Ukraine

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,747
3,267
118
Country
United Kingdom
Do you even know what annexation means?
Forcible takeover of another country's land.

They have marched an army to the capital of another country, with orders to depose the government, about which the soldiers themselves and state media were open and explicit. Putin states on national TV that Ukraine shouldn't exist. Russian state media-- editorially controlled by the government-- states that the idea of Ukraine must be destroyed, and any successor cannot be neutral.

It is fucking ridiculous for anybody with two brain cells to rub together to conclude this isn't an effort to gain control over Ukrainian territory.

Nothing else I'm doing comes remotely close to qualifying as selling out a country and your chauvinism is ridiculous.
You want them to lose the right to have a military. Basically, to cede the basic right of a modern sovereign state to self-defence, next to a neighbour who has invaded them again and again and again. You want them to do this not only when that neighbour has massacred and raped its civilian population, but also when the neighbour has stated that they cannot be allowed to be neutral; must be forced to be dependent.

You want to trade away the Ukrainian country's right to self-defence, as well as its ability to decide its own foreign policy. As well as several chunks of their territory to Russia. In return for nothing, except... uhrm, Russia stops killing them. For a bit. Until they do again later, just like last time.
 
Last edited:

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
1,528
890
118
Country
The Netherlands
Friendly reminder that Putin was already rotten to the core at the start of his reign. In fact he might have slaughtered Russian citizens to get himself in power
 
  • Like
Reactions: CM156

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,519
2,459
118
Country
United States of America
Forcible takeover of another country's land.

They have marched an army to the capital of another country, with orders to depose the government, about which the soldiers themselves and state media were open and explicit.
Oh, wonderful. Then the United States "ANNEXED" Iraq. The United States "ANNEXED" Afghanistan. The United States "ANNEXED" Libya. We've got three more fucking territories over here, apparently! Hell, by this standard the United States "ANNEXED" fucking Iran. Somehow!

Stop insulting both of our intelligence with this bullshit.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,747
3,267
118
Country
United Kingdom
Oh, wonderful. Then the United States "ANNEXED" Iraq. The United States "ANNEXED" Afghanistan. The United States "ANNEXED" Libya. We've got three more fucking territories over here, apparently! Hell, by this standard the United States "ANNEXED" fucking Iran. Somehow!
You must've missed the "FORCIBLE TAKEOVER OF ANOTHER COUNTRY'S LAND" bit. You know, the central part of the definition, you're overlooking to make this trite reply.

Crimea exists as a subject of the Russian Federation; its policy dictated entirely by the Russian government. Did that escape your notice, or are you treating the notion of an "autonomous" Crimea with the same utter gullibility as you are an "independent" Donetsk and Luhansk?
 

Breakdown

Oxy Moron
Sep 5, 2014
753
148
48
down a well
Country
Northumbria
Gender
Lad
Oh, wonderful. Then the United States "ANNEXED" Iraq. The United States "ANNEXED" Afghanistan. The United States "ANNEXED" Libya. We've got three more fucking territories over here, apparently! Hell, by this standard the United States "ANNEXED" fucking Iran. Somehow!

Stop insulting both of our intelligence with this bullshit.
Putin has been on TV saying that Ukraine is land stolen from Russia that has no right to exist. I would think that would give an indication of the motive behind the invasion. I guess that it could just be a coincidence that he said that immediately before invading the Ukraine though.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,414
1,033
118
Country
United Kingdom
Oh, wonderful. Then the United States "ANNEXED" Iraq. The United States "ANNEXED" Afghanistan. The United States "ANNEXED" Libya. We've got three more fucking territories over here, apparently! Hell, by this standard the United States "ANNEXED" fucking Iran.
Except that the annexation Republic of Crimea and federal city of Sevastopol into the Russian federation is a thing that actually occurred. Crimea and Sevastopol are legally incorporated into the Russian federation. Crimea is a federal republic within the Russian federation. Sevastopol is a Federal City within the Russian federation.

This is akin to saying that Texas was never annexed by the US because Texas still has a state legislature.

