Arming the Ukrainians

[Udayana]

...
But God seems to be punishing Russia more than the West. What did the Russians do wrong?

At the least .. they have put a corrupt liar and cheat in as the head of the church?

[Spud]

No, Enki didn't bring up the subject. You did, Spud, in post 626, when you said,"God will judge any nation which allows this,". All I did was to comment on the way in which you sought to justify your warped prejudices by quoting from Leviticus. Now I don't know if you are deliberately lying or that you just don't have any grasp of what you actually say in your rather confused posts, but I thought I would put the record straight anyway.

Actually you linked to the article which quoted Kirill, so you brought it up.

[Spud]

Donbas is in Ukraine. Ukraine wasn't attacking Donbas, it was attacking the people who had invaded it.

Right, but the coup in 2014 saw a democratically elected government overthrown, right? So the response of the separatists is understandable.

But God seems to be punishing Russia more than the West. What did the Russians do wrong?

We can be sure that God judges, I can only guess what that means for Russia. Perhaps it is iconography, perhaps it's their brutality.

[Udayana]

Actually you linked to the article which quoted Kirill, so you brought it up.

Hmmm.. if you check we will see that was ekim not Enki. And, in any case, was only a link to an "interesting" article on religion in Russia - mainly, from my perspective, showing the way in which Russian state has taken over and now controls the religion rather than supressing it (as under the communist regime). Nothing to prompt your homophobic outputs.

[Udayana]

Right, but the coup in 2014 saw a democratically elected government overthrown, right? So the response of the separatists is understandable. We can be sure that God judges, I can only guess what that means for Russia. Perhaps it is iconography, perhaps it's their brutality.

The Yanukovych government had long departed any association with democracy - he was rightly ousted, having run a corrupt regime in concert with Putin. His replacement meant that Putin was no longer able to control and milk Ukraine,  that prompted the takeover of Crimea and his arming of Russian sympathisers and dissidents in Donbas. 

[Enki]

Actually you linked to the article which quoted Kirill, so you brought it up.

It was Gordon who said(post 635):

Don't be silly, Spud: ditch the 'God' nonsense and pay attention to people in future.

to which you responded with(post 638):

I'm not allowed to mention God? Is this a new rule?
Enki brought up the subject and I was giving an opinion. If I'm wrong about God judging the West, there is also the fact that I agree with Putin about transgenderism and 3-parent families.

So, no, I didn't bring up 'God'. You did in post 626, so stop lying. I'm sure that your 'holy' book doesn't like lying. I also mentioned an article which quoted Kirill after you had already mentioned him in your ignorant post 626 when you said:

Quote: Kirill blamed the invasion on 'Gay parades'.

So you're wrong on that too.

[Spud]

Hmmm.. if you check we will see that was ekim not Enki.

Thanks, sorry.

[Udayana]

Thanks, sorry.

Sorry for what though? For kicking off on a "religiously justified" homophobic basis for the invasion of Ukraine?  Doesn't look like it.

[Spud]

The Yanukovych government had long departed any association with democracy - he was rightly ousted, having run a corrupt regime in concert with Putin.

Ok.

His replacement meant that Putin was no longer able to control and milk Ukraine,

Milk Ukraine? Any details on that?

that prompted the takeover of Crimea and his arming of Russian sympathisers and dissidents in Donbas.

Okay.
I've been reading Military Assistance To Ukraine 2014-2021 which is interesting. It says,
"The UK, US and Russia are signatories to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum with Ukraine, which provided security assurances against the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”, including respect for its sovereignty and existing borders, in exchange for Ukraine’s unilateral nuclear disarmament and accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

It also says
"Russia said Western military assistance to Ukraine was a provocation and
accused the West of supporting Ukraine in militarising eastern Ukraine and
dismantling the 2014 and 2015 Minsk Agreements, which had been the basis
for a political solution to the conflict there."

But I understand that the Minsk agreement was interpreted by both Ukraine and Russia as giving themselves more control over Donbas, so it wasn't satisfactory.

