Ukraine

[Silvanus]

That's how democracy works. If people want to vote for a party like that, it's their choice. They have to then carry the consequences.

Every country has proscribed organisations: usually ones that encourage or perpetrate violence, or work to undermine the existence of the country.

If all an organisation needs to do to avoid proscription is to put its name on a ballot, regardless of any actual intent to run in democratic elections, then its not a functional rule.

 

[Cheetodust]

Every country has proscribed organisations: usually ones that encourage or perpetrate violence, or work to undermine the existence of the country.

If all an organisation needs to do to avoid proscription is to put its name on a ballot, regardless of any actual intent to run in democratic elections, then its not a functional rule.

But what about my half-baked overly simplified notions of freedom that are predicated entirely on my privileged position of not being a member of historically oppressed groups that a (fucking wild) number of my fellow citizens are apparently chomping at the bit to start oppressing again (like more so than they are still currently being oppressed)?

Are you telling me that my "Maybe we should just set the gays on fire?" party shouldn't have a right to run for election? We're not saying we will set the gays on fire, we're just asking questions.

 

[bluegate]

But what about my half-baked overly simplified notions of freedom that are predicated entirely on my privileged position of not being a member of historically oppressed groups that a (fucking wild) number of my fellow citizens are apparently chomping at the bit to start oppressing again (like more so than they are still currently being oppressed)?

Are you telling me that my "Maybe we should just set the gays on fire?" party shouldn't have a right to run for election? We're not saying we will set the gays on fire, we're just asking questions.

Yeah, the only real nazies are the ones calling other people nazies, after all.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Knew... and probably "know".



So you read articles from media much more biased than the mainstream media and you think that's going to inform you about the conflict?




This is not about one Lt Colonel's opinion. This is about you linking three articles that together pretty much repeat Putin's propaganda. And please note that Putin tends to have support from both Commies and Fascists.



No, it's a correct assessment of reality. Everything that is usually mentioned as provocation is either irrelevant or itself a reaction to Russian provocation.

Let's take NATO: it's a mix of both. First it's irrelevant because Ukraine is not a member of NATO and therefor you do not respond to one's provocations by attacking another. It's like punching Avenger because I insult you. It just doesn't work that way. But it's also an argument that brings up a reaction to Russian provocation. Ukraine didn't ask for NATO membership after Euromaidan, it's only after Russia invaded Crimea and Eastern Ukraine they did. So after a clear Russian provocation. So the only relevant NATO related argument is itself a reaction to Russian aggression.

Than you have the Donbass war: again, this war wouldn't exist if Russia didn't orchestrate a coup which they backed with weapons and personnel. So the conflict there is a reaction to Russian aggression.

The "Nazi" problem: irrelevant, you don't get to invade a country because it has X or Y nazis. And especially not if you're yourself a neo Fascist country which uses a para-military organization infested by Fascists to fight for you around the globe.

The persecution of ethnic Russians: it's a myth. Although I am certain the 8 year long conflict with Russia will create ethnic tensions. Who can we thank for that? Ah yes, Russia. And let's not forget this sounds like a very Adolf Hitlery excuse to invade places.

So what "provocation" do you want to bring to the table?

What Russian propaganda do these articles have? They must be pretty bad articles then because they don't paint Russia in a good light. Which article I posted said it's OK to invade a country because it has Nazis?

Your story of provocation starts very recent and ignores the rest of the history.

The first thing I saw on Ukraine was the interview of the lieutenant colonel because I'm sure he knows more than some news anchor or talking head "expert" on the manner.

It is a war and most sources are biased. If you specifically look for stuff contradicting mainstream and mainstream is supportive of Ukraine, you will mostly find mostly pro-Russia stuff. That won't tell you what is wrong or not.
It would be better to look specifically for sources that should be uninvolved neutral or for sources from places that are near the action and have active independend press.
Have you, by chance, noticed how even most Russia allied countries are not willing to repeat the Kremlin propaganda ? Or how those events are reported in neutral nations ? Or how every Ukrainian neighbour country sees it ? Have you noticed how many formerly Putin-friendly politicians and pundits all over Europe are not willing to follow his arguments this time, shattering whole political parties ?

As for the Russian assertions : Have you looked whether any left-wing or antifascist movement that is not overly Russia friendly has ever complained about Nazi influence in Ukraine ? Have you ever seen people from the Russian diaspora complain about suppression of Russians in Ukraine ? Have you ever seen NGOs trying to help the poor ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine or even try to pressure Western nations to do something about supposed Ukrainian crimes there ? The lack of anything about any of that is not traceable to Russian sources makes it clear that there is no or only little substance behind.


US anti-mainstrem groups are very vulnerable to propaganda because people only contrast with mainstream media and if it is different, they believe it. Because it takes time and effort to check your sources/ contrast with others. Obviously it also helps speaking several languages, but we are in the time of having access to everything on the internet and being able to use google translate. If you really wanted, you could research your stuff.

The US has been somewhat insufferable after winning the Cold War and did things that could count as provokation (mostly around missile defense). But that is many years ago (they got humbled in Afghanistan and Iraq) and it was the US and not the Ukraine.

The only provocation from Ukrainian side is basically "existing" and "going a different way from Russia, seeking economic benefits from joining EU instead of trying to revive the Soviet Superpower and its influence". You could call that provocation, but, well...



As for Putin as the next Hitler : Putin does not have plans to exterminate hundreds of millions of supposed subhumans to get his racial pure utopia. That is quite a big difference.
But everything else ? Well, they seem quite similar when it comes to killing political enemies, accepting collateral damage, running the economy and frankly, Putin has less justification to invade the Ukraine than Hitler had for Poland.

How am I looking to contradict mainstream opinion if the 1st thing I watched on the manner was an interview with a lieutenant colonel? How did I know the mainstream opinion before I watched the interview since I saw/read nothing else? Why would I know his interview would contradict the mainstream opinion when I didn't know either the mainstream opinion or his opinion before watching the interview? I wouldn't call his interview not supportive of Ukraine but just telling how we got here and what could've been done to not get here.

"Provocation" is a very loaded term.

The West has a right to forge links with Ukraine, and Ukraine has a right to forge links with the West. Russia thinks that Ukraine and the West need to ask Russia's permission in order to interact with each other, and hence what "provocation" means in this context. It's Russia's attitude to the Baltic States, too, except that ship sailed already. It's there in Russia's warning to Finland and Sweden not to join NATO. Russia thinks it has the right to have a say in everything that occurs east of the Oder River, even though it's 30 years since it had the power to enforce it (and I mean enforce - see Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968).

It is important in this regard to consider Russian policy towards Ukraine: specifically, that Russia effectively wants Ukraine as a vassal state. It's right there in Putin's speeches: Ukraine isn't a real country or nation, it's a bit of Russia that accidentally ended up as a different country as the result of an old policy mistake that Russia now needs to correct.

No matter what anyone wants to say about how the West has "interfered" in Ukraine to make Ukraine friendlier to the West, it is nothing compared to what Russia has been up to. And that Ukraine's desire to slip out from Russian dominance is in no small part due to the malign nature of Russian influence, because Russia is run by brutal authoritarians and that's how it treats Ukraine, too. In a way, we could understand Russian thuggery: Russia's got nothing but natural gas and an army. It's hardly in a position to offer economic and human development.

So "provocation" is sort of true, and yet also propaganda. It seeks to portray the West and characters in the West (chiefly Biden) as at fault, by declining to acknowledge the reality of Russia's unreasonable demands, or it's very real agency in deciding to embark on a tragic and abhorrent campaign of destruction.

The attitude of the US was...

"We don't have to listen to Russia. We don't have to listen to anything they say." - Lt. Col. Daniel Davis

 

[Silvanus]

How am I looking to contradict mainstream opinion if the 1st thing I watched on the manner was an interview with a lieutenant colonel? How did I know the mainstream opinion before I watched the interview since I saw/read nothing else? Why would I know his interview would contradict the mainstream opinion when I didn't know either the mainstream opinion or his opinion before watching the interview? I wouldn't call his interview not supportive of Ukraine but just telling how we got here and what could've been done to not get here.

So... you believed the first thing you watched about it?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

So... you believed the first thing you watched about it?

He's has a lot of experience on the matter, why would what he said be wrong? What other people as knowledgeable or more knowledgeable have said otherwise?

If this was 2001 and I said Iraq didn't have WMDs, I'd be called pushing Iraqi propaganda I guess. That was actually my opinion from the start since I did a school report on Desert Storm and inspectors also never found WMDs leading up to the war either.

 

[Gordon_4]

He's has a lot of experience on the matter, why would what he said be wrong? What other people as knowledgeable or more knowledgeable have said otherwise?

If this was 2001 and I said Iraq didn't have WMDs, I'd be called pushing Iraqi propaganda I guess. That was actually my opinion from the start since I did a school report on Desert Storm and inspectors also never found WMDs leading up to the war either.

