vikingatespam
Well-Known Member
?? Rabid conspiracy stories of CIA biolabs has exactly what to do with Iran/US ?
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
?? Rabid conspiracy stories of CIA biolabs has exactly what to do with Iran/US ?
rsemmes
Well-Known Member
The "context" is your post, I am responding to your post. You see the future terrible economic situation of Russia but you don't want to see what the economic situation of Ukraine is today. Considering that the war is between Russia and Ukraine (with NATO support), some people may think that the economic situation of Ukraine could have something to do with it; like Ukrainians fighting forever, with sticks and stones, once Ukraine has no money.
I could also mention (as cognitive dissonance, unless your are a psychologist and you are using the term in a strictly medical sense) that you point out at Patriots, but not at 2030, the Report or... Unicorns and Rainbows.
I use irony, thank you, that you are able to read (or it is not that difficult to read or you are a genius) to point out a selective vision of reality. For some reason, I consider NATO support (or lack of) and Ukraine's economy relevant to a war between Russia and Ukraine.
rsemmes
Well-Known Member
Any call to "meet reality" in this thread, or forum, is, indeed, invigorating. (vikingatespam)
Sadly, "Expectation tended to outrun execution." (From an American Civil War History book.)
Sadly, "Expectation tended to outrun execution." (From an American Civil War History book.)
That is exactly why protests against the forceful seizure of power in Kyiv (on the Maidan) broke out in Donetsk. I repeat: cultural-political orientations in the South-East radically differ from the western regions. Ukraine is a young state with a deeply split society, which has a rather clear electoral-geographical division, and that is exactly why it should have remained a buffer neutral state and not enter into economic or military unions with the West.
Voting in the 2010 presidential elections: conditionally pro-Russian candidate Yanukovych - 48.95%, and conditionally pro-Western Tymoshenko - 45.47%.
Western countries were refusing to allow it into either NATO or the EU. By attacking Ukraine, Putin forced it to abandon neutrality & align completely with the west, & induced the west to accept it as an ally because the alternative was seeing it turned into a puppet of Russia.
Would you like to explain to Putin how he cocked up?
Would you like to explain to Putin how he cocked up?
personaldesas
Active Member
Almost all countries have regional political divisions. Not sure if we can infer anything from that per se.
Voting for Yanukovych does not establish support for every foreign-policy position attributed to him. Why infer those preferences from an election when surveys asked about them directly?
Last edited:
laugh as much as you want, it don't change the reality. it's not every country you can regime change or kidnap the president and get away with it. NATO spent 5 billion dollars supporting democracy in Ukraine prior to the events of 2014, why didn't NATO spend some of that money supporting democracy in Saudi Arabia? why don't NATO leaders hold rallies and make big speeches in the centre of Paris in support of the French protesters?
NATO involvement in the coup that regime changed Yan is very well documented.
NATO countries should realise that the US won't be able to protect them if the shooting spills over from Ukraine inro NATO territory, especially NATO members close to Russia. they should take the Iranian scenario into account, where the US failed to protect its allies from Iranian missiles
The absence of cultural barriers and a deep historical connection explain the motivation of Russia. But what drives the West?
personaldesas
Active Member
I don’t see how that answers my point. I’m not disputing that regional differences exist, they exist in many countries. I’m questioning what you infer from them: Why you use supposed proxies to infer preferences that the surveys asked about directly.
The April 2014 survey illustrates the distinction: Donetsk and Luhansk had majorities favouring the Russia-led Customs Union, but only minorities supported leaving Ukraine to join Russia. Economic alignment and wanting to become part of another country are different preferences.
You’ve now moved to Russia’s and the West’s motivations. How does that address either objection?
Last edited:
Distaste for the brutality of Putin's dictatorship, unwillingness to see him turn a neutral buffer into an opressed puppet, & fellow feeling with those who want democracy & to be our friends. Oh, & the threats he & his mouthpieces make to us, murdering people on our streets, etc. We don't like that.
Note that the most enthusiastic supporters of Ukraine are the western-aligned democracies closest to Russia, especially those which used to be in the USSR. Why do you think that is? It should be obvious.
Putin would be stupid to think that current refusing would not change in 5 years, decade or 50 years. So strategic outcome is the same for Russia anyway. I see his logic simple - we hit on our terms, or we wait and be hit on NATO terms. And NATO is not attacking unless the victory is guaranteed so they would find the way to debilitate Russia's return strike potential which is the very end of that country.
I guess Putin and his staff see the Dnieper river as a mighty obstacle for any Crimea related invasions, and those areas pretty much coincide with pro-Russian parts of Ukraine.
On the other hand, as years go by and Soviet Union becomes more and more history, by the means of propaganda and the school system those eastern parts of Ukraine would also turn anti-Russia so the whole Ukraine would end up a state that just can't wait to pop in as a NATO vanguard in an eventual war. That's a huge problem for Russia given that Ukraine was about 30% of Russia population pre-war and Russia is badly outnumbered by Europe alone already. And Ukrainians obviously make great soldiers, some of the world's best. So I figure Russia goes after increasing their population for near 50% population of Ukraine while cutting Ukraine to problem twice less. Integration would be rather seamless due to history and culture similarity which is rather obvious in Russian occupied territories today. They are just too alike and it doesn't even take a great effort to assimilate. Kind of if USA assimilated Canadian provinces. In like 50 years they'd just be the 51st state and no one would have problem with that.
So Russians just can't let Ukraine going all NATO happen and yes it was bound to happen. The same pulling string elites that lied about Saddam's WMD would construct their pretext for Russia anyway. Russia is just too much of an obstacle to them in multiple planes, to just let it exist.
rsemmes
Well-Known Member
NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.
That is not exactly refusing entry.
The EU sidelined Ukraine's aspirations for full membership because of Russian sphere of influence (we do recognize that there is a Russian sphere of influence and we decide to ignore it or not) but also because of (lack of) the rule of law and corruption and because of the Common Agricultural Policy; that created issues between France and Spain in the past and between Poland and Ukraine like yesterday.
Things have a tendency not to be black and white.
I think Feanor already posted about all this.
A month later, in May, after the surveys cited by you, in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa, 42 protesters who advocated for the expansion of regional rights and the granting of state status to the Russian language were burned alive. All 19 defendants were released. If you are interested, about the SBU basements you can read at Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
After the Association Agreement with the EU and the violent removal of power, Ukraine ceased to be a neutral state, about which it has already been written here repeatedly.
They kicked it down the road, long term. In 2008 - you can join. Here's the list of conditions. Neither was going to meet the conditions in the near future. It was an effective refusal until they reformed themselves, & Ukraine was nowhere near meeting them in 2014 - & much further from meeting EU membership conditions. Where's Georgian membership now?23:
NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.
That is not exactly refusing entry.
The EU sidelined Ukraine's aspirations for full membership because of Russian sphere of influence (we do recognize that there is a Russian sphere of influence and we decide to ignore it or not) but also because of (lack of) the rule of law and corruption and because of the Common Agricultural Policy; that created issues between France and Spain in the past and between Poland and Ukraine like yesterday.
Things have a tendency not to be black and white.
I think Feanor already posted about all this.
And, of course, there's the question of why they'd want to join. Sweden & Finland were perfectly happy not joining. Why was that? Because back then Russia wasn't threatening them, or interfering in their politics. Why were the Baltic states mad keen to join? Might it be because of Russia backing separatists, e.g. the lot in Estonia who claimed 40% of the country as a "Russian autonomous region", most of which had few Russians?
Sun & north wind. Russian politicians never seem to understand it. People who are frightened of you seek friends for protection from you. Why is that so hard to grasp?
rsemmes
Well-Known Member
That is a very interesting point.
Where is it after the war? Maybe Georgia and NATO learnt something about Russian sphere of influence? Like Cuba did?
Mind, I am not talking about who has any rightful or imaginary concerns, just about what has actually happened.
personaldesas
Active Member
You cited 2010 election results. I posted April 2014 polling that asked directly what people wanted. Now you’re pointing to events after that poll. If your objection is that the April poll predates those events, how do the much older election results help?
Are you disputing what the poll found, or arguing that opinions changed afterward? If it’s the latter, what evidence shows that change?
You’ve moved from election maps to Western motivations to Odesa. Each time I question whether your evidence supports your conclusion, you move to another claim without answering the objection. What exactly are you claiming, and how does the evidence you’ve posted establish it?
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
We hit on our terms or we wait and be hit on NATO terms makes no sense because nothing is inevitable except the invasion that had already taken place.
Pro-Russian parts of Ukraine are now a fairy tale for the foreseeable future. The invasion ensured this to be the case. A good chunk of the pro-Russian population moved to Russia at the onset of the invasion and most of the rest turned against. Is there some? Sure. Is it still significant? Of course not.
The same goes for anti-Soviet propaganda and whatnot. The tide had turned because of the invasion. Not even as much because of the invasion but because of destruction and death and sorrow it has brought with it.
Again, eventual war is a fallacy. There is no such thing. it’s actions of the parties involved that make the outcome a certainty. The certainty of this preventative special operation is history now. Conflict with NATO is closer than it had ever been.
It would be suicidal for Ukraine to “pop in”. It would be a huge war. Preparations would not go unnoticed and a set of appropriate precautionary measures would be taken by Russia in advance.
It appears that the integration is not as simple as suggested, given the war has been ongoing few months short of 5 years now.
Assimilation of Canadian provinces would not be a straightforward process. We are not the same. While we have a lot in common with the Americans, we have very little. We have just as much or more in common with most other western nations, even those that speak languages different from ours.
Yes, Russians will not let Ukraine join NATO.
Constructing pretext… Russia is a full package already, it has every weapon of mass distraction that exists today “and are not afraid to use it”.
It is unlikely that there will be a better environment in the foreseeable future for “bringing down” Russia than there was in the nineties. Ukraine has been at times begging and at times demanding for the NATO/member countries to go to war with Russia now, Russia that is “collapsing”. No one has any appetite for that.
Russia serves as a buffer as well. Up until the invasion, for example, and still now to a great extent, the cheap(er) natural resources supplied to Europe were not available to China. That would be one, most obvious example.
Let me help you put together a set of elementary theses into a single picture.
The war is a direct consequence of the internal split. The pro-Western part of the elite through the forceful removal of power tried to impose its geopolitical vector on the whole country, having abandoned the neutral status.
And it is not about a minority, but about millions of people in the South-East, the 2014 poll directly confirmed this: the overwhelming majority in Donetsk and Luhansk wanted an economic union with Russia. They did not necessarily demand secession, but demanded respect for their choice and autonomy. Instead of this, they faced the threat of forceful suppression (which resulted in extrajudicial arrests and torture by the SBU).
The tragedy in Odessa is not an accidental factor, but a catalyst which caused a powerful resonance and even more strongly radicalized society. For the South-East it became obvious that peaceful dialogue and a diplomatic solution with the new government are impossible.
Ukraine's neutrality was destroyed, it became clear that the peaceful path is closed. Exactly this internal split, the refusal of dialogue on the part of Kyiv and the West as a whole, the threat of physical destruction of the dissenters also forced Russia to intervene.
Also it is worth reminding about the Istanbul negotiations of 2022, where the key demands remained the non-bloc and neutral status of Ukraine.
personaldesas
Active Member
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that Kyiv’s response to Ukraine’s internal divisions made peaceful dialogue impossible and left Russia no choice but to intervene.
Even if I were to accept your account of divisions and repression within Ukraine, you haven’t established why Russian military intervention was inevitable. Russia having an interest in the outcome doesn’t mean it had no alternative to invade.
There is also the chronology: Russia had already militarily intervened in Ukraine before both the April poll and the Odesa fire in May. Odesa cannot explain why that intervention began.
Last edited: