Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

matherto said:
The Ukrainians are defending themselves. Russia is the aggressor, I fully agree, I'm not saying otherwise.

However, I wouldn't be surprised that the west/NATO has gotten involved to such an extent because they want to see what fighting Russia would be like/to test our weaponry against their defences.

We had no obligation to step in and defend Ukraine and hit Russia like we did so I think there's more to it. Thus treating it as if it's a proxy war. We're using someone else's troops but they've been trained by us and are using our weapons so surely that's at least the definition of doing something by proxy, even if it isn't the literal textbook definition of a proxy war.
Click to expand...

Its great power competition. The US and NATO are far more powerful than Russia and are penalizing it for stepping out of line. Caring about the welfare of Ukrainians by not wanting them to get carpet bombed into oblivion is also factor. Both of these can be true without being in conflict with one another.
 
FO3_tGDX0AAUlvv
 
Raoul said:
If there's one thing we've learned about Putin its that everything we thought he wouldn't dare do, he did.

Click to expand...


If the Russians use (and I believe they do) something similar to the two-man rule that the American chain of command does regarding the use of strategic weapons only activated by the Nuclear Football, who in Putin's cabinet would honestly be willing to provide the second authentic code to initiate "Snap Count" and to go down to Hell with him? We have to remember that would be unchartered territory for everyone.
 
Raoul said:
Yeah disappointing given his theater background. Sean Penn made a big deal out of it yesterday in criticizing the Academy for not making it happen.
Click to expand...
Even with all the fuzz around Penns behavior in the past, i really think hes a man with honour.
 
Raoul said:
Yeah disappointing given his theater background. Sean Penn made a big deal out of it yesterday in criticizing the Academy for not making it happen.
Click to expand...
I saw Penn's live interview on CNN. For all the times we've seen actors and filmmakers have been allowed to make strong statements on gun control, an illegal war, climate change and social inequity, I don't think it would have been too much to have Zelensky saying something.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
If the Russians use (and I believe they do) something similar to the two-man rule that the American chain of command does regarding the use of strategic weapons only activated by the Nuclear Football, who in Putin's cabinet would honestly be willing to provide the second authentic code to initiate "Snap Count" and to go down to Hell with him? We have to remember that would be unchartered territory for everyone.
Click to expand...
Who would be willing to day no... and how long till they are shot and replaced with somebody else
 
Raoul said:
If there's one thing we've learned about Putin its that everything we thought he wouldn't dare do, he did.



Click to expand...


There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.
 
ThierryFabregas said:
There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.
Click to expand...

Putin may not be mad but he is heavily influenced by Soviet sentiment for all we know. And there is more than enough evidence to this, see his essay about Ukraine, him citing fascist Russian propagandists, his talks about self-cleansing of the Russian people and so forth. Natural resources may be contributing factors but they seem to be of secondary importance.
 
ThierryFabregas said:
There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.
Click to expand...
You absolutely are.

God bless you for thinking that Putin’s distain of Ukraine is down to getting a more reliable water supply for his stolen peninsula. We’ve had all the “reasonable” takes for Putin’s action in this thread by now, surely?

Why would any Ukrainian leader look to unilaterally offer the use of civil infrastructure to another country that has invaded and occupied its territory, whilst continuing to foment political instability in much of the rest of it?
 
ThierryFabregas said:
There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.
Click to expand...

1) Where is it stated by Putin that the pipeline / water issues are a principal cause of the war?
2) What are Ukraine's legal obligations to supply water to an areas taken from them and under Russian control?
3) What is illegal or wrong about Ukraine charging Russia for using its territory to transport gas?
4) Where has the American "military industrial complex" stated it owns half of Syria and who has stated it?
5) Where is the treaty agreement that NATO would not expand beyond Germany?
6) If Putin had invaded in a less murdery / ethnic cleansing way, would you defend that?
 
Last edited:
ThierryFabregas said:
There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.
Click to expand...

Crimea is Ukraine, currently occupied by Russia. Of course it gets cut off, what do you think would happen if the same happened anywhere else, including in Russia?

Ukraine is resource rich and that’s a massive motivation for Russia to annex the eastern regions, but there’s no hypocrisy in saying the key motivation for the Russians is to destroy the Ukrainian state because that’s literally what Putin has said. The only consistently dishonest actors have been the Russians. The sheer volume of lies that have come from them is astonishing and has served to simply cut them off from the main international stage. Even the Chinese are struggling to overtly support them, as much as they wish they could.

