Russia could use chemical weapons in Ukraine

Post Reply New Topic

That's exactly what Moscow's doing. Of course Kremlin is behind it. Why else would they have been concentrating army there just before and accident?

I doubt you know much about Yanukovych-era Ukraine. It was quite unlivable. You didn't have to do anything to spark mass protests.

There are specialists on Russia in USA, who spent their lifetimes studying history, culture and politics of the region.
You can read them if you don't trust first-hand witnesses.

I'm going to post a section of that link I posted earlier, I fear not enough people have read it.

The reality of what happened in Ukraine was never hard to figure out. George Friedman, the founder of the global intelligence firm Stratfor, called the overthrow of Yanukovych “the most blatant coup in history.” It’s just that the major U.S. news organizations were either complicit in the events or incompetent in describing them to the American people.

The first step in this process was to obscure that the motive for the coup pulling Ukraine out of Russia’s economic orbit and capturing it in the European Union’s gravity field was actually announced by influential American neocons in 2013.

On Sept. 26, 2013, National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, who has become a major neocon paymaster, took to the op-ed page of the neocon Washington Post and called Ukraine “the biggest prize” and an important interim step toward toppling Russian President Vladimir Putin.

At the time, Gershman, whose NED is funded by the U.S. Congress to the tune of about $100 million a year, was financing scores of projects inside Ukraine training activists, paying for journalists and organizing business groups.

As for that even bigger prize Putin Gershman wrote: “Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”

At that time, in early fall 2013, Ukraine’s President Yanukovych was exploring the idea of reaching out to Europe with an association agreement. But he got cold feet in November 2013 when economic experts in Kiev advised him that the Ukrainian economy would suffer a $160 billion hit if it separated from Russia, its eastern neighbor and major trading partner. There was also the West’s demand that Ukraine accept a harsh austerity plan from the International Monetary Fund.

Yanukovych wanted more time for the EU negotiations, but his decision angered many western Ukrainians who saw their future more attached to Europe than Russia. Tens of thousands of protesters began camping out at Maidan Square in Kiev, with Yanukovych ordering the police to show restraint.

Meanwhile, with Yanukovych shifting back toward Russia, which was offering a more generous $15 billion loan and discounted natural gas, he soon became the target of American neocons and the U.S. media, which portrayed Ukraine’s political unrest as a black-and-white case of a brutal and corrupt Yanukovych opposed by a saintly “pro-democracy” movement.

The Maidan uprising was urged on by American neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who passed out cookies at the Maidan and told Ukrainian business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their “European aspirations.”

In the weeks before the coup, according to an intercepted phone call, Nuland discussed with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who should lead the future regime. Nuland said her choice was Arseniy Yatsenyuk. “Yats is the guy,” she told Pyatt as he pondered how to “midwife this thing.”

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, also showed up, standing on stage with right-wing extremists from the Svoboda Party and telling the crowd that the United States was with them in their challenge to the Ukrainian government.

As the winter progressed, the protests grew more violent. Neo-Nazi and other extremist elements from Lviv and western Ukrainian cities began arriving in well-organized brigades or “sotins” of 100 trained street fighters. Police were attacked with firebombs and other weapons as the violent protesters began seizing government buildings and unfurling Nazi banners and even a Confederate flag.

Though Yanukovych continued to order his police to show restraint, he was still depicted in the major U.S. news media as a brutal thug who was callously murdering his own people. The chaos reached a climax on Feb. 20 when mysterious snipers opened fire on police and some protesters, killing scores. As police retreated, the militants advanced brandishing firearms and other weapons. The confrontation led to significant loss of life, pushing the death toll to around 80 including more than a dozen police.

U.S. diplomats and the mainstream U.S. press immediately blamed Yanukovych for the sniper attack, though the circumstances remain murky to this day and some investigations have suggested that the lethal sniper fire came from buildings controlled by Right Sektor extremists.

To tamp down the worsening violence, a shaken Yanukovych signed a European-brokered deal on Feb. 21, in which he accepted reduced powers and an early election so he could be voted out of office. He also agreed to requests from Vice President Joe Biden to pull back the police.

The precipitous police withdrawal then opened the path for the neo-Nazis and other street fighters to seize presidential offices and force Yanukovych’s people to flee for their lives. Yanukovych traveled to eastern Ukraine and the new coup regime that took power and was immediately declared “legitimate” by the U.S. State Department sought Yanukovych’s arrest for murder. Nuland’s favorite, Yatsenyuk, became the new prime minister.

They are pretty clear about their motivations. They are not pretending that the "nazis" are the main motivation for the invasion, they are an additional objective. Russian security and the possibility of Ukraine falling under the Western military umbrella is the prime driver.



I feel confident in saying that it was better than it is now, with Russia missiles flying everywhere.



They don't all agree with each other, though you'd be hard pressed to find many dissenters given the state of the Western media.

Why has NATO been expanding eastwards? Has it forced countries to join, or have they chosen to join? If they have chosen, why?


There was no "legitimate" interest. I mean, unless you inherently view all interests as legitimate. And no, the war was started by Russian-backed separatists. The first international engagement was Russia invading Georgia - the Georgians didn't invade Russia.


The Litvinenko and Skirpal assassinations were not "Russian internal politics" or "genuine Russia security issues".

Irrelevant whataboutism.


There's no credible case that the Yeltsin era represents "economic rape". And when Putin "said no", he did so by:

1) invading Georgia (Bush)
2) annexing Crimea (Obama)
3) attempting to poison Skirpal, resulting in (Trump)

He didn't just refuse some unreasonable demand. In fact, throughout those eras Putin continued the Yeltsin-era tendency towards signing new agreements with the US on issues like security, non-proliferation, and space. No, the things that caused US-Russian relations to deteriorate were Putin's attacks on two foreign nations, and a murder committed using a chemical weapon on British soil. Full-scale invasions of other nations and chemical weapons attacks are exactly the sort of thing it is reasonable for world governments to condemn.

Chemical weapons are more than likely going or be used to some capacity. I think the Russians will sink to those lows judging by how out of touch they are with western morals.

Still. It's always wise not to start swinging sticks when you're firmly between two hornet's nests. Instead of the eastern most nations being an opportunity for some middle ground (literally) and politically between Russia and NATO, sadly the opportunity was squandered by traditional hatred and black and white thinking.

I think the most common assumption in the US and UK is that it doesn't matter what "sphere of influence" one lives in and the only "choices" local people make are all about the more effective propaganda.
It's actually quite colonialist thinking. I find this stripping smaller nations of subjectivity offensive.

Being Polish, I also know perfectly well how untrue it is.
It's the difference between North and South Korea.

Yeah, South Korea would not exist if US army wasn't stationing there - does it mean Koreans don't want it?

So what terrible thing(s) would have happened to Russia, if they hadn't invaded Ukraine? Especially compared to the terrible things that are happening to them from heavy sanctions?

It's a complex web of motivations. No single component. You have the hawks wanting to neutralise or conquer Russia. You have U.S. weapons manufacturers spending zillions on lobbying for NATO expansion and anti-Russia fear propaganda so they can sell more weapons. You've got the businessmen who understand politics seeing that NATO expansion is often followed by economic expansion, which means bigger markets and more centralisation etc.

About being forced or having chosen. It is neither yes or no. We all like to pretend that democracy is the will of the rational thinking people, but in reality it is heavily corrupted by money and soft power everywhere. If your politicians are surrounded by money and organisations promoting NATO membership, promising a glinting gilded future if only you sign up to the American Empire and doom, gloom and isolation if you refuse - it somewhat distorts the idea of choice or forced submission.



I think the alliances of your neighbours and violent conflict erupting inside them are legitimate concerns for any country. We pretend that Russia's aren't legitimate because we don't like Russia and Putin.



Oh, but they were, granted they were somewhat crude and sordid actions. Skripal is more interesting than you may know. Did you ever wonder why they chose to attempt to assassinate him when they did? He wasn't some old retired ex-spy living in peace, he was doing s**t. There isn't much but a few fragments of rumours, but its fascinating to look into.



You can't condemn them for something we are doing. Remove the log from your own eye first.



Disagree. It was disgusting and basically created Putin. We had a chance to help Russia rebuild along the same lines Germany and Japan were rebuilt after the second world war. Instead we sent greedy Chicago boys to plunder, privatise everything and extract as much as they could from Russia, turning it into, to use the infamous description in Washington "a gas station with nukes".





1. and 2. were responses to Americans dicking about in their back yard. Things going on while Bush and Obama were shaking hands and smiling in front of cameras with Putin. You can't keep pretending that didn't happen and there was no provocation at all; that Putin is some insane mental patient who does these things for no reason at all.

You ask Russia to tolerate things we wouldn't tolerate ourselves.

Mikah, understand one simple thing:
Nations neighbouring Russia are not Russian yard.
Stop this demeaning, colonialist narrative and recognize independence of countries universally recognized as independent.
That includes their choice of allies.

If Ukraine is taken and turned, Russia goes from medium regional power to basically helpless against any sort of Western interference anywhere. Losing the Sevastopol naval base would cripple them in the Black Sea and having weapons and troops ready to roll right into their Eastern territory is an unacceptable weak point. They could do nothing without the threat of a fierce assault coming from the Ukraine corridor resulting in almost certain defeat or nuclear exchange. It would make them terminally weak, and the weak must suffer what they must. As for what that would mean who knows. The Yeltsin era was so bad for ordinary Russians, it made many nostalgic for the Soviet Union, it could potentially be much worse than that.

Russia will tolerate the sanctions just fine, they are better prepared than the media will let on, having lived with and prepared for more for years.

^ In other words, they would definitely stop being an empire and become just an ordinary contry.
You see what a tragedy it would be?
Starting a world war is obviously less of a tragedy. /s

No magz, you understand one simple thing: that is not the way the world works. Nations have and have always had interests and concerns beyond their own borders and that will always be the case. Some states are unfortunate enough to be caught between powers and must very carefully govern themselves or suffer terribly. Successive Ukrainian governments made stupid choices and this is where we are. This war was born of their stupidity and hubris and gleefully midwived by Western powers.

Last edited by Mikah on 11 Mar 2022, 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

With just a tad of modifications this song can be sung in Ukraine.
Comments are great.
https://youtu.be/EfGTfnP8HXM

What you're saying is just the essence of colonialism.

I would say exactly the same thing to America/NATO/The EU. Russia was content with a non-aligned Ukraine, but the imperialist ambitions of the aforementioned helped push events to where we are now.

If you want to describe American actions in Ukraine in the lead up to this as colonialist, sure why not.