Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[Zehner]

Not quite. I do however believe we've been meddling and interfering in politics for some time and not because of a deep care for Ukrainian democracy or human rights.

Please show me the "history" of any sort of movement in the south and east of Russia for the president they elected to be overthrown.

It's very relevant to question our motives. I can't fanthom why anyone would think we are only involved in Ukraine due to a deep care for democracy and human rights. People talk about "the west" as if they aren't funding an active genocide in Palestine at the minute but then still want to act as if they're the white knights in shining armour in Ukraine. But let's ignore all that, our media have maybe been bias on Palestine but on Ukraine we are the good guys who only have true and honest motivations to help the Ukranian people.

You're welcome to disagree with me but I don't trust our motives and I certainly don't agree with how the conflict has been portrayed either. Why do you trust our motives? What has given you the reassurance that our interference is for the greater good? And if it is, do you also oppose western privatisation of Ukranian industries and natural resources? If not, do you not consider this imperialist in nature?

My judgements and interpretations could be wrong but based on my knowledge of Western interference historically I'll continue to be cynical.

You're not being cynical, you're being superficial.

 

[OmgTheyKilkenny]

If one country invades and attacks another thats an invasion and an agression.

Maybe its not your intention but between the lines it seems like you're trying to excuse Russian invasion of Ukraine. No matter what preluded it. Putin had a choice of invading or not. He choosed the former and his forces are in Ukraine, occupying a third of the country, bombing it daily and wreaking havoc, thus destroying not only Ukraine's present but the future too.

Does weaponising the world's reserve currency and imposing sanctions as a form of economic warfare count as aggression too? Or funding rebel groups to overthrow a regime which your country doesn't like?

Im not excusing Russias crimes but im also not excusing western crimes and motives either. If we analyae everything from the perspective Russia is bad and we have to do everything to stop them then it just white washes our own involvement. I probably do over compensate and come across "pro russia" because most people analyse the war from a binary perspective, and so any criticisms of ourselves draw assumptions that you have to be supporting the other side.

Yes you are correct that many civillians have died at the hands of Russia and many more will continue to die the longer this war is allowed to continue. But its also important to evaluate the conditions which allowed for this war to happen and how they were created. Had the Istanbul Communique been signed less citizens probably would have died and Ukraine may have got a better deal than what they get under Trump. Ukraine negotiators came to that agreement - who influenced them to go against it? If we weren't forcing hard line dates on Ukraines law to change for the EU and portraying those laws democratically not being voted through as "turning back on EU" and then flying US and German politicians into Ukraine to rally protestors then I also doubt revolution of dignity would have occurred and there wouldn't be any such Invasion. Had Russia not exerted sanctions on Ukraine and Yanukovych not experienced the economic impacts of said sanctions maybe he'd have joined the EU in Q3 2013 and there wouldn't have been protests. History is important and this war didn't start because Russia wanted to get a bit bigger. Its much more complex and I'll continue to make that argument.

Are you implying that Euromaidan only happened because the West stirred up the Ukrainian people who were actually very happy with their government? Come on.

Yes I am implying that the West were interfering and rallying and training protestor groups, as were Russia. This happens alot all over the world but our media is never going to report on it as us interfering just like Russias won't on them.

There was a clear political divide between the (roughly) Eastern and Western regions. Both had their own political clans that fought for power, both had different economical priorities (West was, understandably, more European-oriented and the East benefited more from closer ties with Russia)... but there never were significant ideas of actual separatism/full independence in Donbass and neighbouring regions. They wanted more autonomy (mostly economical but also political) but the majority of the people there still considered (and consider) themselves to be Ukrainians... the "civil" war, people's republics etc. are an artificial thing that was instigated by Russia — not just via proxies but also by putting their own boots on the ground way before 2022 (the infamous "polite green men"), supplying endless amounts of cash and ammo to mostly criminal organizations etc.

Crimea is a different thing as a lot of people (although it's always hard to say if it was actually a majority but going by empirical evidence it was always a lot) actually wanted to join Russia but Russia decided not to bother itself with stuff like international law and legal procedures and to simply annex/steal the entire peninsula. It's been discussed a lot in this thread.