Has your relationship with reality genuinely broken down so much that you no longer recognize the actual laws, treaties and basic political structure of the very country you are trying to defend?
 
Last edited:

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,519
2,459
118
Country
United States of America
Crimea and Sevastopol are legally incorporated into the Russian federation. Crimea is a federal republic within the Russian federation. Sevastopol is a Federal City within the Russian federation.
What on earth does this have to do with an argument based on troop movements around Kiev in 2022?

Putin has been on TV saying that Ukraine is land stolen from Russia that has no right to exist. I would think that would give an indication of the motive behind the invasion.
If only the Russian Foreign Minister had said anything else about their intentions, like explicitly declaring that they aren't intending to occupy (much less annex) Ukraine.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,519
2,459
118
Country
United States of America
You must've missed the "FORCIBLE TAKEOVER OF ANOTHER COUNTRY'S LAND" bit. You know, the central part of the definition, you're overlooking to make this trite reply.

Crimea exists as a subject of the Russian Federation; its policy dictated entirely by the Russian government. Did that escape your notice, or are you treating the notion of an "autonomous" Crimea with the same utter gullibility as you are an "independent" Donetsk and Luhansk?
You said "Ukraine", not Crimea.

Not the dumbest triple down ever, but wow are you up there.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,119
321
88
You said "Ukraine", not Crimea.
Taking Ukrainian land is the one thing Russia wants in this war. If it wasn't, we would long have had peace as the Ukraine basically offered everything else in negotiation long ago.


It is a pure, undiluted war of conquest, nothing else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CM156

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,747
3,267
118
Country
United Kingdom
You said "Ukraine", not Crimea.

Not the dumbest triple down ever, but wow are you up there.
Jesus Christ, how dense can you be?

Crimea was what they annexed last time they invaded. They came out with the same jumble of denials and then justifications they're using now. So it's a pretty good illustration of their intentions, methods and rhetorical approaches.

This time they are attempting to annex other territory. Because Crimea is already annexed. Genuinely thought that was obvious.

What on earth does this have to do with an argument based on troop movements around Kiev in 2022?
😂

"Sure I shot someone to steal their wallet yesterday. What on earth does that have to do with the reasons I shot someone again today?! I might have a very good reason! Trust me and let me carry on!"
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,519
2,459
118
Country
United States of America
Jesus Christ, how dense can you be?
you're the one who proposed the idea that trying to take an enemy capital meant that an army must be trying to annex territory. now you're changing your argument to something completely different: your problem, not mine.

Crimea was what they annexed last time they invaded. They came out with the same jumble of denials and then justifications they're using now. So it's a pretty good illustration of their intentions, methods and rhetorical approaches.
Crimea is and was a place that wanted to be a part of Russia, and that in fact was a part of Russia as late as 1954. The former part of that is not clear of anywhere else in Ukraine, even the Donbass. In fact it's pretty clear there would be a lot of problems trying to hold much of anything west of the Dniepr were they to try.

and "the same jumble of denials"? you'll be able to furnish them, then? Crimea's Supreme Council (which was a part of Ukraine's government until Ukraine declared it dissolved and it renamed itself and kept on doing stuff) had the referendum on joining Russia done and dusted in less time than Russia has been engaged in Ukraine during this war in 2022.

This time they are attempting to annex other territory. Because Crimea is already annexed. Genuinely thought that was obvious.
They annexed one place so they must be trying to annex another. I ate an apple so I must also want to eat a banana. Because I already ate the apple. That's just logic, apparently.

😂

"Sure I shot someone to steal their wallet yesterday. What on earth does that have to do with the reasons I shot someone again today?! I might have a very good reason! Trust me and let me carry on!"
So instead of "all attempts to depose a government automatically mean you're trying to annex territory", which is an argument that is breathtaking in its number of high profile counterexamples, you're going with "they annexed a different place under different conditions at a different time, therefore..."

ok

still not a good argument. If it was, Georgia would be part of Russia after 2008. But it isn't. Shocking.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,747
3,267
118
Country
United Kingdom
you're the one who proposed the idea that trying to take an enemy capital meant that an army must be trying to annex territory. now you're changing your argument to something completely different: your problem, not mine.
Noooo. Have a look. That was presented along with other things, like Russia over and over stating that Ukraine cannot be allowed to exist, and the context of prior annexations with the exact same build up and justification.

and "the same jumble of denials"? you'll be able to furnish them, then? Crimea's Supreme Council (which was a part of Ukraine's government until Ukraine declared it dissolved and it renamed itself and kept on doing stuff) had the referendum on joining Russia done and dusted in less time than Russia has been engaged in Ukraine during this war in 2022.
The Crimea referendum was a fucking joke. If you consider that a valid expression of democratic will, you have absolutely zero ground to whine about anyone else's democratic credentials.

They annexed one place so they must be trying to annex another. I ate an apple so I must also want to eat a banana. Because I already ate the apple. That's just logic, apparently.
If you said to me before you took the apple, "this apple shouldn't belong to you", and then afterwards said exactly the same thing as you reached for the banana... uhrm yes, I'd think you were going to also take the banana. How odd! Almost as if your actions affect what I might conclude about your intentions!

So instead of "all attempts to depose a government automatically mean you're trying to annex territory", which is an argument that is breathtaking in its number of high profile counterexamples, you're going with "they annexed a different place under different conditions at a different time, therefore..."

ok

still not a good argument. If it was, Georgia would be part of Russia after 2008. But it isn't. Shocking.
Oh lord, it just gets flimsier and flimsier.

Firstly, nobody made the "breathtaking" argument as you presented it there, because you've intentionally cut out the massive swathe of surrounding context, like Russia constantly saying Ukraine shouldn't exist, and provably lying about its intentions in both situations.

Secondly, uhrm... unless it's escaped your notice, Russia actually did forcibly take over 20% of Georgia's territory, you complete clown. Russia currently controls the military, foreign and economic policy in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Your counter example is another fucking country they've seized territory from. You could scarcely make up a shittier argument.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,519
2,459
118
Country
United States of America
If it wasn't, we would long have had peace as the Ukraine basically offered everything else in negotiation long ago.
is that right?

was this before or after they killed a member of their negotiating team for alleged treason..?

The Crimea referendum was a fucking joke. If you consider that a valid expression of democratic will, you have absolutely zero ground to whine about anyone else's democratic credentials.
One particular event needn't be a "valid expression of democratic will" in order to indicate a much different tolerance for a continued Russian military presence and integration into Russia, which is what the hell we're arguing about right now.

In any case, opinion polls taken by various organizations before and after the Russian military presence and referendum all seem to say the same thing-- that Crimea was not happy as part of Ukraine and regarded the referendum result as a valid expression of the will of the majority-- as good enough to conclude that Crimea is markedly different in its tolerance of being a part of Russia compared to western Ukraine, especially absent any countervailing evidence of their views. Those polls were not as high as 97% (probably because people weren't boycotting them like the referendum). But they were still conclusive.

You've made it more than clear that you'd rather deny Crimea its self-determination because there are sacred borders to keep fixed for the rest of time; not sure why you're yammering about the validity of an expression of democratic will, as the argument is about what makes Crimea different from the rest of Ukraine such that Russia would want to integrate it into itself. The point is that the majority of Crimea welcomed or tolerated the Russians in a way that they simply would not in most other places in Ukraine, including for example Kiev. And in case I have to underline it, tolerance of annexation makes a place a lot more desirable to be annexed, and resistance to it makes it a lot less desirable.

Secondly, uhrm... unless it's escaped your notice, Russia actually did forcibly take over 20% of Georgia's territory, you complete clown. Russia currently controls the military, foreign and economic policy in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Your counter example is another fucking country they've seized territory from. You could scarcely make up a shittier argument.
That is not what annexation means. Annexation means adding territory to your own country, not recognizing the independence of parts of another country. And South Ossetia and Abkhazia both had been in conflict with Georgia since the early 1990s, long before the Russo-Georgian war-- which, again, did not lead to Georgia's annexation by Russia. This is another situation where, by your standard, we can say that Japan and West Germany were "annexed" by the United States.

