Disaster for Ukraine. Rebels route Ukrainian forces at Donetsk

[Ford]

You are of course free to disabuse me of the notion that Putin is just conquering Ukraine because he wants the best for their citizens.

So the answer is NO you don't. OK

I don't...understand why you think Ukraine should be swallowed up by Russia? Guilty as charged.

I don't...get why you unquestioningly support Putin? Got me on that one!

I don't...accept that Russia's desire to annex territory is in any way legitimate? Yep. I'll cop to that.


I don't...buy your paid for pro-Putin propaganda? Geez, you got me there, too.



Of course if you really believed this "greater Russia" bullshit you'd be on the front lines shooting Ukrainians instead of being a keyboard warrior.

 

[barbos]

So the answer is NO you don't. OK

I don't...understand why you think Ukraine should be swallowed up by Russia?

As opposed to be swallowed by US?

I don't...get why you unquestioningly support Putin?

I don't.

I don't...accept that Russia's desire to annex territory is in any way legitimate?

Russia has no such desire. It's all in your head.

I don't...buy your paid for pro-Putin propaganda?

Again, it's in your head.

Of course if you really believed this "greater Russia" bullshit you'd be on the front lines shooting Ukrainians instead of being a keyboard warrior.

You really need to see a head doctor. Something is wrong with your head.

 

[thief of fire]

All the rhetoric about "greater Russia" is one thing, but I think that at some level Putin wants a bit of real estate between himself and NATO.

Yes, I'd agree. I think that is reasonable though. I think they have some valid gripes.

Ukraine is merely in the way.

And the gas goes through Ukraine. At least until the new pipeline goes through to the south.

 

[angelo]

Agreed. Kind of like the US and NATO (or some of them, not many) invading Iraq on made-up reasons.

The whole of this thread is generating more heat than light at the moment.
There is too much value attached to the materialistic reasons and effects for what happened to the Soviets and their "satellites" which in effect were slave countries to the Soviets/Russia, and not enough attention is paid to the psychological and historical reasons . Believe me, as one who was born and bred in one of those countries, they were willing if necessary to suffer any kind of materialistic loss if it meant getting rid of the hated Russians, Tsarist, Communist or Democratic (as Russia briefly was in February to November 1917) and the hated Communists of any nationality. The reasons for that are historical and I will not go into them here. Suffice it to say that the "Baltics", Poland and Hungary had a history of being subjugated by military force to the Russians, unlike Rumania, Bulgaria and Serbia who were liberated or made safe from savage Turkish rule by the same Russian military force.

All that said, once Yeltsyn and Putin admitted to all Russian sins and mistakes, and those East European countries were free, and Russia was on the way to being democratic, more or less, the US ,and NATO obediently following the US lead, continued to treat Russia as the enemy, right up to the present. In its turn the mere possibility of Ukraine joining the EU and later becoming a member of NATO, however unlikely that possibility was, was psychologically unacceptable to Putin and the vast majority of Russians.

Imperial Russia fought for 150 years to capture South Russia and the Crimea from the Turks and defended the Crimea, or tried to, from British, French and Turkish forces in the Criimean War, and the Russia of the Communist Soviet Empire defended and then recaptured the Crimea from the Germans (these days labelled as "the Nazis") in WW II. And the thought of Sebestopol in NATO hands and NATO and American troops so close to Stalingrad of WW II fame, now renamed as Volgograd,however unlikely or distant that possibility, was simply psychologically/historically unacceptable and, for Russia, worth any risk of conflict or opprobrium in the international field, and any economical sacrifice, to prevent that happening. And there we are.

Had the US/NATO policy and attitude been different from 1990 onwards, the whole story might have been different. But those are "might have beens" and hot air is wasted air.

IOW, since the US and Nato have flawed histories, the people of eastern Europe don't have the right to be sovereign?

They have but the problem is there are a sizeable portion of the populations of these eastern Europe who prefer to stay in the Russian fold.

 

[arkirk]

I think the coups in Ukraine was a poorly contrived strategic move on the part of NATO allies to overturn the agreement made with the Russians in the 90's...that Ukraine would not be annexed into NATO. I think of Putin as one big asshole with no moral restrictions in his moral code against severe violations of the rights of gays and women. He also however is more than half right regarding the Ukraine. Russia does not need another NATO nation on its border. The coups in Kiev was a foolhardy move and it will not produce the results its sponsors sought. Time to negotiate...regardless of the fact that Putin is an ass. We have our own asshole in charge.

