Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 58 of 82 FirstFirst ... 848565758596068 ... LastLast
Results 1,426 to 1,450 of 2050

Thread: Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

  1. #1426
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,657

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Unfortunately there is no rest, the American nonsense war propaganda goes and the pressure on us Europeans is mounting to escalate the conflict with Russia. Its dangerous and completely detrimental to our interests. Its just the USA and some Eastern states which push this.

    This another good channel, they speculate about possible Polish interventions:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxe-C5b8sAQ
    Imo your 'solidarity' with Putin's Russia is based on the conviction that Putin is systematically 'cancel cultured'. I will not discuss if this is the case or that starting a war (and already actions before that) opens a box of pandora which contains counter reactions.

    Imo you at least underestimate the 'rage' that is caused by an offensive, 'revengist' agenda of Putin (caused by the fall of SU and attempts to restore) towards the 'outside' and the autocratic/ repressive internal agenda (see the smother/ poisoning policy towards opposition). You may be consider this propaganda from the West. Imo this a certainly a reality and so we keep on differing on this matter...

  2. #1427
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,512


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    Imo your 'solidarity' with Putin's Russia is based on the conviction that Putin is systematically 'cancel cultured'. I will not discuss if this is the case or that starting a war (and already actions before that) opens a box of pandora which contains counter reactions.

    Imo you at least underestimate the 'rage' that is caused by an offensive, 'revengist' agenda of Putin (caused by the fall of SU and attempts to restore) towards the 'outside' and the autocratic/ repressive internal agenda (see the smother/ poisoning policy towards opposition). You may be consider this propaganda from the West. Imo this a certainly a reality and so we keep on differing on this matter...
    I follow world and geopolitics in general, not just in the Russian case, and observed some patterns unfolding. The Syrian war was a major issue, where the US aggressive and hypocritical, even openly lying war course became more than obvious. When the USA decided to support Sunni extreme Islamists in Syria and attacked the Syrian people which tried to fight them off, I was already 100 percent on the Russian side in the conflict. And even back then, if you remember correctly, Hillary Clinton was ready to start a war with Russia, a so called "No-Fly Zone" and only the election of Trump prevented that catastrophy from happening.
    Right now they still have troops in Syria, the Americans, and they still support openly extremist Sunni "rebels", many of which are not even Syrians, but outside mercenaries.

    The whole conflict goes much deeper and much beyond, since I also followed the US foreign policy for decades and their interferences in Eastern Europe before the current escalation. The situation in Donbas and the Ukraine regime as such, with the Seleneski regimes ties to international organisations, big money & big tech, regional oligarchs and the US services, being an issue I also followed. You get a lot of extreme right groups which follow the US war path, some are even the exceptional case for a couple of European countries. The right is split on the issue.

    I feel very uncomfortable about this war as such, but for me its the Americans and the Selenski regime which are primarily to blame. Their actions were totally aggressive and confrontational towards Russia, towards pro-Russian people in the Ukraine. They, in practise, declared war and denied all negotiations. Simple as that.
    This is for me unacceptable behaviour. What Putin did, for the 100th time, is wrong too, because that much suffering and destruction is not justified even if he had a rightful cause, for purely humane considerations. But what the Selenski regime, backed up and pushed by the Biden administration did is unacceptable behaviour and I totally get why Putin lost temper with these big mouthed agent provocateurs. I followed it for years and its just awful what they did and how they tried to form an anti-Russian Ukraine by purging the country and getting all the tools from the US services.
    Bottom line: I don't like what both sides did, I don't give any side higher moral ground. But if a side fights to defend its ethnic and political allies against an attack, they are better than those which just want to reconquer territories which don't even want to belong to their state. That's coming even before the political content and direction the Selenski regime is going. If the Russians would occupy, after a reasonable peace offer from the Ukraine, non-Russian Ukrainian territories, especially of the Central-West Ukraine, then they would be indeed regional oppressors much more than they are by now.
    By now, the Ukrainians still refuse to negotiate in a honest and serious manner, and I have no sympathy for their political stance on negotiations, zero. I have a lot of sympathy for the Ukrainian people, but not for the government and its aggressive stance.

  3. #1428
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    875

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z36

    Country: UK - Scotland



    1 members found this post helpful.
    @Riverman

    It's ZELENSKY!

  4. #1429
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,657

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    I don't give any side higher moral ground. But if a side fights to defend its ethnic and political allies against an attack, they are better than those which just want to reconquer territories which don't even want to belong to their state. That's coming even before the political content and direction the Selenski regime is going. If the Russians would occupy, after a reasonable peace offer from the Ukraine, non-Russian Ukrainian territories, especially of the Central-West Ukraine, then they would be indeed regional oppressors much more than they are by now.
    a. Do you consider the constitutional/ institutional side of the US and the EU countries like wise Putin's Russia, then I tal about free election, rights to demonstrate, free prees, trias politica? In other words you don't see the difference between a democratic an autocratic system? Or do ypu consider them likewise.

    b. Isn't it clear that Putin follows the scorched earth tactic in places like Mariupol....if our (yours and mine) major concern is the people then we must agree that this is clearly anti-moral ground, doesn't it? I would say: how low can you go?

  5. #1430
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    14-10-21
    Posts
    198

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a-Z1903>>PF6863
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV16

    Ethnic group
    Italian, English, Irish
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    a. Do you consider the constitutional/ institutional side of the US and the EU countries like wise Putin's Russia, then I tal about free election, rights to demonstrate, free prees, trias politica? In other words you don't see the difference between a democratic an autocratic system? Or do ypu consider them likewise.
    I think that different peoples should be free to develop their own political institutions, and in any case the Russian system is more collegial and bureaucratic than it is autocratic. What exactly do you even mean when they toss around such terms as "autocratic"? Do you actually intend it as a descriptive term?

    Moreover, governments in the West have made a mockery of their own constitutional orders over the past several years, and this has happened after decades of systematically undermining the integrity of the peoples they purport to represent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    b. Isn't it clear that Putin follows the scorched earth tactic in places like Mariupol....if our (yours and mine) major concern is the people then we must agree that this is clearly anti-moral ground, doesn't it? I would say: how low can you go?
    Although I have been accused of being a Putin apologist -- I would call it *strategic empathy* (http://cftni.org/wp-content/uploads/...n-Official.pdf) -- in truth my greatest *sympathy* is with the ardent nationalists on the Ukraine side. However, it is a simple fact that Ukrainian forces in the East have retreated from the open plains into the cities, where the Russians have encircled them. The Azov Battalion was ensconsed in Mariupol, and short of starving them out, the only way for Russia to defeat them was to pound the city with artillery and advance block-by-block and door-by-door. Urban warfare is hell, but in fairness, I think Russia has sought to limit civilian casualties to the extent possible. Remember, there are many Russian-speakers who live in these cities, people who are on Russia's side. I imagine that if Russia were to move against Lviv or other cities in the west of Ukraine, civilian suffering will be many times worse.

    But for perspective, you should compare Russia's actions in Mariupol with those of the US army in Fallujah. Have the Russians denied water & electricity to Mariupol or any other encircled cities?

    Cf. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27a/168.html

  6. #1431
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    14-10-21
    Posts
    198

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a-Z1903>>PF6863
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV16

    Ethnic group
    Italian, English, Irish
    Country: United States



    Linking Dugin's "Ethnosociology of Ukraine in the Context of Military Operation"

    https://katehon.com/en/article/ethno...tary-operation

    Although Dugin is not part of Putin's inner circle, or has much practical influence, he appears to articulate much of the underlying philosophy of the Russian side. For Dugin, the Ukraine is a heterogenous assemblage of ethnoi, most of whom belong to the East Slav people and civilizational block.





  7. #1432
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,657

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    3 members found this post helpful.
    I think that different peoples should be free to develop their own political institutions, and in any case the Russian system is more collegial and bureaucratic than it is autocratic. What exactly do you even mean when they toss around such terms as "autocratic"? Do you actually intend it as a descriptive term?
    Clearly:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy

    Putin is going back to Stalin and Czaristisc Russia.

    The media is in total control. Protesting against the war, what isn't allowed it can cost you 15 years of prison (and that's no pleasure that's pure hell).

    And the opposition is literally expelled an literally poisoned (polonium attacks based on ukazes of the Kremlin) and if you survive the poisoned attempts it's one way ticket Siberia like in the old days.

    Moreover, governments in the West have made a mockery of their own constitutional orders over the past several years, and this has happened after decades of systematically undermining the integrity of the peoples they purport to represent.
    I consider everyone who lives in the US or Europe totally spoiled who thinks that what is going in Russia can be compared to what is going on in the West.

    Anyone who thinks that he can make as big a mouth in Russia as in the Netherlands or the US is wrong. And I'm not going to explain what the US constitution is and what the value is that the founding fathers have laid down. You know that better than me. But I think you should be ashamed of yourself if you think this comes close to what's going on in Russia constitutional and practically in terms of repression. Sorry I don't mince words.....

    I think Russia has sought to limit civilian casualties to the extent possible.


    But for perspective, you should compare Russia's actions in Mariupol with those of the US army in Fallujah. Have the Russians denied water & electricity to Mariupol or any other encircled cities?
    Sorry, and I'm not going to make a comparison in suffering. That's abject imo. Putin's army starves, freezes, partially deports (to gods know were) the people in Mariupol and bombs the shit out of them (the whole city is practically to ashes). That tells me enough.

    PS and yes people in Mariupol are out of electricity in starving cold and drink restwater from radiators....
    Last edited by Northener; 26-03-22 at 23:42.

  8. #1433
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,512


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    a. Do you consider the constitutional/ institutional side of the US and the EU countries like wise Putin's Russia, then I tal about free election, rights to demonstrate, free prees, trias politica? In other words you don't see the difference between a democratic an autocratic system? Or do ypu consider them likewise.
    The democratic system is better as long as it works, a corrupted democracy which pushes its people in the wrong direction is another issue. Besides, that's not my point, because a democratic state can conquer and suppress a people and an autocratic state can help and protect a people.

    The internal structure of a democratic state is better, generally speaking, and opens up more possibilities for peaceful change and development, usually. But that doesn't make it better if it does what the Ukraine does and it doesn't make it worse for the Russians. You understand? One is the internal political structure, the other is a concrete struggle or conflict. That are two different things.

    In this concrete case:
    - The Ukraine is a manipulated and corrupt state, the Selenski regime acts autocratic and purged its society brutally as well. No big difference to Russia, just different people being the victims.
    - Going by democratic values, the most important is the freedom of a people to decide to which state they want to belong, under which rule they want to live. If the Donbas Russians and Crimeans being asked, they might prefer Russia. At least that's what I think they would do, but Ukraine doesn't care, they fight a war to force them back under their control.

    b. Isn't it clear that Putin follows the scorched earth tactic in places like Mariupol
    No, he does not. If the Ukrainian forces in the city move block by block, of course block by block will be destroyed the Russian forces. What else? They hide in a building and fire from this building on the Russians, the Russians will destroy it.

    Russia has, by no means, applied a general scorched earth tactic. Even on the contrary, they were more reluctant and more careful than e.g. the Americans were in some given situations. Fact is however, that the fighting is so hard, so costly and difficult, that in this urban warfare the destruction of the city landscape which being used by the defenders is practically inevitable.

    If there is low level resistance, or if the Ukrainian forces don't use a district for their urban warfare tactics, they being all spared. I watched videos of Russians moving many kilometers into Ukraine, and along the road they use, almost no single building being destroyed or even damaged. The destruction is all in areas in which the Ukrainians use the civilian structures like a trenches.

    E.g., the Ukrainians used schools and other civilian buildings as ammunition depots, for artillery positions and snipers. Then, when the Russians have to bombard those targets, the biased Western media cries about "Russians hitting a school" - no children there, but an ammunition depot!
    Its horrible if they hit a building in which civilians sought refuge, like it happened too often already, but many times its either a military target or it was an accident. I have seen so far no single incident in which it could be proven that the Russians killed innocent civilians deliberately, intentionally. Especially not in general, as a doctrine. Probably if in one area a commander loses temper or the like, but that's definitely not general tactic "Putin applies".

    This is no war crime other than what the Ukrainians do, its no scorge earth tactic, its just a rough and dirty urban warfare. That's the strategy the Ukrainians have chosen, and we can't blame them for that either, because if they would have tried to defend Ukraine in the open, the fights would be over in two weeks indeed. But its immoral to blame the Russians for using the tactics and means any reasonable military leader would apply, even if caring for the civilians, to break the resistance in these fortified urban pockets. That's an absurd hypocrisy.

    Its war itself which is that awful, not a particularly mean tactic of the Russians.

    ....if our (yours and mine) major concern is the people then we must agree that this is clearly anti-moral ground, doesn't it? I would say: how low can you go?
    It is simple: The Ukrainians didn't negotiate, they provoked the Russians and they wanted to start a limited war to conquer people which don't want to be part of their state in Donbas and Crimea. Russia realised that they can't hold them back or end this conflict by just helping from one side in Donbas, so they started a pincer movement to break the main Ukrainian forces, especially those in Donbas, which are the main effective UAF units.

    The military target is to break the resistance of the Ukrainian Armed forces, in the areas to the North and South. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian forces retreated to cities and used these as fortified urban bases, for a dirty urban warfare. To inflict maximal damage on the Russians, for having the maximal amount of "incidences" in the course of actions. The Russian task is to break the resistance of this urban fortified positions and for doing that, they need to level the ground around the fighters. This is the logic of this kind of warfare, its the logical reaction to the Ukrainian tactics.

    This has zero to do with moral, its military necessity. The only way to prevent it is to stop the war. And the only way to stop the war is coming to a peaceful solution, dipomatically. This brings us back to the absurd Ukrainian and American position, which refused to even accept Crimea, which refused to accept Minks II or the autonomy of Donbas, which attacked the Donbas and still refuse to negotiate seriously.

    Scorched earth tactic being applied to destroy the infrastructure and resources of a region, usually by the side which couldn't hold it and wanted to reduce its value for the - at that time - stronger opponent. The Russians wanted to conquer cities and districts with an intact infrastructure. They had no interest and they do not apply scorched earth tactics at all. They just use blunt force to break the resistance of the Ukrainian fighters which use urban, including civilian structures, to protect themselves, inflict maximal damage to the Russians and provoke as much incidents as possible.

