Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Oct 08 02:57:13 2024
Utopia Talk / Politics / Paramount: "14000 civilians"
Seb
Member | Mon May 29 16:39:59 http://twi...?t=m99BTO377ljfCo8yHlFwJQ&s=19 You should read this. Basically of the less than 4000 civilians killed in Donbass, it was almost entirely in 2014/15 during the first Russian invasion and aftermath. Remind me again how this justifies an invasion in 2022? |
Rugian
Member | Mon May 29 16:42:08 But...Azov Brigade or whatever... |
jergul
large member | Mon May 29 23:57:37 Seb Is that not about 1 WTC of civilians? What did that justify? |
jergul
large member | Mon May 29 23:59:42 The answer. A lot. The US is operating in Syria under 911 legislation. For example of something happening in 2023 for something that happened in 2001. |
jergul
large member | Tue May 30 00:01:04 The point here is double standards of course. Not that either Afghanistan, Iraq, or Ukraine were justified. |
Paramount
Member | Tue May 30 02:20:07 Seb, To protect civilian lives and communities includes to stop the Ukrainian army from shelling the Donbas region. Ukraine had a chance to preserve Donbas. They had a chance for compromises in order to gain/preserve some advantages that were important for Ukraine. The US/Ukraine didn't honor the Minsk II agreement. They arrogantly and recklessly ignored Russia's security interests and intended to "drive over" Russia to unilaterally force through their own unilateral solution to the conflict. This forced Russia to also act unilaterally to create a solution to the conflict that also looked after Russia's interests. The Minsk II agreement was supposed to protect civilian lives, the rights of the population and to also see to Russia's security interests. When it became clear to Russia that Ukraine had no intention to implement the Minsk II, Russia felt that they had to intervene to implement the Minsk II or whatever solution Russia now deemed necessary to preserve their national security. The precedent to bomb and invade countries that threatens your national security was already set by the US and the UK with for an example the invasion of Iraq. So I urge you once again to sit down, Seb. |
Seb
Member | Tue May 30 05:48:49 Paramount: So lets get this straight - you think the Russians were justified in launching a second invasion of Ukraine because of the number of civilians (killed by both sides, largely accidentally) during their prior invasion; and because the Ukrainians were shelling separatists (who were shelling the Ukrainians). Did Russia ever implement ANY of its obligations the Minsk accords? Withdrawal of Russian forces, control of the border to Kyiv, disbandment of illegal armed forces? Nope. Instead it had DNR and LNR sign the agreements retrospectively and then claimed Russia was not bound by it, and was in fact a mediator. |
Seb
Member | Tue May 30 05:54:29 "The precedent to bomb and invade countries that threatens your national security" There was no threat to Russian national security from Ukraine. |
Seb
Member | Tue May 30 05:57:44 This constant claim of Russian security interests is nonsense. There's never been any articulation of what these interests are and how they were threatened, rather than specious references to NATO membership which was, at the time of the first invastion: 1. Not going to happen because it was contrary to Ukranian law 2. Not going to happen because it was contrary Ukranian public opinion and thereafter not going to happen because NATO requires candidates to resolve all territorial issues as a membership criteria. This war was provoked because Ukraine signed a trade deal and economic partnership with the EU. It has nothing to do with Russian security, and everything to do with Russian imperialism. |
Paramount
Member | Tue May 30 08:46:00 "because of the number of civilians (killed" If we are to apply the same rules to Russia as the US/UK, then Russia was right to intervene in Ukraine to protect civilian lives and communities from being shelled by the Ukrainian army and to preserve their national security. This right to act when your national security is being threatened is not something that can only apply to the US and UK. "There was no threat to Russian national security from Ukraine." So says you. Perhaps Russia does not agree with you. "There's never been any articulation of what these interests are" I think you are being dishonest. Putin has for many years been clear about Russia's opposition to Nato expansion and the need for Ukraine to remain neutral. Russia's red lines has been well known by the US, UK and Nato for many years, yet they decided to cross these lines. They knew it would lead to a conflict and yet they carried on with it. They wanted a conflict with Russia. And American politicians are today openly and explicitly happy that all the money they have invested in this project is killing Russians. Remember that this conflict started with the US-led and Ukrainian anti-Russian coup against the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych. He was replaced with a hostile anti-Russian government. With a hostile anti-Russian government in Kiev, any law preventing Ukraine from joining Nato could be scrapped. Things can change fast, and then Russia would have sat there with their beard stuck in a drawer. Russia had to act to protect their national security and prevent Crimea from falling into the hands of US/Nato. It had nothing to do with Russian imperialism. Donbas and Crimea has practically always already been Russian territories. Although Crimea has been ruled by Kiev in recent years, it is basically Russian. And so, had the US imperialism not tried to steal Crimea from Russia it would have remained under Kiev's rule today. There was no need for Russia to "steal" Crimea since it was basically already Russian. Hence, no Russian imperialism at play here. Who owns (western) Ukraine today? The USA and American investors such as BlackRock Inc. The US pays for everything in Ukraine. For government upkeep and salaries, state pensions and health care, schools, and for the Ukrainian armed forces. It has nothing to do with Russian imperialism but everything to do with American imperialism and thuggish manner. |
Seb
Member | Tue May 30 10:32:21 Paramount: "If we are to apply the same rules to Russia as the US/UK, then Russia was right to intervene in Ukraine to protect civilian lives and communities from being shelled by the Ukrainian army and to preserve their national security." Except if we were to apply the same standards we would expect Russia to have first: 1. Actually have documented evidence of civillians being shelled around the time of the intervention, rather than citing figures from 6 years previously) 2. Not be actively shelling the Ukrainian army itself at the time. 3. Have gone through a lengthy process with the UN. This is the thing Paramount. You think you are being cute here, but actually you aren't. The West has typically gone through far more diplomatic processes prior to an intervention and assembled much stronger cases - and isn't already involved in a shooting war and using the other sides retaliation as a justification after the fact. "So says you. Perhaps Russia does not agree with you." Well evidently you agree with Russia. So please explain the imminent threat to Russia's security. "Putin has for many years been clear about Russia's opposition to Nato expansion and the need for Ukraine to remain neutral." As pointed out, in 2014, Ukraine had a law prohibiting it joining NATO, a 75% majority against joining NATO, NATO membership was not being discussed. So NATO expansion can't really be a valid security threat to Russia justifying an invasion. But even then, Russia's blatant aggression to Ukraine demonstrates precisely why Eastern European countries desire to join NATO far from being a security threat to Russia is a response to the security threat Russia poses to those countries. "yet they decided to cross these lines" Which red line did Ukraine cross, exactly? Which red line did the US and UK cross, exactly? You mumble about NATO expansion, but neglect to mention that no country neighbouring Russia had joined NATO since 2004, none were going to do so, and that when those countries joined in 2004, NATO not only refused to draw up operational military plans for their defence, they put no shared infrastructure into those countries. Despite escalating Russian probes, submarine activity, incursions into air space etc. This is simply a lie you are repeating. US and UK crossed no red lines. NATO crossed no red lines. What changed was the EU trade deal. It was not, and never was, about security. It was about Russia's belief that Ukraine should be a province of larger, Russian dominated federation. |
Seb
Member | Tue May 30 10:35:47 "Remember that this conflict started with the US-led and Ukrainian anti-Russian coup against the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych." No, it started with protests against Yanukovych when he refused to sign a deal that he had himself negotiated because Putin told him not to. The subsequent revolution against him occurred when he, with Russian FSB agents, violently cracked down on peaceful processes. There is no evidence of US involvement in Ukraine. This is typical bullshit you produce because fundamentally you don't believe that Ukrainian population have any agency. There is a reason Ukraine has fought so long and hard against Russia since 2014 - it is because it wants to be part of Europe, not run from Moscow. You don't need to imagine the CIA, it's plenty cleat that the Ukrainian population wanted closer links to Europe strong enough not only to kick out a corrupt kleptocrat who started shooting hundreds of unarmed protestors at the behest of his paymaster in Moscow, but then go on to fight tenaciously this very war to resist occupation. |
jergul
large member | Tue May 30 10:50:50 Seb The problem rests in the fact that the revolution that many wanted was not one all wanted, so it created cracks that can be defined geographically. Hardly surprising. Revolutions have costs. Ultimately, the revolution put the territorial integrity of Ukraine into play throught force in practice, but there is a strong element of self-determination in the Russian speaking areas of Ukraine. What a pickle. Your preferred solution for now seems to be that the beatings shall continue until moral improves. Or that fighting shall continue until all Ukrainians want to be part of Europe. So the demilitarization of Nato continues. |
jergul
large member | Tue May 30 10:54:15 Dimilitarization is literally true btw. The sum of ground forces hardware and munitions sent to Ukraine is greater than the sum of Nato ground forces procurements delivered. |
Seb
Member | Tue May 30 11:09:09 jergul: I think the problem was the extrajudicial murder of over a hundred peaceful protestors by Yanukovych's government with the active participation of Russian security forces assisting him. I think it was that which fractured society, and the fact that Yanukovych and Putin made it very clear that his policy was set in the Kremlin. "but there is a strong element of self-determination in the Russian speaking areas of Ukraine" So strong that it needed thousands of little green men to encourage people. "Or that fighting shall continue until all Ukrainians want to be part of Europe." Until all Russian forces have left Ukraine (you know, as required by Minsk accords) and an actual political solution can be found, rather than Russian diktats and blatantly false referrendums conducted with Russia and "separatist" forces rounding up people to vote at gunpoint. |