But anyway, so you're saying that Russia "annexed" only parts of a country and didn't appear to want the rest after demonstrating that they could totally defeat their military. Fascinating.
 
Last edited:

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,119
321
88
is that right?
It is.

Selenskyj several times openly stated what he would be willing to give up and what not. But Russia doesn't really care for a neutral Ukraine (which was offered). Or a demilitarized Ukraine with security guarantees that protect it from future Russian invasions (which was offered). Or an Ukraine with official Russian language and some autonomy in the Donbass (which was offered).
If one makes such a public offer, it would be difficult to backtrack, so if Russia really wanted those thing, they only would have to publically agree to either get all their wishes or expose the Ukrainians as liars.


They originally wanted the full Ukraine. And now, after having lost the battle for Kyiv, they want at least the whole Donezk and Luhansk oblasts (including the parts that never were part of their pretend republics. Which, btw already have started preparation to formally be absorbed into Russia), the whole coast of the Azov sea and thus a land connection to Crimea and they would like the Kherson oblast as well.

If they lose again, they will probably still take the part of the Donbass they are already in control of make that Russian and call it a win.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,747
3,267
118
Country
United Kingdom
One particular event needn't be a "valid expression of democratic will" in order to indicate a much different tolerance for a continued Russian military presence and integration into Russia, which is what the hell we're arguing about right now.

In any case, opinion polls taken by various organizations before and after the Russian military presence and referendum all seem to say the same thing-- that Crimea was not happy as part of Ukraine and regarded the referendum result as a valid expression of the will of the majority-- as good enough to conclude that Crimea is markedly different in its tolerance of being a part of Russia compared to western Ukraine, especially absent any countervailing evidence of their views. Those polls were not as high as 97% (probably because people weren't boycotting them like the referendum). But they were still conclusive.

You've made it more than clear that you'd rather deny Crimea its self-determination because there are sacred borders to keep fixed for the rest of time; not sure why you're yammering about the validity of an expression of democratic will, as the argument is about what makes Crimea different from the rest of Ukraine such that Russia would want to integrate it into itself. The point is that the majority of Crimea welcomed or tolerated the Russians in a way that they simply would not in most other places in Ukraine, including for example Kiev. And in case I have to underline it, tolerance of annexation makes a place a lot more desirable to be annexed, and resistance to it makes it a lot less desirable.
Oh, fucking please.

Crimea does not have self-determination under the dictator who invaded them, and there's literally been no actual exercise in getting their opinion on it, so you don't have any believable grounds for insisting they all wanted to be invaded.

You know the way that non-imperialist wankers review borders? Through actual referenda and democratic processes. Not just rolling the tanks in and slaughtering them. The fact that the latter is frowned upon doesn't somehow mean nobody ever wants borders to change ever. That would be a moronic conclusion.

That is not what annexation means. Annexation means adding territory to your own country, not recognizing the independence of parts of another country. And South Ossetia and Abkhazia both had been in conflict with Georgia since the early 1990s, long before the Russo-Georgian war-- which, again, did not lead to Georgia's annexation by Russia. This is another situation where, by your standard, we can say that Japan and West Germany were "annexed" by the United States.
Russia "recognised their independence" as a transparent fig-leaf, and directly controls all important areas of their policy, directs their military, and commands their economy.

You really are a sucker for puppet governments; just take the word "autonomous" at complete face value and ask no questions.

But anyway, so you're saying that Russia "annexed" only parts of a country and didn't appear to want the rest after demonstrating that they could totally defeat their military. Fascinating.
It's almost as if their actions affect how we view their intentions!

They state a country shouldn't exist, and order the army to depose a government: probably has some interest in the whole country.

They don't state a country shouldn't exist, and don't order the army to depose the government: probably has other plans.