No, you’d probably have been accused of being a freedom hating commie who couldn’t see that the Iraqi Government had bribed or fooled all the weapons inspectors. At least that’s how I recall the political discourse of 2001.

EDIT: as my learned colleagues have pointed out, this would actually be the political discourse circa 2003. Afghanistan had a slightly different beat to it.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No, you’d probably have been accused of being a freedom hating commie who couldn’t see that the Iraqi Government had bribed or fooled all the weapons inspectors. At least that’s how I recall the political discourse of 2001.

Or how about the whole Trump collusion with Russia nonsense that was all over the news for 2 years with "bombshell" after "bombshell" and resulted in a big fat nothingburger highlighted by the following Jon Stewart episode. I don't watch mainstream news as I'm rather adverse to getting "news cum" on me, it's really hard to get out of the hair

 

[Generals]

What Russian propaganda do these articles have? They must be pretty bad articles then because they don't paint Russia in a good light. Which article I posted said it's OK to invade a country because it has Nazis?

It's typical anti western neo commie tactics and our communist party does exactly the same. They don't openly praise Russia or China (or their leaders) as that would be quite easy to condemn. Instead they avoid criticizing them and continuously try to move the goalpost by making it about the West (or its allies) even if it involves taking over propaganda fabricated by fascist dictatorships. As long as it's anti West it's good to go!

The articles you have posted may have not explicitly said it's ok to invade Ukraine because "..." but it sure did shift the responsibility of the invasion from Russia to everyone else. Basically suggesting Russia's justifications for this war are right.

Your story of provocation starts very recent and ignores the rest of the history.

The first thing I saw on Ukraine was the interview of the lieutenant colonel because I'm sure he knows more than some news anchor or talking head "expert" on the manner.

Oh please, I have listened to actual and ex government officials, (ex) diplomats, military experts, academics specializing in Russian affairs, etc. Mainstream media around the globe bring in a lot of actual experts to table. You shouldn't think you're well informed by watching one youtube video of one person with (semi) relevant credentials.

But please do explain how Ukraine provoked this war...

 

[Satinavian]

How am I looking to contradict mainstream opinion if the 1st thing I watched on the manner was an interview with a lieutenant colonel?

How did you find this video then ? A google suggestion based on your previous search history and whom you paid attention to for how long? A recommendation from one of your social media channels full of like-minded individuals ?

But maybe it really was coincidence that you stumbled over some lieutenant colonel pushing Russian propaganda first. Still doesn't make it any less propaganda.

If this was 2001 and I said Iraq didn't have WMDs, I'd be called pushing Iraqi propaganda I guess. That was actually my opinion from the start since I did a school report on Desert Storm and inspectors also never found WMDs leading up to the war either.

I remember 2001 being full of mainstream media not stopping to repeat that while the US claims to have proof of WMDs, it not willing to show it, international observers didn't find anything and most of the other Western intellignce services remaining quite unconvinced of their existence. I remember that aside from the five eyes who obviously didn't want to endanger their collaboration too much, pretty much every single other service provided statements aklong the lines of WMDs unlikely to nonexistent.
If you would have done what i suggested in 2001, namely looking at how other, less involved countries report it, you would have known that the US was making things up to get war support internally and that hardly anyone else believed them. That even most of the "coalition of the willing" was not convinced and participated mostly to get the US' favor.
Yes, even western mainstream would have shown that if you had been willing to look beyond your border. Because the US is not really able to control the whole or even the majority of western mainstream.


It is very different this time. Where in 2001 every push of Iraqs WMDs could be tracked to the US gouvernment or agencies with no one else corrobating it, it is now the allegations of Ukrainian bio weapons or Ukrainian atrocities towards ethnic Russians that always can be traced back to Russia and its cronies.

 

[Trunkage]

Or how about the whole Trump collusion with Russia nonsense that was all over the news for 2 years with "bombshell" after "bombshell" and resulted in a big fat nothingburger highlighted by the following Jon Stewart episode. I don't watch mainstream news as I'm rather adverse to getting "news cum" on me, it's really hard to get out of the hair

The Russian collusion things that sent like 14 member of Trump staff to jail?

Thanks, Greg.

 

[Trunkage]

No, you’d probably have been accused of being a freedom hating commie who couldn’t see that the Iraqi Government had bribed or fooled all the weapons inspectors. At least that’s how I recall the political discourse of 2001.