    That's like a guy which steals your money, you follow him, and he finally makes a stand, but does so in the midst of women and children. You have the choice of letting him go, with your money, or to fight in front of women and children, and take from the perpetrator back what you want. Who is responsible if bystanders get hurt? The one running into such a space, and refusing to fight elsewhere, or the one attacking him, in this environment, for getting what he wants? The battleground was chosen by the Ukrainians, not the Russians.
    Again, I don't blame them for doing so, because they would be utterly destroyed in the open, much quicker, with much less losses for the Russians. But I also don't blame the Russians, because the Ukrainians gave them no other choice.

    The only other choice is to end this war altogether, and that needs a diplomatic solution... Its always the same.

  9. #1434
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    14-10-21
    Posts
    198

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a-Z1903>>PF6863
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV16

    Ethnic group
    Italian, English, Irish
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    Clearly:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy

    Putin is going back to Stalin and Czaristisc Russia.
    Russian government has presidential characteristics, but also collegial aspects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegium_(ministry)). Putin has a legal background as well as a KGB background. If you want to kid yourself that Putin rules as some kind of banana republic strongman, then whatever . . . In truth, he is a very capable statesman


    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    I consider everyone who lives in the US or Europe totally spoiled who thinks that what is going in Russia can be compared to what is going on in the West.

    Anyone who thinks that he can make as big a mouth in Russia as in the Netherlands or the US is wrong. And I'm not going to explain what the US constitution is and what the value is that the founding fathers have laid down. You know that better than me. But I think you should be ashamed of yourself if you think this comes close to what's going on in Russia constitutional and practically in terms of repression. Sorry I don't mince words.....
    I never endorsed the Russian system of government or their culture and traditions. I said that Putin wasn't an "autocrat," because such terms obscure the depth and breadth of Putin's institutional and popular support.

    Further, you vilify Russia but fail to speak against recent trends in the West toward a kind of police state run by technocratic henchmen of transnational oligarchs. Is it as brutal as Russia? Not at this stage, but it will probably prove more dehumanizing in the long-run if not opposed effectively.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    Sorry, and I'm not going to make a comparison in suffering. That's abject imo. Putin's army starves, freezes, partially deports (to gods know were) the people in Mariupol and bombs the shit out of them (the whole city is practically to ashes). That tells me enough.

    PS and yes people in Mariupol are out of electricity in starving cold and drink restwater from radiators....
    In the fog of war, it is hard to tell what exactly is going on. My understanding is that Russia has set up corridors for people to leave the city. Some say the Ukraine fighters prevent civilians from leaving Mariupol in order to use them as human shields. But commentators who say this (I refer to the two Alex's on The Duran) also call the nationalist fighters "nazis," and I distrust such talk for reasons similar to my objections to your use of "autocrat" to describe Putin.

  10. #1435
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,657

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    2 members found this post helpful.

    Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    The democratic system is better as long as it works, a corrupted democracy which pushes its people in the wrong direciton is another issue. Besides, that's not my point, because a democratic state can conquer and suppress a people and an autocratic state can help and protect a people.

    The internal structure of a democratic state is better, generally speaking, and opens up more possibilities for peaceful change and development, usually. But that doesn't make it better if it does what the Ukraine does and it doesn't make it worse for the Russians. You understand? One is the internal political structure, the other is a concrete struggle or conflict. That are two different things.

    In this concrete case:
    - The Ukraine is a manipulated and corrupt state, the Selenski regime acts autocratic and purged its society brutally as well. No big difference to Russia, just different people being the victims.
    - Going by democratic values, the most important is the freedom of a people to decide to which state they want to belong, under which rule they want to live. If the Donbas Russians and Crimeans being asked, they might prefer Russia. At least that's what I think they would do.



    No, he does not. If the Ukrainian forces in the city move block by block, of course block by block will be destroyed the Russian forces. What else? They hide in a building and fire from this building on the Russians, the Russians will destroy it.

    Russia has, by no means, applied a general scorched earth tactic. Even on the contrary, they were more reluctant and more careful than e.g. the Americans were in some given situations. Fact is however, that the fighting is so hard, so costly and difficult, that in this urban warfare the destruction of the city landscape which being used by the defenders is practically inevitable.

    If there is low level resistance, or if the Ukrainian forces don't use a district for their urban warfare tactics, they being all spared. I watched videos of Russians moving many kilometers into Ukraine, and along the road they use, almost no single building being destroyed or even damaged. Its all in areas in which the Ukrainians use the civilian structures like a trenches.

    E.g., the Ukrainians used schools and other civilian buildings as ammunition depots, for artillery positions and snipers. Then, when the Russians have to bombard those targets, the biased Western media cries about "Russians hitting a school". Its horrible if they hit a building in which civilians sought refuge, like it happened too often already, but many times its either a military target or it was an accident.

    This is no war crime, its no scorge earth tactic, its just a rough and dirty urban warfare. That's the strategy the Ukrainians have chosen, and we can't blame them for that either, because if they would have tried to defend Ukraine in the open, the fights would be over in two weeks indeed, but its immoral to blame the Russians for using the tactics and means any reasonable military leader would apply, even if caring for the civilians, to break the resistance in these fortified urban pockets. That's an absurd hypocrisy.

    Its war itself which is that awful, not a particularly mean tactic of the Russians.



    It is simple: The Ukrainians didn't negotiate, they provoked the Russians and they wanted to start a limited war to conquer people which don't want to be part of their state in Donbas and Crimea. Russia realised that they can't hold them back or end this conflict by just helping from one side in Donbas, so they started a pincer movement to break the main Ukrainian forces, especially those in Donbas, which are the main effective UAF units.

    The military target is to break the resistance of the Ukrainian Armed forces, in the areas to the North and South. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian forces retreated to cities and used these as fortified urban bases, for a dirty urban warfare. To inflict maximal damage on the Russians, for having the maximal amount of "incidences" in the course of actions. The Russian task is to break the resistance of this urban fortified positions and for doing that, they need to level the ground around the fighters. This is the logic of this kind of warfare, its the logical reaction to the Ukrainian tactics.

    This has zero to do with moral, its military necessity. The only way to prevent it is to stop the war. And the only way to stop the war is coming to a peaceful solution, dipomatically. This brings us back to the absurd Ukrainian and Amerian position, which refused to even accept Crimea, which refused to accept Minks II or the autonomy of Donbas, which attacked the Donbas and still refuse to negotiate seriously.

    Scorched earth tactic being applied to destroy the infrastructure and resources of a region, usually by the side which couldn't hold it and wanted to reduce its value for the - at that time - stronger opponent. The Russians wanted to conquer cities and districts with an intact infrastructure. They had no interest and they do not apply scorched earth tactics at all. They just use blunt force to break the resistance of the Ukrainian fighters which use urban, including civilian structures, to protect themselves, inflict maximal damage to the Russians and provoke as much incidents as possible.