Daemon
Member | Tue May 30 12:56:02 It's always a great thing when the people responsible openly acknowledge what they have done http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Girkin Igor Girkin (=Strelkov) is a Russian army veteran and former Federal Security Service (FSB) officer who played a key role in the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and later the war in Donbas as an organizer of militant groups in the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) ... During the weekend of 26–27 April 2014, the political leader of the separatist-controlled Donetsk People's Republic (DPR), Girkin's long-time friend, Alexander Borodai, also a Russian national from Moscow, ceded control of all separatist fighters in the entire Donetsk region to him. On 26 April, "Strelkov" made his first public appearance when he gave a video interview to Komsomolskaya Pravda where he confirmed that his militia in Sloviansk came from Crimea. ... On 12 May, "I. Strelkov" declared himself "the Supreme Commander of the DPR" and all of its "military units, security, police, customs, border guards, prosecutors, and other paramilitary structures" ... Later in November in an interview for Zavtra newspaper Girkin stated that the war in Donbas was launched by his detachment despite both Ukrainian government and local combatants having avoided an armed confrontation before. Also he recognized himself responsible for the actual situation in Donetsk and other cities of the region. |
jergul
large member | Tue May 30 15:12:47 Seb Crimea is rock solid pro-Russian and was so in 2014 also. The little green men were more about ensuring an orderly transfer. Euromaidan at wiki does not seem to support your version of the violence timeline. Well, the war so far has sorted the matter of popular support in currently occupied areas. Most people against that have left for Europe or Ukraine controlled territories. I frankly have no idea of how to arrange free and fair referenda at this point. Russia had not deployed to Donbas, so of course, there were no demands for it to withdraw in the Minsk accords. Perhaps you should review actual sources before sharing the world according to seb with us? |
Seb
Member | Wed May 31 03:57:02 "Crimea is rock solid pro-Russian" http://www...ents%20identified%20as%20such. |
Seb
Member | Wed May 31 03:58:34 "Russia had not deployed to Donbas, so of course, there were no demands for it to withdraw in the Minsk accords." Aww. Bless. |
jergul
large member | Wed May 31 04:39:03 Seb Has Nato deployed to Ukraine by the same metric you are implying Russia deployed to Donbas prior to 2022? I have absolutely no doubt that Crimea would have preferred a pre-maidan status. Which is what your link measured Crimean sentiment against. As a special administrative region with strong language and cultural protections. In a neutral state between Western Europe and Russia. But the Maidan revolution took that status off the table. Crimea is rock solid pro-Russian now. Not because they changed. But because Ukraine changed. |
jergul
large member | Wed May 31 04:51:49 But like I have said before, one of the reasons invasions, occupations and annexations are so bad is because they muddy the waters. Who the hell knows what the original self-determination might have expressed? What the people of donbas or Crimea want still matters, but it cannot be weighed as heavily as it might have if independent referenda could have been held at every major crossroads. I doubt Ukraine would have gone so hard core if the threat of independence referenda had existed either (well, you can imagine what would happen if England decided to illegalize Welsh language and culture in the Welsh referenda that would inevitably follow). What a pickle. |
Seb
Member | Wed May 31 05:11:30 jergul: "Has Nato deployed to Ukraine by the same metric you are implying Russia deployed to Donbas prior to 2022?" No, there are not 10,000 NATO soldiers operating in Ukraine pretending to be Ukranian soldiers. |
jergul
large member | Wed May 31 05:23:32 Seb There are not? Well, there are a number of 1000nd at least. Were do you have the 10 000 number from? What unit did they form, or even what unit were they in? I trust you are aware of the inflexibility of the Russian military. There was absolutely no way to be on an active Russian military payroll while on a leave of absence to be in Ukraine. Its military simply did not work in that way. I can name some of Ukrainian units consisting of Western volunteers that all have Nato backgrounds if you like. In addition to actual Nato instructors, advisors, NGOs, and technicians of course. Just stop with the double standards, mkay? It is quite vexing and is the reason support for Ukraine is lacking in global traction. |
Seb
Member | Wed May 31 05:28:47 Jergul: "Well, there are a number of 1000nd at least." Where does that number come from? "Were do you have the 10 000 number from?" Here, for example. http://www...s-build-up-20140313-hvi0c.html |
jergul
large member | Wed May 31 06:30:41 From wiki ultimately. Do you want the names of foreign manned units fighting in Ukraine? Ah, you are conflating Donbas with Crimea. Lots of Russian soldiers in Crimea even before Russia annexed it due to base rights supplemented by little greenmen to secure the transition. 10k seems about right. |
jergul
large member | Wed May 31 06:33:14 The few thousand Russians is just a guesstimate on how many might have family and similar reasons to be ultratourists in donbas between 2014 and 2022. The conflict was not really that hot. No reason for anyone to masse soldiers on the frontlines. |
Paramount
Member | Wed May 31 08:00:38 Seb, ”Actually have documented evidence of civillians being shelled” I’m sure they have documented the fact that civilians and civilian communities im Donbas has been shelled by the Ukrainian army. If not them, then the UN or similar has surely documented it. It is because of the shelling that there was peace negotiations. ”Not be actively shelling the Ukrainian army itself at the time” I think the people in Donbas have the right to defend themselves. ”Have gone through a lengthy process with the UN” There was a lengthy process. The Minsk talks. But it became clear to Russia that Ukraine were never going to honor the agreements. Months before Russia intervened, Ukraine had increased their shelling of Donbas. ”So please explain the imminent threat to Russia's security.” I did. Crimea risked being stolen and occupied by US/Nato. Russia also doesn’t want a large anti-Russian army at their border. Neither do they want a large Nato army in Ukraine. How do you think England would react if Scottland and Ireland allied with Russia and China and stationed their navies there, built air bases, and an army? ”As pointed out, in 2014, Ukraine had a law….” As also pointed out: after the anti-Russian coup against the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych. Ukraine’s government was replaced with an anti-Russian government. With an anti-Russian government in Kiev, any law preventing Ukraine from joining Nato could be scrapped. That Ukraine ”had” a law but obviously no longer has that law ought to show you how fast things can change. So you argument that: ”Ukraine had a law” means nothing. ”So NATO expansion can't really be a valid security threat to Russia justifying an invasion” Again, it is not up you to decide what constitutes a threat to someone else. The US, Nato and the EU were prior to the Russian intervention in Ukraine insisting on that Ukraine has the right join Nato. There were alot of talks back then before the war whether Ukraine should join Nato or not. Russia opposed it but the West were INSISTING on that it is up to Ukraine to decide whether they should join Nato or not. This is a red line that was crossed. Russia no longer had any guarantees or assurances that Ukraine would remain neutral. The West ignored Russias security concerns. Because of arrogance and that NATO would not lose prestige, the West opened the door for a war. ”What changed was the EU trade deal.” Yes. Ukraine’s democratically elected government didn’t want to sign it. The US and the EU could not accept it, and hence the protests and the coup. ” it started with protests against Yanukovych when he refused to sign a deal that he had himself negotiated because Putin told him not to. ” Russia simply offered them a better deal. The US/EU could not accept it, and hence the protests and the coup. ”There is no evidence of US involvement in Ukraine. ”• I believe there is. There are leaked recordings where US officials, I believe Victoria Nuland was one them, were discussing what people should be included in the ukrainian government. |
Paramount
Member | Wed May 31 08:07:43 ”there are not 10,000 NATO soldiers operating in Ukraine pretending to be Ukranian soldiers” There are about 40,000 polish soldiers operating in Ukraine pretending to be Ukrainian soldiers. At least, there was. Not sure how many of them remains now. Source: Douglas Macgregor, former U.S. Army colonel, Senior Advisor to the Acting Secretary of Defense, top planner for General Wesley Clark, the military commander of NATO. |
Paramount
Member | Wed May 31 08:12:12 * 40,000 or 20,000. Don’t remember the exact number now. |
williamthebastard
Member | Wed May 31 13:31:24 When weighing which source is likely to be more reliable, what makes you decide that yours, Trump's, the IDF's and Fox's oft cited Douglas Macgregor is the more reliable source? |
Paramount
Member | Wed May 31 14:21:05 I heard him say it in an interview. I can’t say how reliable that statement is. So take it with a pinch of salt. But given his resume, he probably has a whole network of contacts from where he gets his information from. But I guess we can’t exclude that he is being paid by Putin to say these things? |
williamthebastard
Member | Wed May 31 14:43:50 But you regularly use him as a source despite the fact that he is so controversial and in conflict with almost all reputable western sources. But he is the favourite source of such disreputable sources as Trump, Fox, the IDF (Im sure you'd assert) and the usual far-right suspects. Some objective facts should be the reason you find such a controversial source to be the go-to source on this matter, if youve conducted any remotely serious analyses. So...? |
Paramount
Member | Wed May 31 14:56:55 I just don’t trust Western media’s reporting on the war in Ukraine. It is extremely one sided, and anti-russian. To get a more nuanced picture one has to look elsewhere. |
Paramount
Member | Wed May 31 14:57:53 In what way is he controversial? |
williamthebastard
Member | Wed May 31 15:03:57 Youre not answering. Everybody already knows that. But youve taken a decidedly stronger stance than that. To conclude that if one side is obviously using propaganda in a war situation that means the opposite version of things must be the truth is to think strangely. You dont seem to have a reason for basing your understanding of events on such a controversial source other than his antiestablishmentarianism or something. In the absence of objective facts, some form of bias is likely the pivot point. |
williamthebastard
Member | Wed May 31 15:12:02 "In what way is he controversial?" lol... Here are 3 statetments from just one single speech. See if you find any of them controversial 1) Muslims are invading Europe with the plan to turn Europe into an Islamic caliphate 2) Mexicans should be shot at the border 3) Eastern Ukrainians are actually Russians http://edi...man-ambassador-pick/index.html |
williamthebastard
Member | Wed May 31 15:52:28 Summer nights in the South of France, man...a whisky and just the sweet sound of crickets |
Paramount
Member | Wed May 31 16:26:59 ”Muslims are invading Europe with the plan to turn Europe into an Islamic caliphate” Controversial. ” Mexicans should be shot at the border” Reading your article it appears he said ”people should be shot if necessary”. If millions of people are invading your country, what should you do to stop it? A country has got to protect its border. Shooting people randomly is controversial but shooting people if necessary may not be controversial. American police shoot people if necessary every day. Also, immigration has got to take place in a somewhat orderly manner. ” Eastern Ukrainians are actually Russians ” About 40% of Donbas are ethnic russians, and about 75% of Donbas are russian speaking (their main language). |
Paramount
Member | Wed May 31 16:55:57 So I can stretch myself to say that he is, or may be, somewhat controversial. But not entirely controversial. |
Seb
Member | Thu Jun 01 05:05:46 Paramount: So in your world, a foreign funded and led insurgency is allowed to shell government forces, and if they respond (with no evidence they are targeting civilians, and indeed not much evidence of any civilians being killed at all) that, in your mind, justifies an attempt to annex the entire country? If Russia was interested in simply enforcing a cease fire in Donbass, why did it attempt to invade Kyiv? In any case, under the Minsk accords Ukraine was supposed to take military control of the border, so Donbass based militas resisting this are in clear violation of the cease fire. ". The Minsk talks." What elements of the Minsk accords did Russia or its proxies comply with? "did." No you didn't. You might have well have said "Russia was concerned that Ukraine would summon the armies of hell using ritual blood magic" - I'm asking you to explain - i.e. evidence and substantiate the risk - not articulate a pure hypothetical. "Crimea risked being stolen" This is informative. Russia, in 2014, recognised Crimea as Ukrainian. So when you say it risked being stolen, stolen from whom exactly? "nd occupied by US/Nato." There's was no such risk. NATO membership was not on the cards, and Ukraine had a law prohibiting it's membership. They also offered to strength Russias rights to use the sevastapol base. So this risk simply isn't credible. "Russia also doesn’t want a large anti-Russian army at their border." Again, where is this large anti Russian army going to come from? NATO did not, contrary to Russian complaints, rebase it's forces into Eastern Europe or build NATO facilities in them until after 2014. So again, not only is this risk unsubstantiated, it's directly contradicted. NATO essentially refused to discharge it's duties towards Eastern European members to appease Russia, why would that change if Ukraine had joined, which it didn't want to do and indeed had enacted a law to prevent? "How do you think England would react if Scottland and Ireland allied with Russia and China and stationed their navies there, built air bases, and an army?" You skipped a step here and assumed Scotland declared independence, and missed the part where Ireland is starting to beef up it's military due to Russian incursions into their waters. How do you think we'd react? By invading Ireland? I think that's rather unlikely. "after the anti-Russian coup" How was it anti-russian? It was pro EU certainly, anti Yanukoych sure. But how was it anti-russian? Because Ukraine's population sought to be EU members? Careful paramount. Sweden is an EU member. Clearly anti Russian. Wouldn't want a nuke dropped on Stockholm to denazify you. "With an anti-Russian government in Kiev," The govt wasn't anti-Russian though. And the first thing it did was announce it would continue the policy of not joining NATO. "Again, it is not up you to decide what constitutes a threat to someone else." Except as I've pointed out, it isn't. The threats need to be imminent and evidenced. The reverse is true here. "insisting on that Ukraine has the right join Nato." That's not true at all. Russia repeatedly demanded that the US and NATO announce a policy that would ban Ukraine. US & NATO have always had an open door policy, and there's no reason to change it because Russia demands that. It's up to Ukraine to decide who it allies with and I find it absurd you think it's ok to invade a country that's loudly stating it has no intention of joining an alliance, has passed a law banning it, because the club in question will not also alter it's rules to ban a specific county entering. "There were alot of talks back then before the war whether Ukraine should join Nato or not." Only because Russia kept raising in talks with the US and Europe that we publicly announce we would refuse Ukraine if it ever applied. An issue that was not on the table. "Russia no longer had any guarantees or assurances that Ukraine would remain neutral." Yes it did, it had such assurances