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

 

[VorZakone]

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

Clare Daly, a selective voice of the oppressed.

• Challenging the OPCW findings on the 2018 chemical attack in Syria.
• When Belarus forced a Ryanair jet down to arrest a Belarussian dissident, a passenger on the flight, she smeared this dissident.
• Opposing sanctions on Russia.

 

[The Firestarter]

Clare Daly, a voice of the oppressed.

• Challenging the OPCW findings on the 2018 chemical attack in Syria.
• When Belarus forced a Ryanair jet down to arrest a Belarussian dissident, a passenger on the flight, she smeared this dissident.
• Opposing sanctions on Russia.

But socialism

 

[NLunited]

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.

Russia is the biggest loser already. In addition to their economic troubles they lost enormous numbers of soldiers and Sweden+Finland are now NATO members.

Supporting Ukraine is a cheap way for the West to bleed Russia dry, no western lives are lost. Russia has gained some territory from this war, that’s it. If they can hang on to it.

 

[VorZakone]

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.

The things you say don't sound "anti war" though.

A non-Western power gets to invade a neighbour, make demands and then you rationalize them as a decent compromise (Istanbul Communique). Peace at the cost of the victim. Now granted, it's Ukraine that is suffering so they may take some deal to stop the suffering but let's be blunt about it: it would be a deal imposed through military force that the victim would rather not have. For you as an outsider to rationalize it as a decent compromise does not really sound "anti war".

I'm going out on a limb here but I don't think you would something a decent compromise if it was a Western country demanding it after having invaded some country.

 

[Zehner]

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.



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":



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?


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.

I'm not saying that Western media are perfectly objective and fact oriented nor do I think that European or American secret services aren't interfering in other countries. My issue is that you don't account for the scale at which it is done. Russia is essentially an autocracy with state controled media and effectively no political opposition to the ruling party. Of course they are spreading propaganda on a wholly different scale to Western governments. And of course they don't interfere as blatantly obvious as Russia in other countries. And of course politicians and government agents are much more likely to face repercussions for their crimes in a democracy than in an autocracy that lacks all kinds of control mechanisms.

So you're right in criticizing the stuff you are criticizing. But if you liken those things to the Russian equivalents then you're simply disqualifying yourself since from my perspective, this opinion isn't in the spectrum that lies within the room for interpretation based on the known facts. It would be something else entirely if you said something like "Russia is obviously doing it on a far bigger scale but the West is not living up to the moral standards it sets for itself by doing this or that". But you aren't, it rather seems as if you think we aren't better by any means and I'm honestly tired of such takes. They aren't helpful at all.

 

[VorZakone]

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.

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.

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.

" Ukraine negotiators came to that agreement - who influenced them to go against it?"

Kuleba:

But Kuleba argued that the respective positions were "so far away" and the "Russian demands were so bizarre that the prospect of a real solution was not even remotely in sight."

Kuleba added that the narrative that Johnson somehow sabotaged the talks also does not match the timeline because the negotiations continued for months after Johnson visited Istanbul.

https://kyivindependent.com/kuleba-...ejected-peace-deal-is-lie-promoted-by-russia/

Arakhamia:

Davyd Arakhamia, leader of the Servant of the People faction in the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament), who headed the Ukrainian delegation in spring 2022 negotiations with Russia, said that at the time, the Russian delegation had offered to end the war if Ukraine relinquished its aspirations to join NATO.

Asked why Ukrainian representatives did not accept this offer, Arakhamia said it would have required changing the Ukrainian Constitution, which stipulates Ukraine's intention to become a NATO member. Moreover, there was “no trust” from Ukrainian authorities that the Russian side would follow through. “This could only be done if there were security guarantees,” said Arakhamia in an interview with 1+1 host Nataliia Moseichuk. “We couldn’t just sign something, step back, [have] everyone breathe a sigh of relief, and then [have Russia] come in more prepared — because they [invaded], in fact, unprepared for such resistance. Therefore, we could only work when there was a hundred percent certainty that it wouldn’t happen a second time. And there is no such certainty.”

https://meduza.io/en/news/2023/11/2...ders-had-no-trust-russia-would-follow-through

 

[VorZakone]

@OmgTheyKilkenny My question is the following: do you think the Russian invasion is wrongly portrayed as "Russian aggression"?

 

[Sly]

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

Not interested engaging with you. I've read enough from you in this topic to come to that conclusion. In contrast with your pseudo ideological bs, I actually got skin in this issue and I vehemently disagree with your assessments.

 

[The Purley King]

Russia is the biggest loser already. In addition to their economic troubles they lost enormous numbers of soldiers and Sweden+Finland are now NATO members.

Supporting Ukraine is a cheap way for the West to bleed Russia dry, no western lives are lost. Russia has gained some territory from this war, that’s it. If they can hang on to it.

I keep up to date with this thread although rarely post and I have no education in geopolitics but if I had to guess I’d say this would be USA and the west in general’s strategy here.
In terms of game theory, which I do know a bit about, it seems like a sensible option.

 

[OmgTheyKilkenny]

Clare Daly, a selective voice of the oppressed.

• Challenging the OPCW findings on the 2018 chemical attack in Syria.
• When Belarus forced a Ryanair jet down to arrest a Belarussian dissident, a passenger on the flight, she smeared this dissident.
• Opposing sanctions on Russia.

Spoiler: Clare Daly - Off topic

Selective? On what basis?

Absolutely nothing wrong with challenging the OPCW is there? That's the job of a Politician to challenge institutions. And wikileaks shows there is good reason for that:

https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/

What I don't understand is how challenging the OPCW means you don't stand with the oppressed.

Are the OPCW an oppressed organisation or something? Or what's your point here?

 

[VorZakone]

Spoiler: Clare Daly - Off topic

Selective? On what basis?

Absolutely nothing wrong with challenging the OPCW is there? That's the job of a Politician to challenge institutions. And wikileaks shows there is good reason for that:

https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/

What I don't understand is how challenging the OPCW means you don't stand with the oppressed.

Are the OPCW an oppressed organisation or something? Or what's your point here?

My point is that her behavior fits a pattern of being selective. Everything done by a non-Western country she finds a way to be on the supportive side of that country. She's selective.

 

[neverdie]

no western lives are lost

I thought the entire propaganda (information) point was that Ukraine was "Western".

But I do agree with you. I don't believe the EU nor the US view them as such.

 

[OmgTheyKilkenny]

The things you say don't sound "anti war" though.

A non-Western power gets to invade a neighbour, make demands and then you rationalize them as a decent compromise (Istanbul Communique). Peace at the cost of the victim. Now granted, it's Ukraine that is suffering so they may take some deal to stop the suffering but let's be blunt about it: it would be a deal imposed through military force that the victim would rather not have. For you as an outsider to rationalize it as a decent compromise does not really sound "anti war".

I'm going out on a limb here but I don't think you would something a decent compromise if it was a Western country demanding it after having invaded some country.

I don't think you come across anti war at all either. Its impossible to be anti war if you always attempt to justify the actions and interference of the nations involved in more wars than any other since WW2.

What you're doing is manipulating my words here. Its the reason I presume why you and another poster who now doesn't want to engage were bringing Clare Daly into this thread. Something to try and discredit my views? I've asked you many questions in response and you've barely answered them. That doesn't seem to be someone engaging in good faith.

I won't however have a military enthusiast try to claim I'm not anti war. War disgusts me so much that I couldn't name you a single tank or missile and I share no enthusiasm for it.

Apologies if this response offends you but I don't feel your replies are well intentioned. What I can tell you is that my views on global conflicts very likely do not allign with your own. Take from that what you wish.

 

[Sly]

My point is that her behavior fits a pattern of being selective. Everything done by a non-Western country she finds a way to be on the supportive side of that country. She's selective.