    That's like a guy which steals your money, you follow him, and he finally makes a stand, but does so in the midst of women and children. You have the choice of letting him go, with your money, or to fight in front of women and children, and take from the perpetrator back what you want. Who is responsible if bystanders get hurt? The one running into such a space, and refusing to fight elsewhere, or the one attacking him, in this environment? The battleground was chosen by the Ukrainians, not the Russians.
    Again, I don't blame them for doing so, because they would be utterly destroyed in the open, much quicker, with much less losses for the Russians. But I also don't blame the Russians, because the Ukrainians gave them no other choice.

    The only other choice is to end this war altogether, and that needs a diplomatic solution... Its always the same.
    A democratic system is inherent better than an autocratic one.

    Claude Lefort, very relevant in this respect (wiki)
    The organicist vision of society[edit]
    The totalitarian system, unified and organized, presents itself like a body, the "social body": "dictatorship, bureaucracy and apparatus need a new system of bodies".[17] Lefort returns to the theories of Ernst Kantorowicz on the "two bodies of the king", in which the person of the totalitarian leader, besides his physical and mortal body, is a political body representing the one-people. In order to ensure its proper functioning and to maintain its unity, the totalitarian system requires an Other, "the evil other",[18] a representation of the exterior, the enemy, against which the party combats, "the representative of the forces of the old society (kulaks, bourgeois), [...] the emissary of the stranger, of the imperialistic world".[19]


    The division between the interior and the exterior, between the One-people and the Other, is the only division that totalitarianism tolerates, since it is founded upon this division. Lefort insists on the fact that "the constitution of the One-people necessitates the incessant production of enemies"[19] and also speaks of their "invention". For example, Stalin prepared to attack the Jews of USSR when he died, i.e., designing a new enemy, and in the same way, Mussolini had declared that bourgeois would be eliminated in Italy after World War II.


    The relation between the one-people and the Other is a prophylactic command: the enemy is a "parasite to eliminate", a "waste". This exceeds the simple rhetorical effect that was commonly used in the contemporary political discourse, yet in an underlying way it is part of the metaphorical vision of the totalitarian society as a body. This vision explained how the existence both of enemies of the state and their presence in the bosom of the population, were seen as an illness. The violence roused against them was, in this organicist metaphor, a fever, a symptom of the fight of the social body against the illness, in the sense that "the campaign against the enemy is feverish: the fever is good, it's the sign, in the society, of the evil to counteract".[20]


    The situation of the totalitarian leader within this system is paradoxical and uncertain, for he is at the same time a part of the system – its head, who commands the rest – and the representation of the system – everything. He is therefore the incarnation of the "one-power", i.e., the power executed in all parts of the "one-people".
    The fragility of the system[edit]
    Lefort didn't consider totalitarianism as a situation almost as an ideal type, which could potentially be realized through terror and extermination. He rather sees in it a set of processes which have endings that cannot be known, thus their success cannot be determined. If the will of the totalitarian party to realize the perfect unity of the social body controls the magnitude of its action, it also implies that the goal is impossible to achieve because its development necessarily leads to contradictions and oppositions. "Totalitarianism is a regime with a prevailing sense of being gnawed away by the absurdity of its own ambition (total control by the party) and the active or passive resistance of those subjected to it" summarised the political scientist Dominique Colas.[21]

    Conception of democracy[edit]
    Claude Lefort formulates his conception of democracy by mirroring his conception of totalitarism, developing it in the same way by analyzing regimes of Eastern Europe and USSR. For Lefort democracy is the system characterized by the institutionalization of conflict within society, the division of social body; it recognizes and even considers legitimate the existence of divergent interests, conflicting opinions, visions of the world that are opposed and even incompatible. Lefort's vision makes the disappearance of the leader as a political body – the putting to death of the king, as Kantorowicz calls it – the founding moment of democracy because it makes the seat of power, hitherto occupied by an eternal substance transcending the mere physical existence of monarchs, into an "empty space" where groups with shared interests and opinions can succeed each other, but only for a time and at the will of elections. Power is no longer tied to any specific programme, goal, or proposal; it is nothing but a collection of instruments put temporarily at the disposal of those who win a majority. "In Lefort's invented and inventive democracy," writes Dominique Colas, "power comes from the people and belongs to no one."[22]


    Democracy is thus a regime marked by its vagueness, its incompleteness, against which totalitarianism establishes itself. This leads Lefort to regard as "democratic" every form of opposition and protest against totalitarianism. The opposition and protest creates, in a way, a democratic space within the totalitarian system. Democracy is innovation, the start of new movements, the designation of new issues in the struggle against oppression, it is a "creative power capable of weakening, even slaying the totalitarian Leviathan".[23] A Leviathan whose paradoxical frailty Lefort emphasises.


    The separation of civil society from the state, which characterizes modern democracy, is made possible by the disembodiment of society. A democratic country can also experience this inventive character when any group of citizens with a legitimate struggle may seek to establish new rights or defend its interests.


    Lefort does not reject representative democracy, but does not limit democracy to it. For instance, he includes the social movements in the sphere of legitimate political debate.

    Putin fails to conquer Mariupol. It has a demotivated army. And what are they going to do, blow it to rubble. And starve them out. No mercy. Who suffers: the ordinary people.

    Diplomatic solution? Putin will not negotiate sincerely until he has big parts of the Ukraine under control. Why should he negotiate? Not of his interest until he controls now plan B parts of the east. And Zelenski can't do anything else that countervail the attack as good as possible so he is not totally blown away when the negotiations will start seriously.

  11. #1436
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,512


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Malaparte View Post
    In the fog of war, it is hard to tell what exactly is going on. My understanding is that Russia has set up corridors for people to leave the city. Some say the Ukraine fighters prevent civilians from leaving Mariupol in order to use them as human shields. But commentators who say this (I refer to the two Alex's on The Duran) also call the nationalist fighters "nazis," and I distrust such talk for reasons similar to my objections to your use of "autocrat" to describe Putin.
    There is propaganda from both sides and we oftentimes don't know what's really going on in a region. Like recently a commentator in the USA is supposed to have accused the Russians of shelling civilians in a territory of Donbas they control - in fact it was the Ukrainians who attacked there. Another time civilians being shot at, which tried to leave Mariupol: Both sides claim it was the other side! Who is right, who is wrong? Was it even intential, and if so what was the motif? We don't know, but the Western media always and without any differentiation blames the Russians, while looking away from a whole lot of proven war crimes the Ukrainians commit.
    Including torture, mutiliation and killing of Russian prisoners of war, of pro-Russian people within Ukraine. Attacks on civilians which tried to flee, brutal measures against men which want to leave the country, shelling of civilian targets in Donbas and Russia - without any meaningful military target or goal!

    There is no higher moral ground, no better behaviour. Its just that the Russians being forced to fight the Ukrainian forces in Ukrainian cities - that's the battlefield they have chosen. Anything else is a lot of propaganda from both sides, and we often can't decide who is right, who is wrong, who did this, who did that.

    But the Western media always looks away and ignores what the Ukrainians do wrong, while blaming the Russians even for things they either never did or being normal military behaviour and tactics under the given circumstances. Even fairly civilised, considering the situation.

    We probably will know the truth about many incidents only in years from now, or if the censorship and manipulation is effective and lasts, never.

