Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Mar 28 08:54:09 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Ukraine: Which side is the US on?
murder
Member
Sun May 21 18:38:37
Biden says Zelenskyy gave a 'flat assurance' that F-16s fighter jets wouldn't attack Russian territory as drastic policy shift takes shape

President Joe Biden said he received "flat assurance" from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Ukraine would not use F-16 fighter jets to attack Russian territory.

"I have a flat assurance from Zelensky that they will not, will not, use it to go into Russian geographic territory," Biden told reporters at the end of the annual G7 summit in Japan on Sunday, according to The Washington Post.

It's the latest development marking a drastic shift by US President Joe Biden and US officials, who have long rejected authorizing F-16s in Ukraine.

In February, Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, portrayed supplying F-16s to Ukraine as unfeasible.

But on Friday, the US authorized Western allies to provide F-16 jets to Ukraine to defend itself, assist in training pilots, and possibly send fighter jets from American stockpiles, Insider previously reported.

Earlier this week, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the UK and the Netherlands would build an "international coalition" to help the country procure the fighter jets.

Ukraine sees the F-16s as indispensable to their cause, a defense expert recently told Insider.

The US president also announced another $375 million in military assistance to Ukraine to help support its long-running and bloody battle with Putin's regime.

Biden said at a press conference in Hiroshima that "Vladimir Putin will not break our resolve" and reiterated the G7 countries' "shared and unwavering commitment to stand with the brave people of Ukraine as they defend themselves against Russia's brutal war of aggression and the war crimes being committed."

Zelenskyy appeared at the conference, the first in-person since Russia's invasion, in an appeal to seek more aid for the country, Insider reported.

"I am here in Hiroshima so the world can hear the Ukrainian call for unity. Russia has trampled on everything that is civilized," Zelenskyy said at the summit on Sunday.

http://www...ttack-russian-territory-2023-5
murder
Member
Sun May 21 18:42:46

Literally forcing Ukraine to fight with both hands tied behind it's back. For all the talk of aid to Ukraine, the US's greatest contribution to this war is making sure that Russia suffers absolutely no consequences for their land grab, and for slaughtering 1000s of Ukrainians.

kargen
Member
Sun May 21 21:50:21
the side of the all mighty dollar?
Paramount
Member
Mon May 22 00:25:02
What is a flat assurance?
kargen
Member
Mon May 22 01:16:42
one without any bumps or dents.
Seb
Member
Mon May 22 02:42:28
F-16s wouldn't survive going into Russian air space.

Good for using standoff weapons and air defence.

Also over black sea
Paramount
Member
Mon May 22 06:18:50
” Which side is the US on?”


The US is on its own side. They threw Ukraine into the meat grinder. Back when the US first approached Ukraine, Ukraine should have said no.
jergul
large member
Mon May 22 06:30:06
Good for air defence. Though at a 2:1 missile expended to missile shot down ratio give or take. The main problem is the same Ukraine's current fighters have. Some Russian SAMs are very long ranged.
jergul
large member
Mon May 22 08:53:22
heh, Zelenskij denies Ukraine has anything to do with an incursion into Russia with infantry, APCs, MBTs and helicopters.

Cute, but he does get these kinds of things completely undermine his credibility.

He does not actually have to lean into the clown image even if the Ukrainian military authorized the incusion without civilian oversight.
jergul
large member
Mon May 22 08:54:35
My take on it: A PR distraction to overshadow the loss of Bakhmut in Western media.
Paramount
Member
Mon May 22 10:09:27
What airfields in Ukraine will Zelenskyj/Nato launch the F16’s from?

Or will the F16’s be launched from a neighboring Nato country? Or from a US or british carrier in the Black Sea?
Sam Adams
Member
Mon May 22 11:24:10
Will the f16s be launched from a carrier?

Russbot level iq lol
Sam Adams
Member
Mon May 22 11:25:04
Meanwhile the ukrainian speaking minority in belgograd is being liberated from neonazis. Thats how this works right?
murder
Member
Mon May 22 11:52:12

"F-16s wouldn't survive going into Russian air space."

Neither would slow ass drones.

murder
Member
Mon May 22 11:54:27

"Good for using standoff weapons and air defence."

Yeah ... standoff weapons to strike inside Ukraine. Ukraine has US permission to bomb the ever loving hell out of itself, we just want them breaking anything inside Russia.

williamthebastard
Member
Mon May 22 11:58:55
Currently on Ukraines side, but Putin ends his prayers each night with "And please Lord make Trump president again. Amen"
williamthebastard
Member
Mon May 22 12:04:10
The one upside to all this is that americans have finally stopped saying The Ukraine. Mass murders have happened for less aggravating things
murder
Member
Mon May 22 12:41:44

"The one upside to all this is that americans have finally stopped saying The Ukraine."