She and Mick Wallace are russian assets. Daly actually voted against setting up a tribunal to prosecute those responsible for the russian aggression. The useful idiots of the russian, syrian, Venezuelan regimes like the portuguese communist party. Portuguese communist is practically irrelevant in the portuguese parliament due to their russian aggression stance and thankfully both of those irish clowns are out of the European Parliament.

 

[VorZakone]

I don't think you come across anti war at all either. Its impossible to be anti war if you always attempt to justify the actions and interference of the nations involved in more wars than any other since WW2.

What you're doing is manipulating my words here. Its the reason I presume why you and another poster who now doesn't want to engage were bringing Clare Daly into this thread. Something to try and discredit my views? I've asked you many questions in response and you've barely answered them. That doesn't seem to be someone engaging in good faith.

I won't however have a military enthusiast try to claim I'm not anti war. War disgusts me so much that I couldn't name you a single tank or missile and I share no enthusiasm with it.

I have not justified US' behavior. I assume you mistake me for someone else.

I don't buy your anti imperialist and anti war shtick. It screams fake to me. I don't think you would be talking about negotiations, deals, concessions, compromises the same way if a Western country did the invading.

And what questions would you like me to answer?

 

[OmgTheyKilkenny]

@OmgTheyKilkenny My question is the following: do you think the Russian invasion is wrongly portrayed as "Russian aggression"?

Aggression - the action of attacking without provocation.

Based on that definition, yes I do think it is wrongly portrayed.

@VorZakone - My questions to you.
Do you think western hedge funds looking to buy up and profit from Ukranian resources/infrastructure in the aftermath is a form of imperialism? If not, why not?

 

[VorZakone]

Aggression - the action of attacking without provocation.

Based on that definition, yes I do think it is wrongly portrayed.

@VorZakone - My questions to you.
Do you think western hedge funds looking to buy up and profit from Ukranian resources/infrastructure in the aftermath is a form of imperialism? If not, why not?

What provocation was there for Putin to invade Ukraine in February 2022?

If Western hedge funds were eying to loot off Ukraine, I'd say that would be exploitation. Imperialism was not the first word that crossed my mind though exploitation can be part of imperialism so in that sense I wouldn't get worked up about it being defined that way. But hedge funds don't equate the American government. I'd rather not see the rebuilding of Ukraine happen that way but the thing is: Ukraine will need foreign money to rebuild their country. Loans would be better, I assume?

 

[ExoduS]

What provocation was there for Putin to invade Ukraine in February 2022?

If Western hedge funds were eying to loot off Ukraine, I'd say that would be exploitation. Imperialism was not the first word that crossed my mind though exploitation can be part of imperialism so in that sense I wouldn't get worked up about it being defined that way. I'd rather not see the rebuilding of Ukraine happen that way but the thing is: Ukraine will need foreign money to rebuild their country. Loans would be better, I assume?

There is a new book I am currently skimming through: Provoked by Scott Horton. I had a pleasure to listen to the gentleman talks in person. The book is on a longer side, but it is due to extensive references. Tough read for those who are in "unprovoked" team.

 

[VorZakone]

There is a new book I am currently skimming through: Provoked by Scott Horton. I had a pleasure to listen to the gentleman talks in person. The book is on a longer side, but it is due to extensive references. Tough read for those who are in "unprovoked" team.

Sure, feel free to enlighten us why Putin just had to invade Ukraine.

 

[OmgTheyKilkenny]

What provocation was there for Putin to invade Ukraine in February 2022?

If Western hedge funds were eying to loot off Ukraine, I'd say that would be exploitation. Imperialism was not the first word that crossed my mind though exploitation can be part of imperialism so in that sense I wouldn't get worked up about it being defined that way. I'd rather not see the rebuilding of Ukraine happen that way but the thing is: Ukraine will need foreign money to rebuild their country. Loans would be better, I assume?

Thank you for your honest answer.

