Russia could use chemical weapons in Ukraine

Post Reply New Topic

Narcissism.He thinks he’s invincible.

I was referring to the article which said Germany was too "wise" to supply weapons to Ukraine.
Their wisdom has changed to providing weapons to Ukraine.

Read the article.

Totally agree.
Especially not after this fiasco.

Even intelligent people stuff up from time to time.

Even me.
No, I'm serious.

Here, the consensus is: "he started believing his own propaganda".
It likely involves spontanous creation of an information bubble: people started telling him what they thought he wanted to hear instead of the truth.
The downside of a bully as a boss.

Corruption is normal in Ukraine, it is even worse than it is in Putin's Russia, there is no such thing as an uncorrupted politician in Ukraine. Yanukovych was slightly pro-Russian, but for all his faults he cared somewhat about his country. The Russian deal on offer was simply leagues upon leagues better than the EU one. No underhanded dealings were necessary to push him into taking it.



I don't know enough to say, I wouldn't be surprised if it were true.



A gangster at home, but a cautious and reasonable statesman abroad. You have to be a gangster to survive in Russian politics. His predecessor was worse, far more corrupt, even shelling his own parliament at one point. The West didn't care because he was happy to play ball with Washington and happy to allow the continued economic rape of Russia. Putin put a stop to that, daring to act in Russia's national interest and as such has been persona-non-grata baby eater ever since.

How can you say that with a straight face when Putin has now invaded Ukraine twice, as well as Georgia, for no reason other than wanting to project Russian power? When he has had multiple defectors assassinated overseas, including using chemical and radiological weapons? When he has interfered in the elections of multiple foreign countries?

The fact is that three successive US Presidents tried to build closer relations with Russia (Bush "saw Putin's soul", Obama had the Russian Reset and mocked Romney for saying Russia was a geopolitical threat, and Trump hardly needs explaining), only for Putin to do something egregious which set relations back. He hasn't been persona non grata - if anything we've been trying to cosy up to him.

Thanks. Rare to see on wrongplanet these days.



Pretty much what he says. Secure Russia's eastern borders by any means necessary. It's what he has been trying to do for the last several years. He played by the rules, using money and diplomacy and he won that game, albeit briefly. Then the Americans flipped over the negotiating table in anger and overthrew the Ukrainian government. He feels, correctly I think, that direct military action is the only option left for Russia and if it isn't taken now and Ukraine falls into the Western camp - direct military action will no longer be possible, so weakened will Russia be.

So now he's committed he'll try to demilitarise Ukraine, install a government with limited sovereignty in the American style, a state of either true neutrality or if necessary, a blatant Russian satrapy. I'm sure he does care about the poor treatment of Russians in Eastern Ukraine, but I think this is secondary to Russia's security concerns and helpful for the moral/PR dimension of the war, when selling it to his people or non-hostile third party countries.

The media's line is that Putin is some deranged imperialist, as if he desperately wants Ukrainian soil - this is not even logical. If there is one thing Russia has plenty of, it is land. The old days where Ukraine was the "breadbasket of Europe" is no longer true either. Russian agriculture has come a long way. If anything Russia's actions are anti-imperialist, it's the Western Empire US/NATO/EU bloc that has been expanding eastwards for many decades not the other way around.

The rules: Poison political opponents, meddle with elections in neighbouring countries, invade them if they choose policies you don't like...
Man. Shut down whatever your news feed is and take a walk

In both cases defending Russia's legitimate security interests. And the Georgians started that war.



Embarrassing for the country in which it takes place, but still more about Russian internal politics or genuine Russia security issues than anything else.



Yes, the West never does that.



The party line is never the truth of the matter. Let me translate:

What the West means when it extends its hand towards Russia is "let us return to the Yeltsin era of economic rape, pillage, ultra-corruption and the total military capitulation of Russia to the American pseudo-Empire". Putin said no, "setting relations back". It's all part of the campaign to either bring Russia to heel or isolate it completely.

They were. They did nothing the Americans were not doing with money and diplomacy in Ukraine, until the Americans organised a nasty little revolution.

^Satan’s rules.

1. No, the Georgians did not start war in 2008. South Ossetians separatists (likely backed by Russia) started that war.
2. CIA is not mighty enough to organize half a million protesters. Euromaidan was about Ukraine and Ukrainians, not USA and CIA.

I believe Magz.She lives in the region.
She has contact with the refugees.
She knows the politics , culture and people of the region.
More accurate than someone who lives far from away the conflict sitting on a comfy couch.
She is seeing this first hand.

That's a bit like blaming militias in Eastern Ukraine for starting this one. Viewing the bigger picture is required.



Oh yes they are. They don't need to micromanage these things, just spread chaos and light fires. Read up on now-historically accepted CIA coups. With modern communication it is even easier to stir up a mob, guide the narrative and commission a little violence to tip things over the edge.



Well, OK. Though I would caution that it is often easier for outsiders to see what is going on, being in the thick of it can lead to a distorted perspective.

^My experience is that people from outside a region tend to make assumptions.
Take my state, it gets a bad rap.When I traveled to the west coast all people said was what an awful place my home is.
When asked if they have ever been to Arkansas ,the answer is always no.
When a friend visited from Utah they were surprised.It wasn’t anything like what they heard.We actually have running water, flush toilets, electricity and wear shoes.