Only because Habebe has stopped posting ... and I think gone over the edge.

williamthebastard
Member
Mon May 22 13:24:36
I was wondering whether that flash in his mobile home was Tucker blowing his mind or his meth lab going off again
Seb
Member
Mon May 22 15:40:39
Murder:

Yeah that's what we all say in public.

Like how those Ukrainian separatists found modernised T-72 stashed away in salt mines and arms depots in 2014.
Seb
Member
Mon May 22 15:44:56
I'm sure the US will respond very very strongly to Ukraine letting those MRAPs fall into the hands of the Russian Freedom Legion to attack Belogrod. And Ukraine will respond about how difficult it is to control angry Russian nationals in Ukraine (there are so many who have recently discovered that were actually born in Russia) - especially under the circumstances of this war.


jergul
large member
Mon May 22 17:12:53
Nice race to the bottom! Ukraine is exactly the same as Russia given the opportunity? Is that your argument?
jergul
large member
Mon May 22 17:18:51
Be mindful that it is not actually a good idea to have Russia mobilize and go on a war footing.

Its transition from BTGs to Brigades is organizationally challenging because Russia has not mobilized, so cannot release about 1/3rd of every brigade as those are used to induct conscripts that are done with 6 months basic training. This puts an additional strain on units actually deployed. They are literally fighting with one hand tied behind back.

williamthebastard
Member
Tue May 23 00:48:27
"Nice race to the bottom!" The aggressor's violence is, naturally, intolerable. The victim's defensive violence is (within reason), of course, perfectly acceptable. Even when it goes further than necessary, its still often more understandable. I abhor self-professed law and order braggarts who conceal their general lust for revenge behind pretend fidelity to justice, but Id be full of vengeance too after what Russia has done to a perfectly peaceful neighbour
Paramount
Member
Tue May 23 01:37:07
” The aggressor's violence is, naturally, intolerable.”

Which is why Russia had to intervene in eastern Ukraine. To protect people from being shelled and killed by the Ukrainian army their neo-nazi batallions.


” what Russia has done to a perfectly peaceful neighbour”

Sorry, but lol.
williamthebastard
Member
Tue May 23 01:49:09
Ridiculous moron. For years, Sweden has monitored where Swedish skinheads went to get neo-nazi combat and ideology training. The three leading countries were Ukraine, Hungary and Russia, with Russia being the No. 1 center for neonazi skinheads.
williamthebastard
Member
Tue May 23 02:03:59
the same applies to german neo-nazis. Russia is the neonazi hotspot in Europe since years back. Probably applies to all European neo-nazis

http://www...ussian-camps-report/a-53692907
Seb
Member
Tue May 23 02:06:43
Jergul:

Russia has normalised hybrid warfare.

I think it's actually very useful that Russia is reminded why it's a really bad idea.

Asymmetry and all that.

But I am heartened your bullshit filter has suddenly kicked in, and now that it has perhaps you would like to think again about the events of 2014 and re-evaluate.

Seb
Member
Tue May 23 02:07:29
As for BTGs etc you are going down a rabbit hole.

Paramount
Member
Tue May 23 02:33:33
” The three leading countries were Ukraine, Hungary and Russia”


Still though, to claim that Ukraine was perfectly peaceful is not true and deserves a lol.
williamthebastard
Member
Tue May 23 02:34:50
I said they were a peaceful neighbour. No child could believe that Ukraine was preparing to attack Russia.
williamthebastard
Member
Tue May 23 02:34:50
I said they were a peaceful neighbour. No child could believe that Ukraine was preparing to attack Russia.
williamthebastard
Member
Tue May 23 02:38:17
Russia has been the main concern of researchers monitoring neonazism in Europe since the mid 90s, IIRC, with documented connections to the Kreml. I still remember that wonderful party back in 2010 when Putin booked that band at the Kreml that came from a neonazi group that had murdered dozens of people.
williamthebastard
Member
Tue May 23 02:38:47
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEdC0HmWPsM
williamthebastard
Member
Tue May 23 02:52:37
All of the former ussr states became nationalistic and neonazi hotbeds a decade after the ussr crumbled, as well as hotbeds for crime and corruption. The baltic states have moved on completely, some of the states closer to russia are still stuck in a lot of shit, and mother russia still seems to be the geographical and political center for all of that
Paramount
Member
Tue May 23 03:42:40
Ukrainian nationalists/neo-nazis were killing russian speaking Ukrainians. Ukraine was stripping their russian speaking population of their rights. Russian speaking citizens were given an option to denounce who they are, their language and their heritage, or to leave the country. They decided to hold a referendum where (suprisingly!) the vast majority – realizing that they were no longer welcome in their own country by their own government, voted for freedom and self-determination.

Ukraine together with the US sowed the seeds of the conflict with Russia.

Not a perfectly peaceful neighbor.

About nazis in Russia/Ukraine… According to Expo, few nazis has sided directly with Russia:

” Most organizations within the Swedish racial ideological environment have given Russia's war against Ukraine a lot of space in their channels. Few have sided directly with Russia”

http://exp...xtremhöger-på-kriget-i-ukraina

Instead, most (if not all) swedish neo-nazis seems to have joined Ukraine and for an example the Azov batallion.


” Russia has been the main concern of researchers monitoring neonazism”

Why are Russian neo-nazis a MAIN concern? Because they hold a music concert in Kreml?

You can find neo-nazis in every country. But Ukraine is the only country in the world that has a neo-nazi unit among its armed forces. The Azov battalion is incorporated as a regular regiment under the Ukrainian National Guard.
williamthebastard
Member
Tue May 23 03:47:00
"Ukrainian nationalists/neo-nazis were killing russian speaking Ukrainians. "

Lol
Source?
williamthebastard
Member
Tue May 23 03:49:04
"Most organizations within the Swedish racial ideological environment have given Russia's war against Ukraine a lot of space in their channels. Few have sided directly with Russia”

http://exp...xtremhöger-på-kriget-i-ukraina"

Youre posting a link that says most neonazis in Sweden agree with you on Russia/Ukraine? Well, ok. That would have made me pause, personally
williamthebastard
Member
Tue May 23 03:53:04
Your translation is deceptive, btw. It says most racists in Sweden say that NATO and the West are largely to blame and that Russias actions are problematic but reasonable and understandable.
williamthebastard
Member
Tue May 23 04:18:13
500 racially motivated murders in Russia since 2004. I bet there are quite a few countries that should be allowed to invade Russia to protect their citizens, in line with your theories
Seb
Member
Tue May 23 05:01:54
Paramount:

Sure, that's what Russia said.

And there's absolutely no history of Russia repeatedly interfering in Ukrainian politics to ensure their placemen were running the country, like poisoning Yushenko etc.

Russia largely created the narrative through manipulation to justify the 2014 invasion. It did so because Putin didn't see Ukraine or Belorussia as independent but as overly independent federal territories that were just waiting for a more formal structure, which was fine while the Kremlin could dictate who ran the country more or less.

After the Euromaidan movement he realised he needed to force the issue.

Seb
Member
Tue May 23 05:04:09
Anyway, having now created the precedent that Russians can invade other countries to protect Russians it would seem churlish, paramount, to object to the peacekeeping operation in Bilhorod
Seb
Member
Tue May 23 05:37:49
Paramount:

"You can find neo-nazis in every country. But Ukraine is the only country in the world that has a neo-nazi unit among its armed forces."

Plenty of Russian forces that are neo Nazis. I mean look at the PMCs that Russia deploys - run by openly NAZI espousing folks. Funny you never worry about them isn't it paramount.

Azov was brought into the main army to see nazify it. So naturally you consider this proof that the Ukrainian govt led by an... er...Jew... is a NAZI. While Russia is actually adopting an openly fascist approach to its politics and imaging it's neighbours in a policy highly reminiscent of NAZI "blood and soil" towards its neighbours.



Rugian
Member
Tue May 23 06:54:11
It's spelled "Belgorod."

Also, it's "the Ukraine," not "Ukraine."
jergul
large member
Tue May 23 07:04:53
Seb
What reevalutation? The invasion and occupation of Ukraine began in 2014 and is far worse than any shit the US has pulled since the Vietnam war. I have been consistent on this point, there is just no point elaborating since it is the consensus view.

Logistics and organization matter. In many ways, they are the only things that matter.

Russia's force organization matters. It has nothing like the US Brigade Combat Teams. The much smaller Battalion Tactical Groups did not work, so Russia has reverted back to the Brigade format. Which do not work either without mobilization because every Brigade can only be partially deployed.

Radical Russian bloggers are correct in sense that the SMO is a stupid format. But it does allow Russian society to continue untouched. Putin is reluctant to declare full mobilization. Not because of fears of internal resistance, but rather because he believes Soviet style militarization of society and economy lead to the downfall of the USSR. So he does not want to repeat that mistake by mobilizing, even though it would take decades to fail, it is hard to reverse a warfooting (arguably, Russia never did so properely after wwii).
jergul
large member
Tue May 23 07:19:41
With that said, it does not mean all Russia propaganda is wrong. Tis the nature of good propaganda to accentuate truthy details at the expense of the big picture.

The Ukrainianization of Russian minorities is one of the main reasons for the 2022 escalation. The driver for that is to appease radical nationalists in Ukraine. Nationalists who have no problem with being called Nazis.

Russia has rightfully been under heavy sanction since 2014. But there are downsides. The price to pivot away from the West from 2022 is not low exactly, just pre-paid.

You do not denazify by taking Azov into the fold. Units like that are disbanded if the goal is denazification. You do however take them into the fold if there is a strong need to cater to Ukrainian ultra-nationalists.

Ukraine claims that its control of nazi inspired groups is nominal at best. See two of them attacking into Russia proper. This is probably partially true. Ukraine has tons of very powerful internal factions. One of the reasons corruption is such a problem. The central government is not actually very strong. Despite what one might think from a jetsetting Zelenskij. It needs to cater to all kinds of forces, then justify it afterwards.

Remaining in Bakhmut was a forced mistake. Pushing into Russia is likely also another forced mistake, not just a coverup to distract from Bakhmut and credible rumours that Ukraine's highest military commander is on critical life support after a Russian (or Wagner) strike a few weeks ago).
Paramount
Member
Tue May 23 09:51:40
williamthebastard

”Lol
Source?”

You really need a source for this? Read up on the massacre in Odessa.

That massacre in itself was not the reason why Russia decided it had to intervene, though. It was after years of Ukrainian shelling of their own population in Donbas and after realizing that Ukraine and the West had no intention to honor the Minsk II agreement for a peaceful end to the conflict that Russia was felt that it was forced to intervene to protect people’s lives and to put an end to the conflict.



”500 racially motivated murders in Russia since 2004. I bet there are quite a few countries that should be allowed to invade Russia to protect their citizens, in line with your theories”


Has the Russian government stripped their minority groups of their rights to their language and heritage? Is the Russian army shooting artillery shells on any of its minority groups?

But okay, countries who feel that they want to invade Russia are entitled to try, I guess.



"Youre posting a link that says most neonazis in Sweden agree with you on Russia/Ukraine? Well, ok. That would have made me pause, personally"


I have also driven on the Autobahn, which was made by Adolf Hitler.

The link says: "Few have directly sided with Russia, but at the same time they have been careful to point out that NATO, the EU and the West have a part in the situation that has arisen. Biggest responsibility even."

How is this controversial? It's not difficult to understand that it takes two to tango – that the US/NATO and the EU also have a part in the situation, and even the biggest responsibility (if you ask me). US/NATO and the EU has been extremely arrogant and reckless, next to criminal if we look at the outcome of their arrogance. Peace and security is not something that only one party can enjoy at the expense of the other.




Seb

"Anyway, having now created the precedent that Russians can invade other countries to protect Russians"


The precedent has already been set by the US/NATO when they bombed Yugoslavia (including civilians and civilian infrastructure) to protect Kosovo-Albanians and then when they divided the country by giving a large piece of Serbian land to Kosovo-Albanians.

Another precedent was set again by the US and the UK when they bombed and invaded Iraq because they felt that Iraq was a threat to their national security.

Sit down, Seb. The US/UK/NATO are in no position to tell other countries that they have no right to protect civilians or invade other countries to preserve their security needs.
williamthebastard
Member
Tue May 23 10:01:36
Yes, read up on the massacre in Odessa.
williamthebastard
Member
Tue May 23 10:03:27
42 people russians died as a result of pro-russians attacking and killing 2 ukrainians in ukraine. A Russian neonazi killed 18 people, almost half in just one day, a few weeks ago.
williamthebastard
Member
Tue May 23 10:05:26
"Has the Russian government stripped their minority groups of their rights to their language and heritage? Is the Russian army shooting artillery shells on any of its minority groups?"

They fucking invented it, thats why its been called "Russification" for a long time, way before this war
Seb
Member
Tue May 23 10:11:19
Jergul:

Consistent my arse. From the get go you decided to indulge the Russian narrative of a separatist uprising. When the Malaysian jet got shot down you were going on as though the separatists weren't under direct control of Moscow.

Russia's problems in Ukraine run deeper than the organisational structure of their forces.
Seb
Member
Tue May 23 10:14:20
Paramount:

Russia didn't invade to protect civilians, and we've seen from their conduct they aren't particularly interested in protecting civilians.

Seb
Member
Tue May 23 10:17:08
I mean that was Hitler's excuse too wasn't it? I just need to invade Sudetenland and Poland to protect ethnic Germans.

NATO didn't annex territory. It takes a fantastic amount of hypocrisy to condemn NATO for intervening to stop Serbian genocide but support Russia annexing it's neighbours.
Paramount
Member
Tue May 23 10:44:43
Seb

”Russia didn't invade to protect civilians”

They had several reasons to invade. National security threat. Protect civilians.

They are protecting russian speaking civilians foremost. And I believe that the civilian death toll on the Ukrainian side is low if you compare it to other conflicts. Russia could have caused a lot more damage and death if they wanted. But they don’t. They try their best to avoid civilian casualties, and they have done their best to help civilians by distributing food and medicine to them. One reason is because Putin and Russians regard Ukrainians as brothers. They are a slavic people like the Russians are.


” I mean that was Hitler's excuse too wasn't it?”

It was the US/Nato’s excuse to bomb Yugoslavia – to stop the killings and protect lives. How many civilians must die before you regard it as a genocide? In Donbas, Ukraine killed 14,000 of their own citizens. Had Russia not intervened, maybe the majority of the russian speaking citizens would have been killed by now or eventually in a couple of years. Maybe Russia’s intervention prevented a genocide?


”NATO didn't annex territory”

They stole Serbian land and gave it to Albanians.
Paramount
Member
Tue May 23 11:27:43
”I mean that was Hitler's excuse too wasn't it? I just need to invade Sudetenland and Poland to protect ethnic Germans.”


Hitler’s excuse was to create the third reich and to kill jews, liberals, socialists and communists.

USA’s excuse is ”national security threat” and to protect civilians.

Russia’s excuse is ”national security threat” and to protect civilians.

Anything else I need to sort out? ;o)
Seb
Member
Tue May 23 11:36:34
Paramount:

"They stole Serbian land and gave it to Albanians"

The Albanians were citizens, and living on it.

The Serbians tried to drive them all out.

So who actually stole this land again?
Seb
Member
Tue May 23 11:38:45
Paramount:

"They had several reasons to invade. National security threat. Protect civilians."

There was no threat to civilians in 2014.

There was no national security threat to Russia.

The issue was that Putin realised he could no longer determine who ran Ukraine and keep them as a pet proxy governor.

He had previously poisoned a previous reformer.

Stop apologising for Putin.
Seb
Member
Tue May 23 11:41:44
"to stop the killings and protect lives."

Yes. Only the Serbs were actually killing civilians and ethnic cleansing.

"In Donbas, Ukraine killed 14,000 of their own citizens."

So claims Russia which is totally believable and not made up bullshit by Russia that has a long history of trying to run Ukraine as a puppet state.

Putin even admitted the insurgents from 2014 were actually Russian soldiers and gave them all a campaign medal.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to be repeating this shit 9 years later.

Paramount
Member
Tue May 23 11:44:52
Serbia? You mean it was Serbia who stole the land from themselves and gave it to Albanians?


The Russians are citizens in Ukraine, and living there.

Ukrainians took away their rights and the nationalists wanted to drive them out or kill them.

So, Ukraine stole their own land and gave it to Russia? :o)
Paramount
Member
Tue May 23 11:50:52
” There was no national security threat to Russia. ”

It’s not for you to determine. Russia obviously saw an emminent threat. Crimea would have turned into a Nato base. Crimea is by the way a part of Russia’s soul. There’s no chance that Crimea is going to fall into the hands of USA/Nato. Not without a nuclear war first.

Russia’s red lines has been well known by the US and Nato for many years, yet they decided to cross this line. They knew it would lead to a conflict. And that was exactly what the US wanted.
Paramount
Member
Tue May 23 12:00:44
” In Donbas, Ukraine killed 14,000 of their own citizens."

So claims Russia which is totally believable and not made up bullshit by Russia”


I think the number comes from the UN and other sources.
Paramount
Member
Tue May 23 12:02:35
Actually, the 14,000 may consist of both Ukrainian and Russian speaking Ukrainian citizens. So not only Russian speaking.
Paramount
Member
Tue May 23 14:29:00
Has all the Russian neo-nazis joined Ukraine? Do you have any info on that, williamthebastard?


”The bearded man, purportedly participating in Belgorod incursion, is Russian neo-nazi Aleksey Levkin of M8L8TH (Hitler’s Hammer) band, the organiser of the annual National-Socialist Black Metal festival in Kyiv and a leading personality behind Wotanjugend platform.”

http://twi...?s=61&t=C7YI8upxCqhyhPMRv9y0zg
Paramount
Member
Tue May 23 14:56:33
"Elements of the Russian Volunteer Corps are overtly sympathetic to neo-Nazi ideology and praise Hitler on Telegram. The militia is part of Ukraine’s Territorial Defense Forces and was formed... from Russian volunteers who had been fighting for the Azov."

http://twi...?s=61&t=C7YI8upxCqhyhPMRv9y0zg
Seb
Member
Tue May 23 15:21:15
Paramount, it's worth noting that parts of Russia were historically Ukrainian, and have Ukrainian speaking populations, and Russia grants them no n special cultural rights, insists on suppressing their language for official use etc. etc.

http://twi...?t=OxYW0Ge2ZFZAuqrbQALZWA&s=19

"Serbia? You mean it was Serbia who stole the land from themselves and gave it to Albanians?"

I'm saying that ethnic Albanians who live in that part of Serbia have human rights, and if the Serbians start killing them then it's right to intervene.

"The Russians are citizens in Ukraine, and living there."

And all was perfectly fine until Russia - which it openly admits doing by the way - launched a fake independence war using Russian soldiers from across the border and a few paid local agents.

"Ukrainians took away their rights"

Not really. They simply reversed Russification policies that demanded Ukraine used Russian language in official documents. Russia contains many, many ethnicities and cultures - it does not afford any special protections to them. Quite the contrary.

"It’s not for you to determine."

It's certainly not for Russia to determine, and it's entirely right to support Ukraine in pushing Russia out. Russia clearly remains a threat to Europeans security and demonstrates exactly why NATO remains essential.

In the end it's Russia that assassinates it's neighbours politicians, it's Russia that that invades and annexes it's neighbours.

"Crimea would have turned into a Nato base"

Nonsense. Ukraine had a constitutional ban on joining NATO. It bent over backwards to try and maintain strong economic ties to Russia while negotiating the deal with the EU. It was Russia that made the issue binary, Russia that had helped Yanukóvich rig an election and the resulting Euromaidan pushed him out. Even then Ukraine tried to maintain neutrality.

Meanwhile NATO had, until the 2014 invasion, never even deployed new bases in Eastern Europe.

The idea Crimea would become a NATO base is nonsense. Ukraine, post Euromaidan even offered to grant Russia guarantees on long term access to Sevastopol.

This is all Putin's inability to accept Ukraine as anything other than a puppet state.

"think the number comes from the UN and other sources"

So, you can provide a source from the UN that attributes 14,000 deaths to Ukrainian armed forces?

Or do you mean that 14,000 people were killed in the conflict that began - and in remind you Putin went on Russian TV and admitted this and gave medals to the Russian army forces he sent in - when Russia staged an invasion of Donbas pretending it to be a rebellion?
Seb
Member
Tue May 23 15:30:06
Paramount:

So basically Ukraine is sending Russian neo-nazis back to Russia, achieving the Russian aim of denazification of Ukraine?
jergul
large member
Tue May 23 15:57:37
Seb
Both are true.

The uprising was initially organic. Russia became more involved as the Ukrainian military began to gain steam (Ukrainian units in Bakhmut were under siege for a while in 2014 to name one example).

The Buk launcher was obviously detached from its command and control and almost certainly manned by donbas residents. Russian complicity was limited to lending them the platform.

You are getting hung up on trivia. Donbas in 2014 is not clear-cut, but the balance of evidence suggests a domestic uprising bolstered by Russian support. Crimea is an indisputable invasion, occupation and illegal annexation.

Crimea is the big picture that determines that the Ukrainian-Russian conflict began in 2014. You could arguably include Donbas, but that is debatable.

What are you on about Russia assasinates people? Ukraine is clearly the one engaged in targetted assassinations in this conflict.
Paramount
Member
Tue May 23 16:01:23
”It's certainly not for Russia to determine”

Who else but Russia can determine what constitutes as a threat to their national security?

Can I be the one to determine what constitutes a threat to the UK’s national security?



” Crimea would have turned into a Nato base"

Nonsense”


That sounds convincing.

If Ukraine really had a constitutional ban on joining Nato, it means that the ban is gone now, right? See how easy and fast things can change.



” So, you can provide a source from the UN ”

Here is a source. 3,400 of the 14,000 killed seems to be civilians.

Total conflict-related casualties in Ukraine in 2014-20217
OHCHR estimates the total number of conflict-related casualties in Ukraine from 14 April 2014 to 31 December 2021 to be 51,000–54,0008: 14,200-14,400 killed (at least 3,404 civilians, estimated 4,400 Ukrainian forces9, and estimated 6,500 members of armed groups10), and 37-39,000 injured (7,000–9,000 civilians, 13,800–14,200 Ukrainian forces11 and 15,800-16,200 members of armed groups12).

http://ukr...ry%202022%29%20corr%20EN_0.pdf



” So basically Ukraine is sending Russian neo-nazis back to Russia, achieving the Russian aim of denazification of Ukraine?”

Yes it seems like that the Russian neo-nazis has joined Ukraine and Ukraine/Nato equips them with a few US vehicles and that Russia then kills them.
Seb
Member
Tue May 23 17:26:08
jergul:

The uprising was not originally organic - it was Russian backed from the beginning - with Russian agents paying people to storm and then occupy govt buildings


Seb
Member
Tue May 23 17:33:27
PAramount:

"Who else but Russia can determine what constitutes as a threat to their national security?"

The United Nations Security Council, at least according to the treaties Russia has signed.

"That sounds convincing."

Well if you read the three undisputable points I listed below that:

1. No NATO bases in Eastern Europe until after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014; indeed NATO had no plans to even defend Eastern Europe until after 2014 so keen to

2. Ukraine adopting a law in 2010 banning member of any military alliance, including NATO, which was retained until AFTER Russia invaded in 2014

3. Ukraines post-Yanukovych govt offering to guarantee access to Sevastapol.


We can go on.


"Here is a source. 3,400 of the 14,000 killed seems to be civilians."

So as we can see, by your own source, you lied - you tried to claim all deaths in the 2014 conflict in Donbass to Ukraine; even though it was an invasion started by Russia and even though this figure includes all those that died, including Ukraine's own troops.


Seb
Member
Tue May 23 17:37:43
"In Donbas, Ukraine killed 14,000 of their own citizens."

What you meant to say is 14,000 people were killed in a conflict in Donbas initiated by Vladimir Putin; about a third of which were Ukrainian soldiers, two fifths were a mix of insurgents and separatists (and probably Russian soldiers too) that Russia armed and funded; and under a third were civilians who may have been killed by either side.

Ultimately all these deaths are on Russia, that created this conflict solely because it felt that Ukraine should not have a trade deal with the EU.

jergul
large member
Tue May 23 17:49:17
Seb
I have no doubt you will find instances of Russian support like that, but it still does not change the organic nature.

You are incidentally mimicing pro Russian propagandists who say Maidan was coup like absolute all coloured revolutions due to instances of Western funding and organizational support.

So, no, not a conflict in Donbas initiated by Putin.

The initial uprisings were a domestic backlash from the Maidan revolution.

Try to be a bit less monochromic, mkay?
Seb
Member
Wed May 24 01:37:18
Jergul:

You don't put together a hybrid operation like that overnight.

It was obviously premeditated.

Indeed the Russian FSB were heavily involved in the initial crackdown on protests against Yanukovych's decision to shit can the deal with the EU - A deal he'd concluded - under pressure from Russia.

Russia's interference in Ukraine isn't new.



Paramount
Member
Wed May 24 01:38:30
” So as we can see, by your own source, you lied - you tried to claim all deaths in the 2014 conflict in Donbass to Ukraine; ”


I was wrong in the sense that I thought all of the 14,000 were civilians, and that it was civilian casualties in the Donbas region. All of the 14,000 are probably Ukrainian citizens, though. I don’t think they have included eventual foreign national’s deaths in this number. Like, American, British or Russian nationals.



” What you meant to say is 14,000 people were killed in a conflict in Donbas initiated by Vladimir Putin”

The conflict was initiated by Ukrainians and the US. Just because you don’t agree with a decision about a trade deal that your government has made does not give you the right to start to riot, kill people and overthrow the government.

How would it have looked if masses of pro-EU people had started to riot and kill people and then overthrew Boris government with the help of foreign agents because they didn’t like that the government signed the Brexit documents? Would that have been okay? It can’t be that you let a violent revolution decide what decisions a country should make everytime a decision needs to be made. You would have perpetual war and anarchy then.
jergul
large member
Wed May 24 02:17:09
Seb
There was a contingency plan? Maybe. But it does not change the essence of donbas being a domestic uprising triggered by Maidan.
Seb
Member
Wed May 24 03:07:41
Paramount:

No you lied, because you specifically attributed the killing to be perpetrated by Ukraine:

"Ukraine killed 14,000 of their own citizens".

Every aspect of that sentence was wrong:

Who did the killing
The number of people that were killed
The status of the people that were killed
The moral accountability for the conflict

Yet you base your entire outlook on the idea that Ukraine was targeting its Russian minority citizens, a false narrative you perpetuate with such disregard to factual truth you can casually drop a sentence that isn't just mistaken, but factually incorrect in every single aspect.

Seb
Member
Wed May 24 03:09:24
Jergul:

So there's a well developed contingency planb with forces mobilised and standing by, there's agent provocateurs (admitted by Rufus), there's evidence of people in the pay of Russia distributing funds to incentivise this uprising.

Sure. Organic jergul.
Habebe
Member
Wed May 24 07:45:51
"
Jergul:

So there's a well developed contingency planb with forces mobilised and standing by, there's agent provocateurs (admitted by Rufus), there's evidence of people in the pay of Russia distributing funds to incentivise this uprising."

Devils advocate, who discovered this Intel? I'd be interested to read up on what makes an uprising non organic.
Paramount
Member
Wed May 24 08:36:15
”Ukraine killed 14,000 of their own citizens".


Basically that is what they have been doing. They killed their own citizens in the Donbas region. All of the 14,000 wasn’t killed by the Ukrainian army, Ukrainian nationalists and neo-nazis, but since the source doesn’t specify who killed who, let’s just say that the Ukrainian army and their neo-nazi batallions killed 7,000 of their own citizens. By now, since 2022, that number has likely doubled, to 14,000! So regardless how you try to twist it, I’m coming out correct ;o)
Seb
Member
Wed May 24 11:40:39
Paramount:

That's an absurd framing.

When you have an armed insurgency largely composed of and led by a foreign country that's regularly assassinated and poisoned Ukrainian politicians; who then start attacking govt buildings and civilians; a military response is reasonable.

There's no evidence of the kind of systematic attacks and ethnic cleansing along the lines of Serbia against ethnic Albanian kosovars and it's both pathetic and disgusting you would attempt this.

Russia created the conflict, it manufactured it, it stoked it, and it poured high end military weapons into the region. It even shot down an airliner.

And still you persist with this lie.
jergul
large member
Wed May 24 11:40:59
Seb
Sigh, actions have conscequences. Of course their was an organic Ukrainian backlash to Maidan.

Maidan, which by the metrics you use, was a well developed Western contingency plan using agent provocateurs and evidence of people in the pay of Western agencies distributing funds to incentivise this uprising.

As would also be the case in Kosovo and every coloured revolution ever.

Not sure why understating Ukrainian resistance to the Maidan revolution is so important to you.
Seb
Member
Wed May 24 14:05:06
jergul:

"Maidan, which by the metrics you use,"

No it wasn't.

Nobody paid anyone $500 to storm a building.

"As would also be the case in Kosovo and every coloured revolution ever."

Spoken like a true autocrat who cannot conceive that people might have a revolution without the CIA funding it.

It's really a form of racism you know - the idea that only Europeans and Americans have agency and wherewithal to have popular revolutions. The Hottentots need a white man to show them how.



jergul
large member
Wed May 24 14:27:25
Seb
Sure people were paid by the West to support the coup and other "revolutions" The problem with your thinking is you are taking complete trivia and pretending that is the reason something happened.

Russia would have won in Febuary if paying people causes successful outcomes? Or that there would have been a sunni uprising in Iraq if the US could have solved the problem with a few agants and pallets of USD?

You are the one being racist. I am arguing the exact opposite of what you suggest.

You know Ukraine had huge problems and that the Maidan coup mainly had Western and Northern Ukrainian support, yet it is inconsievable to you that people would rise in opposition without being puppeted from abroad.

Ukraine has tons of internal fault lines. Do you think a Jewish president would cater so hard to neo-nazi whims if it did not?

Drop the black-white thinking. There is tons of nuance. The only clear part here is the invasion, occupation and annexation of Crimea. And even that is a bit muddy in form of final outcome (it does not change how incredibly illegal the annexation was) as the population of Crimea clearly does not want to be part of a Maidan or Azov glorifying Ukraine.

The donbas uprising in itself was organic, a completely logical conscequence of the coup, and Russian support followed the mold the west uses all the time. This remained true until Febuary of 2022.

I am not sure what the West's plan is for resolving the right to self-determination in areas that really do not want to be part of Ukraine. But it will undoubtably be something pretty hypocritical.
obaminated
Member
Wed May 24 15:04:09
http://www...-it-has-ukraine-written-on-it/

I didn't know putin was actually arguing that Ukraine isn't a real country and that justifies the invasion. Also putin is getting about as bad as biden when it comes to fucking up photo ops.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed May 24 15:19:49
lol apparently that map also shows Crimea as independent and St Petersburg belonging to Sweden.

That’s a lot of fail in one photo.
jergul
large member
Wed May 24 15:21:59
A Ukrainian national identity is more than a century older than Norway's (ours was invented as a conscequence of the napoleonic wars). But that identity does not follow Ukraine's internationally recognized boundaries. Most of the areas Russia is claiming were once controlled by what today is Turkey (this is true as far west as Odessa). The areas were conqured by Imperial Russia.

It sort of is a minibalkan. At least in Donbas and along a belt following the Black Sea.

The problem with talking about this is of course that it undermines the myth of Ukrainian unity.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed May 24 15:29:24
Whatever else may happen, I have no idea why anyone would want Russia, China or the USA to grow more powerful along any axis. Certainly not people aware of how western hegemoy is eroding along every axis. Unless these people are masochistic and want to go exitinct.
seb
Member
Thu May 25 15:11:19
Jergul:

And there are areas of what is now Russia that used to be culturally Ukrainian.

We don't talk much about the suppression of Ukrainian language and culture as a matter of Russian policy.
jergul
large member
Thu May 25 16:03:55
There are areas in Russia that used to be culturally Ukrainian? Where?

We talk a lot about imagined faultlines in Russia. Just never about the ones in Ukraine.

The downside is a realistic peace platform is out of reach without acknowledging the faultlines. For example that maybe Ukraine does have to rollback and provide minority language and culture protections.

Impossible you say? Well yes, because groups with no problems with being called nazis have the Ukrainian Government by the balls.

So maybe denazification is a step towards peace after all. At least to the point where Ukrainian units are not individually idenfifiable as having political agendas.
Seb
Member
Fri May 26 02:02:45
"We talk a lot about imagined faultlines in Russia. Just never about the ones in Ukraine."

That's literally *all* you talk about with Ukraine.
Seb
Member
Fri May 26 02:04:00
"Ukraine does have to rollback and provide minority language and culture protections"

That's a question for the Ukrainian govt. But perhaps Russia should lead by example if it wishes to influence Ukrainian policy.
jergul
large member
Fri May 26 02:04:40
Seb
That is catagorically untrue.
Seb
Member
Fri May 26 02:12:25
The issue of Russian language might not be so charged if Russia didn't use Russian language as a rationale for asserting it gave them a stake in those countries policies. Up to and including dictating policy and poisoning politicians it doesn't like.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share