from three successive governments (two of which you claim are anti-russian), a law passed by Ukraine's parliament, and the fact that Ukraine's population was overwhelmingly opposed to membership. "Ukraine’s democratically elected government didn’t want to sign it." They did actually. They negotiated it. It was Putin that vetoed it and publicly demanded Yanukoych did not sign it. "The US and the EU could not accept it, and hence the protests and the coup." The protests were Ukrainian population, the overthrow of Yanukovych's govt a response to his (Russian supported) use of lethal force and killing of protestors. Something you support the (fake) DNR forces in doing. "Russia simply offered them a better deal." They didn't though. What they said is that if Ukraine signed the deal with the EU, they'd cut the existing deals. Essentially Russia was demanding an exclusive economic arrangement with Ukraine. I.e. treating it as a colony. "There are leaked recordings where US officials, I believe Victoria Nuland was one them, were discussing what people should be included in the ukrainian government." You should listen to them. It's a discussion between US diplomats trying to figure out who would likely be in the new govt. This happens every time there's a change in govt. I've been involved in such conversations about the Swedish govt (who we had a partnership with on some policy issues) when I worked in the UK cabinet office. Seizing on it and suggesting I was conspiring to pick the membership is delusional. Tl;Dr you are a complete crank and have decided to back the worst and most blatant act of aggression in Europe since Hitler annexed Poland. You are a disgrace. |
Forwyn
Member | Thu Jun 01 05:47:26 "most blatant act of aggression in Europe since Hitler annexed Poland." Bro has unironically supported every European intervention in the last decade or two lol |
jergul
large member | Thu Jun 01 05:49:54 "If Russia was interested in simply enforcing a cease fire in Donbass, why did it attempt to invade Kyiv?" Russia had more aims than a peace deal for donbas. Peace deal Denazification of Ukrainian military Binding neutral status for Ukraine A Danzig corridor agreement for a Crimean landbridge. Unblocking water supplies to Donetsk and Crimea Codified Russian language and culture protections Capturing Kiev would have been the elegant way of achieving this. It does not really matter where the Ukrainian delegation comes from when going to peace conferences in some neutral venue. Russia did not have a regime change or permanent occupation agenda. Denazification of the military would involve purging it of named individuals + dissolving certain brigades and battalions. Codifying neutral status in the Constitution would have been virtually self-enforcing. Ukraine would not have time to enter formal agreements to the contrary in the future. You really should google before giving us the world according to how seb remembers it. "On 20 September 2018 the Ukrainian parliament approved amendments to the constitution that would make the accession of the country to NATO and the EU a central goal and the main foreign policy objective" |
Seb
Member | Thu Jun 01 06:02:12 Jergul: I love this fantasy, when we have very clear evidence of what Russia intended to do if it won. |
Seb
Member | Thu Jun 01 06:03:35 Also, that's very different from Paramount's regurgitation of Russia's bogus claims regarding Minsk (which they themselves never implemented and later repudiated). |
jergul
large member | Thu Jun 01 06:16:09 Seb Yepp, we have very clear evidence Russia wanted what I said it wanted. A defeated clown with his government. How on earth could Russia do better than that and how would it lay out a negotiating claim to replace that government? What end would it serve? Russia never deployed enough troops to occupy Ukraine and Russia knows very well what an insurgency can do if you are unwilling to deploy enough troops to occupy the area. Also, Georgia. Russia secured what it wanted and let Georgia muddle along after that. That said, there may have been other things tacked on like Gasprom gaining more favourable transit arrangements and small stuff like that. But I get your resistance. With what we know now, is the war actually worth it given the rather limited conscequences of a negotiated settlement in say March of 2022? It can only be worth it by following a sunk cost fallacy in addition to pretending the existence of Ukraine was somehow at stake. It is one of the problems with this war. Now Ukraine has to get everything back, the West has to expropriate Russian wealth without compensation. Russia has to be defeated in a way that will set its territorial integrity into play. Fair enough, but, well, Russia has nukes. |
jergul
large member | Thu Jun 01 06:19:05 And the big one of course. A Russia struggling hard against Ukraine would somehow be able to steam roll Nato if not stopped in Ukraine. Do you at some level even feel the dissonance inherent to that theory? |
jergul
large member | Thu Jun 01 06:48:16 As a footnote, I dont think Russia will use nukes. My point was that the endgame to secure a Ukrainian win is beyond the point where Russia would use nukes. It provides another level of dissonance to the whole thing. We dont actually want Ukraine to win like that, but there is no other way of winning. The best outcome then is a forever war. Which Ukraine cannot sustain. Fertility rates this year are projected to be 0,55 (replacement rate is 2,1) and lots of the conscription cadre turning 18 each year is currently abroad (women and children are the largest group of refugees). |
Seb
Member | Thu Jun 01 11:01:29 Jergul: "A defeated clown with his government." Simple, murder the defeated clown, his associates, and throw the rest in Jail, and replace them with Silvoki Russians/Ukrainians along the line of e.g. Igor Girkin that will run Ukraine as an entirely puppet country and engineer it's accession to the kind of federal Union with Russia that Putin keeps trying to force Belorussia into; something he has talked about alot; and fits entirely with his long public rants about Ukraine being a mistake, not a real country etc. "Russia never deployed enough troops to occupy Ukraine" Sure they did - a far lower level of troops was necessary to occupy Donbas. They simply didn't think "ordinary" people would care about whether they were run by Russian corrupt proxies or Ukrainian ones. You are simply failing to understand and compute that Russia can, and often is, fucking stupid because it's governance is deeply broken. There is no reason to think Russia to be competent and realistic in its strategic aims when it was so badly misinformed in its tactical aims - and where the flawed assumptions underpinning its tactical aims mean that the strategic aims you are saying are unrealistic would be very achievable under those same assumptions. Further, Putin went on TV and ranted about what his aims are. "and Russia knows very well what an insurgency can do if you are unwilling to deploy enough troops to occupy the area." And yet they sent large numbers of underequipped and under prepared troops and got hammered by an insurgency. Perhaps jergul, perhaps, they didn't expect an insurgency and therefore would not need to expect an occupation. They expected they could just take over. |
Seb
Member | Thu Jun 01 11:03:50 "Russia has to be defeated in a way that will set its territorial integrity into play." Russia's made it's own weakness manifest - that was their mistake and the best way for them to avoid that is to find themselves an off-ramp (they have been offered it at numerous points when their hand was stronger). Nothing would cement Russia's obvious reduced status more than being forced to resort to nuclear weapons. They aren't going to, it wouldn't help them, it would make their strategic situation internal and external more precarious - and the west should not be deterred into making concessions to Russia's aggression on that basis. |
williamthebastard
Member | Thu Jun 01 11:22:51 Send the war into Russia. Rock civil society. Aid the guys ready to do that and blatantly lie to Russia the way they blatantly lie and say, we've got nothing to do with it and you cant prove anything anyway. We're seeing it happen already on a smaller scale and once again we're seeing Putin bark a lot but no bite |
Paramount
Member | Thu Jun 01 11:51:54 ”They simply didn't think "ordinary" people would care about whether they were run by Russian corrupt proxies or Ukrainian ones. got hammered by an insurgency” Seb is right. Zelenskyk and the Ukrainian government was handing out weapons to anyone who wanted it. The Russian army got hammered by ordinary people, old ladies sitting by their windows with automatic rifles and shooting at the Russians, pedestrians walking with hand guns and when they spotted any Russian they opened fire. |
Seb
Member | Thu Jun 01 13:05:20 Quite right, not an insurgency. Got hammered by the armed forces of Ukraine using insurgent like tactics. |
jergul
large member | Thu Jun 01 13:25:42 Seb Got hammered by the 2nd largest military in Europe that hugely outnumbered the invading Russians once mobilization got rolling. Get a grip, man. Your Ukrainian fan fiction has no anchor in reality. Russia tried to shock the Zelenskij government into accepting Russian terms. That failed. Russia would nuke if it needed to. But it obviously won't need to. Things are not going well for Ukraine. At all. But very open-minded of you to accept that territorial integrity is not a holy cow. Most people who support Ukraine have yet to show that flexibility. wtb Thankfully, Swedes are not supposed to know anything about war. Thank you for proving that point. |
jergul
large member | Thu Jun 01 13:32:34 By all accounts, russian targeted strikes against named individals in the Ukrainian power structure began less than a month ago. I know of only two that may have been injured and in one case killed: The comander of the Ukrainian armed forces and the comander of GRU (yes, Ukraine also calls its military intelligence GRU). Russia is on record promising Israel not to target Zelenskij. That could change. |
jergul
large member | Thu Jun 01 13:37:06 PS: The best realistic outcome (factoring in nukes because any nuclear power would use nukes to defend its territorial integrity) is a frozen conflict along NK-SK lines. With permanently broken economic ties with the west and the outlook for the return of most Ukrainian territory in exchange for sanction relief in some decades when Russia might finally have a government interested in such a deal. We just have to hope Ukraine can pull a South Korean miracle. |
Seb
Member | Thu Jun 01 15:10:36 Jergul: "Got hammered by the 2nd largest military in Europe that hugely outnumbered the invading Russians" Whatever language you use to dress this up, arguing that the Russians couldn't be planning to occupy the country because they would have anticipated resistance and clearly didn't have enough forces to handle serious resistance when er, their whole operation humiliatingly collapsed in the face of unexpected resistance they hadn't planned for - well there's an obvious flaw in your logic there. The Russians didn't expect serious resistance or a need to occupy the country in the sense of defeating an insurgency. They thought they could just roll in, replace the elites disband the security forces and replace them with their own and proxies like Rumsfeld thought the Iraqis would just accept a proxy govt. If they thought they'd have faced serious military resistance, let alone insurgency, they'd not have done what they did anyway. And we know their intent because Putin's made very clear what he thinks of Ukraine in long rambling speeches before the invasion and various leaks thereafter. "Russia would nuke if it needed to." Russia would nuke if it was beneficial to do so. There's no scenario where it will be, and they understand that or they would have done so already. "But very open-minded of you to accept that territorial integrity" Having you territorial integrity threatened by an external power annexing chunks (which there remains zero threat to Russia) is totally different to regions splitting off because they perceive the dominant polity as mad, bad, harmful to be associated with and too weak to hold itself together. You habitually conflate these two. So let me be clear again. Russia's territorial integrity should be respected in any peace deal. No intl recognised part of Russia should be annexed by a neighbour. But Russia shouldn't be allowed to win just because failure to win will cause Putins regime to collapse and rust night in turn encourage secessionist movements in other regions. We also know you believe that states have absolute rights to do what they want internally (Westphalia) so it's surprising to see you advocating for a complete breach of Westphalian principles when of course, the Westphalian approach to maintaining Russias territorial integrity would be to withdraw from Ukraine and nuke population centres of any region that tries to declare independence. But as I have long suspected, your Westphalian principles are not remotely as tightly held as you claim. The best possible outcome is the defeat of Russian forces, the restoration of Ukraine, the collapse of Putin's govt and the reiteration of the post cold-war European security structure with Russia firmly on the outside until it or its successor state(s) understand that aren't entitled to a sphere of influence. And if they use nuclear weapons a sort sharp retaliation in kind. |
Habebe
Member | Thu Jun 01 15:15:05 "Send the war into Russia." 100%!!! All EU forces should invade, the UK could probably help. |
jergul
large member | Thu Jun 01 16:03:39 Seb Replacing the elites is a no go. It would only trigger a Bandera insurgency. And to what purpose? WHat could possibly be better than a defeated clown in control? Also, who would Russia negotiate with for the surrender that would be credible? You have such stupid ideas. But yah, you have to make it an existential question because otherwise not negotiating a settlement in March was a huge mistake? There is zero chance of Westphalian principles being honoured in the event of Russia fragmenting. Russia will use nukes if its territorial integrity is threatened. Which it will be if Ukraine ever can threaten it. See the incursions the last few weeks for proof. This certainly covers Russian nuclear installations on Crimea specifically and Crimea more generally. But a moot point really. The chance to beat Russia has passed if there ever was one. The window closed after Ukraine failed to maintain momentum after the Russian kharkiv/Kherson withdrawal. Your best possible outcome is after nuclear weapons have been used. So if you don't mind that caveat, then sure, your best case is totally and radioactively realistic. The only thing bleating on about Russia not using nukes when under existential threat does is to prove there is no way in hell the West will intervene in a nuclear war for non-existential reasons. Otherwise. A NK-SK scenario is best case. With Ukraine getting most of its territory back in a few decades perhaps. |
jergul
large member | Thu Jun 01 16:20:49 "the Westphalian approach to maintaining Russias territorial integrity would be to withdraw from Ukraine and nuke population centres of any region that tries to declare independence." Heh, to be fair, that does meet Westphallian principles in isolation. Thankfully, just war theories have evolved to supplement non-interferance principles. |
jergul
large member | Sat Jun 03 07:46:55 Turns out I mostly agree with John Mearsheimer. Not entirely He understates that the reason Ukraine is playing out like world war 1 is almost entirely because airpower is neutralized by air defences. Sad that realist school understanding of the conflict is so fragmented. Decision makers in the West understand the perspective. The gap is between decision-maker and general populance understanding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer For the lecture: http://youtu.be/v-rHBRwdql8 |
Nimatzo
iChihuaha | Sat Jun 03 16:14:15 Paramount There is nothing controversial about Islamic groups having the goal of conquering Europe. Be very careful what you concede or accept WTB saying! http://www...9e-1c05-469d-8594-7ee70735c252 "The basic political strategy is to spread a step-wise, permeating calling to “Islam”, starting from individual to individual, then to the families, companies and authorities, ultimately leading to the total islamization of society and state. The Brotherhood shall act from aside as a presssure group on the regime to support the islamization, not start its own party. In practical politics the Swedish IFiS strictly follows the “European strategy” developed by the main MB ideologist Yusuf al-Qaradawi from 1995 with the four main pillars: da’wah, enclavism, lobbyism and entryism." |
show deleted posts |