If you want me to justify the full scale military invasion on 2022 I won't and I can't. That is an act of escalation and aggression. If you want me to justify some of the attacks on civillians, again I won't and I can't. I do not support war (in most instances).

At the same time I do not see ourselves as an innocent bystander putting Ukraines best interests at heart who has only got involved to protect another nations soverignity.

I do think there is minority support for Russia, mostly in the South and East. I imagine there was majority support for Zelensky at the beginning of the conflict. Right now I imagine there's a lot of loss of morale and war fatigue and I sympathise with that.
Like it or not Ukraine isn't going to win this war. Yes we can escalate and shoot missiles deeper into Russia - great news for Zelensky in his bunker. But who suffers when Russia escalates in return? Ukranian civillians. Who is dying on the battlefield? Ukranian civillians. There are some out there who don't wish to fight but are being forced to fight and for what? So nato can damage Russia "without losing nato blood"? (Something someone said here earlier). These are human beings with lives, families, children, homes. They aren't disposable and so the solution is negotiations. Not using Ukranian lives as fuel for "damaging russias economy a bit more" or whatever other excuse for more bloodshed after bloodshed.

I did rationale the Istanbul Communique because if I was a Ukranian who has lived through the last 2 and a half years. I think I'd be looking back on that and wishing we signed that agreement. As I imagine my life in Ukraine despite its problems was probably worth much more than dying a hero with the knowledge I put it to putin. And the reward for finally winning. Not our jobs or businesses back. Foreign western investors who now own everything. So you fight in the trenches and your reward is that your still Ukraine by name but now most of the stuff is owned by people outside Ukraine? So because its people from everywhere but Russia, that means its worth the sacrifice?

When I say I'm anti war its because I analyse things through a more human perspective and maybe at not such a high level. I don't view it as a game of command and conquer on the PC. I view it as people like you and I dying, not because we personally don't get along with the people we are fighting, but because our leaders don't like eachother.

 

[The Firestarter]

She and Mick Wallace are russian assets. Daly actually voted against setting up a tribunal to prosecute those responsible for the russian aggression. The useful idiots of the russian, syrian, Venezuelan regimes like the portuguese communist party. Portuguese communist is practically irrelevant in the portuguese parliament due to their russian aggression stance and thankfully both of those irish clowns are out of the European Parliament.

TIL. Really didn't know that was a thing.

 

[ExoduS]

Sure, feel free to enlighten us why Putin just had to invade Ukraine.

Because he wants Ukraine somewhere between neutral and Russian sphere of influence, and he wants that badly. Now are the scary times to see how this war unfolds. Some compromises will have to be made or the World will cease to exist in the current form.

 

[2mufc0]

Thank you for your honest answer.

If you want me to justify the full scale military invasion on 2022 I won't and I can't. That is an act of escalation and aggression. If you want me to justify some of the attacks on civillians, again I won't and I can't. I do not support war (in most instances).

At the same time I do not see ourselves as an innocent bystander putting Ukraines best interests at heart who has only got involved to protect another nations soverignity.

I do think there is minority support for Russia, mostly in the South and East. I imagine there was majority support for Zelensky at the beginning of the conflict. Right now I imagine there's a lot of loss of morale and war fatigue and I sympathise with that.
Like it or not Ukraine isn't going to win this war. Yes we can escalate and shoot missiles deeper into Russia - great news for Zelensky in his bunker. But who suffers when Russia escalates in return? Ukranian civillians. Who is dying on the battlefield? Ukranian civillians. There are some out there who don't wish to fight but are being forced to fight and for what? So nato can damage Russia "without losing nato blood"? (Something someone said here earlier). These are human beings with lives, families, children, homes. They aren't disposable and so the solution is negotiations. Not using Ukranian lives as fuel for "damaging russias economy a bit more" or whatever other excuse for more bloodshed after bloodshed.