From the above article I get that the provision of security assurance by USA and UK was in return for nuclear disarmament of Ukraine, and that in the Budapest Memorandum, Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and borders and not use force against them except in self defense. In relation to that last point, Russia seems to be claiming it is protecting those in Ukraine with Russian citizenship.

A question: how far should the military assistance go? As far as a world war? As far as causing economic ruin for Europe?

Leaving that aside. I wish you'd make your mind up.

First Putin definitely wasn't going to attack.

Then it was NATO's fault for provoking Putin.

Then it's the West's treating gay people as ordinary citizens.

Then it's a pre-emptive response to Ukrainian military build-up.

And you still think it's ok to break the sixth commandment.

You aren't any type of Christian I recognise.

You are full of hatred and cowardice. A dreadful mixture.

I'll call it Trying to Get To the Bottom of It.

[Spud]

Sorry for what though? For kicking off on a "religiously justified" homophobic basis for the invasion of Ukraine?  Doesn't look like it.

No, sorry for mistaking Enki and Ekim.
I think I concluded that I agreed with Putin about Western Liberalism, eg three parent families (which involves homosexuals) and transgenderism; also that God does judge nations which allow certain things to take place.

[Aruntraveller]

also that God does judge nations which allow certain things to take place.

but god isn't judging Putin for an illegal invasion and murder.

As I said before a fucking funny sort of God.

Isn't it funny how god appears so often to align with our own prejudices?

[ad_orientem]

Ok.Milk Ukraine? Any details on that?Okay.
I've been reading Military Assistance To Ukraine 2014-2021 which is interesting. It says,
"The UK, US and Russia are signatories to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum with Ukraine, which provided security assurances against the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”, including respect for its sovereignty and existing borders, in exchange for Ukraine’s unilateral nuclear disarmament and accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

It also says
"Russia said Western military assistance to Ukraine was a provocation and
accused the West of supporting Ukraine in militarising eastern Ukraine and
dismantling the 2014 and 2015 Minsk Agreements, which had been the basis
for a political solution to the conflict there."

But I understand that the Minsk agreement was interpreted by both Ukraine and Russia as giving themselves more control over Donbas, so it wasn't satisfactory.

From the above article I get that the provision of security assurance by USA and UK was in return for nuclear disarmament of Ukraine, and that in the Budapest Memorandum, Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and borders and not use force against them except in self defense. In relation to that last point, Russia seems to be claiming it is protecting those in Ukraine with Russian citizenship.

A question: how far should the military assistance go? As far as a world war? As far as causing economic ruin for Europe?

I'll call it Trying to Get To the Bottom of It.

As I said before, the idea that eastern Ukraine rose up in defiance of Kyiv is false. That's not to say there wasn't any collaborators, useful idiots etc but it was largely a Russian invasion. Girkin and Wagner. Everything that happened in eastern Ukraine afterwards has to be looked in that context. Ukraine was fighting Russian invaders.

How far should we assist Ukraine? To victory! Liberation up to 1992 borders. Anything less will make world war more likely. The more we appease, the more Russia will escalate. On a personal level I would rather tighten my belt and wear an extra layer of clothes than fund the Russian fascist regime one cent more. If there is world war, which I hope not, I am ready. Ready to do that which I swore to do when I did my military service. I fully knew what my oath meant.

[Udayana]

Ok.Milk Ukraine? Any details on that?Okay.

You could start with listening to The Reunion: The Maidan Uprising . The words of those directly involved in the "coup". 

Follow up with reading Moneyland by Oliver Bullough and on how Dmytro Firtash monopolised gas distribution in Ukraine in partnership with the Russian mafia.

I've been reading Military Assistance To Ukraine 2014-2021 which is interesting. It says
...
 In relation to that last point, Russia seems to be claiming it is protecting those in Ukraine with Russian citizenship.

That's clearly a nonsense as they started by annexing Crimea. What Putin is afraid of is that if Ukraine can operate successfully as a democracy after throwing out the kleptocracy - the idea might take hold in Russia too. 
...