The rest of your post about Syria, “American military industrial complex”, America arming ISIS (what the feck), etc is just irrelevant and clutching at Kremlin sponsored straws to somehow rationalise why Russia is doing what its doing. End of the day, they’re wrong and have fecked it.
 
ThierryFabregas said:
There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.
Click to expand...

What :lol:
 
Spark said:
America arming ISIS (what the feck)
Click to expand...
Ignoring the rest of the OP, but this is true (and Al Qaeda).
Whatever the level of “intentionality” involved, ISIS was the recipient of the US-supported arms aid to the Syrian rebels, routed by the CIA through Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey and other Mideast client states. The State Department and CIA were well aware that the Syrian rebels included many Islamic militants, including those linked to al-Qaeda, because it had previously employed many of these fighters in the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime in Libya in 2011.

Originally established as Al Qaeda in Iraq during the eight years of warfare that followed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the group only took the name ISIS in April 2013, long after it had built up significant strength in Syria as part of the US-backed rebel forces fighting the Assad regime.

In other words, as Biden admits, ISIS was created by the methods pursued by the US government and its allied reactionary regimes, both the Islamist government of Erdogan in Turkey and the Gulf monarchies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Another confirmation of this relationship came in the form of a Washington Post report Sunday on the supposedly contradictory role of the sheikdom of Qatar, another of the Persian Gulf despotisms that is a client state of American imperialism. Qatar hosts the huge Al-Udeid Air Base, headquarters for US air operations in the region and the directing center of the air war in Syria and Iraq.

Only 20 miles from the base is the Grand Mosque in the Qatari capital, Doha, which “has served as a key outpost for al-Qaeda-linked rebels fighting the Syrian regime,” the Post noted, including the al-Nusra Front, the official al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, which was formerly part of ISIS until a split last year.
Click to expand...
America created ISIS through its actions in Iraq, then funded Al Qaeda and other various terrorist groups against Asad in Syria


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front
 
ThierryFabregas said:
There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.
Click to expand...
Ive been saying this since day 1 and I havent a clue why no one else can see this. Its seems obvious. Only now there are some stories saying that he will annex Ukraine and take the west side and connect it to the Crimea to form a land corridor. Well no sht. But I disagree that Zelenski should have re-opened the canal. I mean the Russians invaded and took Crimea. Then you give them the water. Then what? Give them the west of Ukraine? Then what? Its basically just being a Russian puppet. If some fkers invade your country you do not bend over and do as they say.

Also Ukraine joining Nato means jack sht in terms of security to Russia. Its a smoke screen. Firstly NATO will never invade Russia unless it was under imminent threat because you know nukes and sht. And secondly if Nato wanted to take out Russia they could do it even if Ukraine is not part of NATO. And lastly its not up to Russia who joins Nato or not. Its called democracy.
 
spiriticon said:
Well we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that NATO has already shown a limited ceiling to act in under the threat of nuclear war, while Russia has shown an unlimited thirst for aggression which does not exclude nuclear war. The stronger will probably wins.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
nickm said:
1) Where is it stated by Putin that the pipeline / water issues are a principal cause of the war?
2) What are Ukraine's legal obligations to supply water to an areas taken from them and under Russian control?
3) What is illegal or wrong about Ukraine charging Russia for using its territory to transport gas?
4) Where has the American "military industrial complex" stated it owns half of Syria and who has stated it?
5) Where is the treaty agreement that NATO would not expand beyond Germany?
6) If Putin had invaded in a less murdery / ethnic cleansing way, would you defend that?
Click to expand...
No country ever says they go to War for natural resources. Hey everyone we want you to die for gas and oil just doesnt work. Same as Iraq/Afghanistan and on and on. It applies to most wars post the World Wars. The rest I agree with
 
UpWithRivers said:
No country ever says they go to War for natural resources. Hey everyone we want you to die for gas and oil just doesnt work. Same as Iraq/Afghanistan and on and on. It applies to most wars post the World Wars. The rest I agree with
Click to expand...
Still oil and gas is something different as "our people are dying from thirst". Making that case absolutely looks like a good and morally acceptable reason for action.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
No Zelensky appearance (pre-recorded or else) at the Academy Awards. :( That is just pathetic.
Click to expand...
Raoul said:
Yeah disappointing given his theater background. Sean Penn made a big deal out of it yesterday in criticizing the Academy for not making it happen.
Click to expand...
Apparently this year's host, Wanda Sykes, had this to say about the idea, and I tend to agree:

Schumer had previously expressed a desire for the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, to appear while Sean Penn said he would smelt his Oscars if this didn’t happen. Sykes was asked about this idea on the red carpet. “You know, in Hollywood, we can get a little full of ourselves and we think that what we’re doing is all so important,” she said to Variety. “I understand that, yeah, what we do reaches a lot people and we can persuade a lot of people, but it’s also [respectful] to just know your lane. You know what I’m saying? Know your lane.”
Click to expand...

