite the peace agreement. Then of course Russia had to intervene, because otherwise DPR forces would have been encircled and crushed, so this actually has happened with the ukrainian group (Debaltsevo 2015)
How can we not argue, when we know these basic facts so differently? And this just means that one of us has been lied to a lot, - but in case I'm wrong, someone could just provide the facts. Instead there is nothing factual (and new to me), just some most impatient guys throwing shit from times to times. And in the case you are wrong - well, why not admit it, and revise your worldviews?
I generally believe that the western media and politicians has fallen very low, to the levels well beyond late USSR in creating an alternative reality.
>>I know a few apparently well-educated people from US, Sweden and Poland who are also swallowing Russian point of view like young pelicans. I guess unsurprisingly they're also people who tend to read Trump's biography like a Bible, revere Elon Musk like a god and are staunch supporters of more right-wing stuff.
-I know almost nothing about Trump, and a little more about Musk, but well respect the 2nd; he's a very deep thinker among other qualities imho
My guy, almost nothing you've said over the past few pages has been close to being in the same universe as the truth, let alone being factually correct.
-look, I literally give zero fucks towards any of these vague accusations (shoutout to maybenexttime, I love you too). If you want anything - either provide information\evidence to your claims; going all emotional is the key step into any manipulation scheme, which I've seen plenty in my life. If you see where I'm factually wrong - you can easily give it, otherwise you look like a windbag
|
On May 23 2024 13:23 a_ch wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2024 11:39 0x64 wrote:On May 22 2024 22:42 a_ch wrote:On May 22 2024 17:37 0x64 wrote:On May 22 2024 03:56 zeo wrote:
A quote by Putin that might prove some insight: "Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one thing: If a fight's inevitable, you must strike first," Interesting point that only shows that the whole peace of the world is only in the hand of the west. Either the west is strong enough that the fight does not make sense, or the west will be eliminated by a surprise attack whenever a paranoid leader decide that the fight is inevitable. I think this is the core issue that divides us so strongly. You see it as a local conflict that Ukrainians have brought to themselves. We see it as an open door to world war 3. We have created a giant Karpman drama triangle with China/India, Russia and the West. Also another thing that makes obviously us mad is that mutual assured destruction only works when both sides can lose equal amount. But you have 144 millions hold the world hostage (sure we can also count north korea, Serbia (Though would you say the majority of Serbia is prorussia?) and Iran in that group). >>Interesting point that only shows that the whole peace of the world is only in the hand of the west. Either the west is strong enough that the fight does not make sense, or the west will be eliminated by a surprise attack whenever a paranoid leader decide that the fight is inevitable. -do not forget to pay tributes to your western great white masters. And also don't complain when your PM asks to install US nuclear weapons (to which Finns would not have any access in case it is approved), and your cities become permanently targeted by retaliatory nukes. But what I'm talking about, I forgot you live in a client state, so well-being of the citizens is of secondary importance. >>I think this is the core issue that divides us so strongly. You see it as a local conflict that Ukrainians have brought to themselves. We see it as an open door to world war 3. >>But you have 144 millions hold the world hostage -I'm totally disappointed in your intellectual level. It is even funny, how you missed China in this list - perhaps in a glimpse that the people count starts to be scewed in the opposite direction? Sure, I'm french living in France married to Russian but go ahead and nuke Finland because my teamliquid profiles says Finland. How about just not nuking people ok? In what way would you include china in the list of Russian allies. They are not selling you weapons. Other than that they are included in my post if you'd read it and understood but you are seeing red. Take a moment to cool down. Russia had already achieved it's goal to show the west that it can be a nuisance. >>Sure, I'm french living in France married to Russian but go ahead and nuke Finland because my teamliquid profiles says Finland. How about just not nuking people ok? -ok, this point makes your claim much more reasonable, I'm sorry. It is quite different to hear stuff like "fuck off with your wars" from a citizen of a country which tries to perform one of the most agressive politics, and from the one which tries to be as neutral as possible. >>In what way would you include china in the list of Russian allies. They are not selling you weapons. -for example https://www.reuters.com/world/uk-defence-minister-says-china-working-supply-lethal-aid-russia-2024-05-22/
Did you even read the article?
"A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in London said Shapps' comments were "totally groundless" and accused Britain of spreading "baseless accusations".
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On May 23 2024 17:38 0x64 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2024 13:23 a_ch wrote:On May 23 2024 11:39 0x64 wrote:On May 22 2024 22:42 a_ch wrote:On May 22 2024 17:37 0x64 wrote:On May 22 2024 03:56 zeo wrote:
A quote by Putin that might prove some insight: "Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one thing: If a fight's inevitable, you must strike first," Interesting point that only shows that the whole peace of the world is only in the hand of the west. Either the west is strong enough that the fight does not make sense, or the west will be eliminated by a surprise attack whenever a paranoid leader decide that the fight is inevitable. I think this is the core issue that divides us so strongly. You see it as a local conflict that Ukrainians have brought to themselves. We see it as an open door to world war 3. We have created a giant Karpman drama triangle with China/India, Russia and the West. Also another thing that makes obviously us mad is that mutual assured destruction only works when both sides can lose equal amount. But you have 144 millions hold the world hostage (sure we can also count north korea, Serbia (Though would you say the majority of Serbia is prorussia?) and Iran in that group). >>Interesting point that only shows that the whole peace of the world is only in the hand of the west. Either the west is strong enough that the fight does not make sense, or the west will be eliminated by a surprise attack whenever a paranoid leader decide that the fight is inevitable. -do not forget to pay tributes to your western great white masters. And also don't complain when your PM asks to install US nuclear weapons (to which Finns would not have any access in case it is approved), and your cities become permanently targeted by retaliatory nukes. But what I'm talking about, I forgot you live in a client state, so well-being of the citizens is of secondary importance. >>I think this is the core issue that divides us so strongly. You see it as a local conflict that Ukrainians have brought to themselves. We see it as an open door to world war 3. >>But you have 144 millions hold the world hostage -I'm totally disappointed in your intellectual level. It is even funny, how you missed China in this list - perhaps in a glimpse that the people count starts to be scewed in the opposite direction? Sure, I'm french living in France married to Russian but go ahead and nuke Finland because my teamliquid profiles says Finland. How about just not nuking people ok? In what way would you include china in the list of Russian allies. They are not selling you weapons. Other than that they are included in my post if you'd read it and understood but you are seeing red. Take a moment to cool down. Russia had already achieved it's goal to show the west that it can be a nuisance. >>Sure, I'm french living in France married to Russian but go ahead and nuke Finland because my teamliquid profiles says Finland. How about just not nuking people ok? -ok, this point makes your claim much more reasonable, I'm sorry. It is quite different to hear stuff like "fuck off with your wars" from a citizen of a country which tries to perform one of the most agressive politics, and from the one which tries to be as neutral as possible. >>In what way would you include china in the list of Russian allies. They are not selling you weapons. -for example https://www.reuters.com/world/uk-defence-minister-says-china-working-supply-lethal-aid-russia-2024-05-22/ Did you even read the article? "A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in London said Shapps' comments were "totally groundless" and accused Britain of spreading "baseless accusations".
-youre a strange one; what did the Chinese official has to say, "yes we do, put more sanctions on us please"?
|
On May 23 2024 17:38 0x64 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2024 13:23 a_ch wrote:On May 23 2024 11:39 0x64 wrote:On May 22 2024 22:42 a_ch wrote:On May 22 2024 17:37 0x64 wrote:On May 22 2024 03:56 zeo wrote:
A quote by Putin that might prove some insight: "Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one thing: If a fight's inevitable, you must strike first," Interesting point that only shows that the whole peace of the world is only in the hand of the west. Either the west is strong enough that the fight does not make sense, or the west will be eliminated by a surprise attack whenever a paranoid leader decide that the fight is inevitable. I think this is the core issue that divides us so strongly. You see it as a local conflict that Ukrainians have brought to themselves. We see it as an open door to world war 3. We have created a giant Karpman drama triangle with China/India, Russia and the West. Also another thing that makes obviously us mad is that mutual assured destruction only works when both sides can lose equal amount. But you have 144 millions hold the world hostage (sure we can also count north korea, Serbia (Though would you say the majority of Serbia is prorussia?) and Iran in that group). >>Interesting point that only shows that the whole peace of the world is only in the hand of the west. Either the west is strong enough that the fight does not make sense, or the west will be eliminated by a surprise attack whenever a paranoid leader decide that the fight is inevitable. -do not forget to pay tributes to your western great white masters. And also don't complain when your PM asks to install US nuclear weapons (to which Finns would not have any access in case it is approved), and your cities become permanently targeted by retaliatory nukes. But what I'm talking about, I forgot you live in a client state, so well-being of the citizens is of secondary importance. >>I think this is the core issue that divides us so strongly. You see it as a local conflict that Ukrainians have brought to themselves. We see it as an open door to world war 3. >>But you have 144 millions hold the world hostage -I'm totally disappointed in your intellectual level. It is even funny, how you missed China in this list - perhaps in a glimpse that the people count starts to be scewed in the opposite direction? Sure, I'm french living in France married to Russian but go ahead and nuke Finland because my teamliquid profiles says Finland. How about just not nuking people ok? In what way would you include china in the list of Russian allies. They are not selling you weapons. Other than that they are included in my post if you'd read it and understood but you are seeing red. Take a moment to cool down. Russia had already achieved it's goal to show the west that it can be a nuisance. >>Sure, I'm french living in France married to Russian but go ahead and nuke Finland because my teamliquid profiles says Finland. How about just not nuking people ok? -ok, this point makes your claim much more reasonable, I'm sorry. It is quite different to hear stuff like "fuck off with your wars" from a citizen of a country which tries to perform one of the most agressive politics, and from the one which tries to be as neutral as possible. >>In what way would you include china in the list of Russian allies. They are not selling you weapons. -for example https://www.reuters.com/world/uk-defence-minister-says-china-working-supply-lethal-aid-russia-2024-05-22/ Did you even read the article? "A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in London said Shapps' comments were "totally groundless" and accused Britain of spreading "baseless accusations".
I have to give him that. Why would China openly state they are helping Russia?
And it kinda makes sense for them to supply Russia. It binds Western forces/ money/ attention, leaving China free to prepare their "liberation" of Taiwan and whatnot
|
I've been lurking this thread for a long time. I just want to say lately I've been seeing a huge amount of propaganda and lies from zeo and a_ch (likely stemming from propaganda-induced paranoia of the nature that Putin also experiences - that is if he
even believes it). My impression is that a_ch has broken the forum guidelines many times by making outlandish claims without providing substantial evidence. I don't understand why he hasn't even been warned for his behavior, and I'm not interested in reading the thread anymore if this continues.
|
On May 23 2024 18:01 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2024 17:38 0x64 wrote:On May 23 2024 13:23 a_ch wrote:On May 23 2024 11:39 0x64 wrote:On May 22 2024 22:42 a_ch wrote:On May 22 2024 17:37 0x64 wrote:On May 22 2024 03:56 zeo wrote:
A quote by Putin that might prove some insight: "Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one thing: If a fight's inevitable, you must strike first," Interesting point that only shows that the whole peace of the world is only in the hand of the west. Either the west is strong enough that the fight does not make sense, or the west will be eliminated by a surprise attack whenever a paranoid leader decide that the fight is inevitable. I think this is the core issue that divides us so strongly. You see it as a local conflict that Ukrainians have brought to themselves. We see it as an open door to world war 3. We have created a giant Karpman drama triangle with China/India, Russia and the West. Also another thing that makes obviously us mad is that mutual assured destruction only works when both sides can lose equal amount. But you have 144 millions hold the world hostage (sure we can also count north korea, Serbia (Though would you say the majority of Serbia is prorussia?) and Iran in that group). >>Interesting point that only shows that the whole peace of the world is only in the hand of the west. Either the west is strong enough that the fight does not make sense, or the west will be eliminated by a surprise attack whenever a paranoid leader decide that the fight is inevitable. -do not forget to pay tributes to your western great white masters. And also don't complain when your PM asks to install US nuclear weapons (to which Finns would not have any access in case it is approved), and your cities become permanently targeted by retaliatory nukes. But what I'm talking about, I forgot you live in a client state, so well-being of the citizens is of secondary importance. >>I think this is the core issue that divides us so strongly. You see it as a local conflict that Ukrainians have brought to themselves. We see it as an open door to world war 3. >>But you have 144 millions hold the world hostage -I'm totally disappointed in your intellectual level. It is even funny, how you missed China in this list - perhaps in a glimpse that the people count starts to be scewed in the opposite direction? Sure, I'm french living in France married to Russian but go ahead and nuke Finland because my teamliquid profiles says Finland. How about just not nuking people ok? In what way would you include china in the list of Russian allies. They are not selling you weapons. Other than that they are included in my post if you'd read it and understood but you are seeing red. Take a moment to cool down. Russia had already achieved it's goal to show the west that it can be a nuisance. >>Sure, I'm french living in France married to Russian but go ahead and nuke Finland because my teamliquid profiles says Finland. How about just not nuking people ok? -ok, this point makes your claim much more reasonable, I'm sorry. It is quite different to hear stuff like "fuck off with your wars" from a citizen of a country which tries to perform one of the most agressive politics, and from the one which tries to be as neutral as possible. >>In what way would you include china in the list of Russian allies. They are not selling you weapons. -for example https://www.reuters.com/world/uk-defence-minister-says-china-working-supply-lethal-aid-russia-2024-05-22/ Did you even read the article? "A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in London said Shapps' comments were "totally groundless" and accused Britain of spreading "baseless accusations". I have to give him that. Why would China openly state they are helping Russia? And it kinda makes sense for them to supply Russia. It binds Western forces/ money/ attention, leaving China free to prepare their "liberation" of Taiwan and whatnot
I am just pointing out how he selecting what some politician says how it suits you. "You can't trust what the westerner says, ooh but there you can trust him because it was denied by the accused".
I mean either they are providing lethal weapons and we can easily prove either they are not. Some dude saying they are planning to is basically almost the opposite of what he claims. He is just abusing the click-baitiness of the title, while the article just says exactly what we have known for 2 years.
For me, it doesn't make any sense to force Europe to start buying huge amount of weapons... We will of course wait nicely while he can keep trying to make the world a worst place for everyone.
|
On May 23 2024 18:28 Magic Powers wrote:
I've been lurking this thread for a long time. I just want to say lately I've been seeing a huge amount of propaganda and lies from zeo and a_ch (likely stemming from propaganda-induced paranoia of the nature that Putin also experiences - that is if he
even believes it). My impression is that a_ch has broken the forum guidelines many times by making outlandish claims without providing substantial evidence. I don't understand why he hasn't even been warned for his behavior, and I'm not interested in reading the thread anymore if this continues.
I think of him as the useful idiot that reminds us that people like him exists. He has behaved much more calmy in the past. The timing of Zeo's and his behavioral change match the advancement of Russian army on the field.
They are just participating to the war effort in their own little way.
|
On May 22 2024 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2024 03:56 zeo wrote:On May 22 2024 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Zeo, I am sorry if you have plainly stated this before, but I am having a hard time digging through the current conversation to get to the core of the disagreement. I know we subscribe to fundamentally different worldviews, but I would still be curious to hear what threat you feel Ukraine posed prior to 2022.
To be more concise: What negative event or dynamic was Russia hoping to prevent or minimize by invading Ukraine in 2022? Many things have been stated over and over again in this thread, debunked, ignored then posted again after which the worm Ouroboros cycle begins again. I'll try to give you an answer but a book could be written in response to your question. What's important to note is that a full week before Russian troops entered Ukraine, from the 16th of February - the Ukrainian army started a massive bombing campaign against both the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics. A multinational organization know as the Observer Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) documented this massive spike in activity. Their reports are highly detailed and contain tallied and documented instances of violations of peace agreements. In the one week period from February 17, 2022 to February 23, 2022 there was a recorded total of 9,895 ceasefire violations and 7,310 explosions accounted for in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Lugansk in the Ukraine. The vast majority of explosions happened in the civilian populated areas controlled by 'non-government' forces. All in all over 4000 artillery shells were fired into the D/LNR by the Ukrainian army over a one week period. Below are the PDF versions of the full OSCE reports for each day in the one week period before Feb. 24th: OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 37/2022 issued on 17 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 38/2022 issued on 18 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 39/2022 issued on 19 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 40/2022 issued on 21 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 41/2022 issued on 22 February 2022,OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 42/2022 issued on 23 February 2022The OSCE findings went under reported in the 'western media' at the time, either mentioned in footnotes or not mentioned at all, while on the other side the sharp rise in the shelling and killing of civilians at a time where both Russia and Ukraine were massing military forces at the borders was seen as a clear provocation to pull Russia into the conflict. Countries at any time have plans and backup plans for all possible scenarios for anything that might happen. Without doubt ever since 2015 military planners in Russia had been coming up with 'what if?' plans to scenarios where Ukraine attacked the rebel regions first, or NATO entered or, what it came to in the end - Russia attacking first. These plans are always ready to be implemented at short notice, when the actual green light was given to enter Ukraine or the final order was given is unknown but its obvious that Russia was far from prepared on multiple levels and preparations did not last long. Both Russia and Ukraine gave clear indicators to each other that they would be ready to strike the other side with their buildup. If Ukraine was just bluffing or their massive artillery strikes were a precursor to an imminent invasion of the Donbass Republics we won't know until many years pass from now, and maybe not even then. Article 51 of the UN charter, when invoked by Putin in this case had much more solid ground than the 'humanitarian interventions' it was invoked for before. I remember watching a report by a Serbian journalist interviewing another Serb working for some state run Chinese news channel, and this guy had been on the Russian side of the border with the Russian army giving reports when it all started. One of the things he talked about was the mood among the Russian soldiers in the first weeks, there was a clear sense of 'February 24th happened so there would never be a 22nd of June again'. The feeling of if we're all fucked anyway better to start it on our terms, and this was a feeling mirrored everywhere except maybe for the Donbass militias which had a more somber take than their Russian colleagues. A quote by Putin that might prove some insight: "Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one thing: If a fight's inevitable, you must strike first," First of all, thank you very much for the thorough reply. I understand this conflict is extremely deep and a lot of it is because the cold war never really ended. I think the whole end of the war was mostly theatrics. But that's a separate topic. I basically just wanted to understand what the core of the issue that is stated as a justification to walk into Ukraine. I of course agree striking first is always better if you are certain it’s happening either way. But I want to make sure I clearly understand the exact reason. Are you saying Russia viewed Ukraine as a credible threat that intended to invade Russia? With NATO or something? Or are you saying the war in Ukraine is justified as defending Donetsk and Lugansk?
You're welcome. Healthy dialog between all viewpoints in a respectful manor is the only way to really get a clear picture of what is really happening. Censorship and screeching when things dont go your way are a clear sign that one is not emotionally mature enough to have an adult conversation. There is nothing these people hate more than actual facts and sources, if someone doesn't want to be educated that is on them but facts are facts. Vague 'thats just the way it is because it conforms to my biases' should not be enough for any person.
Anyway, I'm saying that Russia felt at some point that the other side would never stop pushing and that any trying for any dialog or compromise had been seen as Russian weakness by the other side. It was obviously a desperate and extorted act.
Its nice to see an uptick in posting in this thread and some new faces even though they might not have my view on these subjects. Even the Hitler guy that left to karma farm Israel - Palestine is back, this is also a sign we are entering the final phase of the conflict - the accepted as self-evident phase where the 'didnt I say this was going to happen all along even though I said the opposite thing and was a dick?' people start coming out of the woodwork.
All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer
|
On May 23 2024 21:01 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2024 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On May 22 2024 03:56 zeo wrote:On May 22 2024 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Zeo, I am sorry if you have plainly stated this before, but I am having a hard time digging through the current conversation to get to the core of the disagreement. I know we subscribe to fundamentally different worldviews, but I would still be curious to hear what threat you feel Ukraine posed prior to 2022.
To be more concise: What negative event or dynamic was Russia hoping to prevent or minimize by invading Ukraine in 2022? Many things have been stated over and over again in this thread, debunked, ignored then posted again after which the worm Ouroboros cycle begins again. I'll try to give you an answer but a book could be written in response to your question. What's important to note is that a full week before Russian troops entered Ukraine, from the 16th of February - the Ukrainian army started a massive bombing campaign against both the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics. A multinational organization know as the Observer Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) documented this massive spike in activity. Their reports are highly detailed and contain tallied and documented instances of violations of peace agreements. In the one week period from February 17, 2022 to February 23, 2022 there was a recorded total of 9,895 ceasefire violations and 7,310 explosions accounted for in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Lugansk in the Ukraine. The vast majority of explosions happened in the civilian populated areas controlled by 'non-government' forces. All in all over 4000 artillery shells were fired into the D/LNR by the Ukrainian army over a one week period. Below are the PDF versions of the full OSCE reports for each day in the one week period before Feb. 24th: OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 37/2022 issued on 17 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 38/2022 issued on 18 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 39/2022 issued on 19 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 40/2022 issued on 21 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 41/2022 issued on 22 February 2022,OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 42/2022 issued on 23 February 2022The OSCE findings went under reported in the 'western media' at the time, either mentioned in footnotes or not mentioned at all, while on the other side the sharp rise in the shelling and killing of civilians at a time where both Russia and Ukraine were massing military forces at the borders was seen as a clear provocation to pull Russia into the conflict. Countries at any time have plans and backup plans for all possible scenarios for anything that might happen. Without doubt ever since 2015 military planners in Russia had been coming up with 'what if?' plans to scenarios where Ukraine attacked the rebel regions first, or NATO entered or, what it came to in the end - Russia attacking first. These plans are always ready to be implemented at short notice, when the actual green light was given to enter Ukraine or the final order was given is unknown but its obvious that Russia was far from prepared on multiple levels and preparations did not last long. Both Russia and Ukraine gave clear indicators to each other that they would be ready to strike the other side with their buildup. If Ukraine was just bluffing or their massive artillery strikes were a precursor to an imminent invasion of the Donbass Republics we won't know until many years pass from now, and maybe not even then. Article 51 of the UN charter, when invoked by Putin in this case had much more solid ground than the 'humanitarian interventions' it was invoked for before. I remember watching a report by a Serbian journalist interviewing another Serb working for some state run Chinese news channel, and this guy had been on the Russian side of the border with the Russian army giving reports when it all started. One of the things he talked about was the mood among the Russian soldiers in the first weeks, there was a clear sense of 'February 24th happened so there would never be a 22nd of June again'. The feeling of if we're all fucked anyway better to start it on our terms, and this was a feeling mirrored everywhere except maybe for the Donbass militias which had a more somber take than their Russian colleagues. A quote by Putin that might prove some insight: "Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one thing: If a fight's inevitable, you must strike first," First of all, thank you very much for the thorough reply. I understand this conflict is extremely deep and a lot of it is because the cold war never really ended. I think the whole end of the war was mostly theatrics. But that's a separate topic. I basically just wanted to understand what the core of the issue that is stated as a justification to walk into Ukraine. I of course agree striking first is always better if you are certain it’s happening either way. But I want to make sure I clearly understand the exact reason. Are you saying Russia viewed Ukraine as a credible threat that intended to invade Russia? With NATO or something? Or are you saying the war in Ukraine is justified as defending Donetsk and Lugansk? You're welcome. Healthy dialog between all viewpoints in a respectful manor is the only way to really get a clear picture of what is really happening. Censorship and screeching when things dont go your way are a clear sign that one is not emotionally mature enough to have an adult conversation. There is nothing these people hate more than actual facts and sources, if someone doesn't want to be educated that is on them but facts are facts. Vague 'thats just the way it is because it conforms to my biases' should not be enough for any person. Anyway, I'm saying that Russia felt at some point that the other side would never stop pushing and that any trying for any dialog or compromise had been seen as Russian weakness by the other side. It was obviously a desperate and extorted act. Its nice to see an uptick in posting in this thread and some new faces even though they might not have my view on these subjects. Even the Hitler guy that left to karma farm Israel - Palestine is back, this is also a sign we are entering the final phase of the conflict - the accepted as self-evident phase where the 'didnt I say this was going to happen all along even though I didnt' people start coming out of the woodwork. All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer
You didnt answer the question. "Are you saying Russia viewed Ukraine as a credible threat that intended to invade Russia? With NATO or something? Or are you saying the war in Ukraine is justified as defending Donetsk and Lugansk?"
How about you answer instead of fascist rambling.
|
On May 23 2024 21:18 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2024 21:01 zeo wrote:On May 22 2024 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On May 22 2024 03:56 zeo wrote:On May 22 2024 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Zeo, I am sorry if you have plainly stated this before, but I am having a hard time digging through the current conversation to get to the core of the disagreement. I know we subscribe to fundamentally different worldviews, but I would still be curious to hear what threat you feel Ukraine posed prior to 2022.
To be more concise: What negative event or dynamic was Russia hoping to prevent or minimize by invading Ukraine in 2022? Many things have been stated over and over again in this thread, debunked, ignored then posted again after which the worm Ouroboros cycle begins again. I'll try to give you an answer but a book could be written in response to your question. What's important to note is that a full week before Russian troops entered Ukraine, from the 16th of February - the Ukrainian army started a massive bombing campaign against both the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics. A multinational organization know as the Observer Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) documented this massive spike in activity. Their reports are highly detailed and contain tallied and documented instances of violations of peace agreements. In the one week period from February 17, 2022 to February 23, 2022 there was a recorded total of 9,895 ceasefire violations and 7,310 explosions accounted for in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Lugansk in the Ukraine. The vast majority of explosions happened in the civilian populated areas controlled by 'non-government' forces. All in all over 4000 artillery shells were fired into the D/LNR by the Ukrainian army over a one week period. Below are the PDF versions of the full OSCE reports for each day in the one week period before Feb. 24th: OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 37/2022 issued on 17 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 38/2022 issued on 18 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 39/2022 issued on 19 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 40/2022 issued on 21 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 41/2022 issued on 22 February 2022,OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 42/2022 issued on 23 February 2022The OSCE findings went under reported in the 'western media' at the time, either mentioned in footnotes or not mentioned at all, while on the other side the sharp rise in the shelling and killing of civilians at a time where both Russia and Ukraine were massing military forces at the borders was seen as a clear provocation to pull Russia into the conflict. Countries at any time have plans and backup plans for all possible scenarios for anything that might happen. Without doubt ever since 2015 military planners in Russia had been coming up with 'what if?' plans to scenarios where Ukraine attacked the rebel regions first, or NATO entered or, what it came to in the end - Russia attacking first. These plans are always ready to be implemented at short notice, when the actual green light was given to enter Ukraine or the final order was given is unknown but its obvious that Russia was far from prepared on multiple levels and preparations did not last long. Both Russia and Ukraine gave clear indicators to each other that they would be ready to strike the other side with their buildup. If Ukraine was just bluffing or their massive artillery strikes were a precursor to an imminent invasion of the Donbass Republics we won't know until many years pass from now, and maybe not even then. Article 51 of the UN charter, when invoked by Putin in this case had much more solid ground than the 'humanitarian interventions' it was invoked for before. I remember watching a report by a Serbian journalist interviewing another Serb working for some state run Chinese news channel, and this guy had been on the Russian side of the border with the Russian army giving reports when it all started. One of the things he talked about was the mood among the Russian soldiers in the first weeks, there was a clear sense of 'February 24th happened so there would never be a 22nd of June again'. The feeling of if we're all fucked anyway better to start it on our terms, and this was a feeling mirrored everywhere except maybe for the Donbass militias which had a more somber take than their Russian colleagues. A quote by Putin that might prove some insight: "Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one thing: If a fight's inevitable, you must strike first," First of all, thank you very much for the thorough reply. I understand this conflict is extremely deep and a lot of it is because the cold war never really ended. I think the whole end of the war was mostly theatrics. But that's a separate topic. I basically just wanted to understand what the core of the issue that is stated as a justification to walk into Ukraine. I of course agree striking first is always better if you are certain it’s happening either way. But I want to make sure I clearly understand the exact reason. Are you saying Russia viewed Ukraine as a credible threat that intended to invade Russia? With NATO or something? Or are you saying the war in Ukraine is justified as defending Donetsk and Lugansk? You're welcome. Healthy dialog between all viewpoints in a respectful manor is the only way to really get a clear picture of what is really happening. Censorship and screeching when things dont go your way are a clear sign that one is not emotionally mature enough to have an adult conversation. There is nothing these people hate more than actual facts and sources, if someone doesn't want to be educated that is on them but facts are facts. Vague 'thats just the way it is because it conforms to my biases' should not be enough for any person. Anyway, I'm saying that Russia felt at some point that the other side would never stop pushing and that any trying for any dialog or compromise had been seen as Russian weakness by the other side. It was obviously a desperate and extorted act. Its nice to see an uptick in posting in this thread and some new faces even though they might not have my view on these subjects. Even the Hitler guy that left to karma farm Israel - Palestine is back, this is also a sign we are entering the final phase of the conflict - the accepted as self-evident phase where the 'didnt I say this was going to happen all along even though I didnt' people start coming out of the woodwork. All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer You didnt answer the question. "Are you saying Russia viewed Ukraine as a credible threat that intended to invade Russia? With NATO or something? Or are you saying the war in Ukraine is justified as defending Donetsk and Lugansk?" How about you answer instead of fascist rambling.
Your reading comprehension and manners leave a lot to be desired. Here is a link to an article on what a false dichotomy is, though I don't think it was Mohdoo's intention.
I gave my view on why the Russian army entered Ukraine and its not an answer that conforms to any of the questions above that imply the answer in their premise.
|
On May 23 2024 21:34 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2024 21:18 Luolis wrote:On May 23 2024 21:01 zeo wrote:On May 22 2024 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On May 22 2024 03:56 zeo wrote:On May 22 2024 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Zeo, I am sorry if you have plainly stated this before, but I am having a hard time digging through the current conversation to get to the core of the disagreement. I know we subscribe to fundamentally different worldviews, but I would still be curious to hear what threat you feel Ukraine posed prior to 2022.
To be more concise: What negative event or dynamic was Russia hoping to prevent or minimize by invading Ukraine in 2022? Many things have been stated over and over again in this thread, debunked, ignored then posted again after which the worm Ouroboros cycle begins again. I'll try to give you an answer but a book could be written in response to your question. What's important to note is that a full week before Russian troops entered Ukraine, from the 16th of February - the Ukrainian army started a massive bombing campaign against both the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics. A multinational organization know as the Observer Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) documented this massive spike in activity. Their reports are highly detailed and contain tallied and documented instances of violations of peace agreements. In the one week period from February 17, 2022 to February 23, 2022 there was a recorded total of 9,895 ceasefire violations and 7,310 explosions accounted for in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Lugansk in the Ukraine. The vast majority of explosions happened in the civilian populated areas controlled by 'non-government' forces. All in all over 4000 artillery shells were fired into the D/LNR by the Ukrainian army over a one week period. Below are the PDF versions of the full OSCE reports for each day in the one week period before Feb. 24th: OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 37/2022 issued on 17 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 38/2022 issued on 18 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 39/2022 issued on 19 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 40/2022 issued on 21 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 41/2022 issued on 22 February 2022,OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 42/2022 issued on 23 February 2022The OSCE findings went under reported in the 'western media' at the time, either mentioned in footnotes or not mentioned at all, while on the other side the sharp rise in the shelling and killing of civilians at a time where both Russia and Ukraine were massing military forces at the borders was seen as a clear provocation to pull Russia into the conflict. Countries at any time have plans and backup plans for all possible scenarios for anything that might happen. Without doubt ever since 2015 military planners in Russia had been coming up with 'what if?' plans to scenarios where Ukraine attacked the rebel regions first, or NATO entered or, what it came to in the end - Russia attacking first. These plans are always ready to be implemented at short notice, when the actual green light was given to enter Ukraine or the final order was given is unknown but its obvious that Russia was far from prepared on multiple levels and preparations did not last long. Both Russia and Ukraine gave clear indicators to each other that they would be ready to strike the other side with their buildup. If Ukraine was just bluffing or their massive artillery strikes were a precursor to an imminent invasion of the Donbass Republics we won't know until many years pass from now, and maybe not even then. Article 51 of the UN charter, when invoked by Putin in this case had much more solid ground than the 'humanitarian interventions' it was invoked for before. I remember watching a report by a Serbian journalist interviewing another Serb working for some state run Chinese news channel, and this guy had been on the Russian side of the border with the Russian army giving reports when it all started. One of the things he talked about was the mood among the Russian soldiers in the first weeks, there was a clear sense of 'February 24th happened so there would never be a 22nd of June again'. The feeling of if we're all fucked anyway better to start it on our terms, and this was a feeling mirrored everywhere except maybe for the Donbass militias which had a more somber take than their Russian colleagues. A quote by Putin that might prove some insight: "Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one thing: If a fight's inevitable, you must strike first," First of all, thank you very much for the thorough reply. I understand this conflict is extremely deep and a lot of it is because the cold war never really ended. I think the whole end of the war was mostly theatrics. But that's a separate topic. I basically just wanted to understand what the core of the issue that is stated as a justification to walk into Ukraine. I of course agree striking first is always better if you are certain it’s happening either way. But I want to make sure I clearly understand the exact reason. Are you saying Russia viewed Ukraine as a credible threat that intended to invade Russia? With NATO or something? Or are you saying the war in Ukraine is justified as defending Donetsk and Lugansk? You're welcome. Healthy dialog between all viewpoints in a respectful manor is the only way to really get a clear picture of what is really happening. Censorship and screeching when things dont go your way are a clear sign that one is not emotionally mature enough to have an adult conversation. There is nothing these people hate more than actual facts and sources, if someone doesn't want to be educated that is on them but facts are facts. Vague 'thats just the way it is because it conforms to my biases' should not be enough for any person. Anyway, I'm saying that Russia felt at some point that the other side would never stop pushing and that any trying for any dialog or compromise had been seen as Russian weakness by the other side. It was obviously a desperate and extorted act. Its nice to see an uptick in posting in this thread and some new faces even though they might not have my view on these subjects. Even the Hitler guy that left to karma farm Israel - Palestine is back, this is also a sign we are entering the final phase of the conflict - the accepted as self-evident phase where the 'didnt I say this was going to happen all along even though I didnt' people start coming out of the woodwork. All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer You didnt answer the question. "Are you saying Russia viewed Ukraine as a credible threat that intended to invade Russia? With NATO or something? Or are you saying the war in Ukraine is justified as defending Donetsk and Lugansk?" How about you answer instead of fascist rambling. Your reading comprehension and manners leave a lot to be desired. Here is a link to an article on what a false dichotomy is, though I don't think it was Mohdoo's intention. I gave my view on why the Russian army entered Ukraine and its not an answer that conforms to any of the questions above that imply the answer in their premise.
In other words: "I cannot answer this question because it is framed too concisely therefore leaving me not enough room to obfuscate and pretend my stance is even slightly reasonable."
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On May 23 2024 21:43 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2024 21:34 zeo wrote:On May 23 2024 21:18 Luolis wrote:On May 23 2024 21:01 zeo wrote:On May 22 2024 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On May 22 2024 03:56 zeo wrote:On May 22 2024 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Zeo, I am sorry if you have plainly stated this before, but I am having a hard time digging through the current conversation to get to the core of the disagreement. I know we subscribe to fundamentally different worldviews, but I would still be curious to hear what threat you feel Ukraine posed prior to 2022.
To be more concise: What negative event or dynamic was Russia hoping to prevent or minimize by invading Ukraine in 2022? Many things have been stated over and over again in this thread, debunked, ignored then posted again after which the worm Ouroboros cycle begins again. I'll try to give you an answer but a book could be written in response to your question. What's important to note is that a full week before Russian troops entered Ukraine, from the 16th of February - the Ukrainian army started a massive bombing campaign against both the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics. A multinational organization know as the Observer Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) documented this massive spike in activity. Their reports are highly detailed and contain tallied and documented instances of violations of peace agreements. In the one week period from February 17, 2022 to February 23, 2022 there was a recorded total of 9,895 ceasefire violations and 7,310 explosions accounted for in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Lugansk in the Ukraine. The vast majority of explosions happened in the civilian populated areas controlled by 'non-government' forces. All in all over 4000 artillery shells were fired into the D/LNR by the Ukrainian army over a one week period. Below are the PDF versions of the full OSCE reports for each day in the one week period before Feb. 24th: OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 37/2022 issued on 17 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 38/2022 issued on 18 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 39/2022 issued on 19 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 40/2022 issued on 21 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 41/2022 issued on 22 February 2022,OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 42/2022 issued on 23 February 2022The OSCE findings went under reported in the 'western media' at the time, either mentioned in footnotes or not mentioned at all, while on the other side the sharp rise in the shelling and killing of civilians at a time where both Russia and Ukraine were massing military forces at the borders was seen as a clear provocation to pull Russia into the conflict. Countries at any time have plans and backup plans for all possible scenarios for anything that might happen. Without doubt ever since 2015 military planners in Russia had been coming up with 'what if?' plans to scenarios where Ukraine attacked the rebel regions first, or NATO entered or, what it came to in the end - Russia attacking first. These plans are always ready to be implemented at short notice, when the actual green light was given to enter Ukraine or the final order was given is unknown but its obvious that Russia was far from prepared on multiple levels and preparations did not last long. Both Russia and Ukraine gave clear indicators to each other that they would be ready to strike the other side with their buildup. If Ukraine was just bluffing or their massive artillery strikes were a precursor to an imminent invasion of the Donbass Republics we won't know until many years pass from now, and maybe not even then. Article 51 of the UN charter, when invoked by Putin in this case had much more solid ground than the 'humanitarian interventions' it was invoked for before. I remember watching a report by a Serbian journalist interviewing another Serb working for some state run Chinese news channel, and this guy had been on the Russian side of the border with the Russian army giving reports when it all started. One of the things he talked about was the mood among the Russian soldiers in the first weeks, there was a clear sense of 'February 24th happened so there would never be a 22nd of June again'. The feeling of if we're all fucked anyway better to start it on our terms, and this was a feeling mirrored everywhere except maybe for the Donbass militias which had a more somber take than their Russian colleagues. A quote by Putin that might prove some insight: "Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one thing: If a fight's inevitable, you must strike first," First of all, thank you very much for the thorough reply. I understand this conflict is extremely deep and a lot of it is because the cold war never really ended. I think the whole end of the war was mostly theatrics. But that's a separate topic. I basically just wanted to understand what the core of the issue that is stated as a justification to walk into Ukraine. I of course agree striking first is always better if you are certain it’s happening either way. But I want to make sure I clearly understand the exact reason. Are you saying Russia viewed Ukraine as a credible threat that intended to invade Russia? With NATO or something? Or are you saying the war in Ukraine is justified as defending Donetsk and Lugansk? You're welcome. Healthy dialog between all viewpoints in a respectful manor is the only way to really get a clear picture of what is really happening. Censorship and screeching when things dont go your way are a clear sign that one is not emotionally mature enough to have an adult conversation. There is nothing these people hate more than actual facts and sources, if someone doesn't want to be educated that is on them but facts are facts. Vague 'thats just the way it is because it conforms to my biases' should not be enough for any person. Anyway, I'm saying that Russia felt at some point that the other side would never stop pushing and that any trying for any dialog or compromise had been seen as Russian weakness by the other side. It was obviously a desperate and extorted act. Its nice to see an uptick in posting in this thread and some new faces even though they might not have my view on these subjects. Even the Hitler guy that left to karma farm Israel - Palestine is back, this is also a sign we are entering the final phase of the conflict - the accepted as self-evident phase where the 'didnt I say this was going to happen all along even though I didnt' people start coming out of the woodwork. All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer You didnt answer the question. "Are you saying Russia viewed Ukraine as a credible threat that intended to invade Russia? With NATO or something? Or are you saying the war in Ukraine is justified as defending Donetsk and Lugansk?" How about you answer instead of fascist rambling. Your reading comprehension and manners leave a lot to be desired. Here is a link to an article on what a false dichotomy is, though I don't think it was Mohdoo's intention. I gave my view on why the Russian army entered Ukraine and its not an answer that conforms to any of the questions above that imply the answer in their premise. In other words: "I cannot answer this question because it is framed too concisely therefore leaving me not enough room to obfuscate and pretend my stance is even slightly reasonable."
-kek. Have you stopped drinking whiskey at mornings, yes or no?
|
On May 23 2024 06:14 a_ch wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2024 05:44 Manit0u wrote:On May 23 2024 02:02 Simberto wrote:On May 23 2024 00:49 maybenexttime wrote:
It's funny how our delusional fascists go completely mask off from time to time. ;-) True. It is kind of insane to see someone actually argue the hardcore Russian fascist line and apparently being serious. You always imagine that that point of view must be exaggerated in western media, because surely no one could be so callous and deluded at the same time. And then we get a_ch just spouting that absurd bullshit one to one. I know a few apparently well-educated people from US, Sweden and Poland who are also swallowing Russian point of view like young pelicans. I guess unsurprisingly they're also people who tend to read Trump's biography like a Bible, revere Elon Musk like a god and are staunch supporters of more right-wing stuff. I don't know why but somehow those few things almost always go together. -see, my problem, where all the arguing with you guys starts, is that you either know just a small part of the picture, or a completely misguided one. For example, >>What are you even talking about? After the Russian invasion Ukraine signed all of the Minsk agreements but it was Russia who renewed the conflict, invaded again and forced Minsk II (which Ukraine also signed). -but this is completely wrong. Ukrainians put their forces to surround Donetsk and sever it from the border, despite the peace agreement. Then of course Russia had to intervene, because otherwise DPR forces would have been encircled and crushed, so this actually has happened with the ukrainian group (Debaltsevo 2015) How can we not argue, when we know these basic facts so differently? And this just means that one of us has been lied to a lot, - but in case I'm wrong, someone could just provide the facts. Instead there is nothing factual (and new to me), just some most impatient guys throwing shit from times to times. And in the case you are wrong - well, why not admit it, and revise your worldviews? I generally believe that the western media and politicians has fallen very low, to the levels well beyond late USSR in creating an alternative reality.
Western and Russian views on both what happened and why almost certainly will differ, but I dare posit you provide a pretty one sided view here.
It is in the West commonly accepted that 1) both Minsk agreements were severely flawed in being fragile and too vague/open for interpretation, 2) both parties to the conflict were in breach of the agreements more or less immediately even if violence subsided temporarily and 3) it was a mistake to not include Russia as a party to the conflict and thus have her too take on responsibilities and commitments. See, e.g., Harvard, ecfr.eu.
Indeed, in your opinion of course Russian had to intervene to avoid DPR forces from being crushed - after open conflict had blossomed and neither party any longer recognised Minsk I. Given well documented evidence of ceasefire breaches from both sides at this point it is hard to believe you actually tout that any of the sides at this point were in good faith of the Minsk I agreement? Why then hold national elections in the separatist regions?
Might you also understand how someone (like me) who believes the main instigator of the separatist movements of LPR and DPR was Russia herself will find your statements absurd? To such a person, your comment simply states "of course Russia had to intervene, her partial undercover proxy army was losing ground on foreign soil".
BTW as for the fact that Ukraine's army was closing in on surrounding separatist forces and decisively crushing them at this point - I couldn't really find that in any of the timelines I looked at from 2014/2015?
|
On May 23 2024 21:01 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2024 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On May 22 2024 03:56 zeo wrote:On May 22 2024 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Zeo, I am sorry if you have plainly stated this before, but I am having a hard time digging through the current conversation to get to the core of the disagreement. I know we subscribe to fundamentally different worldviews, but I would still be curious to hear what threat you feel Ukraine posed prior to 2022.
To be more concise: What negative event or dynamic was Russia hoping to prevent or minimize by invading Ukraine in 2022? Many things have been stated over and over again in this thread, debunked, ignored then posted again after which the worm Ouroboros cycle begins again. I'll try to give you an answer but a book could be written in response to your question. What's important to note is that a full week before Russian troops entered Ukraine, from the 16th of February - the Ukrainian army started a massive bombing campaign against both the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics. A multinational organization know as the Observer Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) documented this massive spike in activity. Their reports are highly detailed and contain tallied and documented instances of violations of peace agreements. In the one week period from February 17, 2022 to February 23, 2022 there was a recorded total of 9,895 ceasefire violations and 7,310 explosions accounted for in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Lugansk in the Ukraine. The vast majority of explosions happened in the civilian populated areas controlled by 'non-government' forces. All in all over 4000 artillery shells were fired into the D/LNR by the Ukrainian army over a one week period. Below are the PDF versions of the full OSCE reports for each day in the one week period before Feb. 24th: OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 37/2022 issued on 17 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 38/2022 issued on 18 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 39/2022 issued on 19 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 40/2022 issued on 21 February 2022OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 41/2022 issued on 22 February 2022,OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) Daily Report 42/2022 issued on 23 February 2022The OSCE findings went under reported in the 'western media' at the time, either mentioned in footnotes or not mentioned at all, while on the other side the sharp rise in the shelling and killing of civilians at a time where both Russia and Ukraine were massing military forces at the borders was seen as a clear provocation to pull Russia into the conflict. Countries at any time have plans and backup plans for all possible scenarios for anything that might happen. Without doubt ever since 2015 military planners in Russia had been coming up with 'what if?' plans to scenarios where Ukraine attacked the rebel regions first, or NATO entered or, what it came to in the end - Russia attacking first. These plans are always ready to be implemented at short notice, when the actual green light was given to enter Ukraine or the final order was given is unknown but its obvious that Russia was far from prepared on multiple levels and preparations did not last long. Both Russia and Ukraine gave clear indicators to each other that they would be ready to strike the other side with their buildup. If Ukraine was just bluffing or their massive artillery strikes were a precursor to an imminent invasion of the Donbass Republics we won't know until many years pass from now, and maybe not even then. Article 51 of the UN charter, when invoked by Putin in this case had much more solid ground than the 'humanitarian interventions' it was invoked for before. I remember watching a report by a Serbian journalist interviewing another Serb working for some state run Chinese news channel, and this guy had been on the Russian side of the border with the Russian army giving reports when it all started. One of the things he talked about was the mood among the Russian soldiers in the first weeks, there was a clear sense of 'February 24th happened so there would never be a 22nd of June again'. The feeling of if we're all fucked anyway better to start it on our terms, and this was a feeling mirrored everywhere except maybe for the Donbass militias which had a more somber take than their Russian colleagues. A quote by Putin that might prove some insight: "Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me one thing: If a fight's inevitable, you must strike first," First of all, thank you very much for the thorough reply. I understand this conflict is extremely deep and a lot of it is because the cold war never really ended. I think the whole end of the war was mostly theatrics. But that's a separate topic. I basically just wanted to understand what the core of the issue that is stated as a justification to walk into Ukraine. I of course agree striking first is always better if you are certain it’s happening either way. But I want to make sure I clearly understand the exact reason. Are you saying Russia viewed Ukraine as a credible threat that intended to invade Russia? With NATO or something? Or are you saying the war in Ukraine is justified as defending Donetsk and Lugansk? Anyway, I'm saying that Russia felt at some point that the other side would never stop pushing and that any trying for any dialog or compromise had been seen as Russian weakness by the other side. It was obviously a desperate and extorted act.
I agree with the gist of what you said about it being important to engage with deeply conflicting worldviews. But I think often times what appears to be bad faith engagement is actually just people not understanding the details of what the other person is saying. So I disagree with your negative characterizations of some posters here. But I do ultimately think people are too tribal with how they discuss this topic.
That being said...
I promise I'm not trying to feign ignorance or something here, but I legitimately don't understand what this means. What was being pushed? I am asking this because the only annexations and whatnot I am aware of are Russia taking Crimea. I am not aware of Ukraine doing some kinda Crimea'ish thing with a Russian area.
I just now read about this DPR stuff on Wikipedia and it sounds like the gist of it is...
1: Border region liked Russia a lot and wanted to leave Ukraine and join Russia
2: Ukraine didn't want them to do that
3: Since obviously DPR dudes would get dumpstered by the actual Ukraine military, Russia stepped in to save them.
Is this what you are framing as the underlying reason why Russia was forced to invade Ukraine? The gist of it being that Ukraine contained regions that were Russian in everything but name and that they had a moral duty to defend separatists who wanted to join Russia?
I am not fully on board with this as a reasonable explanation, but before I list out why I don't think its an ethical reason for the war, I want to be sure I am understanding the specifics of what you are saying. I think conversations like this are easy to end up as 2 people talking past each other. I think its critically important I understand the specific point you are making before continuing otherwise its just a bunch of noise without us actually engaging with each other.
|
United States41983 Posts
The border regions didn’t especially want to leave. The arguments used to support leave is that after Russian proxies invaded, instituted their own military government, and held illegal elections the elections went their way.
You simply can’t do that which is why no countries recognize any part of it. Russia no longer denies that the little green men were Russian soldiers, the only person maintaining the fiction of the alphabet republics at this point is zeo.
In any case, the claim of protecting the alphabet republics goes completely out the window when Russia makes a speed run attempt on Kyiv and declares that Kherson is and always has been a part of Russia.
|
On May 24 2024 03:53 KwarK wrote:
The border regions didn’t especially want to leave. The arguments used to support leave is that after Russian proxies invaded, instituted their own military government, and held illegal elections the elections went their way.
You simply can’t do that which is why no countries recognize any part of it. Russia no longer denies that the little green men were Russian soldiers, the only person maintaining the fiction of the alphabet republics at this point is zeo.
In any case, the claim of protecting the alphabet republics goes completely out the window when Russia makes a speed run attempt on Kyiv and declares that Kherson is and always has been a part of Russia.
Casualty figures and draft figures from those regions makes for stronger arguments. If you want to support a region you don't want to kill it off.
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On May 24 2024 01:51 Warfie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2024 06:14 a_ch wrote:On May 23 2024 05:44 Manit0u wrote:On May 23 2024 02:02 Simberto wrote:On May 23 2024 00:49 maybenexttime wrote:
It's funny how our delusional fascists go completely mask off from time to time. ;-) True. It is kind of insane to see someone actually argue the hardcore Russian fascist line and apparently being serious. You always imagine that that point of view must be exaggerated in western media, because surely no one could be so callous and deluded at the same time. And then we get a_ch just spouting that absurd bullshit one to one. I know a few apparently well-educated people from US, Sweden and Poland who are also swallowing Russian point of view like young pelicans. I guess unsurprisingly they're also people who tend to read Trump's biography like a Bible, revere Elon Musk like a god and are staunch supporters of more right-wing stuff. I don't know why but somehow those few things almost always go together. -see, my problem, where all the arguing with you guys starts, is that you either know just a small part of the picture, or a completely misguided one. For example, >>What are you even talking about? After the Russian invasion Ukraine signed all of the Minsk agreements but it was Russia who renewed the conflict, invaded again and forced Minsk II (which Ukraine also signed). -but this is completely wrong. Ukrainians put their forces to surround Donetsk and sever it from the border, despite the peace agreement. Then of course Russia had to intervene, because otherwise DPR forces would have been encircled and crushed, so this actually has happened with the ukrainian group (Debaltsevo 2015) How can we not argue, when we know these basic facts so differently? And this just means that one of us has been lied to a lot, - but in case I'm wrong, someone could just provide the facts. Instead there is nothing factual (and new to me), just some most impatient guys throwing shit from times to times. And in the case you are wrong - well, why not admit it, and revise your worldviews? I generally believe that the western media and politicians has fallen very low, to the levels well beyond late USSR in creating an alternative reality. Western and Russian views on both what happened and why almost certainly will differ, but I dare posit you provide a pretty one sided view here. It is in the West commonly accepted that 1) both Minsk agreements were severely flawed in being fragile and too vague/open for interpretation, 2) both parties to the conflict were in breach of the agreements more or less immediately even if violence subsided temporarily and 3) it was a mistake to not include Russia as a party to the conflict and thus have her too take on responsibilities and commitments. See, e.g., Harvard, ecfr.eu. Indeed, in your opinion of course Russian had to intervene to avoid DPR forces from being crushed - after open conflict had blossomed and neither party any longer recognised Minsk I. Given well documented evidence of ceasefire breaches from both sides at this point it is hard to believe you actually tout that any of the sides at this point were in good faith of the Minsk I agreement? Why then hold national elections in the separatist regions? Might you also understand how someone (like me) who believes the main instigator of the separatist movements of LPR and DPR was Russia herself will find your statements absurd? To such a person, your comment simply states "of course Russia had to intervene, her partial undercover proxy army was losing ground on foreign soil". BTW as for the fact that Ukraine's army was closing in on surrounding separatist forces and decisively crushing them at this point - I couldn't really find that in any of the timelines I looked at from 2014/2015?
-I agree with ~90% of what you say here, and agree that my claim here was exaggerated, (because some pages before zeo wrote a more detailed timeline which sticks closer to the facts, but people here still kept pushing complete bullshit).
Still, I'd disagree on some important details: one of the key event in breaking Minsk-I have been elections in DPR, and
citing from the Harvard link:
"A major point of contention was the provision allowing the breakaway territories to hold local elections, which the Minsk Protocol obliged its signatories to organize. However, on November 2, 2014, less than two months after the Minsk Protocol was signed, presidential and parliamentary elections—“national” rather than local elections—took place in the self-proclaimed republics4. By arbitrarily holding these elections, separatists and Russia expressed their disregard for the peace process in eastern Ukraine. Their actions undermined the commitments taken under the agreements, undermined the sovereignty of Ukraine, and constituted a violation to its domestic and international law. "
-While in fact, DPR officials have been forced to do it by the actions of Poroshenko, who messed with the required elections timeline, giving them only 1.5 month to prepare and perform the elections, while the law insists on 3 months term. So UA would have full reasons to claim elections illegal, were they held in line with Poroshenko's proposal.
The following text from this source is also quite biased; for example the autor's quote "Ukraine signed the Minsk agreements under pressure from the West, which saw them as a means to end the open military conflict, but did nothing to resolve the overarching disagreement between Russia and Ukraine" is the epitome of propaganda narrative, which is in direct contradictions with statements of the signers (Poroshenko, Merkel claimed that all they needed Minsk agreements for is to buy time).
>>BTW as for the fact that Ukraine's army was closing in on surrounding separatist forces and decisively crushing them
-there I referred to the event where the UA has massed at some point a large group in Debaltsevo (something like 5-7k versus 3-4k DPR total forces).
>>Might you also understand how someone (like me) who believes the main instigator of the separatist movements of LPR and DPR was Russia herself will find your statements absurd? To such a person, your comment simply states "of course Russia had to intervene, her partial undercover proxy army was losing ground on foreign soil"
There is no doubt that LDPR forces got most of the equipment from Russia, and I've heard confirmations of russian army limited direct involment in 2014-2015 from the participants. At the same time, Ukraine's actions at the time were also forced by the outside actors (the US doesn't deny the involvement in the Maidan coup and hand-picking the new government), it just didn't have any reasons to pass the language law, - which ignited all the separatist movements, -except for the sake of starting an open conflict.
|
Care to provide evidence of Merkel claiming that they needed the Minsk agreements to buy time?
Would a mod be so kind to ask our fascist friend to provide evidence for his constant torrent of lies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