  12. #1437
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,512


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    A democratic system is inherent better than an autocratic one.
    Let's assume I would agree with you: Even that wouldn't make concrete actions of a state which calls itself democratic always better and more just. The Americans did horrible things to other people, democratic or not. Democracy is the inner structure of a society, in a conflict, these inner rules and structures might not apply to the opponent.
    And the Ukraine, by and large, can't be considered as being democratic in the American, German, Austrian or Dutch way. Not at all. What happens in the areas controlled by the Ukrainians is also suppressive and brutal. I know the Western media don't show what the mob in the Ukrainian cities is doing to Russians they consider "pro-Russian" or whatever, but I saw some proven images and its just awful. If that's your democracy, its no different from Bolshevism or National Socialism in how it treats its opponents, if not worse.

    Putin fails to conquer Mariupol. It has a demotivated army. And what are they going to do, blow it to rubble. And starve them out. No mercy. Who suffers: the ordinary people.
    If the Ukrainians mine the roads, put artillery close to civilian buildings and position snipers on all floors, it doesn't matter how motivated an army is, only idiots would go in without shooting the district to rubble before. Would you as a commander let your boys, motivated or not, into such a trap? If you have enough artillery, to blow those urban guerilla warriors away?

    That's no question of motivation, humanism or morality, its a question of intelligence and responsibility for the boys you command. I would of course blow the s**t out of those hidden in the buildings before sending any boys in. That's the kind of urban warfare the Ukrainians have chosen, for completely understandable reasons, to inflict maximal casualties on the Russians, hold them up far longer and causing as many "incidents" as possible. But to blame the other side for doing what's reasonable in such a situation is hypocrisy at best.

    Diplomatic solution? Putin will not negotiate sincerely until it has big parts of the Ukraine under control. Why should he negotiate?
    I listen to many sources and all confirm: The Ukrainians made no peace offer which is even worth to be heard. As long as this is the case, the blame is on them. I wrote before: If the Ukrainians give up on Crimea, on Donbas, make guarantees for traffic and water supply to Crimea and promise neutrality - that's the mininum, I give the blame to Putin and Russia.
    As long as they demand the Russians to leave all territories of the pre-2014 Ukrainian state borders, including Crimea, and no promise for neutrality, only vague talks and still trying to draw the NATO and Americans into the war directly, they are to blame.

    Both sides have to compromise, if one side is willing, like Russia was, but the other side not... This can change.

    Obviously, if Putin and Russia get no diplomatic bridge, if they get no way out of the sanctions and the Western states will never come back to the old relations of the last years, we might already see that Russia won't be satisfied with the old demands any longer, but tries to conquer at least all Russian speaking territories of the East and South.

    This is an ongoing conflict, militarily and diplomatically. New information, like always, can change a perspective, including my own.

    I already said, that a lasting occupation of the Western-Central Ukraine by the Russian forces, once the Ukrainians make a serious offer for a peace, which the West does support - which would allow Russia to come out of the sanctions as well - I would blame Russia exclusively if they don't agree and demand more. That's a red line.

    But so far, the Selenski regime and the USA made not even the most minimal offer for the Russians. Its ridiculous what they demand. That's obviously completely inacceptable for the Russian side and any reasonable observer knows that.

    Not of his interest until he controls now plan B parts of the east. And Zelenski can't do anything else that countervail the attack as good as possible so he is not totally blown away when the negotiations will start seriously.
    Look, and that's the main reason for my grudge on his regime and him personally: He was voted for, by the Ukrainian people, in a totally skewed and manipulated, but still democratic election, to end this war, to come to terms with Russia. Did he do anything for peace? No, he just started an even more aggressive and confrontational course, completely on the American side of things. He betrayed his voters, to begin with.

    Next: Everything he can achieve, in fair negotiations, would have been achievable 3, 2 or 1 year ago! Instead of even trying, seriously, he only made provocations and attacks on the Russians. He escalated this conflict.

    If he would have taken the negotiations seriously, like he promised, in his election campaign, there would have been no war at all! No dead Russian soldiers, no dead Ukrainian soldiers, no dead Ukrainian civilians, no destroyed cities, no threat of a World War III! This was in his hands, he was elected to do it, but he chose the path for the oligarchs which supported him in the election and afterwards, as well as the American agents and services, which supported him as well.

    Its entirely his fault, Selenski caused this - and the Ukrainians didn't even vote for this, like so many people around the world didn't vote for politicians to do what they do. That's the problem of democracy in general, this kind of corruption, but in this case the consequences are particularly horrible and bitter.

    I can't forgive that. This is about very concrete actions Selenski and his regime have taken, which led to this war. This horrible and unnecessary war. He is, minimum, as much responsible for the escalation as Putin. Just from the other side of the fence, to put it that way.

  13. #1438
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Location
    Poznan
    Posts
    5,379

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L617
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6a

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Riverman,

    President Zelensky said - "Remember, together there's 90 million of us":

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du2e8l2Sc6k



    ^^^
    This is exactly the population of Poland+Ukraine+Belarus+Baltic States:



    ^^^
    Ukraine has 37,300,000 without Russian-occupied Crimea (2,416,856), Donetsk & Luhansk Republics (3,766,483):

    https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine--pop.../30393838.html

    =====

    The Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita) at its maximum extent:

    There are words which carry the presage of defeat. Defence is such a word. What is the result of an even victorious defence? The next attempt of imposing it to that weaker, defender. The attacker, despite temporary setback, feels the master of situation.

  14. #1439
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Location
    Poznan
    Posts
    5,379

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L617
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6a

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    ^^^
    President Zelensky hinted at resurrecting the Commonwealth when he said "remember, together there's 90 million of us".

    This number fits just perfectly to the current population of nations of the former Commonwealth - I'm sure he counted it.

    The injustice of the Partitions of the Commonwealth will be reversed, it's about the right of people to determine their own future:


  15. #1440
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,512


    Country: Austria



    Like some other analysts, I'm not sure Ukrainian nationalists really like the idea. Selenski tries to appeal to many people, movements and ideas to get as much support as he can.
    It's understandable, but people need to keep that in mind.

  16. #1441
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Location
    Poznan
    Posts
    5,379

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L617
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6a

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    Here is why the Partitions of the Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita) were ILLEGAL :

    No international power (apart from those which were directly involved in partitioning Rzeczpospolita - i.e. Russia, Prussia and Austria) recognized the partitions of Rzeczpospolita directly (i.e. declared that "we accept the partitions of Rzeczpospolita, bla, bla, bla"). We can argue if any of international powers recognized them indirectly (implicitly). Indeed there were arguments about this during the decades following the Polish regaining of independence in 1918.

    In 1918 the Polish Supreme Court initiated a discussion about the character of the bond between the First Rzeczpospolita (pre-1795) and the Second Rzeczpospolita (post-1918) in the context of Polish private property and estates confiscated after the January Uprising (1863).

    The Polish Supreme Court stated, that Rzeczpospolita after the 3rd Partition continued to exist. It argued that:


    - Rzeczpospolita collapsed by force, which was contrary to the international law.
    - Western Powers never recognized the partitions of Rzeczpospolita.
    - partitioning Rzeczpospolita was contrary to the right of self- determination of peoples.


