Arming the Ukrainians

[ad_orientem]

Spud seems to suggest that Russian speaking Ukrainians overwhelmingly wanted independence and that as a result a mostly Russian speaking battalion, namely Azov, bombed the shit out of them. Both, outside of Russian propaganda, are completely untrue. Nothing suggests that before the 2014 invasion (an inasion it was) suggests that there was a brewing seperatist movement. And as for who bombed who, obviously Spud thinks it was wrong for Ukraine to respond to a Russian invasion. Sorry, Spud, but you're an idiot! It also explains your views on corona virus. Both pieces of disinformation have the same source. Please tell me you're also a Trump supporter. 3 for 3.

[Spud]

Have you got any evidence that that is the case, because it is bullshit. Ukraine has a Russian army to fight that is superior in numbers and seeks to destroy the country. A moment's thought will tell you that wasting their NATO weapons on civilians would be suicidal.

Russia is unambiguously the bad guy here.

As I said, I refer you to the RT and Oliver Stone documentaries.
Several people in the RT documentary describe the Ukrainians shooting at them as they tried to escape the combat. That was this year.
Other civilians from Donbass described being shelled for the last eight years with weapons supplied by the West, and the soldiers trained by us.

[ad_orientem]

As I said, I refer you to the RT and Oliver Stone documentaries.
Several people in the RT documentary describe the Ukrainians shooting at them as they tried to escape the combat. That was this year.
Other civilians from Donbass described being shelled for the last eight years with weapons supplied by the West, and the soldiers trained by us.

Most likely payed actors.

[jeremyp]

As I said, I refer you to the RT and Oliver Stone documentaries.
Several people in the RT documentary describe the Ukrainians shooting at them as they tried to escape the combat. That was this year.
Other civilians from Donbass described being shelled for the last eight years with weapons supplied by the West, and the soldiers trained by us.

If you live in a war zone, occasionally you are going to come under fire from one side or the other. It's unfortunate but mistakes are made.

You do know don't you that the reason why there is a war zone is because Russia keeps invading. If Russia had kept out of Ukraine, everybody in that country would be living in peace side by side.

[Spud]

If you live in a war zone, occasionally you are going to come under fire from one side or the other. It's unfortunate but mistakes are made.

You do know don't you that the reason why there is a war zone is because Russia keeps invading. If Russia had kept out of Ukraine, everybody in that country would be living in peace side by side.

To your last point: "[t]he separation of a minority from the State of which it forms a part . . . can only be considered as an altogether exceptional solution, a last resort when the State lacks either the will or the power to enact and apply just and effective guarantees." (The Aaland Islands Question: Report Submitted to the Council of the League of Nations by the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B7/21/68/106 (1921).) In 2014 the new government of Ukraine revoked Yanukovych's law passed two years earlier making Russian an official language in Donbass (iirc). Although this decision was vetoed by the new President, it triggered the demonstrations in Donetsk and Luhansk. The Oliver Stone film implies that the government somehow brought in ultra nationalists to turn the peaceful protests violent. The subsequent oppression in those regions (the so-called Anti terror operation) seems to me to meet the criterion of "the State lacking either the will or the power to enact and apply just and effective guarantees".

Googling "Ukrainian army uses civilians as human shield in Mariupol" brings up links to claims and counter-claims. Given the past history of the West's intelligence services I think it's best to treat what our one or another journalist, intelligence source or government says with caution. The point is that the right thing to do in a war is to evacuate civilians if possible. If people were prevented from leaving apartment blocks then this would be a war crime.
A while ago I came across a video called "An interview with Scott Ritter". At 37 minutes he is asked to explain the legality of Russia's invasion. His answer lasts about 7 minutes I think, but he describes how Russia acted according to international law. Now I've just heard the Supreme Court say something about Scotland not being oppressed by the UK, and this makes sense of Scott's explanation about the legality of Donbas independence.
I also wanted to verify his claims earlier in the interview about the Maidan protests and subsequent events, and it appears he could have got his information from the Oliver Stone documentary, which details the interview with Yanukovych who explains the circumstances in which he had to decide whether to sign the treaty with the EU, and with Putin in which Putin says Russia "would not pay for Ukraine to sign up to the treaty" (in 2013). This clarifies that Russia was not putting undue pressure on Yanukovych, correct?
Anyway, I thought I'd post the link to the Ritter interview.

[jeremyp]

To your last point: "[t]he separation of a minority from the State of which it forms a part . . . can only be considered as an altogether exceptional solution, a last resort when the State lacks either the will or the power to enact and apply just and effective guarantees." (The Aaland Islands Question: Report Submitted to the Council of the League of Nations by the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B7/21/68/106 (1921).) In 2014 the new government of Ukraine revoked Yanukovych's law passed two years earlier making Russian an official language in Donbass (iirc). Although this decision was vetoed by the new President, it triggered the demonstrations in Donetsk and Luhansk. The Oliver Stone film implies that the government somehow brought in ultra nationalists to turn the peaceful protests violent. The subsequent oppression in those regions (the so-called Anti terror operation) seems to me to meet the criterion of "the State lacking either the will or the power to enact and apply just and effective guarantees".