I did rationale the Istanbul Communique because if I was a Ukranian who has lived through the last 2 and a half years. I think I'd be looking back on that and wishing we signed that agreement. As I imagine my life in Ukraine despite its problems was probably worth much more than dying a hero with the knowledge I put it to putin. And the reward for finally winning. Not our jobs or businesses back. Foreign western investors who now own everything. So you fight in the trenches and your reward is that your still Ukraine by name but now most of the stuff is owned by people outside Ukraine? So because its people from everywhere but Russia, that means its worth the sacrifice?

When I say I'm anti war its because I analyse things through a more human perspective and maybe at not such a high level. I don't view it as a game of command and conquer on the PC. I view it as people like you and I dying, not because we personally don't get along with the people we are fighting, but because our leaders don't like eachother.

But isn't it upto the Ukrainians to decide whether they want to fight on? If that's the case that agency shouldn't be taken away from them, my view is the occupied have every right to resist the occupier/invader. Unless you are saying Ukrainians don't want to fight anymore, if so do you have a source for this?

If Ukrainians no longer want to fight and negotiate I would support that, but I don't think we are there yet.

 

[OmgTheyKilkenny]

But isn't it upto the Ukrainians to decide whether they want to fight on? If that's the case that agency shouldn't be taken away form them, my view is the occupied have every right to resist the occupier/invader. Unless you are saying Ukrainians don't want to fight anymore, if so do you have a source for this?

Not under martial law it isn't. It's the decision of Zelensky. That's why there is mandatory conscription.

Freedom of speech and right to protest amongst other things are severely restricted under martial law - especially if it could hinder the war effort.

Here is an example of what happens when you're a critic.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/01/19/several-investigative-journalists-under-pressure-ukraine

Have you ever seen the western media show any perspectives of Ukranians who are critical of Zelensky or the war?

 

[VorZakone]

Not under martial law it isn't. It's the decision of Zelensky. That's why there is mandatory conscription.

Freedom of speech and right to protest amongst other things are severely restricted under martial law - especially if it could hinder the war effort.

Here is an example of what happens when you're a critic.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/01/19/several-investigative-journalists-under-pressure-ukraine

Have you ever seen the western media show any perspectives of Ukranians who are critical of Zelensky or the war?

By equating corruption to treason, Zelenskyy’s office is manipulating the public’s desire for justice, said Vitaly Shabunin, head of the Anti-Corruption Action Center (Antac), a Ukrainian nongovernmental organization that monitors graft. In reality, Shabunin added, Zelenskyy’s office is pursuing other goals: to protect high-level officials from corruption charges and obtain tools to destroy opponents.

https://www.politico.eu/article/vol...emocracy-antac-anti-corruption-action-center/

For months, Serhii Hnezdilov, a Ukrainian soldier, pushed for troops exhausted by years of war with Russia to be replaced with fresh conscripts. He expressed his concerns in interviews, on social networks and in a podcast, drawing on his five years of fighting in an infantry brigade. But Mr. Hnezdilov, 24, said his calls went unanswered. So last month, he took a radical step that he hoped would focus attention on his cause: He deserted and then publicly announced it on social media and in news outlets.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/19/world/europe/ukraine-troop-fatigue.html

Mustafa Nayyem, the head of the agency with the job of protecting critical infrastructure, resigned in June in protest at government failures, claiming that the project has been deliberately delayed by Kyiv’s refusal to release the funds allocated to carry it out.

“It was impossible to work. When you see that the leadership of the government is creating some artificial obstacles for you, it’s useless,” said Nayyem, the former head of Ukraine’s State Agency for Restoration and Infrastructure Development. His agency had requested €1.4 billion to deliver the bunkers, termed “third-level protection”, for the substations. Nayyem said vested interests were behind the block on funds.

https://www.thetimes.com/world/russ...s-ukrainians-facing-a-deadly-freeze-9b9tb7gwx

Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC), an NGO, believes that in a healthy democracy, any official accused of corruption should be suspended until cleared.

