Nobody interested in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

Post Reply New Topic

Nothing changes the FACT that it is still only SPECULATION.

Okay, it's "agressive dictatorship directly threatning you". Can you imagine Japan becoming dependent on North Korea? There was a time when Germany also fit the definition.
Also, you ignored the other half of my response: dependence. Trading is one thing, making someone a physically unavoidable monopolist is another thing.

Threatning to invade people so they don't join an alliance designed specifically to protect from your invasion?
Без водки не розбереш.

Or розбереш: our security is unimportant. What is important is the Holy Right or Great Russia to militarily intervene in neighbouring countries without international consequences.
That's the logic behind it.

But the six last words are important. Treating other nations like no one's land to take.

I know UK has a history of colonialism. Here, we have a history of being on the receiving end of it. It makes me understand why some might hate "white people". Dividing your land with a pencil and a map. Then bringing those arrogant settlers who hate you and despise you for who you are. Trying to root out your culture and identity, telling you only getting rid of it and serving your occupants is a way to become "civilized"...
We've been through this and Ukrainians on the occupied territories are experiencing it right now, plus brutality of the worst Stalinist times.

There's a good reason we condemn colonialism today. Let's be consistent about it.

This is exactly what the Soviets/Russians have done and are doing, yes.

I was only describing colonialism from the receiving end...

There is some speculation in this link, yes. But are you still trying to claim the Hersh report was opinion and speculation? Relating events as witnessed is not "opinion". Speculation is where a third party fills in the gaps where you have insufficient information. Hersh received and related a story from a source he trusts, a source inside who claimed the NS bombing was an American operation and to have been present at the highest levels and at every meeting regarding this operation. It is either true, false or a mixture of both.

You may accuse Hersh of lying, or misrepresenting his source or outright fabricating his source.
You may accuse the source of lying.
You may not accuse either Hersh or the source of "speculation" or tell them "that is your opinion".

Because that would be stupid and might make people think you don't understand what opinion and speculation mean. Hence I generously assumed you just hadn't read it. Was I too generous? Or will you admit that you hadn't actually read it? (and probably still haven't)



I did have a response for that part of it - free-er international trade inevitably leads to that kind of dependence one way or another, and by design but I didn't want to get too sidetracked and it was basically the same point again. If you're fine being at the mercy of other economic pseudo-empires through such trade arrangements, again it's not a principle, it's just membership in the f**k Russia Haters Club again.



They may have tolerated membership in the anti-Russia club without complaint, but certainly not the hardware. That would make any country nervous, least of all the paranoid Russians. But Russians aren't allowed to have such concerns...



She says, hiding behind America's bloodstained skirt, standing atop Iraqi corpses.

Actually the lacklustre support for Ukraine and the US in general outside Europe is almost certainly an international consequence of America's aggressive actions over the last few decades, but that's not the sort of consequences you are talking about.

About the colonialism stuff, we've had this conversation a million times already. We never get anywhere, so why bother this time?

What are you talking about?
No one else threatens to invade us and drop nukes at my city.

There was no hardware up to this invasion - however, Iskanders in Kaliningrad Oblast have been pointing at my city and Russian politicians were bragging about it.
But we have no right to care for our security because that makes us F**k Russia Haters

Bringing up Iraq is whataboutism in its purest form. Expansion of NATO is a whole different story. New members are the ones asking for it - including Finland and Sweden now.

You keep presenting a colonialist perspective where Central-East Europe is just territorry for empires to play with.
The humanity had really good reasons to abandon colonialism in this form, you know?

It's just yet another argument masquerading as principle demolished.



Any other country would be making similar threats in the same position.



Yes, okay let's be precise with our language. The hardware (the EIS in particular) may not have been built in the end, but the Soviet missiles never reached Cuba either. The threat of infrastructure built is equivalent to its actual presence. America thinks much the same way or the Cuban missile crisis would not have started until the missiles were in place. The argument still stands. The order of events is always that Russian threats follow some completely unnecessary, goofy NATO antagonism to plant expensive systems somewhere ever closer to Russia. The threats don't just appear out of nowhere (unless you have an example otherwise - I haven't found one). They are always in response to a threat of weaponry or troops or anti-missile systems being placed close to Russia (which threaten MAD, supposedly the foundation of peace in the post-nuclear age).

It is never (to my knowledge - please provide a real world example of this if you can):
Russia: lol hey Poland we are gonna nuke you because we are curious to know what burnt Pole smells like.
Poland: omg help us please USA give us the ability to track and intercept ICBMs.

It's usually some variation of the EIS nonsense:
USA: lol let's place a s**t ton of war infrastructure to intercept missiles from Ru- I mean Iran.
Poland: *rubbing hands together* How much will you pay us?
Russia: That would make it trivial to intercept Russian missiles, potentially giving you a massive first strike advantage. If it really is about intercepting Iranian missiles how about you share this place in Azerbaijan with us instead.
USA: No we want to put them here, but it's got absolutely nothing to do with undermining Russian strike capability. Pinky swear.
Russia: Poland you understand that if you do this, you'll be a valid target if there's a nuclear exchange between us and the USA?
Poland: *counting money* lol you won't do s**t

Poland in 2022: Oh my God they're coming.



No. You are allowed your own concerns, the problem is you don't extend the same courtesy to Russia and pretend you live in a vacuum. NATO ignores one of its supposed principles that says that the increased security of the allied countries should never come at the cost of another country's security. This behaviour has lead to the destruction of Ukraine. If our countries insist on escalating things, it may yet lead to the destruction of Poland and beyond.



"Whataboutism". In English that means I'm calling out hypocrisy and inconsistency. And yes, complaining about Russia's actions in Ukraine having been involved in the Iraq adventure is the height of hypocrisy, magz. Russia has much better reasons to be in Ukraine than Polish or indeed UK troops had to be in Iraq.



"In this form". You know I do catch all these little additions to your thoughts when you want to avoid arguments you know you can't win. It's not really "colonialism" that bothers you, it's Russia.

The principle is security. Simple as that. Germans were blind with their political correctness to ignore it when signing NS contracts.

What? Every other country keeps threatning their smaller neighbours with nukes?
Come on, the other direction we have Germany who also have bad history with us and who lost their imperial position - and with all our tensions and frictions, we have civil relations.

WTF? The anti-missile project was abandoned exactly "not to provoke Russia".
As the effect, Russia is agressive anyway and we don't have anti-missile infrastructure.

It's rather like:
Russia: Look at our newest Iskander missiles, they can carry nuclear missiles and reach Warsaw in three minutes!
Poland: NATO, help, we need anti-missile systems.
NATO: No, no, no, we mustn't provoke Russia!

And finally it exploded.

Apparently recognizing lawful borders "threatens Russian security". I wonder what does not.
There might be a following grain of truth: many commenters analysing Putin's speeches point out he - and much of his electorate - seems to believe Russia cannot exist as not an empire.
But I believe our right to be souvereign goes before Russian "right" to be imperial.
Invading another country with claims it should have never existed is surely everyone else's fault but not the invader's

It's how Russia has treated my family and friends. And what they made of my country. I know the difference between "Russkyi Mir" and "first world" first-hand. My whole nearly four decades of life were observing what my country can become once we're not under Moscow's shoe.
Germany was guilty, too. But Germany apparently changed enough. Russia has not, it's glorifying these times right now, check out putin's most recent speech about Battle of Stalingrad.

If I lived close to North Korea, my main concern would have been North Korea. But I live in East Europe.

Poland has valid reason to want NATO defenses. Poland was twice colonized by Russia (though in the first time, it was split up between Russia, Germany, and Austria). They also fought off a colonization attempt in 1919 (though not many people outside the affected countries seem to know about this).