 

[angelo]

If you mean Obama, Putin runs rings around him! ^^^

 

[arkirk]

If you mean Obama, Putin runs rings around him! ^^^

So then, Putin is your hero in this? Both Putin and Obama are in their own way corporatists and supporters of their respective petrochemical interests. They are playing a deadly game neither of them should be allowed the right to play.

 

[barbos]

I think the coups in Ukraine was a poorly contrived strategic move on the part of NATO allies to overturn the agreement made with the Russians in the 90's...that Ukraine would not be annexed into NATO. I think of Putin as one big asshole with no moral restrictions in his moral code against severe violations of the rights of gays and women. He also however is more than half right regarding the Ukraine. Russia does not need another NATO nation on its border. The coups in Kiev was a foolhardy move and it will not produce the results its sponsors sought. Time to negotiate...regardless of the fact that Putin is an ass. We have our own asshole in charge.

If the only source information I had was Western media then I would surely agree that Putin was an asshole, but in reality he is not even half an asshole Dick Cheney was/is.
And Yes, NATO and especially US is to blame for shit happening in Ukraine.
Whether it was utter ignorance/stupidity or there was some evil design involved I don't know.

 

[arkirk]

It's like this............

 

[angelo]

If you mean Obama, Putin runs rings around him! ^^^

So then, Putin is your hero in this? Both Putin and Obama are in their own way corporatists and supporters of their respective petrochemical interests. They are playing a deadly game neither of them should be allowed the right to play.

As a shrewd politician Obama is no match for the Russian.

 

[dystopian]

But just think of the reaction if Cuba and Mexico declared an unlikely wish to join Russia's economic region and asked Russia for help in combating the demand-driven USA and EU trade in drugs, and maybe, just maybe, you will begin to understand the local feelings in Russia. And IMHO the USA policymakers should have thought of that, even if posters here cannot be expected to.

You make the flawed assumption that we do not understand the local feelings in Russia, or the history that fostered them. We do, it's just that those feelings in no shape or form justify the actions of Russia.

In my 4th paragraph I tried to show what the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine mean to Russia, whether the West likes that or not.

Which once again, doesn't justify anything. Explain, maybe, justify? No. I remind you that your post was in response to one where I declared Russia's actions to be legally and morally unjustifiable; by responding to said statement the way you did, any reasonable person would've concluded that your post was meant to justify said actions through history. If you had merely wanted to point out the reasons behind Russia's actions, free of notions such as justification, you should have made a thread in the history forum instead.

Whatever the actions of NATO in exercises with Russia, it is undeniable that the USA in its dealings has continued to seek to weaken Russia and its influence in every way short of war.

It is in fact, quite deniable.

Certainly, the US; like most countries, has sought to strengthen it's own position relative to the position of other countries that might challenge it (which is hardly something I approve of); but in "every way short of war"? Nonsense. And it's questionable whether this constitutes treating said country as an enemy. It also means that you're now stuck with claiming the US is the one doing so, instead of NATO or the west.

 

[dystopian]

I think the coups in Ukraine was a poorly contrived strategic move on the part of NATO allies to overturn the agreement made with the Russians in the 90's...that Ukraine would not be annexed into NATO.

Once again (I seem to be having to repeat this to you over and over); there was never any talk of Ukraine joining NATO before this crisis, and said agreement was made void by Russia themselves when they annexed Crimea since the agreement also stipulated that Russia would guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Stop bringing up this agreement as an argument to defend Russia's actions, since it actually condemns them.

 

[lpetrich]

This seems like Russia's Bay of Pigs. The original Bay of Pigs invasion was by CIA-trained refugees from Fidel Castro's regime whose sponsors tried to have an image of them as Cuban patriots who wanted to take back their country without any involvement from the Yanqui gringo imperialists. But they failed rather miserably, and JFK, the head Yanqui gringo himself, had the decency to own up to that failure.

So it is with Russia and the ethnic Russian rebels. Russia is claiming to have nothing to do with them, except for some military brigades which "accidentally" wandered into Ukraine. JFK owned up to the Bay of Pigs invasion. Vladimir Putin has yet to do so for his armed forces' meddling in Ukraine.

I doubt that Ukraine will be able to get Crimea back, since that's important to Russia. But Ukraine may have better luck with the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces.

I don't see how anyone can have good reason to sympathize with Russia's meddling on this issue. Ethnic Russians don't seem to have been very persecuted in Ukraine.

 

[Will Wiley]

I doubt that Ukraine will be able to get Crimea back, since that's important to Russia.

The Crimeans themselves don't want to go back. Overwhelmingly

But Ukraine may have better luck with the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces.

Are you serious? How will they do this, by killing everyone?

I don't see how anyone can have good reason to sympathize with Russia's meddling on this issue. Ethnic Russians don't seem to have been very persecuted in Ukraine.

Killing them doesn't equal persecuting them? The first thing the illegitimate coup government did was ban the vRussian language. Then they began attacking and killing those who resisted a government that took power in a coup. Somehow in your mind this is not persecution though?
The new government continued attacking and killing those in the east. Yet , this is not persecution?

 

[Will Wiley]

You make the flawed assumption that we do not understand the local feelings in Russia, or the history that fostered them. We do,

How do you understand exactly?

No. I remind you that your post was in response to one where I declared Russia's actions to be legally and morally unjustifiable;

Russia's actions are perfectly justifiable. Despite your declaration. Do you just "declare" things and assume that settles the matter?

 

[Will Wiley]

If you mean Obama, Putin runs rings around him! ^^^

So then, Putin is your hero in this?

I think it means Obama is way out of his depth when it comes to International affairs. He bumbles and stumbles from one botched disaster to another. Putin is a much cooler customer who chooses his times of action much more prudently

 

[dystopian]

How do you understand exactly?

They're not hard to understand. Understanding them, and agreeing with them, are two very different things however.

Russia's actions are perfectly justifiable. Despite your declaration. Do you just "declare" things and assume that settles the matter?

Invading and annexing territory from your neighbors is never justified; no matter what feelings the Russians may have that made them think it to be okay or what actions others may or may not have taken to precipitate it. It's justified even less so when preceding that, they've spent years instigating the situation in order to give themselves an excuse. No, the West's actions (real or imagined) do not justify it either. Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that you apparently need this explained to you does not inspire in me a great deal of confidence about your capacity for independent thought. The fact that you apparently buy Russian propaganda regarding the "coup" and "referendum", solidifies my doubts into a form more closely resembling certainty.

 

[thief of fire]

Invading and annexing territory from your neighbors is never justified

There was no invasion. Russia already had troops there. Up to 25,000 troops, by agreement. You are saying things that are not true.

 

[angelo]

This seems like Russia's Bay of Pigs. The original Bay of Pigs invasion was by CIA-trained refugees from Fidel Castro's regime whose sponsors tried to have an image of them as Cuban patriots who wanted to take back their country without any involvement from the Yanqui gringo imperialists. But they failed rather miserably, and JFK, the head Yanqui gringo himself, had the decency to own up to that failure.

So it is with Russia and the ethnic Russian rebels. Russia is claiming to have nothing to do with them, except for some military brigades which "accidentally" wandered into Ukraine. JFK owned up to the Bay of Pigs invasion. Vladimir Putin has yet to do so for his armed forces' meddling in Ukraine.

I doubt that Ukraine will be able to get Crimea back, since that's important to Russia. But Ukraine may have better luck with the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces.

I don't see how anyone can have good reason to sympathize with Russia's meddling on this issue. Ethnic Russians don't seem to have been very persecuted in Ukraine.

Many here have failed to grasp that Ukraine needs Russia much more than Russia needs Ukraine!

 

[dystopian]

Invading and annexing territory from your neighbors is never justified

There was no invasion. Russia already had troops there. Up to 25,000 troops, by agreement. You are saying things that are not true.

And as I have REPEATEDLY explained to people; that agreement did NOT allow for those troops to blockade ports, occupy airfields and government buildings, lay siege to military bases, and lay fucking mines in people's farm fields and on their roads. The fact that Russian troops didn't cross the border first, doesn't make it any less of an illegal invasion.

It is not me who is saying things that are not true; it's you who is twisting the truth until it becomes a lie.