It sends a bit of a weird message to speak in front of all of these different countries' parliaments, to then speak at the academy awards. I don't think anyone who watches those need persuasion, or make a difference. And I'm not sure he'd be doing himself any favours with the Russian public who are probably the most important people to persuade. But if he actually wanted to speak at the oscars, and the academy rejected it, that's also strange.
 
UpWithRivers said:
No country ever says they go to War for natural resources. Hey everyone we want you to die for gas and oil just doesnt work. Same as Iraq/Afghanistan and on and on. It applies to most wars post the World Wars. The rest I agree with
Click to expand...
But why would Ukraine not make this arguement? It would make absolute sense for Ukrainians to fight for resources that is absolutely theirs and could pave the way for a prosperous Ukraine. Also, Ukraine's gas reserves would allow Europe to reduce their dependency on Russian gas thus neutering any remaining claim Russia has to being a global superpower. I believe that to be the primary cause of the Invasion.
 
VorZakone said:
Zelenskyy on trying to save both people and territory: "This is difficult. But what's important is that the decision is made together with the people.

Just take a look at the people in Kherson who waved their hands in the middle of the streets in order to stop tanks. They decided to stand up. I could not have ordered them not to do it or to throw themselves under the tank treads. I will support the people's decisions."
Click to expand...

So he is trying to understand what the people want by the people's actions and keeps that in mind/lets it guide him while making decisions.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

He's fighting Russia with democracy at every opportunity. I love it, its the strongest weapon against them.
 
ThierryFabregas said:
There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.
Click to expand...

Justifying this war in ways even the Russians have yet to. That's impressive and terrifying at the same time.
 
ThierryFabregas said:
There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you take, but it looks a lot stronger than hard drugs.
 
The Crimea water crisis is not a new issue, it is been discussed in Russia ever since Ukraine cut it. And it was used in Russia's internal propaganda among other motives behind the invasion.

 
Pintu said:
The Crimea water crisis is not a new issue, it is been discussed in Russia ever since Ukraine cut it. And it was used in Russia's internal propaganda among other motives behind the invasion.

Click to expand...

The irony is that Soviet Russia couldn’t even be fecked building the canal and establishing a reliable water supply when they controlled it. Only when it became part of the Ukrainian SSR was the canal built and the fertility of Crimea increased.
 
Mariupol has been destroyed. The Russians are shelling the city for a full month now. Many buildings are in ruins, civilians have been killed. This does not serve any military purposes, it has only one goal: to terrorize the Ukrainians so that they give up defending their country.

Isn't this bombardment criminal? And if it is, who is responsible? Putin alone? What about the other Russians? I know that there is a police state in Russia, but is this enough to absolve them of all responsibility? After all, the majority supported Putin while he was building this police state. And the majority of Russians still support Putin today. For example, there are no large protests today. Do you remember the protests in London for the Iraq invasion by Bush? Did you see anything like this in Moscow this past month? And of course England did not bombard Basrah for a month, and they did not try to cause as many civilian casualties as possible. The West did a lot of bad things, but nothing like the destruction of Mariupol, and yet the Russian citizens do not participate to any widespread protests. Isn't this odd? What do you make of this?
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Ignoring the rest of the OP, but this is true (and Al Qaeda).
America created ISIS through its actions in Iraq, then funded Al Qaeda and other various terrorist groups against Asad in Syria


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front
Click to expand...

Right, ISIS is a disastrous consequence of terrible foreign policy decisions. Something that is actually admitted by Biden himself in the article you quoted (so not exactly being denied at the highest levels).

America/NATO/the West haven't actively armed ISIS considering they have been running bombing campaigns against them since their inception (including dropping the MOAB on them in Afghanistan).

Can say the same about the Russians arming every terrorist organisation in the world through the proliferation of the AK.
 
ThierryFabregas said:
There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.
Click to expand...

Then Putin must be a really bad negotiator, because none of its 7 negotiation demands (IIRC Crimea, Lugansk, Donetsk, Demilitarization, Denazification, Neutrality, Russian language) even remotely take care of that issue. They can get all 7 of them and still have Crimea without water.

Anyway, there's a chance this could be the next goalpost for saving face domestically: to ensure water distribution for the previoulsy occupied land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.