Googling "Ukrainian army uses civilians as human shield in Mariupol" brings up links to claims and counter-claims. Given the past history of the West's intelligence services I think it's best to treat what our one or another journalist, intelligence source or government says with caution. The point is that the right thing to do in a war is to evacuate civilians if possible. If people were prevented from leaving apartment blocks then this would be a war crime.
A while ago I came across a video called "An interview with Scott Ritter". At 37 minutes he is asked to explain the legality of Russia's invasion. His answer lasts about 7 minutes I think, but he describes how Russia acted according to international law. Now I've just heard the Supreme Court say something about Scotland not being oppressed by the UK, and this makes sense of Scott's explanation about the legality of Donbas independence.
I also wanted to verify his claims earlier in the interview about the Maidan protests and subsequent events, and it appears he could have got his information from the Oliver Stone documentary, which details the interview with Yanukovych who explains the circumstances in which he had to decide whether to sign the treaty with the EU, and with Putin in which Putin says Russia "would not pay for Ukraine to sign up to the treaty" (in 2013). This clarifies that Russia was not putting undue pressure on Yanukovych, correct?
Anyway, I thought I'd post the link to the Ritter interview.

Russia has invaded Ukraine twice in the 21st century. Whatever injustices were happening inside Ukraine, the Russians didn't need to do that. Putin is an imperialist murderous bastard.

[ad_orientem]

Good god! Scott Ritter! A twice convicted groomer. Why would anyone take what he says seriously. Why don't you just admit it, Spud. You're drunk on Russian cum!

[Outrider]

The point is that the right thing to do in a war is to evacuate civilians if possible.

To where? What part of the Ukraine is not currently under threat of imminent indiscriminate missile strikes from Russian forces? Where in a country which has systematically had its utilities infrastructure attacked by a military trying to scrabble a Pyrrhic victory at any cost can handle the sudden influx of these displaced individuals? The 'right thing' to do in war is not to target civilian centres - these people aren't 'human shields' being put into the proximity of viable military targets, they're a civilian populace in their own homes being targetted by an unjustifiable tactic in an already unjustifiable invasion.

A while ago I came across a video called "An interview with Scott Ritter". At 37 minutes he is asked to explain the legality of Russia's invasion. His answer lasts about 7 minutes I think, but he describes how Russia acted according to international law.

He cites two justifications for military actions - UN-mandated, and (pre-emptive) self-defence. There is no UN mandate here, and I've seen no credible claim that Ukraine offered a potential threat to Russian territory. Putin's attempts to paint NATO as some aggressive force massing on his border is just self-serving bullshit. Ukraine's potential joining of NATO is only a threat to Russia in Putin's mind because he already thinks that Ukraine is a recalcitrant part of some larger notional Russian empire.

O.

[Spud]

To where? What part of the Ukraine is not currently under threat of imminent indiscriminate missile strikes from Russian forces? Where in a country which has systematically had its utilities infrastructure attacked by a military trying to scrabble a Pyrrhic victory at any cost can handle the sudden influx of these displaced individuals? The 'right thing' to do in war is not to target civilian centres - these people aren't 'human shields' being put into the proximity of viable military targets, they're a civilian populace in their own homes being targetted by an unjustifiable tactic in an already unjustifiable invasion.


He cites two justifications for military actions - UN-mandated, and (pre-emptive) self-defence. There is no UN mandate here, and I've seen no credible claim that Ukraine offered a potential threat to Russian territory. Putin's attempts to paint NATO as some aggressive force massing on his border is just self-serving bullshit. Ukraine's potential joining of NATO is only a threat to Russia in Putin's mind because he already thinks that Ukraine is a recalcitrant part of some larger notional Russian empire.

O.

Sounds like you didn't watch the RT documentary. Around ¹⁶ minutes onwards there are multiple witnesses saying they tried to escape the shelling but were forced to stay put or shot.
Russia is dealing with the ultra-nationalist factions in Ukraine, which are controlling the government and people. Think brexiteers with tanks

[Aruntraveller]

Sounds like you didn't watch the RT documentary drama. FTFY

Spud, you have heard of actors haven't you?

[jeremyp]

Sounds like you didn't watch the RT documentary. Around ¹⁶ minutes onwards there are multiple witnesses saying they tried to escape the shelling but were forced to stay put or shot.
Russia is dealing with the ultra-nationalist factions in Ukraine, which are controlling the government and people. Think brexiteers with tanks

As I said, there's a war going on. There's lots of shelling going on. It wouldn't be hards to find a few people willing to say they are being shelled deliberately.

The reason there is a war going on is that Russia has invaded Ukraine. If they withdrew, all this would stop.

[Outrider]

Sounds like you didn't watch the RT documentary. Around ¹⁶ minutes onwards there are multiple witnesses saying they tried to escape the shelling but were forced to stay put or shot.