Did U.S.A. and Europe interfered with Ukrainian politics to an extent? Yep, that's international politics for you. Was that a significant factor in the subsequent invasion? Ehm, not really. Unless you strip Ukrainians themselves of any agency and count their own wish to join the European Union (an important note — not NATO, not originally) as, well, Western interference (which would be funny considering that a lot of European countries weren't too keen on fast-tracking Ukraine's application in the first place).

Good post and I agree with alot of it but I disagree on the significance of Western interference. I don't mean just the rallying protestors but I also mean the EU with changing the goalposts too just like Russia were also exerting their own pressure during negotiations too.

Had there been a Western supported President in office and Russia backed protestors overthrew them and Russia were to recognise and support this. I personally don't think the West would have sat around and done nothing.

 

[Zehner]

Yes I am implying that the West were interfering and rallying and training protestor groups, as were Russia. This happens alot all over the world but our media is never going to report on it as us interfering just like Russias won't on them.

I'm sorry mate but I'm going on a little rant now because I'm really tired of takes like these. I'm not denying that the West trained protestors or interfered in other capacities but the idea that this was the cause of the Euromaidan protests that involved hundreds of thousands of people is completely delusional. First, interferences like these are pretty common and the country that does this the most blatantly obvious is Russia itself with its bot armies, bought politicians in every Western country and so forth. They are not even trying to cover it and could only be more open about it if they publicly admitted to it.

And the thing with conspiracies like these is: The larger they are, the more people have to be involved in them, the harder it becomes to keep them a secret. Especially in Western society that has many control mechanisms like independent media, freedom of speech, political oppositions, powerful courts and so forth. The fact that you ignore all this is proof that you're not objective because if you were, you'd know that whatever the West did before Euromaidan is nothing compared to Russia's actions, neither in terms of quantity nor quality.

And this really rubs me the wrong way. I'm all for critical thinking, not buying everything politicians tell you and showing strategic empathy but if you're critical, be consequential and question all parties to the same extent. Hold Russia to the same standards you apply to Western societies and there can only be one conclusion about who is worse.

 

[Zehner]

Had there been a Western supported President in office and Russia backed protestors overthrew them and Russia were to recognise and support this. I personally don't think the West would have sat around and done nothing.

"The West" just sat there and watched while Russia flattened Chechenya, invaded Georgia and then Crimea and you think they'd have intervened because of protestors? What makes you think that way?

 

[Real Name]

Does weaponising the world's reserve currency and imposing sanctions as a form of economic warfare count as aggression too? Or funding rebel groups to overthrow a regime which your country doesn't like?

Im not excusing Russias crimes but im also not excusing western crimes and motives either. If we analyae everything from the perspective Russia is bad and we have to do everything to stop them then it just white washes our own involvement. I probably do over compensate and come across "pro russia" because most people analyse the war from a binary perspective, and so any criticisms of ourselves draw assumptions that you have to be supporting the other side.

Yes you are correct that many civillians have died at the hands of Russia and many more will continue to die the longer this war is allowed to continue. But its also important to evaluate the conditions which allowed for this war to happen and how they were created. Had the Istanbul Communique been signed less citizens probably would have died and Ukraine may have got a better deal than what they get under Trump. Ukraine negotiators came to that agreement - who influenced them to go against it? If we weren't forcing hard line dates on Ukraines law to change for the EU and portraying those laws democratically not being voted through as "turning back on EU" and then flying US and German politicians into Ukraine to rally protestors then I also doubt revolution of dignity would have occurred and there wouldn't be any such Invasion. Had Russia not exerted sanctions on Ukraine and Yanukovych not experienced the economic impacts of said sanctions maybe he'd have joined the EU in Q3 2013 and there wouldn't have been protests. History is important and this war didn't start because Russia wanted to get a bit bigger. Its much more complex and I'll continue to make that argument.

So in short, you're excusing Russia for their invasion and crimes even if you're telling us you're not doing so. They didnt want to invade, but they were forced to do it, that's your logic.

You're talking about Russian crimes as if they killed a 50 or so people and burned a house or to. Sure, they made some crimes but..

Mate, they're sistematically destroying Ukraine as we speak and you're portraying it like they stole a pack of gums.