You forgot un-American and antisemitic (because clearly you also wanted Israel destroyed) terrorist. I repeat, terrorist. Many professors lost their jobs just for questioning it

Also, this is more 2002. 2001 was more getting into Afghanistan. Questioning torture or Gitmo meant you wanted more 9/11s

 

[Thaluikhain]

You forgot un-American and antisemitic (because clearly you also wanted Israel destroyed) terrorist. I repeat, terrorist. Many professors lost their jobs just for questioning it

Also, this is more 2002. 2001 was more getting into Afghanistan. Questioning torture or Gitmo meant you wanted more 9/11s

And also you hate our troops.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

What is wrong with Louise Mensch? Not asking for a diagnosis, just speculation at wtf might be going on in a situation like hers.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, Russia has had good cause to egg various problems in their rival's countries along, so that part sorta makes sense.

 

[Agema]

What is wrong with Louise Mensch? Not asking for a diagnosis, just speculation at wtf might be going on in a situation like hers.

Just FYI, she does I believe have a diagnosis. ADHD IIRC?

She's not without smarts and talent, but she always was one of the worst sort of braying, libertarian Tory completely unaware of life outside her overprivileged bubble, and marrying some ultrarich American and going to the States just made her even worse. I think like many people who can effectively float through life on the disgustingly vast wealth of their partner (not that she lacked for pennies to rub together before then), she now amuses herself with unsuccessful vanity projects: in her case the rabbit hole of right wing politics and conspiracy theory. Actually, she might have divorced by now, not sure. But I'm sure if so she's still got a lot tucked away and doesn't have to do honest work.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Just FYI, she does I believe have a diagnosis. ADHD IIRC?

She's not without smarts and talent, but she always was one of the worst sort of braying, libertarian Tory completely unaware of life outside her overprivileged bubble, and marrying some ultrarich American and going to the States just made her even worse. I think like many people who can effectively float through life on the disgustingly vast wealth of their partner (not that she lacked for pennies to rub together before then), she now amuses herself with unsuccessful vanity projects: in her case the rabbit hole of right wing politics and conspiracy theory. Actually, she might have divorced by now, not sure. But I'm sure if so she's still got a lot tucked away and doesn't have to do honest work.

Oh Christ it had completely slipped my mind she's British and a literal (ex) Tory MP! Explains a lot for sure.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Fact is, you're not confronted just with a chorus of neocons and liberals here. There are some. There are also socialists who're capable of identifying hostile, regressive forces regardless of what colour flag they wave.

Indeed, there is also propaganda for the gullible pseudo-left. Support the maintenance and expansion of American power, but make it sound like a humanitarian cause!

While this is certainly a mess, saying that it never had been an independend nation and Ukraine was an invention of Lenins Bolsheviks is a lie. It is even called "Country of Ukraine" in some of the official correspondence of the 17th century.

The Hetmanate also didn't have (anywhere near, really) the same borders. As far as I can tell, Galicia lies totally outside it (as does, trivially, the other Galicia), as does the southern coast of Ukraine including Odessa, the Donbass, and all of Crimea. There existed a warlord's territory for several years that had Kiev in it and that guy arguably was not dependent on the Ottomans. Really not much daylight between that and that modern Ukraine was an invention of later times.

What you are advocating, therefore, is the capitulation of Ukraine and its full compliance with any and all demands the brutal and authoritarian Russian regime makes of it. That is, after all, the practical endpoint of what you want, so you should just say so.

It remains a mystery why the brutal and authoritarian Ukrainian regime should receive any help to lengthen a war that harms the people of both countries. Well, not really; the brutal and authoritarian Ukrainian regime is ours. And as for supporting Russia invading its neighbors, the people who have done that twice now are the ones who encouraged Ukraine and Georgia to act like they were going to join NATO.


"publicly the doors will remain open"--but privately the answer is no-- is almost perfectly crafted to give the highest chance of Russia invading Ukraine. The United States wanted this war. The United States wants to prolong this war; wants to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. Ukraine has been used.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Indeed, there is also propaganda for the gullible pseudo-left.

So, you (and maybe one or two others a bit) are the only true leftwingers on the forum?

 

[Generals]

"publicly the doors will remain open"--but privately the answer is no-- is almost perfectly crafted to give the highest chance of Russia invading Ukraine. The United States wanted this war. The United States wants to prolong this war; wants to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. Ukraine has been used.

Because a country being, publicly, welcome to join NATO is a valid casus belli ?! And again, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 before they asked for NATO membership. Stop with your NATO nonsense. Putin declared war because he didn't want yet another eastern European state to have close ties with the West instead of Russia, he wanted another client state like Belarus. NATO is just a convenient excuse but he's just as annoyed by the idea Ukraine wants to join the EU.