    In 1918 the Supreme Court announced the resumption of activities of state authorities of the Polish state, which had never ceased to exist (according to the Supreme Court).

    In the 1920s this position of the Polish Supreme Court was not questioned by anyone.

    Also the Polish Constitution of March 1921 supported this position of the Supreme Court.

    The preamble of the constitution of March 1921 says (translation):

    In the name of Almighty God!
    We, the Polish Nation, thanking Providence for liberating us from a hundred years long enslavement, remembering with gratitude the courage and perseverance of sacrificial struggle of generations, who their best efforts constantly devoted to the case of independence, referring to the great tradition of the memorable Constitution of May 3 - bearing in mind the welfare of the entire united and independent Mother Homeland, and desiring to reassure its independent existence, power and safety, as well as social order on everlasting principles of law and freedom, desiring also to ensure the development of its moral and material forces for the sake of entire renascent humanity, protecting equality, respect for labor, owing rights and special state care of all citizens of Rzeczpospolita - this here's Constitutional Act on the Legislative Sejm of Rzeczpospolita Polska resolve and proclaim.

  17. #1442
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Location
    Poznan
    Posts
    5,379

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L617
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6a

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    "If we held a referendum today, 98 percent of Belarusians would vote against unification with Russia", said Lukashenko:

    https://tvn24.pl/tvn24-news-in-engli...914204-2311263


    Meanwhile, already in 2012 Belarusian portal BramaBy published this article about the idea of Polish-Belarusian Confederation:

    "Rzeczpospolita?


    Tuesday, 16 October 2012 00:00

    By A. Vorotnicky


    Apparently, the time has come. As one of the well-known politicians of the past used to say: "Yesterday it was too early, tomorrow it will be too late." Hovering in the air, the idea of ​​rescuing Belarus from its currently obvious imminent collapse, absorption and dissolution in the vast eastern spaciousness, finally, has merged into a single, crystal clear and harmonious solution. In a nutshell, it sounds simple yet very provocative: Rzeczpospolita.


    It's amazing, how just a year ago such an idea, hypothetically brought up by me in "The Phantom of the Grand Duchy," and discussed together with colleagues on Brama blog, had been seen not only ephemeral, but absolutely unsuitable for implementation at the time. And now, after only one political season, refracted through the prism of events of the past year, the idea of ​​Confederation of Belarus and Poland presents itself as an almost perfectly assembled puzzle for every one concerned!


    First of all, I would like to examine the causes of emergence of the idea of ​​Confederacy, or, shell I say, of its transformation into a real prospect today, but not 15, 10, or 5 years ago, or even a year ago. The leading and decisive role, in my opinion, in such a development played the events that followed first elections in Belarus, and then - in Russia. What seemed like something of a distant future, as one of the theoretically possible scenarios, has rapidly and irreversibly turned into reality: the Republic of Belarus over the last year and a half de facto has lost its sovereignty because of the actions of its own leadership and currently it is only a matter of time when its formal incorporation in one form or another into the Russian Federation becomes a reality. We will not describe all the events that led to such a sad outcome: I believe that those who are not clear on the issue simply have not read as far as these lines.


    This is precisely the reason why almost any alternative to what has been repeatedly and consistently disastrous in practice, is not simply the lesser of evils, but in fact, is the way out from the final solution of the "Belarus question." In this light the unification of Belarus with the Republic of Poland in a confederate state under the old blueprint of the Commonwealth, but with a modern framework and content, finds a completely new and fresh look. Based on today's realities, let us consider such a prospect impartially and in as much detail as possible, particularly - the doubts, fears and obstacles that raise objections about the viability of such an idea.


    First, playing against it is a widely covered in the state propaganda notorious "genetic memory of Belarusians." Based on the statements of the Belarusian officialdom, the press, the things that taught to children and young people in todays Belarus education system, Belarusians will recall (or will have to remember) the centuries of living together with the Poles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and then "under the Crown" as the periods of the Belarusian nation levelling, the eradication of Belarusian identity right down to the physical destruction of its medium as such. Of course, long-term promotion of these theses, to some extent, succeeded: a fairly large proportion of the population has firmly established a stereotype of the western neighbour as one of the occupier still dreaming, in the words of the Belarus official leader, "of the border close to Minsk." And all this is most certainly to drive the Belarusians in a stall, to turn them into cattle or at least into the second-class human beings.


    Needless to say that to overcome such an attitude (cultivated, by the way, even during the Soviet era, perhaps just in case) was absolutely impossible even a couple of years ago. Not the slightest possibility. Under the pseudo stable state of affairs and a semblance of the prospect to steer clear as an independent state between the Scylla of a string of domestic political and economic crises and Charybdis of unpredictably forever transforming Russia, the thesis of the confederation would look no more and no less than a betrayal of the national interests. Today, when every single national interest has been betrayed, sold, or collateralised such scrupulosity fells down like fake gilding. Today it is about self-salvation of the nation, therefore, the past and existing counter-theses, which destroy the previously established image of the greedy and treacherous Poland, have no doubt far more influence than ever before. Our objective is to formulate and convey them to the doubters, and that is the first priority on our to do list.


    The second and more serious obstacle, not only in implementation, but even in promotion of the idea is an immediate, hard and uncompromising counter action by Russia. Neo-imperial aspirations of the rapidly becoming authoritarian eastern neighbour are at a fault with any frivolity of freethinking in the post-Soviet space, and even more so in a hurry to please newly whacked out Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. There is no doubt that the Russian establishment will make every possible effort to prevent any action in this direction, including by hands of de facto puppet Belarusian regime. And if concerns about the rejection of the idea of Confederation by society are solvable through counter-propaganda and ideological influence, the neo-imperialist process of absorption from the east can only be neutralized by a speedy dissemination and adoption of the idea of ​​confederalism among the equally global players: the EU, the USA and probably China.


    The third stumbling block is related to the views on the idea of Confederation within Poland itself. At first glance, may that be an attractive reincarnation of long-cherished desire to restore the former greatness? At the same time, Polish community is well aware of the danger in the modern realities of being accused of "absorption" or "Annexation" of the foreign territories. It is also important to address concerns of appearing under the shell of the common state of an unstable, Fronde like region, and even a kind of "pseudo Chechnya." But if the above controversy is almost fully resolved by a wisely and carefully articulated form of the Confederacy, with a clear delineation of rights and obligations of the parties entering into it, the fear of economic nature, at a first glance, seem almost insurmountable.


    Nevertheless, I take the liberty to say that in today's realities the economic problems of the proposed Confederation will retreat into the background, yielding the palm to the moral, political and other intangible costs, inevitably arising once the project gets into implementation stage. In today's actively transforming world the economy, however vigorously presented as the cornerstone of everything, acts merely as a smoke screen. The examples of absolutely economically unjustified actions and, speaking the language of accounting, known to be loss-making operations by the world players are abound. In a situation where the absolute uncertainty prevails over the methods and results of the future value ​​of economic necessities of the world today (a world currency, oil, gas and even gold), there will inevitably come to the fore some other sets of values to measure influence of the world powers such as control over the useful areas of life, possession of human resources, access to fresh water etc. All of this will make enough counterweight to fears about potential economic failure of the proposed state entity.


    Do not underestimate the opposition and the realization of the idea of ​​Confederation by the current regime in Belarus. There is no doubt that the completely dependent on the political will of Russia ruling class of Belarus, and in particular its highest echelon, will be forced to play on the side of the main opponent of the project, who most certainly will be Russia. However, the oppressive awareness of dependence and well-known personal European economic interests of the top Belarusian officials deny their actions at least sincerity, and at best those interests will force them to work in the field of non-proliferation of confederative ideas with their hands on the floor, or they may even subtly encourage them to take this idea as an element of their favourite "multi-vector pendulous policy." Even today, Belarus authorities strenuously seek reference points, which could steer the much talked-about "Western vector", and in such conditions, the resistance to any "pro-Western" ideas will not be as fatal as, for example, six months ago.


    In summary, it seems timely to open the most wide-ranging discussion in society - both in Belarus and in Poland - on the subject. Any manifestation of the topic - from the discussion of moral issues to development of road maps and technical elements of the Confederation - will help promote the idea and fix it on the agenda. I propose to bring the issue of Belarus and Poland Confederation by the joint effort from the state of deaf silence to the forefront of the Belarusian-Polish political discourse."

  18. #1443
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,657

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Let's assume I would agree with you: Even that wouldn't make concrete actions of a state which calls itself democratic always better and more just. The Americans did horrible things to other people, democratic or not. Democracy is the inner structure of a society, in a conflict, these inner rules and structures might not apply to the opponent.
    And the Ukraine, by and large, can't be considered as being democratic in the American, German, Austrian or Dutch way. Not at all. What happens in the areas controlled by the Ukrainians is also suppressive and brutal. I know the Western media don't show what the mob in the Ukrainian cities is doing to Russians they consider "pro-Russian" or whatever, but I saw some proven images and its just awful. If that's your democracy, its no different from Bolshevism or National Socialism in how it treats its opponents, if not worse.
    Indeed and I never stated that. Especially in the Ukraine the oligarch rule is terrible. And of course I can imagine what Ukrainian people can do to Russian soldiers or the ones who cooperate. And that they make failures in that respect all imaginable. But hey the Russians have no business there!



    That's no question of motivation, humanism or morality, its a question of intelligence and responsibility for the boys you command. I would of course blow the s**t out of those hidden in the buildings before sending any boys in. That's the kind of urban warfare the Ukrainians have chosen, for completely understandable reasons, to inflict maximal casualties on the Russians, hold them up far longer and causing as many "incidents" as possible. But to blame the other side for doing what's reasonable in such a situation is hypocrisy at best.
    No in which they are confronted with. And also points the filthy strategy of the Russian, wasn't this al started with 'liberate the brother people of a nazi regime'. How do you cope this reason with the strategy: bomb total cities to ash, that causes deliberately much lives of citizens not soldiers!


    But so far, the Selenski regime and the USA made not even the most minimal offer for the Russians. Its ridiculous what they demand. That's obviously completely inacceptable for the Russian side and any reasonable observer knows that.
    Suppose someone breaks into my house. He's trying to steal something. I stop him and, out of self-defense, I give him a good beating. What does Riverman say hohoh what's happening here, sit down and why didn't you offer the burglar anything?


    I can't forgive that. This is about very concrete actions Selenski and his regime have taken, which led to this war. This horrible and unnecessary war. He is, minimum, as much responsible for the escalation as Putin. Just from the other side of the fence, to put it that way.
    Always the same song Riverman, you make Putin a victim instead of a perpetrator. And you're constantly apologizing to him. And every time with the childish argument 'just look what others do....' Wrong deeds of others are no excuse for Putin.

  19. #1444
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Location
    Poznan
    Posts
    5,379

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-L617
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6a

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Most importantly, Russia is a cat country while Ukraine is a dog country, they just don't belong together:


    https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...orld.png&w=480


  20. #1445
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    875

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z36

    Country: UK - Scotland



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post

    Always the same song Riverman, you make Putin a victim instead of a perpetrator. And you're constantly apologizing to him. And every time with the childish argument 'just look what others do....' Wrong deeds of others are no excuse for Putin.

    You might as well interact with a bot. Riverman is just a human acting lika a bot.

  21. #1446
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,512


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    Indeed and I never stated that. Especially in the Ukraine the oligarch rule is terrible. And of course I can imagine what Ukrainian people can do to Russian soldiers or the ones who cooperate. And that they make failures in that respect all imaginable. But hey the Russians have no business there!
    No business there? Like Americans in Iraq or Libya? Definitely not. Was part of Russia, of the Russian state and cultural sphere and is full of ethnic Russians, especially in the East and South, the regions Russia primarily cares for. Besides, the arrests, kidnapping, torturing and killing of Russians and alleged pro-Russians goes beyond anything which can be legitimised. Many of these people are either innocent or regular Russian soldiers, do they expect the Russians to do the same to the Ukrainians? The Western media even showed images of tortured soldiers saying things they got blackmailed to say and use it as anti-Russian propaganda. This is against all elements of good behaviour and rightful treatment of POW's.
    Its quite typical that the Western media accuses Russia of absurd and invented "war crimes" while fully accepting, even supporting, what the Ukrainian regime does. Remember, a pro-Russian sentiment and political movement being omnipresent in Ukraine, these were democratically elected and supported parties and organisations, general views held up by many. And the Selenski regime started with a grand scale persecution even before the new escalation started, in fact, this was a major issue and part of the prelude to the current escalation, one of the big reasons for it.
    And you justify that? This just shows how biased you are against Russians and Russian interests. And I repeat that a reaction to these actions of Selenski has zero to do with "the madman Putin", this being a very Russian national interest and self defense. Only people which don't care for the Russian state and people at all would just have shrugged and said "nevermind".

    No in which they are confronted with. And also points the filthy strategy of the Russian, wasn't this al started with 'liberate the brother people of a nazi regime'. How do you cope this reason with the strategy: bomb total cities to ash, that causes deliberately much lives of citizens not soldiers!
    If the defending side hides between civilians, civilians get hit. What else do you want? You don't even know whether the majority of civilians there want it that way. Many might think, "why the hell aren't the UAF going elsewhere, instead of hiding in my appartment block..."
    That's the decision of the Ukrainian forces, where they put up the resistance. Everything in the vicinity of a military position will be hit. This has nothing to do with morality, humanity, ethnic brotherhood, liberation or anything else. It was the same in any war, unless a regime would have had so many soldiers and not cared for them enough to just sent them in as cannon fodder.

    Suppose someone breaks into my house. He's trying to steal something. I stop him and, out of self-defense, I give him a good beating. What does Riverman say hohoh what's happening here, sit down and why didn't you offer the burglar anything?
    Imagine you live in the house of the ex-husband of the woman living there now. And he just wants "his belongings back", because its bad enough that his wife left him, was treacherous and now agitates against him, but he at least wants his belongings back, then you two can do whatever you want with the rest of the house.

    Always the same song Riverman, you make Putin a victim instead of a perpetrator. And you're constantly apologizing to him. And every time with the childish argument 'just look what others do....' Wrong deeds of others are no excuse for Putin.
    No, Putin is a perpetrator too. He shouldn't have escalated the war as he did, before still trying other options, like a limited support for Donbas. Because, its very important to note: The war was coming anyway, Selenski already planned it, he wanted to take Donbas back by force. So Putin had no choice between war and peace, but only between leaving his allies and fellow Donbas Russians alone, to their horrible fate, acting more limited or going full scale attack. He chose the last, but war was chosen by the Selenski regime, Putin just escalated more than expected, for strategical reasons.

    By the way, did you care for the Armenians too, which being attacked and expelled by the Azerbaijani? Only the Russians help the Christian orthodox Armenians in their struggle, nobody else. People just looked away when they got attacked and expelled, had to destroy their age old beautiful village and the Azerbaijani made a celebration of their victory, with the support of Turkey and the USA.

    You see, the conflict is much bigger, its also in Syria, Armenia and elsewhere, and always the Americans make tearful propaganda only for one side, the side they care about, geostrategically, to weaken their competitors. but deliberatley look away from Armenia, Yemen, Bahrain, Ethiopia, Libya etc. Even if they caused the catastrophy, no American politicans gets indicted officially or extradites all the less. But political leaders doing far less, or in much more dire and desperate situations, being regularly "hanged". If that's no skewed "justice", what is it?

    And here again, might Putin be wrong, yes, he is no more wrong than Selenski and the Americans, and he has much more at stake and legitimate interests (Russian minority, Western promises and national security, own bases and direct ties etc.) than the USA had in most of the areas they brutally "intervened" in the last decades.

    I don't excuse what Putin does more than what Selenski and Biden do, I just weigh their interests, legitimation and actions. They are on par. No more, no less. No moral higher ground for any side. Its not my war, its just that the Western propaganda is so extremely anti-Russian, full of hate and warmongering. That's the worst part.

  22. #1447
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,512


    Country: Austria



    Armenian victims of aggression:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V8ZONAsoCE


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEW030g0ZzE

    Azerbaijan used high tech weapons against the Armenian defenders, many which being used now in Ukraine too, like the infamous Turkish drone Bayraktar TB2:
    https://www.golem.de/news/auf-dem-we...03-163973.html

  23. #1448
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,657

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    1 members found this post helpful.
    If the defending side hides between civilians, civilians get hit. What else do you want? You don't even know whether the majority of civilians there want it that way. Many might think, "why the hell aren't the UAF going elsewhere, instead of hiding in my appartment block..."
    That's the decision of the Ukrainian forces, where they put up the resistance. Everything in the vicinity of a military position will be hit. This has nothing to do with morality, humanity, ethnic brotherhood, liberation or anything else. It was the same in any war, unless a regime would have had so many soldiers and not cared for them enough to just sent them in as cannon fodder.
    The point is contrary to what Putin stated 'liberate the people' is now 'bomb the people' so what does this say about the initial motive, megalomania and he doesn't care about the brother folk....really this only suits in his picture to be the neo czar and nothing else. Otherwise he could have made other choices.

    Imagine you live in the house of the ex-husband of the woman living there now. And he just wants "his belongings back", because its bad enough that his wife left him, was treacherous and now agitates against him, but he at least wants his belongings back, then you two can do whatever you want with the rest of the house.
    In such cases: accept this, lost case, when you think you 'own' someone bad luck forget it....And bring in violence and play the mad man to get 'it' (her) back...see Tomenable: cat and dog as a result. The gap couldn't be wider....trust me I know this

  24. #1449
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,512


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    The point is contrary to what Putin stated 'liberate the people' is now 'bomb the people' so what does this say about the initial motive, megalomania and he doesn't care about the brother folk....
    You remember World War II? Britain did much worse than that, even to its actual and former allies. Like bombing France and French ships, soon after the French surrendered, without ever being attacked or threatened by these battle ships.

    Or the many cases in which a "liberator" had to fight the other side back, by brute force. You make up a narrative which is just ridiculous. This is not even the local people fighting, its the Ukrainian armed forces which being put there, many come from other regions of the Ukraine, like West Ukraine or being mercenaries. I'm not saying there is no resistance to the Russians from the local Russian Ukrainians too, but that's after years of massive indoctrination, in the phased system the Ukrainian government created and its still not like every Ukrainian Russian, not even every Ukrainian Ukrainian, thinks like that.
    The more the Selenski regime pushed and persecutes, the more brutal they are towards ethnic Russians and all, even moderate pro-Russian elements, the more there will be, over time, a movement of pro-Russian Russian Ukrainians which will ally up with their brethren in Russia and Donbas. You will see, things can change if given the chance. It all depends on the military-political outcome. Ukraine had its chance, to get excellent terms for its final departure from Russia, just fringe areas which don't belong to the Ukrainians anyway, and a neutral status. The real question is now, whether such favourable terms will be offered in a month or two, or in half a year. And that's where we might heading, if the Russians stay firm and keep up their fighting morale. If not, then the Urainians can demand as much or more.

    But the best thing for all, Ukrainians and Russians, as well as the world, would have been a peace deal with Russia like Selenski promised it in his election campaign. Why not? That was just the oligarchs, nationalists and the US interference in the background which escalated the situation.

    In such cases: accept this, lost case, when you think you 'own' someone bad luck forget it....And bring in violence and play the mad man to get 'it' (her) back...see Tomenable: cat and dog as a result. The gap couldn't be wider....trust me I know this
    That's debatable, but even if I would accept that, I wouldn't accept that a treacherous person takes my belongings too and spits me in the face. That's the right comparison for the given case: If the Ukrainian regime wants an "anti-Russian state", they should give up on the areas and assets which are basically Russian anyway, especially Donbas and Crimea. Then they can go and have fun with their new lover, the USA. For me that sounds like a fair deal, especially since the people in the East and Crimea don't wanted that from happening anyway. This was a plan of the Western part of the Ukraine, of a corrupt oligarchic regime and the USA. Not the Ukraine as a whole.
    People in the Ukraine are now much too afraid to tell the truth, or too manipulated to even realise what happened, all those power struggles and geostrategical gambling in the background. But its real, they were pawns in a big geopolitical gambling, whether they realise it or not. Nobody did them a favour when the USA started to weaponise the Ukraine against Russia.

    On the long run, even the USA will pay for this. Russia anyway, Ukraine anyway. But the USA won't get away with this without taking damage themselves. The Dollar Empire being shaken and this "adventure" of the American political class, oligarchs and secret services already fired back on them. I just hope they don't get too trigger happy and start World War III in their delusional state of mind.

  25. #1450
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    26-01-09
    Posts
    875

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z36

    Country: UK - Scotland



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post


    On the long run, even the USA will pay for this. Russia anyway, Ukraine anyway. But the USA won't get away with this without taking damage themselves. The Dollar Empire being shaken and this "adventure" of the American political class, oligarchs and secret services already fired back on them. I just hope they don't get too trigger happy and start World War III in their delusional state of mind.
    Don't worry.
    Putin will probably get trigger-happy first.

Page 58 of 82 FirstFirst ... 848565758596068 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •