Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northener

Point is that NATO membership is obviously more attractive....for many countries. Russia acts like a wounded bear and can only beat wildly, that's a weakness Riverman. Do you wonder why only an ex ministers of foreign affairs of Austria, an ex Bundeskanzler and a bunch of extreme right is attracted to Putin? The odeur of authoritarian rule and position.....nothing more nothing less. What else attractive has Putin to offer?????

---

Look, you always keep describing what happens in the West as well as if its special about Russia. No its not, just like the oligarchs in the East vs., how the Western media call them, "philanthropists" in the West.

Where was ex-chancellor Kurz going? Its nothing special about Russia in this regard, most ex-politicians end in various supervisory boards both in the West and Russia. There is no difference about it, they get caught and corrupted left and right, West and East. This is a major problem for our whole political landscape, and its as bad in the West as it is in the East, sometimes even worse, because the non-Western politicians are able to care for their own well-being and therefore can also make their own decisions, whereas the majority of Western politicians depends on networks which have demands and therefore determine their political agenda.

Putin has to offer a lot, you see what Russia did vs. what the USA did. He brought order into chaos and cracked the Islamists down, whereas the USA only spreads disorder and Islamism. Just as an example for that the actual outcome matters.

If its about European politicians, we're talking about a counterweight to the US-UK influence on Europe, the influence of Washington/New York and London/City of London on the course of things. We are dependent enough from the US already, all Europeans are, we don't need a crippled and destroyed Russia, and even less a 3rd World War fought in Europe. But that doesn't bother the US strategists, they only want to keep the control over the continent and spread all their nonsense from over the Atlantic, while bringing Russia down on its knees. Like how long does it need these days from any crap of cancel culture to come from America to Europe? Three weeks?
Or ideas about how our markets and social programs should be shaped, what goals the EU should have, which "values". There is no European interest in making the US influence even stronger than it already is, especially not with "the blob", like Mearsheimer called it being in charge of foreign policy again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

Look, you always keep describing what happens in the West as well as if its special about Russia. No its not, just like the oligarchs in the East vs., how the Western media call them, "philanthropists" in the West.

Where was ex-chancellor Kurz going? Its nothing special about Russia in this regard, most ex-politicians end in various supervisory boards both in the West and Russia. There is no difference about it, they get caught and corrupted left and right, West and East. This is a major problem for our whole political landscape, and its as bad in the West as it is in the East, sometimes even worse, because the non-Western politicians are able to care for their own well-being and therefore can also make their own decisions, whereas the majority of Western politicians depends on networks which have demands and therefore determine their political agenda.

Putin has to offer a lot, you see what Russia did vs. what the USA did. He brought order into chaos and cracked the Islamists down, whereas the USA only spreads disorder and Islamism. Just as an example for that the actual outcome matters.

If its about European politicians, we're talking about a counterweight to the US-UK influence on Europe, the influence of Washington/New York and London/City of London on the course of things. We are dependent enough from the US already, all Europeans are, we don't need a crippled and destroyed Russia, and even less a 3rd World War fought in Europe. But that doesn't bother the US strategists, they only want to keep the control over the continent and spread all their nonsense from over the Atlantic, while bringing Russia down on its knees. Like how long does it need these days from any crap of cancel culture to come from America to Europe? Three weeks?
Or ideas about how our markets and social programs should be shaped, what goals the EU should have, which "values". There is no European interest in making the US influence even stronger than it already is, especially not with "the blob", like Mearsheimer called it being in charge of foreign policy again.

---

You are obsessed,really you are.:thinking:

How would a Europe dominated by Russia, a gas station with nukes, be any better than Europe under U.S. influence.

Europe has been found out.

It's been an historical busted flush since 1945 and dependent on the U.S. and Russian spheres of influence.

Europeans couldn't even handle the raids of Barbary Pirates from North Africa right into the early 19th century.

It took the new U.S. navy to end the menace (From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli").

This opened the way for France to occupy Algeria and Tunisia from 1830 onwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vallicanus

You are obsessed,really you are.:thinking:

How would a Europe dominated by Russia, a gas station with nukes, be any better than Europe under U.S. influence.