Yes, Poland did screw with Russia, as well, during the Time of Troubles. But many living Poles remember what the Soviets/Russians did to them. I would also want American defenses if I were in their situation.

I spent a fair amount of energy in my last post was recontextualising these nuclear threats. Straight away you again decontextualise a complex situation to make Russia look insane. I just refer you back to my previous post. The threats are not made in isolation. No, not every country would threaten their smaller neighbours with nukes, but every country in Russia's position - that is, facing a nuclear-armed expansionist alliance of idiots, an alliance whose raison d'etre is to fight a war against Russia would be making threats like that too.



I'm going to need an example. I have been looking, but without success, for isolated or apparently random threats of nuking from Russia, The way you put it, you make it sound like Putin calls up Poland every Thursday and declares his intentions to nuke Warsaw for no particular reason. The threats I've found reported are always in response to something unnecessarily provocative NATO or a member did or discussed doing. I don't think testing or showing off weapon systems automatically counts as a threat - every seriously armed country performs them. I mean if the weapon demo has a CGI simulation of Warsaw on fire you might have a point... but I'll keep an open mind.



Oh please. By your own logic you should be completely unconcerned by weapons systems placed in Kaliningrad. Apparently recognising lawful borders "threatens Polish security". I wonder what does not. Lel.



You've just latched onto this one piece of anti-Ukraine rhetoric because it suits you to do so. If you still believe WMDs will be found in Iraq, that it was about fighting terrorism and freeeedumb for the Iraqi people, I suppose you can be forgiven.



Your willingness to fight to the last Ukrainian is truly inspiring.

Why shouldn't I support the choice Ukrainians are making when I perfectly understand this choice? What's your position? Leave them without support so they hopelessly bleed resisting brutal occupation, like we did during the WWII?

Iskanders in Kaliningrad were a topic since 2016, installed in 2018: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russ ... SKBN1FP21Y
Random boasting of putin from around that time, casual, probably part of his presidential campaign: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... ntercepted

What was it if not a declaration (one of many, this one just googled first when I searched for something in English from around that time) of his agressive imperialist goals?

It's only you and Russian TV picturing NATO as a nuclear-armed expansionist alliance of idiots.
It's your choice to ignore how NATO expansion happens and why.
It's your choice to ignore the difference between alliances and empires.
It's your choice to ignore the difference between building defences and striking.

If we lived 83 years ago, would you use the same arguments to defend Germany and Soviets?
It was all the allies' fault, first anschluss on Czechia, then attack on Poland. The allies should have never let Czechoslovakia and Poland exist, it was a clear provocation. Holocaust? Great Terror? Why do you insist on portraying them as cartoonish villains?

This "cartoonish" evil was very real here back then and it's very real East of us right now.

Curious you reference the US invasion of Iraq. That invasion was the model for what Putin is doing, it's like he embraced GW Bush and Cheney as role models. And you may mock the US government at the time for having talked about what a bad guy Saddam Hussein was but you are happy to talk the same way about Zelenskyy being a bad guy how is that different? Just an excuse to invade another country and lay it to waste.

Dutch jets intercept three Russian military planes near Poland, ministry says

I'm not sure you truly do comprehend the choice or the consequences of your opinions and your opinions-in-action. You appear to live inside that dangerous fantasy where the only acceptable outcome is total victory and perfect freedom as you perceive it in the moment - a fantasy usually only shattered when your own family start dying for it.

"Supporting" Ukraine the way you and your side in this conflict have, has destroyed them. You are sacrificing-- no, you have already sacrificed Ukraine's future all just to pointlessly stick it to Russia and expand the American financial & military empire with false promises of prosperity and safety for Ukraine, just as that empire looks ready to collapse in on itself. NATO has lead Ukraine up the primrose path to a long period of misery, at best, and total doom at worst. Even if Ukraine somehow wins this conflict, which is vanishingly unlikely, they will have lost so much in the process that their victory will taste as bitter as defeat.

Ukraine would be much better off if it had never received your kind of "support", magz, or Poland's or the USA's. Many Ukrainians would still be alive and those that are still alive would not be selling themselves on the streets of Europe. Or do you still maintain after a year now that this is a better outcome than the "horrors" of living in Ukraine under Yanukovych? It was an easier position to hold a year ago, I'm sure.

You can ignore the rest of the post if you wish ^ but I would like an answer to that question. If you can at least understand why someone might think a Ukraine where Yanukovych was not illegally overthrown (whether foreign powers were involved or not) might be a better place and definitely not a war zone - then you are most of the way to understanding my position and my anger at the USA, the EU, my own country and everyone else for their hand in this avoidable disaster.





The USA should give up their imperial ambitions in Ukraine, stop the eternal mission to destabilise the Russosphere and encircle Russia, seek a negotiated settlement with Russia on Ukraine that meets their security concerns and at least pay lip service to the "secondary objectives" in the now semi-detached regions of Ukraine. They should do the right thing and seek an end to the war as quickly as possible - not seek continued escalation - even if it means humiliation for the USA. Finally spend at least twice as much money rebuilding Ukraine as they spent destroying it arming it. It's the least we could do.



Really? Even in your own quote, Putin references the "containment" strategy used by the U.S. The whole thing points to a man on the defensive. He's fighting the empire of the day, not leading it.

President Vladimir Putin said in his annual state-of-the-nation speech that Russia has tested powerful nuclear weapons that render missile defense systems useless.

Now why would he be concerned about breaking through missile defence systems I wonder? Might it be because someone tried to undermine Russia's long-range strike capability by attempting to build something like that in Poland?

"The foreign policy part of Putin's speech focused on how the United States had ignored Russia's strategic interests long enough,"

I suppose you think "strategic interests" translates to "letting us build an empire".

Putin warned that any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies would trigger a response.

And there it is - an explicit defensive use case there. From context it is obvious he is referring to past attempts to disable Russia's ability to launch retaliatory ICBMs if (yes if) another country launches first. He's saying even if you do set up missile defence systems - we have the ability to go around them now - MAD is back in place. Reading "xaxaxa let's rebuild the empire" in that is a stretch. I think Putin could read you his breakfast menu and you'd see whatever you wanted to in there.

Anyway, this is moot, and was not really what I was asking for - that was 7 years after the European Interceptor Site was officially scrapped. I was looking for something at least predating EIS - remember you inferred that Poland wanted that anti-missile infrastructure because Russia was threatening you. That surely suggests threats came before EIS was even thought about?

Talks between the US and Poland about housing EIS reportedly began in 2002 - could you find anything from Russia before or around that time that might justify such an outrageous move on NATO or Poland's part? I couldn't.



You know that I do not ignore these topics, we have discussed them at length at times over the last year. We have different opinions and interpretations of the world - I do not "ignore" them.



That's a whole different thread right there and you won't be surprised to learn I hold non-mainstream opinions of that conflict too. There are many parallels to be drawn, though not ones you would like to make I suspect.

---

Re. bolded part: Yes. In-fucking-deed you might say.

The main point for bringing up Iraq - besides busting magz's chops about Polish involvement and noting that the Russians have a far better case for war in Ukraine than the Iraq coalition had for Iraq - was that the pretext given for war is not necessarily and probably never is the real reason.

We talked about it and you still treat our nations here as not worthy of a right to make our own choices. Pencil on a map thinking.

How can a nation opt out from "rusosphere"?

How, in your mind, does "do the right thing," translate to allowing russia to trample a sovereign country on completely false pretences of liberating them from nazis? Even russian soldiers have gone on record to say they were duped by their own government into believing this & then were confused as to why Ukrainians were fighting them vs. embracing them.

Wtf?