Politics Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

Riverman said:
Indeed.
Why wasn't Turkey treated the same way as Russia now, when they invaded Syria? A sovereign state on paper and the North was even defended by a cooperation of the Kurds with the Syrian National Forces. The same Kurds, which were supported by the US and got guarantees from the US government. Which were praised as war heroes in their gender-equal fight against the evil Islamic State, as the Western media put it, unlike the other Syrian forces, which were just suppressing "freedom fighters".

Erdogan did, with brutal means, just invade that region. He didn't even have the ethnic argument, he just didn't care and his forces are still there, supporting radical Islamists in the region. What were the consequences for Erdogan and Turkey? Surely not as bad as what is happening now to Russia, which had way better reasons in a direct comparison.

That is a double standard by the "International Community". If you read this, where is the difference, the Western powers even supplied the Kurds with weapons just like the Ukrainians. The only difference is, that Turkey is an important ally of the Western alliance up to this point, even if it became an Islamist dictatorship which suppresses its own and foreign people.
But just read this, you just need to exchange the countries and ethnicities, and you get the same thing as Putin/Lawrow are saying, aren't you?



https://ahvalnews.com/turkey-syria/...occupying-power-syria-erdogans-spokesman-says

They weaken the Kurds, so that the IS can spread again. But nobody cares any longer, because it would be "inconvenient".
Click to expand...

I agree with you that more had to be done to support the Kurds.
It was a genuine case of self defense, hoping to create their own state in their own homeland.
And they seemed capable of organising themselves.

So I don't understand why you don't want to defend and support the Ukrainiens in this case.

As for Afghanistan, this is a divided country with clans fighting each other for their bit, but no one to defend or unify the country.
The ambition here was never to install democracy, which was impossible. The idea was to give Islamic fundamentalism a blow.
Islamic fundamentalism is still there, but at least the export of it is restricted.

I was also no supporter for the 'Arabian spring' as there were no structures to govern these countries and it was predictable that it would end in the same corruption and power struggles and fighting as before.

As for Turkey, I believe this is the last year for Erdogan, not that he will be beaten but that the country is going bankrupt and he will loose all support, despite the Turks being very nationalistic.
But this is a different story, of course.
And my guess is that within 15 years a new Erdogan will rise.
The country won't have changed by then.
 
bicicleur 2 said:
I agree with you that more had to be done to support the Kurds.
It was a genuine case of self defense, hoping to create their own state in their own homeland.
And they seemed capable of organising themselves.

So I don't understand why you don't want to defend and support the Ukrainiens in this case.
Click to expand...

The Kurdish case would be only comparable if the Kurds would have demanded not just the Syrian, but also Iraqi areas and even the Turkish territories, plus some areas inhabited by actual Turks. Then it would be comparable with the case of the Ukraine. I think that the Russians have absolutely no say for the West Ukraine in particular, but whether the West Ukrainian forces had the right to bring the whole Ukraine into NATO, suppress pro-Russian groups and take away the bases and ports from Russia on the long run. That's really a different category. The Turks were in a similar situation after WWI, when large parts of their territories being occupied by Greeks, Armenians etc., after their Empire had collapsed. That's when Atat?rk became the national hero, by essentially doing what Putin did, just more brutally.

The Ukrainians should have made a deal with Russia long time ago and not going into confrontation mode with Selenski and the pushing Western intervention. That's the problem. What Putin did now was a disproportionate overreaction, but on the other hand, by not offering a more proportionate reaction from the West, like making clear that he might go into Donbas, but no further and this would make a difference, this wasn't exactly helpful either. They made Russia careless.

As things are now, I would like to help the Ukrainians on the one hand, but am at the same time very much concerned about Russia, further escalation and either a collapse of Russia or the worst case scenario, a nuclear conflict. My primary interest is therefore, for the good of the people on the ground and the world, that they come to terms with a diplomatic solution.

I don't want to push the Ukrainians into yet another round of escalation and if the current regime in Kiew believes it can actually win this war, with brute force, they will go for it. That's their mentality. And that's why I'm against supporting this, because they must come to the table for negotiations, they must be ready to make a compromise with Russia. Not at all costs, but they need to take it seriously and negotiate with good will.
 
Riverman said:
The Kurdish case would be only comparable if the Kurds would have demanded not just the Syrian, but also Iraqi areas and even the Turkish territories, plus some areas inhabited by actual Turks. Then it would be comparable with the case of the Ukraine. I think that the Russians have absolutely no say for the West Ukraine in particular, but whether the West Ukrainian forces had the right to bring the whole Ukraine into NATO, suppress pro-Russian groups and take away the bases and ports from Russia on the long run. That's really a different category. The Turks were in a similar situation after WWI, when large parts of their territories being occupied by Greeks, Armenians etc., after their Empire had collapsed. That's when Atat�rk became the national hero, by essentially doing what Putin did, just more brutally.

The Ukrainians should have made a deal with Russia long time ago and not going into confrontation mode with Selenski and the pushing Western intervention. That's the problem. What Putin did now was a disproportionate overreaction, but on the other hand, by not offering a more proportionate reaction from the West, like making clear that he might go into Donbas, but no further and this would make a difference, this wasn't exactly helpful either. They made Russia careless.

As things are now, I would like to help the Ukrainians on the one hand, but am at the same time very much concerned about Russia, further escalation and either a collapse of Russia or the worst case scenario, a nuclear conflict. My primary interest is therefore, for the good of the people on the ground and the world, that they come to terms with a diplomatic solution.

I don't want to push the Ukrainians into yet another round of escalation and if the current regime in Kiew believes it can actually win this war, with brute force, they will go for it. That's their mentality. And that's why I'm against supporting this, because they must come to the table for negotiations, they must be ready to make a compromise with Russia. Not at all costs, but they need to take it seriously and negotiate with good will.
Click to expand...

It's pointless discussion this any furhter.
You accuse Ukraine of imperialism instead of Putin.

I'm done.
 
bicicleur 2 said:
You accuse Ukraine of imperialism instead of Putin.
Click to expand...

I didn't do that. Rather I accuse the Russian and the Ukrainian government, as well as USA and UK, to have done not enough to prevent this conflict. Especially USA and UK have pushed an already hardliner government to the extreme position of "no compromise at all". And that was wrong, because we all can see where it led to. That doesn't mean Russian is right or doing the right things, not at all, but they both did cause this conflict, its not as one sided as the Western mass media try to portray it. There was a constant and massive provocation of Russia, by going for the militarisation of the Ukraine, a potential NATO membership in its current borders, the constant anti-Russian propaganda and no solution for Crimea or the pro-Russian minorities. On the contrary, the Minsk agreement was ignored by the Ukraine and there were constant attacks on the Donbas region, including civilians and other covert-ops, presumably also including the assassination of various Donbas leaders.

Essentially, if anybody would want a truly fair and democratic solution, the people in the disputed regions should have been asked in a referendum, because both the Ukrainian and the Russian regime can act "imperial" in the sense of ignoring minorities self-determination.

Nobody cared, and instead of bringing a reasonable compromise on the table, the USA and UK favoured an Ukrainian position of "no inch to the Russians". Not just if its about territory, but also if its about guarantees.

That's like provoking a strong guy in a pub for 3 ours, slapping him in the face and calling him names, and then complain if he hits you in the face and beats you up. That's actually an excellent comparison, because just like such a guy in a pub, Russia did overreact and is now in a mess. But the provocations from the other side were very real and shouldn't be ignored.
And if the whole pub just cheers to two guys beating each other up, especially the two competitors in the room, which want the Russian guy weak, then its just disgusting. They should push both sides to the negotiating table, both sides.
 
"Sure its West's fault Russians are using thermobaric bombs on civilian infrastructure/civilians.
The West should have just barred Ukraine from joining NATO/EU. And kicked out against their will all member that entered it since 1990s."
^For the dumbasses that's sarcasm.

For the people using those talking points, dry your brain you still have soap left in there from the Russian propaganda.
At least from this thread I can tell who likes to lick fascist boots.
 
Archetype0ne said:
"Sure its West's fault Russians are using thermobaric bombs on civilian infrastructure/civilians.
Click to expand...

That's the kind of escalation nobody should want, but if the current Ukrainian government in Kiew encourages its military to hide in civilian areas and also encourages civilians to attack Russian soldiers with brutal means from the back, e.g. by using Molotov cocktails while driving by with civilian cars or from civilian buildings, that's exactly the kind of warfare which will inflict more and more civilian casualties and will make both sides more brutal and relentless. That's the typical guerilla and partisan strategy, to first use civilians to cause horrible incidents for the incoming soldiers and than blame the invaders on every reactive measure they take.
We know that from various places and settings throughout history, and it works primarily as long as the invaders restrain themselves from attacking civilians indiscriminately.

Its a strategy the Ukrainian government has chosen, as they have chosen to let no male between the age of 18-60 go, regardless of who they are or how they think about this conflict. They must fight, so they say and everyone else being treated as a traitor. This is also interesting to note for all the pacifists and draft dodgers in the West, because once more, nobody cares. As if every Ukrainian male is ready to fight and die for the Selenski regime!
And its now ok to attack all Russian citizens abroad, even artists and scientists, just for being Russian. Or that the Russian prisoners of war being obviously mistreated and forced to make all those great interviews they spread on the social channels, that's all not an issue for anybody.

Obviously the Russians won't let their soldiers run into urban traps all day long, until they revolt, so if the Ukrainian goverment decided to start an urban guerilla war, you have to expect this. I just hope they let the civilians go, flee from the cities, if they want to. I already heard reports that in some regions the Ukrainian forces might prevent people from fleeing. Which was, by the way, also an issue in World War II. When everybody knew the front will come closer every day, it was still forbidden for German civilians to flee, or even prepare for the flight. This was the "crime of defeatism". That's one of the main reasons why many Germans fled so late, some couldn't flee from the Bolshevists or were killed in unorganised marches. The evacuation started much too late and was held back by the NS administration as long as they could, to motivate the soldiers to fight to the death.

The Ukraine started with similar measures immediately, in the first hours of the conflict, deliberately blurring all lines between civilians and combatants, to maximise the bloodshed and get the popular and international support they need for a fight without compromise and mercy.

Putin should have known that, he should have anticipated this, and not even start the invasion, especially of the Western regions. That's why I also said its not worth it, considering the predictable human losses and suffering, the destruction and the danger for the world. But then again, even these actions are by no means caused by one side alone, because if a side does that early and radically, deliberately blurs all lins between civilians and combatants, its programmed to be a dirty war and that's exactly what the Ukrainian regime wanted. Its a chosen military and propaganda strategy of Selenski & Co.

Every military observer will tell that in the first days the Russians tried to be as careful as possible, but with the mounting losses and the consequent usage of civilian protection by some Ukrainian forces, it was foreseeable where this will lead to and it will just get much worse than it was in the last days. Selenski and his circle knew the only way to win this is to play as dirty as possible, and that's what they do. Putin should have known, that if this happens, the only way to win militarily is to fight as harsh and brutal as possible.

Does anybody need yet another reason for this conflict to end as soon as possible on the negotiating table? If one side plays as dirty and gruesome as possible, the other is ready to play it out as brutal as necessary - what does anybody need who doesn't want these two people to mangle each other. Its just horrible and we need a diplomatic solution, an acceptable compromise.
 
Riverman said:
That's the kind of escalation nobody should want, but if the current Ukrainian government in Kiew encourages its military to hide in civilian areas and also encourages civilians to attack Russian soldiers with brutal means from the back, e.g. by using Molotov cocktails while driving by with civilian cars or from civilian buildings, that's exactly the kind of warfare which will inflict more and more civilian casualties and will make both sides more brutal and relentless. That's the typical guerilla and partisan strategy, to first use civilians to cause horrible incidents for the incoming soldiers and than blame the invaders on every reactive measure they take.
We know that from various places and settings throughout history, and it works primarily as long as the invaders restrain themselves from attacking civilians indiscriminately.

Its a strategy the Ukrainian government has chosen, as they have chosen to let no male between the age of 18-60 go, regardless of who they are or how they think about this conflict. They must fight, so they say and everyone else being treated as a traitor. This is also interesting to note for all the pacifists and draft dodgers in the West, because once more, nobody cares. As if every Ukrainian male is ready to fight and die for the Selenski regime!
And its now ok to attack all Russian citizens abroad, even artists and scientists, just for being Russian. Or that the Russian prisoners of war being obviously mistreated and forced to make all those great interviews they spread on the social channels, that's all not an issue for anybody.

Obviously the Russians won't let their soldiers run into urban traps all day long, until they revolt, so if the Ukrainian goverment decided to start an urban guerilla war, you have to expect this. I just hope they let the civilians go, flee from the cities, if they want to. I already heard reports that in some regions the Ukrainian forces might prevent people from fleeing. Which was, by the way, also an issue in World War II. When everybody knew the front will come closer every day, it was still forbidden for German civilians to flee, or even prepare for the flight. This was the "crime of defeatism". That's one of the main reasons why many Germans fled so late, some couldn't flee from the Bolshevists or were killed in unorganised marches. The evacuation started much too late and was held back by the NS administration as long as they could, to motivate the soldiers to fight to the death.

The Ukraine started with similar measures immediately, in the first hours of the conflict, deliberately blurring all lines between civilians and combatants, to maximise the bloodshed and get the popular and international support they need for a fight without compromise and mercy.

Putin should have known that, he should have anticipated this, and not even start the invasion, especially of the Western regions. That's why I also said its not worth it, considering the predictable human losses and suffering, the destruction and the danger for the world. But then again, even these actions are by no means caused by one side alone, because if a side does that early and radically, deliberately blurs all lins between civilians and combatants, its programmed to be a dirty war and that's exactly what the Ukrainian regime wanted. Its a chosen military and propaganda strategy of Selenski & Co.

Every military observer will tell that in the first days the Russians tried to be as careful as possible, but with the mounting losses and the consequent usage of civilian protection by some Ukrainian forces, it was foreseeable where this will lead to and it will just get much worse than it was in the last days. Selenski and his circle knew the only way to win this is to play as dirty as possible, and that's what they do. Putin should have known, that if this happens, the only way to win militarily is to fight as harsh and brutal as possible.

Does anybody need yet another reason for this conflict to end as soon as possible on the negotiating table? If one side plays as dirty and gruesome as possible, the other is ready to play it out as brutal as necessary - what does anybody need who doesn't want these two people to mangle each other. Its just horrible and we need a diplomatic solution, an acceptable compromise.
Click to expand...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-death-toll-war-invasion-b2026864.html
 
Its funny when safe space bunnies who never lived under communism defend war crimes on inocent civilians, as if Russian soldiers have any right to be in Ukraine.

Notice that in my post I did not call anyone by name, but the fascist clearly know who they are.
Riverman if you were from Czech republic you would understand, but you're from Austria. No one who faced communism wants to go back to that shithole system, not with fascist tendencies added to it.
 
Archetype0ne said:
Its funny when safe space bunnies who never lived under communism defend war crimes on inocent civilians, as if Russian soldiers have any right to be in Ukraine.

Notice that in my post I did not call anyone by name, but the fascist clearly know who they are.
Riverman if you were from Czech republic you would understand, but you're from Austria. No one who faced communism wants to go back to that shithole system, not with fascist tendencies added to it.
Click to expand...

My only alternative answer:
What are we NOT paying attention to?
 
firetown said:
My only alternative answer:
What are we NOT paying attention to?
Click to expand...

Was not referring to you firetown.

But what are we not paying attention to? I do not know. Maybe the hopelessness of the human condition. People carbonized to ashes due to some madman in a bunker who thinks he is playing chess. Then people with 10 degrees of separation regurgitating propaganda narratives here like pseudo experts.
Doubt they would be such useful idiots if it was the pictures of their relatives bleeding to death and circulating as propaganda material on social media. That quickly would remove the degrees of separation and make them realize this is not an empire building game, innocent people are seeing everything they have taken away from them.
 
I responded because that claim of an indiscriminate attack on civilians being pushed by some mainstream media. But it couldn't be farther from the truth. All military strikes cause civilian casualties, "collateral damage" as the US PR teams called it.
Unless two armies meet on an open battlefield.
This has nothing to do with a regime, its military reality of war.
Unfortunately, it might get more brutal soon, because of the reasons explained.
And I said that the Russians shouldn't have invaded the way they did, but once they are in, to blame them for moderate fighting measures is inappropriate.
If this goes on there will be soon real reason to complain, because of the upcoming escalation.
Which is exactly why we need a peaceful, diplomatic solution ad hoc.
Btw, I might not have suffered from Communism directly, personally, but my family and relatives did, also in Czechia.
I try to look at things as they are or were, not like some want to make it for their own purposes.
 

This video was leaked. It betrays the targets of rocket attacks to be launched from Belarus.
Some attacks already happened, but some cities in Ukraine yet to be attacked are also marked on the map.
What is more important : there are also targets in Moldavia marked.
It looks like the intention is to also attack Moldavia.
 
Riverman said:
The reason is also that Russia has or now had many good contacts to the general left from the time of the Soviet Union. We have a lot of German and Austrian, as well as other European politicians, also from the moderate left and essentially from the whole political spectrum, which ended up in Russian companies, having excellent relationships with Putin. Take the most prominent example of Gerhard Schroeder:
https://www.politico.eu/article/gerhard-schroders-office-staff-quit-over-putin-russia-ukraine-war/

He's not by any means a radical left or right, but was a rather opportunistic and Neoliberal oriented (Hartz IV etc.) Social Democrat and is now, up to this point, an opportunistic friend of Putin.

Also, a lot of people, left and right, those more critical of the current "elite" and its policy in the West, even if its from different positions, know how overblown, how overwhelming the power and propaganda of the establishment in the USA and UK has become. They are fighting against windmills, reasonable and rational debates became nearly impossible under this social and economic, more and more judicial pressure and persecution. Regardless of what anyone thinks about Covid otherwise, the Pandemic very clearly accelerated that trend towards a more totalitarian and suppressive stand in the West also.
So they reach out for alternatives and allies which might help them, since their own leaders and "elites", their whole system are clearly against them. And Russia was kind of smart to appeal to both sides of the more classical European political flanks, left and right. Russia had the mentioned good ties to the Left from the past and present, as well as having a more conservative and clearly "anti-woke" stance appealing to the right. Putin never really positioned himself, up to this point, clearly against one of these two classical European political positions and everything in between. He is only clearly positioned against Libertarians and Liberals, as well as the New Left, the Chimaera from the American universitites, sponsored, guided and supported by the American big capital.

Because of his careful positioning in this respect, he could appeal to both oppositions in the West and he actually directly and indirectly supported various of these groups and positions in the West.

However, he now split with his recent actions both the right and the left, moderate and extreme alike. Simply because of the brutal consequences his actions have and the massive pressure built up against him, which forces even many critical voices to shut up for the moment or being crucified by the media mafia instantly. However, he was kind of trapped into this, also. I recently heard that he had kind of contacts, practically a team in Ukraine, standing ready to be politically more active for him. But the recent propaganda efforts and covert-ops of the Ukrainian government, with support of the Western secret services and propaganda machine, were extremely successful.
Probably his actions would have been more successful if he had started already in 2014, but now it seems to late. I wonder if people get shot in Kiev by the Ukrainians if the Russians really move forward, similar to what happened to the Tsar once the "Whites" came closer in the war with the Reds. Many pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians being now under arrest as far as I know and the suppression of any pro-Russian voices in the Ukraine is massive and brutal.

The Selenski-regime really got the upper hand ideologically and in popular support, after all those years in charge and with billions being spent in the propaganda efforts, which means, if this is true and lasting, that only the most brutal measures can keep the Ukraine down for the time being. And that is obviously against the will of most Russians, to fight a war like in Chechnya or Syria against the Ukrainians. This is where it gets really nasty and dangerous, because Putin is now almost completely isolated, only China keeps him up. He made a decision which can't be taken back, as bad as it might have been. The Western interference really cornered Russia and Putin, giving him no way out of the strategical crisis, not even a solution for Crimea and the threat of a NATO membership of Ukraine in its current borders.

Now he is in this mess, and even though a lot of people want to see him going down, I think they should also consider that Putin and Russia as a whole need a way out of this. If there is no reasonable peace offer, they are likely to go in as brutally as necessary, until either the Ukrainian resistance being completely broken or the Russian people revolt, or even worse, it escalates to an international war with a potential nuclear crisis and even war. Even those which want to see Putin going down, should open up some sort of exit for him, because to corner a political leader with that kind of arsenal, especially of that arsenal of ABC weapons, might not be the best choice we got.
And its also not exactly helpful for the Ukrainians, because the maximal escalation is not in the interest of the common Ukrainian people, not at all, even if they could win this war.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you wrote, but the highlighted statement shows a complete misunderstanding of how this worked in American. The Woke nonsense started on college or university campuses, yes, promulgated by Marxist leaning professors of the humanities and first taken up by POC, people of color there through affirmative action admissions, i.e. AOC and other members of the "Squad", who, having difficulty with the curricula, often remain for five and six years, and are subsidized by the government. It then spread to the larger part of the student body. They intimidated the administration and other professors to go along with their demands. I watched it all unfold; the classics banned, the teaching of history bastardized, professors who spoke up fired or "cancelled". Those who spoke up about it, including Razib Khan, and people on the right, were told it was limited to the colleges and was just post adolescent stupidity. Instead, it spread from the campuses with graduating students who worked for the "New Left", including in elementary and secondary schools. The BLM movement both partly grew out of it and fueled it. The trans mania was another outgrowth of it, destroying women's sports when so many of us fought to get our daughters equal access for federal funds for girls' teams. Now we're at the point twelve year olds can proclaim a sexual "identity" at odds with their genitalia and chromosomes being given drugs to stop puberty, and girls having their breasts lopped off.

This is no chimera. People have been "cancelled"; their livelihoods affected, and as per the above, their bodies irreparably damaged.

The corporations were among the last to be affected, certainly after the education system and government organs and the media. Have Europeans not noticed the bizarre output from Hollywood? The corporations responded as they have always done: they caved in terms of messaging, i.e. ads, and they paid "hush money" to these organizations, like BLM, as they had paid "hush money" to Jesse Jackson and all the other hucksters agitating in the name of equality but just seeking to line their pockets.
 
Riverman,

The truth is that South-East Ukraine voted for Yanukovych in 2010 not because they are Pro-Russian, but because they are afraid of Russia (while North-West Ukrainians are not afraid of Russia and more belligerent - so they voted for the Anti-Russian candidate). It is the same in Poland, people in the "Regained Lands" vote for Pro-German politicians because they are afraid of Germany, not because they love Germany.
 
Tomenable said:
Riverman,

The truth is that South-East Ukraine voted for Yanukovych in 2010 not because they are Pro-Russian, but because they are afraid of Russia (while North-West Ukrainians are not afraid of Russia and more belligerent - so they voted for the Anti-Russian candidate). It is the same in Poland, people in the "Regained Lands" vote for Pro-German politicians because they are afraid of Germany, not because they love Germany.
Click to expand...

But there is a genuine pro-Russian sentiment in some regions, especially Donbas and Crimea. This was true even before the staged coups, helped out and promoted by the Russians. And if that would be true, a peace which allows the locals to vote would be even more in favour of the Ukrainians. In fact, I don't expect, as things stand now, after what happened, that the popular support is generally pro-Russian outside of the areas they held before the invasion started. A peace agreement should consider both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 304371 times.

Back
Top