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.
On May 24 2024 05:08 maybenexttime wrote: 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?
I’ve seen the quote, it’s always taken completely out of context.
“The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. It also used this time to become stronger, as you can see today.”
What she’s saying is that in 2014 Ukraine was unprepared to resist a Russian invasion. In 2014 it became clear Russia meant to annex Ukraine and so Ukraine spent the time since Minsk preparing to defend itself against the next attempt.
What Ruzzists think it means is that Ukraine was preparing to invade Russia with an army of NATO biolab super soldiers.
They can’t imagine any other reason why Ukraine, the nation they were in the process of invading, might want to arm itself. They view this as highly suspicious and evidence of bad faith on Ukraine’s part.
They also don’t ever ask themselves if Russia spent any time in those 7 years arming itself. To them Ukraine arming itself, while enemy troops occupied her soil, is deeply suspect while Russia, arming herself before invading more of Ukraine, is a strictly defensive response to the threat posed by the nation they were occupying.
I also don’t especially believe Merkel, I think it has the echoes of Chamberlain and Munich. She’s basically being forced to explain why she pushed Ukraine to appease Russia while Germany continued to collaborate with Russia. Why she didn’t take a harder line sooner. Why she continually pushed for closer relations with an expansionist power that attacked Ukraine. She’s arguing that there’s a line that can be drawn between her shitty foreign policy and the success Ukraine has had in resisting Russia and pretending that this was somehow her master plan. It was not. If Germany really intended to use the 6 year gap to prepare for the next round then the German army would have had more than 15 shells in its artillery storage. Merkel did not have a master plan. It was not Germany that saved Ukraine, Ukraine was saved in spite of Merkel, not because of her.
Let's not forget that Russia was very open about its intentions (despite official denials). After the annexation of Crimea, its propaganda went into overdrive pushing the Novorossiya crap, showing intended occupation zone from Odesa to Kharkiv. Only when they got repelled by the Ukrainian volunteers did they tone it down and reframe the whole invasion as protection of Donbas.
As for your take on Merkel, I absolutely agree. The West just couldn't wait to go back to business as usual, which makes Russia's claims about some grand Western conspiracy to destroy it all the more laughable.
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.
This is my general impression as well, but the reason I didn't list this as an assumed response is that I have not confirmed this is the core, specific reason being cited. That's why I was saying I think it makes sense to just wait for what zeo says and better understand the specific root of what they are saying rather than just leaping straight into what I am assuming he is getting at.
You and others might be right that zeo is engaging in bad faith. But just in case I am misunderstanding him, I see value in waiting for direct confirmation I am understanding his perspective before moving on to my perspective on his perspective
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.
This is my general impression as well, but the reason I didn't list this as an assumed response is that I have not confirmed this is the core, specific reason being cited. That's why I was saying I think it makes sense to just wait for what zeo says and better understand the specific root of what they are saying rather than just leaping straight into what I am assuming he is getting at.
You and others might be right that zeo is engaging in bad faith. But just in case I am misunderstanding him, I see value in waiting for direct confirmation I am understanding his perspective before moving on to my perspective on his perspective
What you're doing is analogical to asking a Nazi what he thinks about the Holocaust. Regardless of whether he replies in good or bad faith, you won't be any wiser.
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.
This is my general impression as well, but the reason I didn't list this as an assumed response is that I have not confirmed this is the core, specific reason being cited. That's why I was saying I think it makes sense to just wait for what zeo says and better understand the specific root of what they are saying rather than just leaping straight into what I am assuming he is getting at.
You and others might be right that zeo is engaging in bad faith. But just in case I am misunderstanding him, I see value in waiting for direct confirmation I am understanding his perspective before moving on to my perspective on his perspective
What you're doing is analogical to asking a Nazi what he thinks about the Holocaust. Regardless of whether he replies in good or bad faith, you won't be any wiser.
Not looking for enlightenment. Nothing anyone says here will ever impact anything in the world in any way. Its all just curiosity, stimulation, and context for me.
On May 24 2024 05:08 maybenexttime wrote: 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?
On May 24 2024 05:52 maybenexttime wrote: Let's not forget that Russia was very open about its intentions (despite official denials). After the annexation of Crimea, its propaganda went into overdrive pushing the Novorossiya crap, showing intended occupation zone from Odesa to Kharkiv. Only when they got repelled by the Ukrainian volunteers did they tone it down and reframe the whole invasion as protection of Donbas.
As for your take on Merkel, I absolutely agree. The West just couldn't wait to go back to business as usual, which makes Russia's claims about some grand Western conspiracy to destroy it all the more laughable.
What is unclear to you in the phrase “The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. It also used this time to become stronger, as you can see today”?
And since you're so eager to call me names here, I can also say my opinion on you: you are a narcissistic imbecile.
-extremely small stock of ideas and data about the surrounding world; -lack of the ability to analyze, compare, draw conclusions -egocentric orientation; -high level of suggestibility, lack of critical comprehension of information; -emotional lability, excessive sensitivity, imbalance
On May 24 2024 05:52 maybenexttime wrote: Let's not forget that Russia was very open about its intentions (despite official denials). After the annexation of Crimea, its propaganda went into overdrive pushing the Novorossiya crap, showing intended occupation zone from Odesa to Kharkiv. Only when they got repelled by the Ukrainian volunteers did they tone it down and reframe the whole invasion as protection of Donbas.
As for your take on Merkel, I absolutely agree. The West just couldn't wait to go back to business as usual, which makes Russia's claims about some grand Western conspiracy to destroy it all the more laughable.
What is unclear to you in the phrase “The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. It also used this time to become stronger, as you can see today”?
And since you're so eager to call me names here, I can also say my opinion on you: you are a narcissistic imbecile.
-extremely small stock of ideas and data about the surrounding world; -lack of the ability to analyze, compare, draw conclusions -egocentric orientation; -high level of suggestibility, lack of critical comprehension of information; -emotional lability, excessive sensitivity, imbalance
On May 24 2024 05:52 maybenexttime wrote: Let's not forget that Russia was very open about its intentions (despite official denials). After the annexation of Crimea, its propaganda went into overdrive pushing the Novorossiya crap, showing intended occupation zone from Odesa to Kharkiv. Only when they got repelled by the Ukrainian volunteers did they tone it down and reframe the whole invasion as protection of Donbas.
As for your take on Merkel, I absolutely agree. The West just couldn't wait to go back to business as usual, which makes Russia's claims about some grand Western conspiracy to destroy it all the more laughable.
What is unclear to you in the phrase “The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. It also used this time to become stronger, as you can see today”?
From page 3, in chronological order (translated by Google Translate):
"ZEIT: Are you asking yourself whether the years of relative calm were also years of neglect and whether you were not only a crisis manager but also partly the cause of crises?
Merkel: I wouldn't be a political person if I didn't concern myself with it. Let's take climate protection, where Germany has done a lot compared to other countries. But with regard to the topic itself, I admit that, measured against what the IPCC's International Climate Report says today, not enough has been done. Or let's look at my policy with regard to Russia and Ukraine. I have come to the conclusion that I made my decisions at the time in a way that I can still understand today. It was an attempt to prevent exactly such a war. The fact that we didn't succeed doesn't mean that the attempts were wrong.
ZEIT: But one can find the way one acted in earlier circumstances plausible and still consider it wrong today in view of the results.
Merkel: But that requires us to say exactly what the alternatives were at the time. I thought the idea of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO, which was discussed in 2008, was wrong. The countries did not have the necessary prerequisites for this, nor had the consequences of such a decision been fully considered, both with regard to Russia's actions against Georgia and Ukraine and to NATO and its mutual assistance rules. And the Minsk Agreement in 2014 was an attempt to give Ukraine time.
It also used this time to become stronger, as we can see today. The Ukraine of 2014/15 is not the Ukraine of today. As we saw in the battle for Debaltseve (a railway town in the Donbass, Donetsk Oblast, ed.) in early 2015, Putin could have easily overrun it back then. And I very much doubt that the NATO states could have done as much to help Ukraine back then as they are doing today."
The interview was published in December 2022, so in the context of a full-scale, unprovoked Russian invasion. Merkel explicitly said that the intention of the Minsk Agreement was to prevent such a war and prevent Putin from conquering Ukraine. You can infer from that that Merkel didn't think Putin was interested in peace and for there to be peace Ukraine would have to be able to resist said conquest. The only side negotiating in bad faith was Russia, which denied it was the aggressor and that its troops were in Ukraine.
In other words, you are full of shit, but that's not very surprising. ;-)
And since you're so eager to call me names here, I can also say my opinion on you: you are a narcissistic imbecile.
I am not calling you names. You are, in fact, a fascist. ;-)
First - because listeninig to 3 semesters of russian makes you think you know Russia better than natives
-extremely small stock of ideas and data about the surrounding world; -lack of the ability to analyze, compare, draw conclusions -egocentric orientation; -high level of suggestibility, lack of critical comprehension of information; -emotional lability, excessive sensitivity, imbalance
"Question: What about the first question? Are you concerned that a war could break out?
Vladimir Putin: I am not concerned, because we do not plan and we will not fight with the Ukrainian people.
Question: But there are Ukrainian troops, there is the Ukrainian army.
Vladimir Putin: Listen carefully. I want you to understand me clearly: if we make that decision, it will only be to protect Ukrainian citizens. And let’s see those troops try to shoot their own people, with us behind them – not in the front, but behind. Let them just try to shoot at women and children! I would like to see those who would give that order in Ukraine."
In other words, Putin said that if they were to invade Ukraine, the Russian troops would use Ukrainian civilians as human shields... to protect them (sic!). So much for Russia trying to protect civilians in Donbas...
Vladimir Putin: Listen carefully. I want you to understand me clearly: if we make that decision, it will only be to protect Ukrainian citizens. And let’s see those troops try to shoot their own people, with us behind them – not in the front, but behind. Let them just try to shoot at women and children! I would like to see those who would give that order in Ukraine."
In other words, Putin said that if they were to invade Ukraine, the Russian troops would use Ukrainian civilians as human shields... to protect them (sic!). So much for Russia trying to protect civilians in Donbas...
What he was saying there is that supposedly Russia would only get involved if Ukrainian people themselves made the first move and were fighting against the government then Russia would 'have their backs;' as opposed to Russia inciting and leading an insurrection against Ukraine. He certainly was not saying that Russians are going to round up the civilians and send them up front as cover. I'm pretty sure you knew this already, though.
On May 24 2024 05:08 maybenexttime wrote: 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?
On May 24 2024 05:52 maybenexttime wrote: Let's not forget that Russia was very open about its intentions (despite official denials). After the annexation of Crimea, its propaganda went into overdrive pushing the Novorossiya crap, showing intended occupation zone from Odesa to Kharkiv. Only when they got repelled by the Ukrainian volunteers did they tone it down and reframe the whole invasion as protection of Donbas.
As for your take on Merkel, I absolutely agree. The West just couldn't wait to go back to business as usual, which makes Russia's claims about some grand Western conspiracy to destroy it all the more laughable.
What is unclear to you in the phrase “The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. It also used this time to become stronger, as you can see today”?
From page 3, in chronological order (translated by Google Translate):
"ZEIT: Are you asking yourself whether the years of relative calm were also years of neglect and whether you were not only a crisis manager but also partly the cause of crises?
Merkel: I wouldn't be a political person if I didn't concern myself with it. Let's take climate protection, where Germany has done a lot compared to other countries. But with regard to the topic itself, I admit that, measured against what the IPCC's International Climate Report says today, not enough has been done. Or let's look at my policy with regard to Russia and Ukraine. I have come to the conclusion that I made my decisions at the time in a way that I can still understand today. It was an attempt to prevent exactly such a war. The fact that we didn't succeed doesn't mean that the attempts were wrong.
ZEIT: But one can find the way one acted in earlier circumstances plausible and still consider it wrong today in view of the results.
Merkel: But that requires us to say exactly what the alternatives were at the time. I thought the idea of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO, which was discussed in 2008, was wrong. The countries did not have the necessary prerequisites for this, nor had the consequences of such a decision been fully considered, both with regard to Russia's actions against Georgia and Ukraine and to NATO and its mutual assistance rules. And the Minsk Agreement in 2014 was an attempt to give Ukraine time.
It also used this time to become stronger, as we can see today. The Ukraine of 2014/15 is not the Ukraine of today. As we saw in the battle for Debaltseve (a railway town in the Donbass, Donetsk Oblast, ed.) in early 2015, Putin could have easily overrun it back then. And I very much doubt that the NATO states could have done as much to help Ukraine back then as they are doing today."
The interview was published in December 2022, so in the context of a full-scale, unprovoked Russian invasion. Merkel explicitly said that the intention of the Minsk Agreement was to prevent such a war and prevent Putin from conquering Ukraine. You can infer from that that Merkel didn't think Putin was interested in peace and for there to be peace Ukraine would have to be able to resist said conquest. The only side negotiating in bad faith was Russia, which denied it was the aggressor and that its troops were in Ukraine.
In other words, you are full of shit, but that's not very surprising. ;-)
-extremely small stock of ideas and data about the surrounding world; -lack of the ability to analyze, compare, draw conclusions -egocentric orientation; -high level of suggestibility, lack of critical comprehension of information; -emotional lability, excessive sensitivity, imbalance
"Question: What about the first question? Are you concerned that a war could break out?
Vladimir Putin: I am not concerned, because we do not plan and we will not fight with the Ukrainian people.
Question: But there are Ukrainian troops, there is the Ukrainian army.
Vladimir Putin: Listen carefully. I want you to understand me clearly: if we make that decision, it will only be to protect Ukrainian citizens. And let’s see those troops try to shoot their own people, with us behind them – not in the front, but behind. Let them just try to shoot at women and children! I would like to see those who would give that order in Ukraine."
In other words, Putin said that if they were to invade Ukraine, the Russian troops would use Ukrainian civilians as human shields... to protect them (sic!). So much for Russia trying to protect civilians in Donbas...
-I don't know what to add to you here, besides the remark from Salazarz. You yourself post the quotation, where Merkel literally says that she assumed Minsk agreements to buy time for Ukraine to get a stronger position, - which is the opposite of solving the dispute, that peace agreements are supposed to mean. But you simply stick to any sort of illogical, out-of-context explanation of anything, - given it aligns with your preferred version.
On May 24 2024 05:08 maybenexttime wrote: 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?
I’ve seen the quote, it’s always taken completely out of context.
“The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. It also used this time to become stronger, as you can see today.”
What she’s saying is that in 2014 Ukraine was unprepared to resist a Russian invasion. In 2014 it became clear Russia meant to annex Ukraine and so Ukraine spent the time since Minsk preparing to defend itself against the next attempt.
What Ruzzists think it means is that Ukraine was preparing to invade Russia with an army of NATO biolab super soldiers.
They can’t imagine any other reason why Ukraine, the nation they were in the process of invading, might want to arm itself. They view this as highly suspicious and evidence of bad faith on Ukraine’s part.
They also don’t ever ask themselves if Russia spent any time in those 7 years arming itself. To them Ukraine arming itself, while enemy troops occupied her soil, is deeply suspect while Russia, arming herself before invading more of Ukraine, is a strictly defensive response to the threat posed by the nation they were occupying.
I also don’t especially believe Merkel, I think it has the echoes of Chamberlain and Munich. She’s basically being forced to explain why she pushed Ukraine to appease Russia while Germany continued to collaborate with Russia. Why she didn’t take a harder line sooner. Why she continually pushed for closer relations with an expansionist power that attacked Ukraine. She’s arguing that there’s a line that can be drawn between her shitty foreign policy and the success Ukraine has had in resisting Russia and pretending that this was somehow her master plan. It was not. If Germany really intended to use the 6 year gap to prepare for the next round then the German army would have had more than 15 shells in its artillery storage. Merkel did not have a master plan. It was not Germany that saved Ukraine, Ukraine was saved in spite of Merkel, not because of her.
This is the most correct KwarK post I have ever read haha.
Merkel was under intense criticism for her appeasment toward Russia. In the interview this was her meek attempt to justify her policy after the fact.
Vladimir Putin: Listen carefully. I want you to understand me clearly: if we make that decision, it will only be to protect Ukrainian citizens. And let’s see those troops try to shoot their own people, with us behind them – not in the front, but behind. Let them just try to shoot at women and children! I would like to see those who would give that order in Ukraine."
In other words, Putin said that if they were to invade Ukraine, the Russian troops would use Ukrainian civilians as human shields... to protect them (sic!). So much for Russia trying to protect civilians in Donbas...
What he was saying there is that supposedly Russia would only get involved if Ukrainian people themselves made the first move and were fighting against the government then Russia would 'have their backs;' as opposed to Russia inciting and leading an insurrection against Ukraine. He certainly was not saying that Russians are going to round up the civilians and send them up front as cover. I'm pretty sure you knew this already, though.
No, that's not what he's describing. He explicitly says "not in the front but behind". He is literally describing Russian troops positioning themselves with Ukrainian civilians in the line of fire. Don't play dumb. Also, the Russian troops were already there and they were the instigators of the whole war. And using human shields is exactly what Russian troops were doing. In a number of interviews Russian commanders like Igor Girkin have described how they hid in the Ukrainian cities without evacuating the civilians.
On May 24 2024 05:08 maybenexttime wrote: 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?
On May 24 2024 05:52 maybenexttime wrote: Let's not forget that Russia was very open about its intentions (despite official denials). After the annexation of Crimea, its propaganda went into overdrive pushing the Novorossiya crap, showing intended occupation zone from Odesa to Kharkiv. Only when they got repelled by the Ukrainian volunteers did they tone it down and reframe the whole invasion as protection of Donbas.
As for your take on Merkel, I absolutely agree. The West just couldn't wait to go back to business as usual, which makes Russia's claims about some grand Western conspiracy to destroy it all the more laughable.
What is unclear to you in the phrase “The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. It also used this time to become stronger, as you can see today”?
From page 3, in chronological order (translated by Google Translate):
"ZEIT: Are you asking yourself whether the years of relative calm were also years of neglect and whether you were not only a crisis manager but also partly the cause of crises?
Merkel: I wouldn't be a political person if I didn't concern myself with it. Let's take climate protection, where Germany has done a lot compared to other countries. But with regard to the topic itself, I admit that, measured against what the IPCC's International Climate Report says today, not enough has been done. Or let's look at my policy with regard to Russia and Ukraine. I have come to the conclusion that I made my decisions at the time in a way that I can still understand today. It was an attempt to prevent exactly such a war. The fact that we didn't succeed doesn't mean that the attempts were wrong.
ZEIT: But one can find the way one acted in earlier circumstances plausible and still consider it wrong today in view of the results.
Merkel: But that requires us to say exactly what the alternatives were at the time. I thought the idea of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO, which was discussed in 2008, was wrong. The countries did not have the necessary prerequisites for this, nor had the consequences of such a decision been fully considered, both with regard to Russia's actions against Georgia and Ukraine and to NATO and its mutual assistance rules. And the Minsk Agreement in 2014 was an attempt to give Ukraine time.
It also used this time to become stronger, as we can see today. The Ukraine of 2014/15 is not the Ukraine of today. As we saw in the battle for Debaltseve (a railway town in the Donbass, Donetsk Oblast, ed.) in early 2015, Putin could have easily overrun it back then. And I very much doubt that the NATO states could have done as much to help Ukraine back then as they are doing today."
The interview was published in December 2022, so in the context of a full-scale, unprovoked Russian invasion. Merkel explicitly said that the intention of the Minsk Agreement was to prevent such a war and prevent Putin from conquering Ukraine. You can infer from that that Merkel didn't think Putin was interested in peace and for there to be peace Ukraine would have to be able to resist said conquest. The only side negotiating in bad faith was Russia, which denied it was the aggressor and that its troops were in Ukraine.
In other words, you are full of shit, but that's not very surprising. ;-)
And since you're so eager to call me names here, I can also say my opinion on you: you are a narcissistic imbecile.
I am not calling you names. You are, in fact, a fascist. ;-)
First - because listeninig to 3 semesters of russian makes you think you know Russia better than natives
-extremely small stock of ideas and data about the surrounding world; -lack of the ability to analyze, compare, draw conclusions -egocentric orientation; -high level of suggestibility, lack of critical comprehension of information; -emotional lability, excessive sensitivity, imbalance
"Question: What about the first question? Are you concerned that a war could break out?
Vladimir Putin: I am not concerned, because we do not plan and we will not fight with the Ukrainian people.
Question: But there are Ukrainian troops, there is the Ukrainian army.
Vladimir Putin: Listen carefully. I want you to understand me clearly: if we make that decision, it will only be to protect Ukrainian citizens. And let’s see those troops try to shoot their own people, with us behind them – not in the front, but behind. Let them just try to shoot at women and children! I would like to see those who would give that order in Ukraine."
In other words, Putin said that if they were to invade Ukraine, the Russian troops would use Ukrainian civilians as human shields... to protect them (sic!). So much for Russia trying to protect civilians in Donbas...
-I don't know what to add to you here, besides the remark from Salazarz. You yourself post the quotation, where Merkel literally says that she assumed Minsk agreements to buy time for Ukraine to get a stronger position, - which is the opposite of solving the dispute, that peace agreements are supposed to mean. But you simply stick to any sort of illogical, out-of-context explanation of anything, - given it aligns with your preferred version.
There was no dispute to solve. The whole thing was manufactured by Russia. It was a war of conquest and Putin had no intention of stopping.
On May 25 2024 16:29 zatic wrote: Merkel was under intense criticism for her appeasment toward Russia. In the interview this was her meek attempt to justify her policy after the fact.
-I know, and I don't blame her as some sort of a mastermind behind the failed agreement. The problem is that she had signed the document that she had no power and will to implement. Her post-factum self-justifications strongly support this version, and indicate insufficient sovereignty of the leading state of the EU to adhere to its commitments. This also gives an idea on the level of indepence of the smaller states there.
Yes, it's easy to judge looking backwards. For instance, you could even tell from his meeting with Merkel when he brought a dog in the meeting (she fears dogs allegedly) that he never had enough respect for her. Kremlin is pretty good at such provocations because if you complain about a labrador, it's like you complain about a golden retriever and you'll likely be laughed at. It's generally a friendly dog but it was definitely an act of disrespect. E.g. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-truth-behind-claims-110000977.html
World leaders can probably co-exist with Russia peacefully and do fine economically, the problem is who is in government and right now the person in government is a thug, you can't negotiate with thugs and this should have been clear after Georgia.
On May 25 2024 16:29 zatic wrote: Merkel was under intense criticism for her appeasment toward Russia. In the interview this was her meek attempt to justify her policy after the fact.
-I know, and I don't blame her as some sort of a mastermind behind the failed agreement. The problem is that she had signed the document that she had no power and will to implement. Her post-factum self-justifications strongly support this version, and indicate insufficient sovereignty of the leading state of the EU to adhere to its commitments. This also gives an idea on the level of indepence of the smaller states there.
She is kind of a genius, quite awesome how she tricked Putin and his aging mind, sadly that made him paranoid and now he sees nazis everywhere.
I wonder if your missiles know if the civilian was pro or against Maidan.
Vladimir Putin: Listen carefully. I want you to understand me clearly: if we make that decision, it will only be to protect Ukrainian citizens. And let’s see those troops try to shoot their own people, with us behind them – not in the front, but behind. Let them just try to shoot at women and children! I would like to see those who would give that order in Ukraine."
In other words, Putin said that if they were to invade Ukraine, the Russian troops would use Ukrainian civilians as human shields... to protect them (sic!). So much for Russia trying to protect civilians in Donbas...
What he was saying there is that supposedly Russia would only get involved if Ukrainian people themselves made the first move and were fighting against the government then Russia would 'have their backs;' as opposed to Russia inciting and leading an insurrection against Ukraine. He certainly was not saying that Russians are going to round up the civilians and send them up front as cover. I'm pretty sure you knew this already, though.
No, that's not what he's describing. He explicitly says "not in the front but behind". He is literally describing Russian troops positioning themselves with Ukrainian civilians in the line of fire. Don't play dumb. Also, the Russian troops were already there and they were the instigators of the whole war. And using human shields is exactly what Russian troops were doing. In a number of interviews Russian commanders like Igor Girkin have described how they hid in the Ukrainian cities without evacuating the civilians.
I mean, he's saying that Russia wouldn't enter a fight 'against Ukrainian people,' and that they would only consider any action to 'protect Ukrainian people.' Would be pretty weird to then use the words 'stand behind Ukrainian people' in a literal sense rather than claiming that you're there to help and support them.
Like, I'm not saying that Putin isn't full of shit, or that his words about 'only wishing to protect Ukrainians' aren't ridiculous; but you're spinning his (translated) interview in a way that tries to paint him in the worst possible light taking rather big liberties with words, as if the reality isn't bad enough as is. It's stuff like this that really incenses a lot of actual pro-Putin folks and gives ammunition to the whole, 'West is out to get us' narrative. It doesn't make 'your side' look any more righteous, either.
On May 25 2024 19:06 SC-Shield wrote: Yes, it's easy to judge looking backwards. For instance, you could even tell from his meeting with Merkel when he brought a dog in the meeting (she fears dogs allegedly) that he never had enough respect for her. Kremlin is pretty good at such provocations because if you complain about a labrador, it's like you complain about a golden retriever and you'll likely be laughed at. It's generally a friendly dog but it was definitely an act of disrespect. E.g. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-truth-behind-claims-110000977.html
World leaders can probably co-exist with Russia peacefully and do fine economically, the problem is who is in government and right now the person in government is a thug, you can't negotiate with thugs and this should have been clear after Georgia.
On May 25 2024 19:52 0x64 wrote: She is kind of a genius, quite awesome how she tricked Putin and his aging mind, sadly that made him paranoid and now he sees nazis everywhere.
I wonder if your missiles know if the civilian was pro or against Maidan.
-please remind me of any actions that Merkel and Hollande took against Ukraine when it violated the obligations
Vladimir Putin: Listen carefully. I want you to understand me clearly: if we make that decision, it will only be to protect Ukrainian citizens. And let’s see those troops try to shoot their own people, with us behind them – not in the front, but behind. Let them just try to shoot at women and children! I would like to see those who would give that order in Ukraine."
In other words, Putin said that if they were to invade Ukraine, the Russian troops would use Ukrainian civilians as human shields... to protect them (sic!). So much for Russia trying to protect civilians in Donbas...
What he was saying there is that supposedly Russia would only get involved if Ukrainian people themselves made the first move and were fighting against the government then Russia would 'have their backs;' as opposed to Russia inciting and leading an insurrection against Ukraine. He certainly was not saying that Russians are going to round up the civilians and send them up front as cover. I'm pretty sure you knew this already, though.
No, that's not what he's describing. He explicitly says "not in the front but behind". He is literally describing Russian troops positioning themselves with Ukrainian civilians in the line of fire. Don't play dumb. Also, the Russian troops were already there and they were the instigators of the whole war. And using human shields is exactly what Russian troops were doing. In a number of interviews Russian commanders like Igor Girkin have described how they hid in the Ukrainian cities without evacuating the civilians.
I mean, he's saying that Russia wouldn't enter a fight 'against Ukrainian people,'
That part is completely irrelevant to the later statement (and it's completely false). I don't know why you keep bringing this up.
and that they would only consider any action to 'protect Ukrainian people.' Would be pretty weird to then use the words 'stand behind Ukrainian people' in a literal sense rather than claiming that you're there to help and support them.
Like, I'm not saying that Putin isn't full of shit, or that his words about 'only wishing to protect Ukrainians' aren't ridiculous; but you're spinning his (translated) interview in a way that tries to paint him in the worst possible light taking rather big liberties with words, as if the reality isn't bad enough as is. It's stuff like this that really incenses a lot of actual pro-Putin folks and gives ammunition to the whole, 'West is out to get us' narrative. It doesn't make 'your side' look any more righteous, either.
This is an official translation. There is no way you can spin it to mean something else because he explicitly said:
"And let’s see those troops try to shoot their own people, with us behind them – not in the front, but behind. Let them just try to shoot at women and children!"
If he had said "And let’s see those troops try to shoot their own people, with us behind them" you could make a case that he meant "let’s see those troops try to shoot their own people, with us supporting them". But he said " behind them – not in the front, but behind. Let them just try to shoot at women and children!". He is literally describing Russian troops hiding behind human shields. There is only one possible interpretation here.
He said that the Russian troops will make it impossible for Ukrainian army to hit them without also hitting civilians. If he were talking about protecting civilians from Ukrainian shelling, he'd say the exact opposite - that the Russian troops would stand between the Ukrainian army and the civilians.
Seriously, cut the bullshit. You can't be that dumb.
Вопрос: А на первый вопрос ответьте. Что может начаться война, Вас это не беспокоит?
В.Путин: Меня это не беспокоит, потому что мы не собираемся и не будем воевать с украинским народом.
Вопрос: Но украинские войска есть, армия есть украинская.
В.Путин: Послушайте внимательно. Я хочу, чтобы Вы однозначно меня понимали, если мы примем такое решение – только для защиты украинских граждан. И пускай попробует кто‑то из числа военнослужащих стрелять в своих людей, за которыми мы будем стоять сзади, не впереди, а сзади. Пускай они попробуют стрелять в женщин и детей! И я посмотрю на тех, кто отдаст такой приказ на Украине.
He is literally describing using human shields. He dares the Ukrainian commanders to give an order to shoot at the Russian troops knowing that this would inevitably lead to civilian casualties. There is no other way to interpret that. Don't be a useful idiot. This was not some figure of speech in Russian. The translation is accurate.
EPT