[Spud]

As I said before, the idea that eastern Ukraine rose up in defiance of Kyiv is false. That's not to say there wasn't any collaborators, useful idiots etc but it was largely a Russian invasion. Girkin and Wagner. Everything that happened in eastern Ukraine afterwards has to be looked in that context. Ukraine was fighting Russian invaders.

How far should we assist Ukraine? To victory! Liberation up to 1992 borders. Anything less will make world war more likely. The more we appease, the more Russia will escalate. On a personal level I would rather tighten my belt and wear an extra layer of clothes than fund the Russian fascist regime one cent more. If there is world war, which I hope not, I am ready. Ready to do that which I swore to do when I did my military service. I fully knew what my oath meant.

Regarding the 1992 borders, I have a question. The EEC was formed IIRC as a way of preventing conflict between France and Germany over fossil fuel resources that exist in the territory between the two countries. How significant is the desire for control over such resources in Donbas by both Russia and Ukraine, and is the answer similar to the EEC, a trading agreement of some kind?
Regarding Girkin's involvement in 2014. He is apparently a Russian ultranationalist who wants unification of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, right? Since that doesn't involve the rest of Europe, why did the US and UK agree to security assurances for Ukraine in case of invasion? It seems the Memorandum was entirely for the purpose of preventing nuclear conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which is fair enough, but although it has so far prevented a world war: as we are seeing, it is causing the gradual slaughter of all the Ukrainian men, as well as many Russians. So it seems unsatisfactory in that respect. Wouldn't it have been better to implement the Minsk Agreement?
On that subject, I am reading an article that claims that the Americans refused to encourage Zelensky to negotiate with Putin for peace, in 2019 after the Trump impeachment event. According to Scott Ritter this apparently fueled Ukrainian far right nationalists who subsequently turned the peaceful protests in 2014 against Velikovsky into a violent insurrection and began killing Russian nationals. This led to Russia annexing Crimea.
I'm just looking into the matter from both sides. I don't believe in war. Although I used to want to be a fighter pilot (went for RAF interviews at 18 but sent home on the first evening due to eyesight), conversations with a housemate at uni changed my mind. He's not the type who would refuse to fight to protect his country, but he told me he would not join the Army "and kill people". On foreign conflict he said, "they need to sort their own problems out". He was a believer in the principle that if you help one person in trouble you save the world.
So I guess what I am saying is what I've said before too, the conflict is not our business, in the sense of providing lethal weapons. The article linked says that Obama didn't allow the US to provide Ukraine with them precisely because it would lead to conflict. The nuclear disarmament thing at the core of the Budapest Memorandum is concerning, though.

[jeremyp]

Regarding the 1992 borders, I have a question. The EEC was formed IIRC as a way of preventing conflict between France and Germany over fossil fuel resources that exist in the territory between the two countries. How significant is the desire for control over such resources in Donbas by both Russia and Ukraine, and is the answer similar to the EEC, a trading agreement of some kind?
Regarding Girkin's involvement in 2014. He is apparently a Russian ultranationalist who wants unification of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, right? Since that doesn't involve the rest of Europe, why did the US and UK agree to security assurances for Ukraine in case of invasion? It seems the Memorandum was entirely for the purpose of preventing nuclear conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which is fair enough, but although it has so far prevented a world war: as we are seeing, it is causing the gradual slaughter of all the Ukrainian men, as well as many Russians. So it seems unsatisfactory in that respect. Wouldn't it have been better to implement the Minsk Agreement?
On that subject, I am reading an article that claims that the Americans refused to encourage Zelensky to negotiate with Putin for peace, in 2019 after the Trump impeachment event. According to Scott Ritter this apparently fueled Ukrainian far right nationalists who subsequently turned the peaceful protests in 2014 against Velikovsky into a violent insurrection and began killing Russian nationals. This led to Russia annexing Crimea.
I'm just looking into the matter from both sides. I don't believe in war. Although I used to want to be a fighter pilot (went for RAF interviews at 18 but sent home on the first evening due to eyesight), conversations with a housemate at uni changed my mind. He's not the type who would refuse to fight to protect his country, but he told me he would not join the Army "and kill people". On foreign conflict he said, "they need to sort their own problems out". He was a believer in the principle that if you help one person in trouble you save the world.
So I guess what I am saying is what I've said before too, the conflict is not our business, in the sense of providing lethal weapons. The article linked says that Obama didn't allow the US to provide Ukraine with them precisely because it would lead to conflict. The nuclear disarmament thing at the core of the Budapest Memorandum is concerning, though.

The conflict is our business. Russia is a gangster state that seeks to impose its will on its neighbours. If it isn't stopped now, when are we going to stop it? When it's got Poland? Germany? France? The Isle of Wight?

I'll remind you that whilst its right to be opposed to war, when a foreign country rolls across your border with tanks, the options are pretty limited. You either give in or fight. If you do the former, it is a signal to Putin that he can do this whenever he fancies a bit of extra territory and he'll roll into a lot more countries with tanks.

And don't think that capitulating will save lives, at least not Ukrainian lives. Putin wants to eradicate Ukraine as a national identity. I'm sure you can imagine what that involves.

[Spud]

The conflict is our business. Russia is a gangster state that seeks to impose its will on its neighbours. If it isn't stopped now, when are we going to stop it? When it's got Poland? Germany? France? The Isle of Wight?

I'll remind you that whilst its right to be opposed to war, when a foreign country rolls across your border with tanks, the options are pretty limited. You either give in or fight. If you do the former, it is a signal to Putin that he can do this whenever he fancies a bit of extra territory and he'll roll into a lot more countries with tanks.

And don't think that capitulating will save lives, at least not Ukrainian lives. Putin wants to eradicate Ukraine as a national identity. I'm sure you can imagine what that involves.

It's quite a big assumption you're making - that Putin just fancied a bit more territory. Don't you think there could be other reasons for him invading?

[Nearly Sane]

It's quite a big assumption you're making - that Putin just fancied a bit more territory. Don't you think there could be other reasons for him invading?

Are any of them good?

[ad_orientem]

It's quite a big assumption you're making - that Putin just fancied a bit more territory. Don't you think there could be other reasons for him invading?

Yeah! He wants to make Ukrainians into good little Russians. Annexing territory is just a by-product of that.

[Aruntraveller]

It's quite a big assumption you're making - that Putin just fancied a bit more territory. Don't you think there could be other reasons for him invading?

I am really struggling with your reasoning on this issue.

Putin invaded another country, one that is recognised around the world as a sovereign nation.

The Ukrainians have shown overwhelmingly that they wish their country to remain as Ukraine.

There is a clear right and wrong here, no matter whether you choose to obfuscate with various confused and unfounded theories.

Why do you insist on being a cheerleader for an authoritarian, war-mongering, anti-democratic bully?

[jeremyp]

It's quite a big assumption you're making - that Putin just fancied a bit more territory. Don't you think there could be other reasons for him invading?

Well, if we are being pedantic, what he fancies is controlling populations and resources. He probably also is attracted the legacy of rebuilding the Russian empire.

[Spud]

I am really struggling with your reasoning on this issue.

Putin invaded another country, one that is recognised around the world as a sovereign nation.

The Ukrainians have shown overwhelmingly that they wish their country to remain as Ukraine.

There is a clear right and wrong here, no matter whether you choose to obfuscate with various confused and unfounded theories.

Why do you insist on being a cheerleader for an authoritarian, war-mongering, anti-democratic bully?

This from the New York Times in March 2014 may help explain:
Quote:
But the president [Obama] has signaled privately that despite all the pressure, he remains reluctant to send arms. In part, he has told aides and visitors that arming the Ukrainians would encourage the notion that they could actually defeat the far more powerful Russians, and so it would potentially draw a more forceful response from Moscow. He also wants to give a shaky cease-fire a chance to take hold, despite a reported 1,000 violations so far, and seems determined to stay aligned with European allies that oppose arms for Ukraine.

“If you’re playing on the military terrain in Ukraine, you’re playing to Russia’s strength, because Russia is right next door,” Antony J. Blinken, the deputy secretary of state, told an audience in Berlin last week. “It has a huge amount of military equipment and military force right on the border. Anything we did as countries in terms of military support for Ukraine is likely to be matched and then doubled and tripled and quadrupled by Russia.”
,..............


Is this not what we are now seeing?

[ad_orientem]

Er, no! What we see is Russia targeting civilians with the little they have left. That's why they're relying on Iranian kamikaze drones now. As for the mobilisation, it's an absolute joke. Drunken old men with WWII era equipment. They're already beginning to return home in body bags.

[Enki]

This from the New York Times in March 2014 may help explain:
Quote:
But the president [Obama] has signaled privately that despite all the pressure, he remains reluctant to send arms. In part, he has told aides and visitors that arming the Ukrainians would encourage the notion that they could actually defeat the far more powerful Russians, and so it would potentially draw a more forceful response from Moscow. He also wants to give a shaky cease-fire a chance to take hold, despite a reported 1,000 violations so far, and seems determined to stay aligned with European allies that oppose arms for Ukraine.

“If you’re playing on the military terrain in Ukraine, you’re playing to Russia’s strength, because Russia is right next door,” Antony J. Blinken, the deputy secretary of state, told an audience in Berlin last week. “It has a huge amount of military equipment and military force right on the border. Anything we did as countries in terms of military support for Ukraine is likely to be matched and then doubled and tripled and quadrupled by Russia.”
,..............


Is this not what we are now seeing?

I don't think so.

https://www.dw.com/en/russias-army-an-overestimated-power-in-the-war-against-ukraine/a-63264441

[Aruntraveller]

This from the New York Times in March 2014 may help explain:
Quote:
But the president [Obama] has signaled privately that despite all the pressure, he remains reluctant to send arms. In part, he has told aides and visitors that arming the Ukrainians would encourage the notion that they could actually defeat the far more powerful Russians, and so it would potentially draw a more forceful response from Moscow. He also wants to give a shaky cease-fire a chance to take hold, despite a reported 1,000 violations so far, and seems determined to stay aligned with European allies that oppose arms for Ukraine.

“If you’re playing on the military terrain in Ukraine, you’re playing to Russia’s strength, because Russia is right next door,” Antony J. Blinken, the deputy secretary of state, told an audience in Berlin last week. “It has a huge amount of military equipment and military force right on the border. Anything we did as countries in terms of military support for Ukraine is likely to be matched and then doubled and tripled and quadrupled by Russia.”
,..............


Is this not what we are now seeing?

In a word, no.

That was then. This is now.

Putin invaded. That changed everything. Why you can't see that is beyond me.

[jeremyp]

This from the New York Times in March 2014 may help explain:
Quote:
But the president [Obama] has signaled privately that despite all the pressure, he remains reluctant to send arms. In part, he has told aides and visitors that arming the Ukrainians would encourage the notion that they could actually defeat the far more powerful Russians, and so it would potentially draw a more forceful response from Moscow. He also wants to give a shaky cease-fire a chance to take hold, despite a reported 1,000 violations so far, and seems determined to stay aligned with European allies that oppose arms for Ukraine.

“If you’re playing on the military terrain in Ukraine, you’re playing to Russia’s strength, because Russia is right next door,” Antony J. Blinken, the deputy secretary of state, told an audience in Berlin last week. “It has a huge amount of military equipment and military force right on the border. Anything we did as countries in terms of military support for Ukraine is likely to be matched and then doubled and tripled and quadrupled by Russia.”
,..............


Is this not what we are now seeing?

No. Ukraine is winning this war.

What Obama said in 2014 was probably true in 2014. But Ukraine spent most of the intervening time massively improving its armed forces.