Also I like your naivety that Russia wouldnt have attacked if that and that happened.

 

[OmgTheyKilkenny]

I'm sorry mate but I'm going on a little rant now because I'm really tired of takes like these. I'm not denying that the West trained protestors or interfered in other capacities but the idea that this was the cause of the Euromaidan protests that involved hundreds of thousands of people is completely delusional. First, interferences like these are pretty common and the country that does this the most blatantly obvious is Russia itself with its bot armies, bought politicians in every Western country and so forth. They are not even trying to cover it and could only be more open about it if they publicly admitted to it.

And the thing with conspiracies like these is: The larger they are, the more people have to be involved in them, the harder it becomes to keep them a secret. Especially in Western society that has many control mechanisms like independent media, freedom of speech, political oppositions, powerful courts and so forth. The fact that you ignore all this is proof that you're not objective because if you were, you'd know that whatever the West did before Euromaidan is nothing compared to Russia's actions, neither in terms of quantity nor quality.

And this really rubs me the wrong way. I'm all for critical thinking, not buying everything politicians tell you and showing strategic empathy but if you're critical, be consequential and question all parties to the same extent. Hold Russia to the same standards you apply to Western societies and there can only be one conclusion about who is worse.

Don't apologise for having a different opinion. Debate and discussion is good and stimulating, it would be boring if we all thought the same. I don't expect my opinions to change your views and I don't expect most people to agree with me either. I'm not a supporter of capitalism and I'm unashamedly further left than most so I imagine my political ideology is going to result in me interpreting and analysing things differently too.

I'm not saying Euromaiden was a justification or the sole cause, I'm saying it's important context which needs to be considered along with many other things. I don't agree with Alfonsos analysis of it though either. And I don't agree with this mindset that everyone wanted to join the EU in the country and evil dictator Yanukovych went against everyone's will and overthrowing him violently was the unanimous will of the people nationwide.

Your whole paragraph about conspiracies I don't quite understand and maybe this comes down to how much trust you have in our medias impartiality. Do you not think we use propoganda at all on our citizens then and this is a powerful tool that only other regimes use? I'd suggest reading some extracts from Chomskys book about Manufactured Consent which dabbles on the influence the bourgeoisie have over our media. I was always surprised when people focused on Twitters losses since Elon acquired it. Twitter wasn't bought to make money, it was bought to exert influence and you could argue that's working. Those who own the media tend not to serve the best interests of the proletariat in my opinion.

I'm sorry if my posts wind you up but the threats which I see in the world are different to what you may interpret as a threat and I feel in today's fractured society it is very important to speak up about these things.

"The West" just sat there and watched while Russia flattened Chechenya, invaded Georgia and then Crimea and you think they'd have intervened because of protestors? What makes you think that way?

Yes the west did stand there and watch during the Chechnya conflict. Actually after 911 America and other western nations even began to recognise it as a counter terrorist initiative. They didnt get involved because their was nothing for them to gain. Here is former secretary of state Colin Powell calling it "counter terrorism":

With respect to Chechnya, Chechnya is an area of enormous interest to the international community. Russia is fighting terrorists in Chechnya, there's no question about that, and we understand that. But at the same time, we believe that a political solution is really what Russia also needs to find a way to achieve. And we have always said to the Russians that in their prosecution of this campaign against terrorism, they have to make sure that the troops participating in it and other elements of the Russian armed forces and security forces have to meet the highest standards of human rights that one would expect from a civilized country

Source - https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_19824.htm?selectedLocale=en

Thats not me saying I believe it was counter terrorism by the way. But it goes to show how much interest the West had when there was nothing to gain. Seems they were happy to excuse it. Why?

So in short, you're excusing Russia for their invasion and crimes even if you're telling us you're not doing so. They didnt want to invade, but they were forced to do it, that's your logic.

You're talking about Russian crimes as if they killed a 50 or so people and burned a house or to. Sure, they made some crimes but..

Mate, they're sistematically destroying Ukraine as we speak and you're portraying it like they stole a pack of gums.

Also I like your naivety that Russia wouldnt have attacked if that and that happened.