"Unless Zelenskyy gets rid of Tatarov, he won't be seen as serious in purging the country of corruption," she told Reuters.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-zelenskyy-anticorruption-efforts-1.6972301

“The main thing was that I realized at some point — what scared me — that I would not be able to make my own decisions about whether to mobilize or not, that I would not be able to decide the fate of my freedom,” said Oleksandr, 37, who paid $8,000 for help crossing the border in late May.

One 35-year-old man living in Kyiv already has his escape plan organized.
It will cost about $7,000 — through smugglers his friend used that got him across Ukraine’s border with Moldova. The main motivation to leave, the man said, was that he is unsure of his future in Ukraine amid constant Russian bombing and a war that is unlikely to end anytime soon.
“I want to have a kid,” he said. “And I just don’t see any prospects to raise a family here.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/07/17/ukraine-mobilization-draft-dodgers-russia/

Interviews with a dozen men who say they are staying at home to avoid conscription revealed a range of reasons. All expressed fear of dying in a conflict characterized by bloody trench warfare and devastating bombings. Many also said that they opposed conscription because of what they described as harsh draft tactics and a lack of sufficient training.
“I’m afraid I won’t get enough training and then I’ll be moved closer to the front and then I’ll die senselessly,” said Mykyta, a 28-year-old web designer from Lviv, in western Ukraine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/21/world/europe/ukraine-war-draft-dodgers-conscription.html

 

[Simbo]

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.

Dude we already have one professional troll taking care of us here. This place isn't big enough for the both of you!

Please refer back to point [1] of my post, you appear to have (totally intentionally) skipped it. We can't have reasoned debate with that sort of behaviour! Nor can I move on to your points.

Please show us the "history" of any sort of separatist movement in eastern Ukraine prior to 2014. When you realise you can't, please just get fecked, we've been through it before.

 

[Bole Top]

couple of days ago my friend showed me some videos of UKR army forces basically kidnaping men and forcing them to join the army, literally dragging them in front of their wives and children. man, that's some scary sight.

you really have to ask what's the point then. your own country is dragging you like a worthless piece of shit in the dust to die on the battlefield without any right to choose, yet it's also selling you "democracy & freedom", things being endangered by the enemy.

how motivated can such guy be? he's basically being murdered by his own side. how much worse can enemy look in his eyes in those moments?

 

[Nani Nana]

Dude we already have one professional troll taking care of us here. This place isn't big enough for the both of you!

Please refer back to point [1] of my post, you appear to have (totally intentionally) skipped it. We can't have reasoned debate with that sort of behaviour! Nor can I move on to your points.

Yes, there were actually referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk in 1994 calling for greater autonomy.

 

[2mufc0]

Not under martial law it isn't. It's the decision of Zelensky. That's why there is mandatory conscription.

Freedom of speech and right to protest amongst other things are severely restricted under martial law - especially if it could hinder the war effort.

Here is an example of what happens when you're a critic.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/01/19/several-investigative-journalists-under-pressure-ukraine

Have you ever seen the western media show any perspectives of Ukranians who are critical of Zelensky or the war?

If they didn't want to fight morale would be extremely low and I doubt they would have held the Russians off for this long. Although, I do think we are getting there slowly from reports I've been reading. But at this moment they are still fighting.

 

[2mufc0]

couple of days ago my friend showed me some videos of UKR army forces basically kidnaping men and forcing them to join the army, literally dragging them in front of their wives and children. man, that's some scary sight.

you really have to ask what's the point then. your own country is dragging you like a worthless piece of shit in the dust to die on the battlefield without any right to choose, yet it's also selling you "democracy & freedom", things being endangered by the enemy.

how motivated can such guy be? he's basically being murdered by his own side. how much worse can enemy look in his eyes in those moments?

Yeah that's wrong no doubt and I'm sure appetite for fighting is decreasing as time goes on, but I don't think you can sustain the fight without the majority being motivated. When it does get to that point and they start taking consistent losses they will probably move to the negotiating table.