---

In some respects market economy and capitalism are right, for the consumer, in this case for the European countries, its better to have two suppliers, even if both are bad, than just one. You understand that? I'm not talking about me wanting Europe being truly dominated by Russia, but I don't want it to be dominated by the current US system either.
There was and there is absolutely no threat from Russia for Europe, unless if the US constantly provokes it. They should have stayed out of Georgia and Ukraine, as they should have stayed out of Iraq, Syria and Lybia. The US interventions only caused troubles from destruction, death, Islamism, prizes, economy and refugees with migration problems in Europe. The US is shattering things, the Europeans and the rest of the world get the problems. That's the issue, not me wanting Russia to be the hegemon in Europe, but being there as a supplier and partner. And they were peaceful partners, for decades now, until the US thought its a good idea to push the agenda and spread propaganda, unrest, anti-Russian regimes and false promises to Russias neighbourhood!
There was no reason for doing that, other than the US hegemons willingness to put everything and everyone down and on his knees around the world, no matter the costs. This was a direct attack on Russia, after having made clear to them that they won't get anything from the West, no NATO no EU special relationship, but its core interests hurt and the neighbouring countries weaponised.

This was a confrontational US policy and Europe didn't need that crap. The Ukrainians might have thought its great at first, but now, even if they win this war, someway, was it worth it? They could have just stayed a neutral state, with special relations to the EU and Russia the same time, in an intermediate position, respecting Russian interests but otherwise developing themselves. The US and the regional Ukrainian oligarchs interventions prevented that from happening, instead they wanted a confrontation, they wanted to encircle Russia and weaponise its neighbours. That's the problem and its not about me saying that Russia is generally better in every respect than the US, absolutely not. But talking about gas, they got the better quality natural gas to a solid price. The alternatives are ecologically and economically a catastrophy and we Europeans need it the next decades. So again, just dependence from and money for the US and its Near Eastern partners. Why should any sane European prefer that? The only reason was that the Ukraine got confrontational and this could have caused supply problems, but for that we got Nordstream.
Of course, the Americans never wanted Nordstream and they wanted to shut it down for many years. Now they have even more pressure to exert on the "sovereign" nations of Europe. They already threatened and blackmailed German, Austrian and other companies before. The Russian - Ukrainian conflict is just another pretext for what the US strategists wanted anyway: Contain or even destroy Russia, make Europe even more dependent from the USA. That's what this is about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

In some respects market economy and capitalism are right, for the consumer, in this case for the European countries, its better to have two suppliers, even if both are bad, than just one. You understand that? I'm not talking about me wanting Europe being truly dominated by Russia, but I don't want it to be dominated by the current US system either.
There was and there is absolutely no threat from Russia for Europe, unless if the US constantly provokes it. They should have stayed out of Georgia and Ukraine, as they should have stayed out of Iraq, Syria and Lybia. The US interventions only caused troubles from destruction, death, Islamism, prizes, economy and refugees with migration problems in Europe. The US is shattering things, the Europeans and the rest of the world get the problems. That's the issue, not me wanting Russia to be the hegemon in Europe, but being there as a supplier and partner. And they were peaceful partners, for decades now, until the US thought its a good idea to push the agenda and spread propaganda, unrest, anti-Russian regimes and false promises to Russias neighbourhood!
There was no reason for doing that, other than the US hegemons willingness to put everything and everyone down and on his knees around the world, no matter the costs. This was a direct attack on Russia, after having made clear to them that they won't get anything from the West, no NATO no EU special relationship, but its core interests hurt and the neighbouring countries weaponised.

This was a confrontational US policy and Europe didn't need that crap. The Ukrainians might have thought its great at first, but now, even if they win this war, someway, was it worth it? They could have just stayed a neutral state, with special relations to the EU and Russia the same time, in an intermediate position, respecting Russian interests but otherwise developing themselves. The US and the regional Ukrainian oligarchs interventions prevented that from happening, instead they wanted a confrontation, they wanted to encircle Russia and weaponise its neighbours. That's the problem and its not about me saying that Russia is generally better in every respect than the US, absolutely not. But talking about gas, they got the better quality natural gas to a solid price. The alternatives are ecologically and economically a catastrophy and we Europeans need it the next decades. So again, just dependence from and money for the US and its Near Eastern partners. Why should any sane European prefer that? The only reason was that the Ukraine got confrontational and this could have caused supply problems, but for that we got Nordstream.
Of course, the Americans never wanted Nordstream and they wanted to shut it down for many years. Now they have even more pressure to exert on the "sovereign" nations of Europe. They already threatened and blackmailed German, Austrian and other companies before. The Russian - Ukrainian conflict is just another pretext for what the US strategists wanted anyway: Contain or even destroy Russia, make Europe even more dependent from the USA. That's what this is about.

---

If American troops left Europe, Europe, a militarily insignificant section of the planet, would soon be swearing allegiance to the Kremlin, learning Russian and sighing over coffee and croissants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vallicanus

If American troops left Europe, Europe, militarily insignificant, would be swearing allegiance to the Kremlin and learning Russian.

---

Russia is at currently much too weak to even think about that. The only thing they can do is to use WMD, especially their nuclear missiles. Of course, UK is now out of the EU and only France has nuclear weapons, Germany does not. That lack of German nuclear weapons is the only or at least primary reason why, in the current situation, Germany needs US support, being under the nuclear shield. That's all. This is not the Warshaw Pact, its not even the Soviet Union, its Russia on its own. They can't threaten Europe other than with nuclear missiles, it would be a way too big lunch for them to swallow. They want European partners to keep their independence from both the USA and China, that's what the Russians want. And they have their own sort of "Monroe doctrine" for their direct ex-Soviet neighbourhood. That are the two things Russia wants, nothing more, nothing less.

This might have change in decades from now, while being still unlikely, but what you are saying is completely out of question as of now. The only thing the USA did is to push Russia into Chinas arms, that's what they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

Putin has to offer a lot, you see what Russia did vs. what the USA did. He brought order into chaos and cracked the Islamists down, whereas the USA only spreads disorder and Islamism. Just as an example for that the actual outcome matters.

---

That's exactly were you and I sharply disagree: 'order into chaos', yes in Grozny he did, he did in Syria etc. It's maintaining order by trampling others. The whole idea of strategic nuclear weapons as use in war. That's way beyond a humanistic kind of thinking.

So what about order when the result is trampling of people. No thanks....

Ordnung muss sein und Befehl ist Befehl huhuh in my mind the heels are already clicking together.....

:vomitting:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northener

That's exactly were you and I sharply disagree: 'order into chaos', yes in Grozny he did, he did in Syria etc. It's maintaining order by trampling others. The whole idea of strategic nuclear weapons as use in war. That's way beyond a humanistic kind of thinking.

So what about order when the result is trampling of people. No thanks....

Ordnung muss sein und Befehl ist Befehl huhuh in my mind the heels are already clicking together.....

---

You miss the key point, that this kind of "intervention" became necessary to stop Islamist barbarians from taking over and committing a genocide on the Syrian-Iraqi Alevites, Christians, Shia muslims, Kurds, Yazidis, atheists etc., etc. They went on killing and torturing as they liked, with the support of the Gulf states, Turkey, Israel and of course the USA.
That was the situation these states were in, before the Russians intervened and had to use brutal force to bring things back to something more acceptable. Probably it won't have been enough, because guess what, if the Russians lose it now completely, the war in Syria will escalate once more too and bring the Sunni Islamists back into offensive. We already see signs of that.

So what you are suggesting is that the Russians caused this mess: No they don't, it was the USA and its allies which caused that catastrophy, the Russians just played the firefighters when things went completely out of control.

They didn't trample "on people" because they loved it, they had to use force to fight these genocidal and most brutal Islamists back. That's a very basic and fundamental difference. This is not order as a an end in itself, its the better alternative, given the options on the ground.

Did you care to watch what the IS did to prisoners? You think that was better or more humane? More free or whatever? That was the alternative in Syria and the Russians prevented it from spreading, while the US and its allies directly and indirectly supplied and assisted them, up to the point of the general public paying attention to what guys they were.

This is even more absurd if considering that the USA invaded Iraq, a staunch enemy of this Islamists, with the excuse of fighting Islamist terror! They spread it themselves in Syria, while they have lied about Iraq! In comparison, Russia did much better and everything right, considering the given circumstances. The USA gave up on regime change themselves, now they support terrorists and "revolutions" from outside, with the effects we know from Syria, Libya, Georgia and now Ukraine. Great job.
Talking about Chechnya: They were even left alone, they could do what they wanted, but they began to infiltrate other Caucasian republics and used terrorism in main Russia itself. The main support and ideological infiltration came from Saudi Arabia, with indirect US support. Chechnya was an ugly war too, but that was the time Russia was really pushed to it, and began to realise, that even if they want, they can't just watch. Because things get worse, they don't even stop at their republic's border.

We got all those surveillance in the West, with the poor excuse of "fighting Islamist terror" initially, and in reality the US is supporting Islamists whenever it suits them and cooperates with the main state sponsor for these movements, Saudi Arabia.

The USA have the least right to point fingers on Russia, the least!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

Russia is at currently much too weak to even think about that. The only thing they can do is to use WMD, especially their nuclear missiles. Of course, UK is now out of the EU and only France has nuclear weapons, Germany does not. That lack of German nuclear weapons is the only or at least primary reason why, in the current situation, Germany needs US support, being under the nuclear shield. That's all. This is not the Warshaw Pact, its not even the Soviet Union, its Russia on its own. They can't threaten Europe other than with nuclear missiles, it would be a way too big lunch for them to swallow. They want European partners to keep their independence from both the USA and China, that's what the Russians want. And they have their own sort of "Monroe doctrine" for their direct ex-Soviet neighbourhood. That are the two things Russia wants, nothing more, nothing less.

This might have change in decades from now, while being still unlikely, but what you are saying is completely out of question as of now. The only thing the USA did is to push Russia into Chinas arms, that's what they did.

---

What unalloyed tosh.
Are you a Kremlin apologist?

They can only threaten Europe with nuclear weapons, you wrote?

Europe can sleep soundly in its bed.:laughing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vallicanus

Europe has been found out.

It's been an historical busted flush since 1945 and dependent on the U.S. and Russian spheres of influence.

Europeans couldn't even handle the raids of Barbary Pirates from North Africa right into the early 19th century.

It took the new U.S. navy to end the menace (From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli").

This opened the way for France to occupy Algeria and Tunisia from 1830 onwards.

---

I don't know about the 19th cent pirates, but it's sufficient to mention the Balkan conflict some 40 years ago, which was in Europe and couldn't be handled by Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

You miss the key point, that this kind of "intervention" became necessary to stop Islamist barbarians from taking over and committing a genocide on the Syrian-Iraqi Alevites, Christians, Shia muslims, Kurds, Yazidis, atheists etc., etc. They went on killing and torturing as they liked, with the support of the Gulf states, Turkey, Israel and of course the USA.
That was the situation these states were in, before the Russians intervened and had to use brutal force to bring things back to something more acceptable. Probably it won't have been enough, because guess what, if the Russians lose it now completely, the war in Syria will escalate once more too and bring the Sunni Islamists back into offensive. We already see signs of that.

So what you are suggesting is that the Russians caused this mess: No they don't, it was the USA and its allies which caused that catastrophy, the Russians just played the firefighters when things went completely out of control.

They didn't trample "on people" because they loved it, they had to use force to fight these genocidal and most brutal Islamists back. That's a very basic and fundamental difference. This is not order as a an end in itself, its the better alternative, given the options on the ground.

Did you care to watch what the IS did to prisoners? You think that was better or more humane? More free or whatever? That was the alternative in Syria and the Russians prevented it from spreading, while the US and its allies directly and indirectly supplied and assisted them, up to the point of the general public paying attention to what guys they were.

This is even more absurd if considering that the USA invaded Iraq, a staunch enemy of this Islamists, with the excuse of fighting Islamist terror! They spread it themselves in Syria, while they have lied about Iraq! In comparison, Russia did much better and everything right, considering the given circumstances. The USA gave up on regime change themselves, now they support terrorists and "revolutions" from outside, with the effects we know from Syria, Libya, Georgia and now Ukraine. Great job.
Talking about Chechnya: They were even left alone, they could do what they wanted, but they began to infiltrate other Caucasian republics and used terrorism in main Russia itself. The main support and ideological infiltration came from Saudi Arabia, with indirect US support. Chechnya was an ugly war too, but that was the time Russia was really pushed to it, and began to realise, that even if they want, they can't just watch. Because things get worse, they don't even stop at their republic's border.

We got all those surveillance in the West, with the poor excuse of "fighting Islamist terror" initially, and in reality the US is supporting Islamists whenever it suits them and cooperates with the main state sponsor for these movements, Saudi Arabia.

The USA have the least right to point fingers on Russia, the least!

---

You miss my point entirely about the "order" and the "authoritarian order".

In the view of authoritarian leaders ordinary people are only pieces on a chess board.

Internal an external repression, cherished as "order".

And even then before the US, the SU left Afghanistan, and may be in their own sphere of influence they repress Islamist, but the only effect is that they radicalize more and more once and a while they blow themselves up in the metros stations in Moskva/ Petrograd too.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northener

You miss my point entirely about the "order" and the "authoritarian order".

In the view of authoritarian leaders ordinary people are only pieces on a chess board.

---

And the liberal democratic US government cares for every citizen? Also for the people abroad? We saw in many instances how much they care. Again, you maken one big mistake: You apply double standards. Yes, generally speaking, the US "cares" more for its citizens in particular, also because this is part of the image they want to communicate. But in many instances, and especially if they draw on their reserves, get cornered themselves, they have proven time and time again, that they can be as brutal and ruthless as most "authoritarian" states, which are no homogeneous, unified category anyway.

Quote:

---

And even then before the US, the SU left Afghanistan, and may be in their own sphere of influence they repress Islamist, but the only effect is that they radicalize more and more once and a while they blow themselves up in the metros stations in Moskva/ Petrograd too.....

---

They even allow Islamism, in Chechnya, as long as its not too extreme and subversive. And the main problem was for the Russians always that they couldn't cut the Islamists off and were rather careful about them, generally speaking. They got constantly supplied by the US secret services and especially the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia in particular. The kind of Salafist Islamism which spread in Chechnya was unknown and foreign to the region, before Arab ideologists came to the country, just as they came to Bosnia in the 1990's. And of course, the US and its Gulf allies are bombing Iraq, Syria, Yemen and corner Iran, because of them "supporting terrorism". What a joke. Even in TV shows like Homeland the bad guys are Iranians, as ruthless Islamists. Its all rigged and manipulated, the US public being so often misled, it can't be counted any more, and the same theme goes through other topics of political importance.

No double standards please. Even the liberal, otherwise clearly pro-Ukrainian commentator here on ORF TV asks why the Ukrainians don't agree on the pre-war status of Ukraine being fixed:
- Ukraine staying neutral
- Krim goes to Russia
- Autonomy for the Donbas republics

What's so bad about it? Its because Selenski pushed the nationalist agenda of a greater Ukraine and NATO membership in the current borders. He doesn't care for the suffering of the Ukrainians and just says "whatever it costs", to bring down the Russians. Yes, the US and the Ukrainian oligarchs got the right guy for doing that job, he just doesn't care about the escalation level and want to proceed to the bitter end. And that's the regime the West is supposed to support to the bitter end, unconditionally, in its war efforts. Horrible. For what, for bringing people under his regimes and the oligarchs control which don't want to, which were ready to fight for their freedom and becoming part of Russia? That's not any better and for sure no glorious goal for democrats which care for the people and the right to self-determination. They demand for themselves way more than they are ready to give. That's to my liking. Like people which always complained under much better conditions about Austro-Hungary, and when the time came and they got their states, they trampled on the German minorities and even shot into peaceful demonstrations.

I wonder how the great Selenski and his oligarchs with their private armies would treat the pro-Russian Donbas and Crimean people? I guess they can just flee if they don't want to get mistreated or even killed, if looking at how the mob acts in the Ukrainian cities and treats prisoners of war.

Same rights for both: The Western Ukranians want their right to self-determination, the pro-Russian Donbas and Crimea wants the same. That's all Russia is demanding. If the Selenski regime doesn't want to agree and prefers to destroy the country, one can hardly blame Russia alone for the outcome. The Russians waited 8 years and constantly tried to come to basic terms with the Ukrainians, but they just prepared for war and wanted to bring NATO in as soon as possible, just for getting their control over people back which don't want to be part of their state.

All that mess could have easily being prevented with no US intervention and a less confrontational Ukraine. The more facts I know about that conflict, the less sympathy I have for the Ukrainian regime and as wrong as it is, to start any such war without having absolutely no other choice, which was not the case for Russia, they still had other options, I understand it better and better. This Ukrainian regime could create only hate and hostility with Russia. How this Selenski talks alone, his absolute neglect for respect and accountability is enough. "As much as it costs", to get people subdued which don't want to be part of his state. And that's the great democratic cause. Russia made its offer, its fair enough.

Who sees people just as pawns on a chess board? Where is the difference between Selenski and his regime and that of Putins? Definitely no significant one.

Quote:

---

And the liberal democratic US government cares for every citizen? Also for the people abroad? We saw in many instances how much they care. Again, you maken one big mistake: You apply double standards. Yes, generally speaking, the US "cares" more for its citizens in particular, also because this is part of the image they want to communicate. But in many instances, and especially if they draw on their reserves, get cornered themselves, they have proven time and time again, that they can be as brutal and ruthless as most "authoritarian" states, which are no homogeneous, unified category anyway.

---

There is no ideal system Riverman. Nevertheless I dare to say that the liberal democracy is despite failures etc etc is in this respect to prefer. The capabilities of people to chose and made their own lives is in the west pretty big. And no nock on the door at night. Life, liberty and the pursue of happiness is still important. Is this holy: no. Is there hypocrisy around this: yes. All true and still this stays important.

Quote:

---

Who sees people just as pawns on a chess board? Where is the difference between Selenski and his regime and that of Putins? Definitely no significant one.

---

Autocratic leaders are in the position to handle people if they are pawns on a chess board. Why? Absolute power, no checks and balances. This leads to complete arbitrariness. If you don't want to or can't see this, you are completely blind in my eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northener

There is no ideal system Riverman. Nevertheless I dare to say that the liberal democracy is despite failures etc etc is in this respect to prefer. The capabilities of people to chose and made their own lives is in the west pretty big. And no nock on the door at night. Life, liberty and the pursue of happiness is still important. Is this holy: no. Is there hypocrisy around this: yes. All true and still this stays important.

Autocratic leaders are in the position to handle people if they are pawns on a chess board. Why? Absolute power, no checks and balances. This leads to complete arbitrariness. If you don't want to or can't see this, you are completely blind in my eyes.

---

I won't argue with that and just repeat my main point: No double standards. Concrete actions are what they are, regardless of the political system a state or people have.
A kill is a kill and torture is torture, corruption and so on.
I totally agree that the main advantages of a democracy are the limitation of power, balance and checks etc., quite similar to what you said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

I won't argue with that and just repeat my main point: No double standards. Concrete actions are what they are, regardless of the political system a state or people have.
A kill is a kill and torture is torture, corruption and so on.
I totally agree that the main advantages of a democracy are the limitation of power, balance and checks etc., quite similar to what you said.

---

Then take consequences out of it. Putin's regime has no limits of power check and balances. You can’t even accuse his regime of a double standard. Because it has no liberal democratic standard! That’s the essential difference.


Sent from my ****** using Eupedia Forum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northener

Then take consequences out of it. Putin”s regime has no limits of power check and balances. You can’t even accuse his regime of a double standard. Because it has no liberal democratic standard! That’s the essential difference.

---

In this concrete case, Putin just protects the Russian most basic interests and the Russian minority in Ukraine, while Selenski wants to escalate the conflict to a point at which Russia will collapse at all costs and regardless of how many people die or whether the territories the Ukraine wants to reconquer from Russia want to be part of his state. He just abuses that the USA would support currently any enemy of Russia to bring the Russians down, want to expand their sphere or influence and he also abuses the Ukrainian nationalism for his purposes. He is just an actor which was hired and supported by the Ukrainian oligarchs for doing that job. The whole media landscape in Ukraine was totally manipulated and being, even before the escalation of the war, heavily censored by his regime. All non-supportive and pro-Russian media groups being persecuted.
Selenski is in no way better than Putin.

I think we all ultimately want peace here, I know Riverman is getting lots of hate but he's also arguing what he thinks will save lives, the average people are the ones that get screwed in war, lord knows our own Democratic run countries have committed atrocities. I myself would rather be in a country where I could at least be free to criticize without fear of death or imprisonment that is what all societies should strive for..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aalexa

Mongolian apologist for putin's agenda! Nobody cares about you? Go somewhere else!

---

stop using this term ffs. are you still living in 1944?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

In this concrete case, Putin just protects the Russian most basic interests and the Russian minority in Ukraine, while Selenski wants to escalate the conflict to a point at which Russia will collapse at all costs and regardless of how many people die or whether the territories the Ukraine wants to reconquer from Russia want to be part of his state. He just abuses that the USA would support currently any enemy of Russia to bring the Russians down, want to expand their sphere or influence and he also abuses the Ukrainian nationalism for his purposes. He is just an actor which was hired and supported by the Ukrainian oligarchs for doing that job. The whole media landscape in Ukraine was totally manipulated and being, even before the escalation of the war, heavily censored by his regime. All non-supportive and pro-Russian media groups being persecuted.
Selenski is in no way better than Putin.

---

imagine if Russia was a peacefull free democratic country, would they still care that much about Ukraine joining NATO?

I would much rather decisions on statehoods or territorial disputes to go before a United Nations for a vote, I know there is lots of bribery and corruption there but is war a better alternative to this? That was supposed to be the whole point of the United Nations...

^^Well, that will be a problem. A directive went to all of its agencies and departments that the words "war" and "invasion" can't be used in reference to what's going on in Ukraine.

Can't fix it if you don't even have the guts to name it.

In addition to that, their peace keeping forces couldn't even direct traffic at elementary schools, and to cap it all off, Russia sits on the Security Council, so whatever is voted on would be immediately vetoed by Russia, as happened when all this began.

Plus, once I learned how many pedophiles work for its various relief agencies and what they're doing when they're supposed to be helping children with all that UNICEF money, I lost whatever respect for them I had left.

I mean, the hypocrisy is beyond belief. At one point during the rotation Syria was head of the Human Rights Commission. It's just unbelievable.

Btw, if Russia didn't have designs on Ukraine and the other Eastern European countries it wouldn't care if they joined NATO. Its leaders can't be so stupid as to think the west wants to invade them. For crying out loud, who would want to have to revamp the infrastructure for this huge, third world country full of all these people who have absolutely no understanding or real acceptance of democracy and are content to follow whichever autocrat tells them what a great empire Russia was and will be again. I'm sorry to say it, but their Communist leaders left them decades behind the west and by acquiescing to rule by Putin they've put themselves in a position where I can't see how they'll ever catch up.

As for Riverman, I've read as many of his posts as I care to read. There's only so much apologia I can stomach for a brutal autocrat committing atrocities against what he claims are his own people because they don't want to live under his control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ailchu

imagine if Russia was a peacefull free democratic country, would they still care that much about Ukraine joining NATO?

---

Yes, as long as the NATO would be decisively anti-Russian in its orientation and block them from joining themselves. Remind you, Russia was once a more liberal country, much more open to the West, but they got blocked time and time again even then, and realised that while the USA were talking nice, they just took away all their positions and tried to encircle them. Imagine any country being in that situation. And democracy, especially Liberal democracy, and peaceful, these are two very different things. There are lot of non-democratic peaceful states and there is the Liberal Democratic hegemon which is probably the most belicious country in the world, being in the last decades 2 of 3 years in war, constantly! And that's without counting all the special operations, killings, regional interferences and manipulations, which led to other states and people fighting wars. So being democratic (same goes for Great Britain and France, which, by the way, almost went to war with each other even when being democratic) and being peaceful are two different things, arguing otherwise means double standards. One could say democratic wars are less ethnic, more imperial, but that's also because they being usually led for economic and personal interests of the elite, rather than the common people and main ethnicities.

The problem is not Russia being such a warmonger, the problem is that the USA and its instrument NATO being so decisively anti-Russian, as is the current Ukrainian government and the people behind it. The Russians made all attempts for peace talks, they made offers and suggestions, fairly reasonable ones from my point of view. Selenski was just uncompromising and confrontational all the time. He kind of provoked Russians doing the first step to the next big escalation level, but his regime did everything, really everything, to push Russia that far. You see it in Donbas and how they let themselves weaponised by the USA, which current administration is particularly anti-Russian, because of the Trump story and the woke/cancel culture which hated that Russia supported their opponents domestically.
This was an anti-Russian campaign, and they went into the trap, knowingly, because they saw no other choice to end that escalating conflict with Ukraine. And there was no peaceful way out of it, Selenski made that clear on every occasion. He wanted to kick the Russians, all pro-Russians, out by force.

Just look at this guy, which CNN celebrates as "a hero" and what not, he is saying the similar things Hitler could have said in the bunker in his worst times, close to the end: Burn everything down, let everybody fight, it doesn't matter how big the costs, how much ruined, crippled and dead, we will fight this war to the bitter end... let the NATO jets come, let us risk a nuclear war... no inch for the Russians, drive them out, bring Russia down...

These things he was saying before already, he made absolutely clear he is 100 percent confrontational and uncompromising towards the Russians. Every state and administration would have troubles with such a neighbour, unless they are cuckoo. I don't know how much the average Ukrainians know about all this, they probably just thought, "he must play hard with the Russians, they got us once, they shouldn't get us twice", but whatever, he's fooling them and abusing their national pride and resistance or inspiring their more ugly nationalism which will cause them to take territories back which don't want to be part of the Ukrainian state and drive the people there out.

They already harm and torture people on the streets, hunt "suspects" and crap like that. Its really ugly what's going on already. Imagine Russia loses and the radical battalions would occupy Donbas and Crimea. The horror, the expulsion, the dead and torture, the refugees. This would be like the end of World War II for the Eastern and ethnic Germans. Millions of pro-Russian refugees. If Putin wouldn't be gone by that time, he wouldn't survive that catastrophy and humiliation politically. He can't accept that. No good leader of a people, democratic or not, can accept that.

That's why I think that the nuclear option is a real one: This is such a decisive war for Russia, it became so big and important, even if many common Russians might not realise it yet. That's not just about Putin, it never was, this is about the Russian future. And if they get cornered really badly, for what I may ask, for territories which don't even want to be part of Ukraine (!), which measures might they take? And are they even to blame for considering it, if looking at the given circumstances.

This Kievan warmonger is just playing with fire big time, its the worst crises since decades and I stick to it, its not just Russia's fault, definitely not. Look at what the Selenski regime and the USA did, they did everything to push Russia to the limits. Nothing to de-escalate or something constructive. They said "Russia, swallow it, go on your knees, we are stronger anyway..." That was the US-Ukrainian policy and this is the outcome.

Such a war, on that scale, with that risk, is still wrong, but I totally get why Putin did it. The Ukraine was just growing stronger, the US interference more dangerous. He was running out of options and it became a race against time to still do something decisive. They made a trap for the Russians, because the USA has not much to lose, unless they get into a nuclear war. Russians and Ukrainians on the other hand are already losing big time, because of these US interferences. But like so often, like in Libya and Syria, the USA can play with fire and then lean back, looking at how things spiral into an ever deadlier war from the distance or by abusing it for their own agenda at home (censorship, control etc.) and abroad (dependence of Europe, sell crap fracking gas etc.) to their advantage.
The only thing they had to do was to back the candidate of the local oligarchs and promise his regime help. Now both Ukraine and Russia are trapped in such a deadly conflict and they can blame it on Russia alone with the mass medias support. Well done, from a purely strategic perspective, this was an excellent job if it doesn't go nuclear. The USA get once more all fruits and Europe is bleeding.

We are in real trouble as a civilized species if Nuclear war is an option, it is sad that our United Nations is such a joke but it doesn't surprise me with the people we democratically elect into decision making roles.

Well Riverman I think you made your point on how Russia feels toward the west I don't think you are going to win over many more people :laughing:

There's a lot with the current culture of the West I disagree with, I hope we can sort it out without demonizing the other side and wanting to snuff them out, we have to appeal to our better angels. The English demonized the Irish and my Scotch ancestors answered their call to snuff them out, only to clear the Irish estates for the wealthy aristocrats... when are we going to learn people!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

^^Well, that will be a problem. A directive went to all of its agencies and departments that the words "war" and "invasion" can't be used in reference to what's going on in Ukraine.

Can't fix it if you don't even have the guts to name it.

---

These people live in a virtual reality they created for their own sake.
Their main purpose is to perptuate the prestige and existence of their own institution and its members.
They have become an obstruction instead of bringing progress and solutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

In this concrete case, Putin just protects the Russian most basic interests and the Russian minority in Ukraine, while Selenski wants to escalate the conflict to a point at which Russia will collapse at all costs and regardless of how many people die or whether the territories the Ukraine wants to reconquer from Russia want to be part of his state. He just abuses that the USA would support currently any enemy of Russia to bring the Russians down, want to expand their sphere or influence and he also abuses the Ukrainian nationalism for his purposes. He is just an actor which was hired and supported by the Ukrainian oligarchs for doing that job. The whole media landscape in Ukraine was totally manipulated and being, even before the escalation of the war, heavily censored by his regime. All non-supportive and pro-Russian media groups being persecuted.
Selenski is in no way better than Putin.

---

Putin doesn't equal the Russians (people). There is more in the world than sphere of influence c.q land hunger.

De facto the (ordinary) people in Ukraine (as in Russia) are crushed.

That Zelenski is not Buddha is also clear.

But in fact there is no need or reason to defense Putin like you do. Whatever the reason or background is but his agenda is full of hatred, ressentiment, dedain for human dignity nothing good comes out of it....