Arming the Ukrainians

[Nearly Sane]

The Republicans today are not the Republicans of the Bush era. They've since been bought by Putin.

So taking him over Biden is pointless. His party would block any action just as they do with Biden. Therefore talking about a 'weak Biden' as ad_o did, misses the point.

[Outrider]

I can link you to the statement if you like, I'm not sure where he was but it was a speech at some large conference and the context of the comment was, I think, the missile defence systems NATO was  planning. I edited in what he said that I missed out, which was "Russia is not our enemy".

And I'm quite prepared to believe that he said it - I'm asking you if you believe it. Various American and British politicians are at great pains to point out, currently, that China isn't the enemy, too. That they aren't formally the enemy today doesn't mean that you aren't preparing because you expect them to be the enemy tomorrow.

Just something to bear in mind when claiming NATO expanded due to Russian aggression. Maybe he didn't mean it.

I've listed you the various Russian invasions over the last thirty years or so - Russian aggression is well-established. George Bush, and the Americans of that era, might not have seen Russia as an enemy, but the Eastern European nations who felt under threat seemed to have done. NATO nations agreeing to their entry - forging closer ties with local allies - can be for their own reasons which don't necessarilly require Russia to be either an immediate threat or, long term, seen as an enemy of the US.

Even if the US were lying, and even if those nations joining were overestimating the threat Russia posed at the time, none of those alliances justify Russian invasions of a) any of those nations or b) anywhere else (like Moldova, Ukraine, Chechnya, Syria...)

O.

O.

[Spud]

That's not a justification for Russia to invade. Russia can, for instance, offer them an alternative place to live, but they aren't justified in sowing dissent or in sending in troops to an internal Ukrainian matter.

Perhaps, you're assuming the knew that Ukraine intended to continue fighting - even now the Ukraine's commentary is that they wanted to build up their forces to stand firm against further aggression, not to retake Crimea. In order to recover Crimea they were pursuing diplomatic means.

But the separatists had declared independence from Ukraine, and Russia recognized this, then agreed to help them because Ukraine had massed 110,000 troops near the front line, outnumbering their 10,000, and they believed Ukraine was about to attack and feared reprisals. As the German paper showed, Ukraine was always intending to regain control over Donbas.

What separatists? There weren't any until Russia started interfering.

Interfering, as in "Yats is the guy, **** the EU" (Nuland)

[Outrider]

But the separatists had declared independence from Ukraine, and Russia recognized this, then agreed to help them because Ukraine had massed 110,000 troops near the front line, outnumbering their 10,000, and they believed Ukraine was about to attack and feared reprisals.

Even then, it's still an internal Ukrainian matter. Like the Scottish independence referendum, it operates within a legal framework. Russia can recognise anyone it wants - see Taiwan, for instance. If Russia thinks that there are people at risk there are supra-national bodies to take that concern to - the UN, for instance. They can monitor, they can look for international agreement to intervene - it's not on Russia to invade a foreign country... again... again... again...

Of course, this is all absolute bullshit. The 'separatists' were a mixture of Russians and Russian-sponsored genuine separatists. Whether there were 10,000 or not is highly questionable, whether Ukraine was moving 110,000 troops or not is questionable, whether Ukraine was moving the troops it was in response to the 'separatists' or in response to Russian troops massing near the border is, at best, questionable.

As the German paper showed, Ukraine was always intending to regain control over Donbas.

That's the Ukrainian government's job. They should be trying to regain control of Donbas, they have a legal and moral duty to establish order within the bounds of their internationally recognised borders.

O.

[Spud]

Even then, it's still an internal Ukrainian matter. Like the Scottish independence referendum, it operates within a legal framework.

If there was a legal framework then they should have stuck to it; they lost Donbas because they violated their own constitution.

[Outrider]

If there was a legal framework then they should have stuck to it; no wonder they lost some territory.

There is a legal framework, it's called 'International Law' and it says that what happens within a nation's recognised borders with citizens of that nation is an internal matter. Ukraine, by the sounds of it, were sticking to it - to hear you tell it, they were sending troops in to quell an uprising. THAT'S THEIR JOB.

What's a breach of that international legal framework is for Russia to take it upon itself to interfere by sending their troops, uninvited, over the border - again - and to continue to occupy that territory, and to expand that military operation to attempt to over-run the capital, and to expand it to link up and form a land-bridge to already illegally annexed territory.

This 'insurgent' bullshit it plainly, palpably, blatantly nonsense. It's not even a viable excuse, it should come with that Leonardo diCaprio smug grin meme with the caption 'We're protecting the natives'.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

New theme song for Tucker Carlson

Oh Putin, you're so fine
You're so fine you blow my mind, hey Putin,
Hey Putin

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68248740

[Spud]

New theme song for Tucker Carlson

Oh Putin, you're so fine
You're so fine you blow my mind, hey Putin,
Hey Putin

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68248740

I've watched about 50 minutes of it. I've also watched 3 out of 4 episodes of "The Putin Interviews" with Oliver Stone. They are similar, except Carlson's is more up to date.

[ad_orientem]

Putin uses the same excuses Hitler did for invading Poland, saying Poland forced Germany to invade. Plus 30 minutes of fake history.

[Spud]

He was obviously wrong, though it's important to note he said that some months before Russia's invasion of Georgia. Nevertheless, despite his faults, were he president today he would be arming Ukraine to the teeth. I would take him over a weak Biden or a Kremlin run GOP any day.

You wanted a response on Georgia. I have this which says Georgia had planned to start the wars in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Also this which says John Kerry stated that Russia went into Syria to prevent Isis from reaching Damascus.

[ad_orientem]

You wanted a response on Georgia. I have this which says Georgia had planned to start the wars in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Also this which says John Kerry stated that Russia went into Syria to prevent Isis from reaching Damascus.

Drink some more russian cum.

[Outrider]

You wanted a response on Georgia. I have this which says Georgia had planned to start the wars in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

That's been the established consensus since about 2010 - along with the clear understanding that the Russian response was disproportionate and involved an illegal occupation and sponsorship of separatist and puppet politicians ever since.


Also this which says John Kerry stated that Russia went into Syria to prevent Isis from reaching Damascus.[/quote]

... because Isis were in opposition in the area to the Assad regime, who were pro-Russian. When the rest of the world was looking on and seeing that there wasn't a 'right' side, Russia invaded - again - to support their preferred bad option. It's literally spelt out in the article that you're citing.

O.

[Spud]

That's been the established consensus since about 2010 - along with the clear understanding that the Russian response was disproportionate and involved an illegal occupation and sponsorship of separatist and puppet politicians ever since.


Also this which says John Kerry stated that Russia went into Syria to prevent Isis from reaching Damascus.

... because Isis were in opposition in the area to the Assad regime, who were pro-Russian. When the rest of the world was looking on and seeing that there wasn't a 'right' side, Russia invaded - again - to support their preferred bad option. It's literally spelt out in the article that you're citing.

O.

So it is established that Georgia started the wars against the separatists. Yes I'm aware that Russia's response was disproportionate, but that is generally the way wars are won.
So head-chopping, caliphate-forming extremists are preferable to a fascist dictator?

[Outrider]

So it is established that Georgia started the wars against the separatists.

Yes, Georgia started the conflict, in Georgia, against other Georgians. That's still not an explanation of why Russia sent troops in, or why Russian troops had the apparent mission that they did.

Yes I'm aware that Russia's response was disproportionate, but that is generally the way wars are won.

No, it's not 'the way wars are won'. It's the way wars escalate and turn into festering ongoing areas of dispute for generations.
 

So head-chopping, caliphate-forming extremists are preferable to a fascist dictator?

Which part of 'no right side' confused you, because I'm not sure I can make that any clearer.

O.

[jeremyp]

So it is established that Georgia started the wars against the separatists. Yes I'm aware that Russia's response was disproportionate, but that is generally the way wars are won.

If you don't start a war, you don't have to win it.

So head-chopping, caliphate-forming extremists are preferable to a fascist dictator?

They are both bad options. Also a bad option: invading your neighbour to distract your own population from the piss poor job you are doing and to inflate your own ego.

[Nearly Sane]

Senate passes bill with aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan - but now the House of Representatives

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68284380

[Spud]

.
Which part of 'no right side' confused you, because I'm not sure I can make that any clearer.

O.

I'm pretty sure the rest of the world was glad to see the defeat of ISIS, which was thanks to Russia

[ad_orientem]

I'm pretty sure the rest of the world was glad to see the defeat of ISIS, which was thanks to Russia

You really are a fool! The only reason Russia is in Syria is to help prop up the Assad regime, mainly by killing Syrian opposition, also guilty of numerous war crimes (neo-nazi wagner).

[Spud]

You really are a fool! The only reason Russia is in Syria is to help prop up the Assad regime, mainly by killing Syrian opposition, also guilty of numerous war crimes (neo-nazi wagner).

The Syrian insurgency, which had the goal of deposing Assad, was party armed by NATO. So that war (Syrian civil war) was started by the West, as well.

[Outrider]

I'm pretty sure the rest of the world was glad to see the defeat of ISIS, which was thanks to Russia

Do you see much evidence that ISIS has been defeated? We are not going to defeat a religious and political movement with bullets - even if you want to make the case that Russia helped drive ISIS out of that region it's not as though they've improved the quality of life or the stability of the region by doing it, they've just removed one of the obstacles restraining Assad's regime. That you think something in this is a 'win', whilst at the same time decrying Ukraine's resistance because of the damage it does in terms of lives lost and damaged just highlights your hypocrisy.

O.

[Spud]

Do you see much evidence that ISIS has been defeated? We are not going to defeat a religious and political movement with bullets - even if you want to make the case that Russia helped drive ISIS out of that region it's not as though they've improved the quality of life or the stability of the region by doing it, they've just removed one of the obstacles restraining Assad's regime. That you think something in this is a 'win', whilst at the same time decrying Ukraine's resistance because of the damage it does in terms of lives lost and damaged just highlights your hypocrisy.

O.

ISIS has no territory left.

If ISIS would have committed genocide against Assad supporters, then their defeat is good.

Ukraine's resistance is unnecessary. They brought it on themselves by attacking the breakaway republics in Donbas. Stop pretending that Russia initiated the war.

[Maeght]

The Syrian insurgency, which had the goal of deposing Assad, was party armed by NATO. So that war (Syrian civil war) was started by the West, as well.

Some NATO member countries wasn't it rather than by NATO as an organisation.

[ad_orientem]

Ukraine's resistance is unnecessary. They brought it on themselves by attacking the breakaway republics in Donbas. Stop pretending that Russia initiated the war.

You're a disgusting human being. A victim blamer. The type of person who would blame a rape victim.

Dombas is Ukraine. It has every right to free it's territories of invaders. Nothing about this is Ukraine's fault. Piss off!

[jeremyp]

ISIS has no territory left.

If ISIS would have committed genocide against Assad supporters, then their defeat is good.

Ukraine's resistance is unnecessary. They brought it on themselves by attacking the breakaway republics in Donbas. Stop pretending that Russia initiated the war.

They were not breakaway republics. They were full of insurgents supplied by Russia. You have a totally warped view of what happened.

[Outrider]

ISIS has no territory left.

ISIS is a terrorist group, they don't need formal control of territory. In the ongoing activity against ISIS denying them control of territory is a good thing, I'd agree, but at what cost?

If ISIS would have committed genocide against Assad supporters, then their defeat is good.

Whether 'Assad supporters' would constitute a group against whom 'genocide' would be considered is a little sophistric, but I'd agree that - in isolation - limiting ISIS ability to murder people is good. In this instance, however, it's not in isolation, it's in a situation where instead the Assad regime now has the unopposed capacity to kill people instead. This is not a win.

Ukraine's resistance is unnecessary.

Russia's invasion was unnecessary.

They brought it on themselves by attacking the breakaway republics in Donbas.

If you're going by 'who first fired a shot' the separatists caused it. It's the Ukrainian government's job to enforce peace within its territory. Legally it was none of Russia's business (although, on a practical level, of course, they'd already been financially, politically, morally and logistically supporting those separatists to foment unrest). And, let's not forget, Russia was already illegally occupying Crimea at this point.

Stop pretending that Russia initiated the war.

Nobody's pretending. Russia started the war when it invaded Crimea. Even if you consider cessation of military activities after that as the end of that war and this to be a new one, Ukraine's activities within its own border are not a war. Russian troops crossing the border, whether into disputed territory or into the broader Ukrainian lands is another explicit act of war.

There is no need to 'pretend' Russia started this war, or the last one. It's readily apparent to anyone looking at the facts that Russia started both of them.

O.