I mean... both plans involved seizing territory by force, which was why it was so stupidly absurd to bring up Georgia to show how Russia isn't interested in seizing territory. But the scope and stated scope was far larger from the get-go.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,793
1,412
118
But anyway, so you're saying that Russia "annexed" only parts of a country and didn't appear to want the rest after demonstrating that they could totally defeat their military. Fascinating.
Israel can totally defeat Palestine's version of a military, are you saying that Israel is unlikely to take more of Palestine's land?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silvanus and CM156

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,519
2,459
118
Country
United States of America

Israel can totally defeat Palestine's version of a military, are you saying that Israel is unlikely to take more of Palestine's land?
?

Given that Israel is literally doing that right now, and has been for decades, your question makes no sense.

Russia is not doing that to Georgia and didn't do that to Georgia. South Ossetia and Abkhazia were rebellious regions that were recognized internationally as part of Georgia before the Russo-Georgian war and became recognized as independent states by Russia and some other countries around the time of that war. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are places that have never willingly been a part of Georgia since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Maybe why that is could be a question worth interrogating.

Israel is a different situation for a variety of reasons, not least that Israel never poses referenda to the Palestinian occupants of the areas they plan to steal asking if they want to be a part of Israel. For one, that would defeat the purpose as they expropriate Palestinian territory not just at the level of asserting the authority of their laws and government but at the level of taking their private property, destroying what they've built, and transferring the land to Jewish settlers. This has been an ongoing process for a number of decades. Were you not aware?

To my knowledge there is no ever expanding expropriation of Georgia by South Ossetia and Abkhazia (or indeed by Russia); there has been ethnic cleansing (killings and displacements) in South Ossetia and Abkhazia since before the Russo-Georgian war (mostly in the early 1990s). It sucks. But it also doesn't mean Georgia should get to rule over a population that doesn't want them, nor does it mean that the Russian troop presence (which is apparently approved of by most of the residents, especially the non-Georgian ethnic groups according to that archived WaPo link above as of March 2014) constitutes an 'annexation'.

Russia "recognised their independence" as a transparent fig-leaf, and directly controls all important areas of their policy, directs their military, and commands their economy.
South Ossetia and Abkhazia have, between them, a population that is around 300,000, or less than half that of Seattle. How would you even tell whether they were "being controlled by Russia" or simply making agreements with Russia that make a lot of sense because Russia is the guarantor of their security against reconquering by Georgia? They have elections. They have small legislative bodies. What is there to put a fig leaf over? Russian citizenship in both of those regions was already very high before the Russo-Georgian war-- looking at the evidence, it's weird that they haven't been annexed if we assume that is what Moscow wants.

Or do you believe that most of the people in Abkhazia and South Ossetia secretly tremble under Russian domination yearning for liberation by the heroic armed forces of Georgia? As far as I can tell that is not the reality.

By the by, if you consider military cooperation/command/incorporation to be "annexation", you might be interested to learn that a part of the agreement which Yanukovych rejected in 2013 (that rejection leading to the Maidan protests) included 7 pages concerning 'military security issues'; by signing the agreement, Ukraine would agree to abide by the military security policies of the European Union. Essentially, Ukraine would become subordinate to NATO or be in violation of the agreement. I guess that means its 'independence' would have been a merely transparent fig leaf according to you. Rejecting this deal of course meant that Yanukovych had to be overthrown. Only a Russian puppet could reject Greek style austerity paired with subordination to NATO.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,519
2,459
118
Country
United States of America
Ooh, I discovered another instance of process liberalism in the wild.


Or maybe she just wants that guy murdered. Who can tell?
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,119
321
88
Or do you believe that most of the people in Abkhazia and South Ossetia secretly tremble under Russian domination yearning for liberation by the heroic armed forces of Georgia? As far as I can tell that is not the reality.
Well, as far as i know, there is actually growing discontent as the people of the rest of Georgia seem to enjoy better economic opportunities and an increasing lifestyle over the last decade and being shackled to Russia more and more looks like a detriment. But it is not severe enogh for major unrest.