Nope I'm not excusing any crimes from Russia. Are there specific ones I've excused which you'd like to challenge me on?

I'm talking about the conditions which led to the war and the motives of us to be involved in Ukraine and interfering.

 

[Real Name]

Nope I'm not excusing any crimes from Russia. Are there specific ones I've excused which you'd like to challenge me on?

I'm talking about the conditions which led to the war and the motives of us to be involved in Ukraine and interfering.

You're excusing their invasion and agression and saying the conflict is portrayed in the way you dont agree on. Also you didnt answer the part about Ukraine being overrun if there wasnt an interference by the west, whatever the motives.

We cam talk about conditions, but the matter of fact is Russia invaded and attacked Ukraine.

As for crimes, I'm not saying you're excusing it but you seem to minimize the fact they're occupied a big chunks of Ukraine territory and are bombing it daily, not to mention crimes Bucha, Mariupol and deporting children to Russia, among other things.

 

[Sly]

You're excusing their invasion and agression and saying the conflict is portrayed in the way you dont agree on. Also you didnt answer the part about Ukraine being overrun if there wasnt an interference by the west, whatever the motives.

We cam talk about conditions, but the matter of fact is Russia invaded and attacked Ukraine.

As for crimes, I'm not saying you're excusing it but you seem to minimize the fact they're occupied a big chunks of Ukraine territory and are bombing it daily, not to mention crimes Bucha, Mariupol and deporting children to Russia, among other things.

The guy has written in another thread that he wished that Clare Daly won a seat in an Irish election. Google her and the respective opinion about the Russian aggression and you will understand his reasoning and talking points.

 

[OmgTheyKilkenny]

You're excusing their invasion and agression and saying the conflict is portrayed in the way you dont agree on. Also you didnt answer the part about Ukraine being overrun if there wasnt an interference by the west, whatever the motives.

We cam talk about conditions, but the matter of fact is Russia invaded and attacked Ukraine.

As for crimes, I'm not saying you're excusing it but you seem to minimize the fact they're occupied a big chunks of Ukraine territory and are bombing it daily, not to mention crimes Bucha, Mariupol and deporting children to Russia, among other things.

Saying I don't agree with how it is portrayed isn't me excusing Russia - it's me saying I don't agree with how the conflict is portrayed.

With respect I've asked a number of questions in response to people who have quoted me which have went unanswered while trying to answer everything in return. What was the precise question and I'll try to answer it (Can't see it in past post).

I do not support Russias military invasion in 2022. I'm very anti war and consider myself a pacifist (Not an absolute pacifist). Nearly every war eventually ends through negotiations and concessions of some sort. My interest however is in the conditions which resulted in war and if it could have been avoided. And also how to then find long lasting peace too which serves the best interests of Ukranians in every region rather than the interests of West/Kyiv/Russia.

I'd like to refer you and others in this thread to an excellent speech by John Maclean in 1918 from the docks of Edinburgh. This speech alligns with many of my thoughts towards war. In a world with rife inequality the only war we should be fighting in the west is the class war as far as I'm concerned.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/maclean/works/1918-dock.htm

You don't have to agree with me and I'm not here to change your mind either. But my beliefs and ideology is certainly different from most in this thread and because of those beliefs there are certain things I don't think we will allign on.

I consider Zelenskys victory plan which involves the mass privatisation of Ukraine to be imperialist in nature. And so no Russian crime or Russiaphobia is going to change my stance on that. Whether that makes me "pro russia" is up to you. I consider it more anti imperialist as I also don't support Russia controlling territory or resources/infrastructure against the will of the people too.

And so this is why I believe Ukranians will be the biggest losers come the end of this. Doesn't mean I'm right but it's what I believe at this moment and time.

 

[OmgTheyKilkenny]

The guy has written in another thread that he wished that Clare Daly won a seat in an Irish election. Google her and the respective opinion about the Russian aggression and you will understand his reasoning and talking points.

Spoiler: Off topic reply

I'm a fan of Clare Daly and feel she has consistently been a voice for the oppressed and has true socialist values. What's wrong with hoping she is elected?

This was an excellent speech when she was an MEP and she made many more just like it. We need more politicians like that holding institutions to account