It's been widely documented that the Ukrainian authorities have been trying to avoid having large collections of people moving around seeking sanctuary because -
a) the power and water infrastructure everywhere is already suffering and can't necessarily take additional load;
b) the transport infrastructure needs to be kept relatively clear to facilitate troop and materiel movements; and,
c) any larger than typical collection of people become another target of opportunity for the war crimes of Russian targetting of civilians.

It's not that it's not happening, it's that it's a bullshit claim that it's to maintain 'human shields'.

Russia is dealing with the ultra-nationalist factions in Ukraine, which are controlling the government and people.

1. The majority of the 'ultra-nationalists' currently in Ukraine are Russian ultra-nationalists
2. Even if there were 'ultra-nationalists' in Ukraine opposing the minority opinion of reunification with Russia, that's an internal Ukrainian matter.

Think brexiteers with tanks

I think if the Brexiteers had tanks they'd be lining them up on the White Cliffs to make sure the wrong coloured people didn't come and contribute to our economy with their strange accents, they wouldn't invade a foreign state; they want less to do with other countries, not more.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I think if the Brexiteers had tanks they'd be lining them up on the White Cliffs to make sure the wrong coloured people didn't come and contribute to our economy with their strange accents, they wouldn't invade a foreign state; they want less to do with other countries, not more.

O.

People who voted for Brexit are just a bunch of mad racists?

[Outrider]

People who voted for Brexit are just a bunch of mad racists?

All of them, no - I'm married to one - but of the Brexit voters, the ones who'd get excited by having some tanks would be doing that with them.

O.

[Spud]

The reason there is a war going on is that Russia has invaded Ukraine.

According to this Russia was concerned about a buildup of Ukrainian troops - half it's army - near Donbass in 2021. Russia's invasion was pre-emptive.

[Maeght]

According to this Russia was concerned about a buildup of Ukrainian troops - half it's army - near Donbass in 2021. Russia's invasion was pre-emptive.

This was a claim made by Russia. Even if true this relates to the Eastern part of the country of Ukraine. What was Russia's invasion pre-empting?

[ad_orientem]

According to this Russia was concerned about a buildup of Ukrainian troops - half it's army - near Donbass in 2021. Russia's invasion was pre-emptive.

What happened to your brains?

[jeremyp]

According to this Russia was concerned about a buildup of Ukrainian troops - half it's army - near Donbass in 2021. Russia's invasion was pre-emptive.

Wasn't there a war going on in Donbas already between Ukraine and the Russian backed separatists? Ukraine sent its army to where a war was happening within its own borders. Russia's accusation is bullshit. There would not have been a war in Eastern Ukraine without Russia stirring things up there.

The Russians are the bad guys here. There's no excuse for what they have done.   

[ad_orientem]

https://twitter.com/Euan_MacDonald/status/1596896723112460289?t=6yRlSqBoK74l91ApUEydUA&s=19

[ad_orientem]

This is what Ukraine is fighting against. Julia Davis does a brilliant job. One day these can hopefully be used as evidence in war crime trails.

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1597089807171485696?t=jBkcOWp1gTRSuF4kqvXZxQ&s=19

[Outrider]

According to this Russia was concerned about a buildup of Ukrainian troops - half it's army - near Donbass in 2021. Russia's invasion was pre-emptive.

2014 Russia masses troops on the Ukrainian border, then invades Crimea and still occupies that Ukrainian territory.
2020/21 Russia masses troops on the Ukrainian border.
Spring 2021 - Ukraine moves troops towards the Russian border IN RESPONSE TO A POTENTIAL INVASION FROM A COUNTRY THAT HAS ALREADY INVADED VIA THAT ROUTE IN THE PAST DECADE AND STILL OCCUPIES A  HUGE SWATHE OF THE COUNTRY.

Of course they moved troops there, Russia was massed on its border. Again. Do you ever look at the context of these claims, or do you just suckle at the teat of Russian-sponsored propoganda and right-wing bull-shit merchants uncritically?

O.

O.

[Aruntraveller]

Do you ever look at the context of these claims, or do you just suckle at the teat of Russian-sponsored propoganda and right-wing bull-shit merchants uncritically?

Just a wild guess, but I'd say the latter of those options.

[Spud]

Wasn't there a war going on in Donbas already between Ukraine and the Russian backed separatists? Ukraine sent its army to where a war was happening within its own borders.

There was also the Minsk Agreement, which resulted in the separatists reducing their numbers to 10,000, according to this Russian field commander (See 13-15 minutes into the video.). To mobilize to greater strength in time to counter the AFU would have taken too long, which is why they appealed to Russia for help.
Russia had been conducting exercises 200km from the border in response to NATO wargames.

[ad_orientem]

There were already Russian troops in Donbas by then. Russia doesn't even deny it.

[Spud]

2014 Russia masses troops on the Ukrainian border, then invades Crimea and still occupies that Ukrainian territory.

The reason it did this was because there were people murdering pro-Russian demonstrators in Ukraine following the insurrection in Kiev. They even attempted to assassinate Yanukovych. Why should Russia 'respect Ukraine's borders' as per the Budapest Memorandum if the democratically elected government is violently forced out?
The Memorandum was not a license for Ukrainians to terrorise the Russian minority - they nullified the agreement.