The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[vikingatespam]

I would say that having many military bases straddle your boarder when you are quite vocal about the perceived threat and it continues to grow,, is a far cry from attacking someone for owning a goldfish.

I think we can agree I am being somewhat sarcastic here.

One must remember context here now there is the argument for why NATO continued to expand its potential capabilities vs Russia but the fact they do when Russia has made attempts at de-escalation is important.

I have been around and around this issue with rsemmes:

1) Ukraine was not going to join NATO. It couldnt, according to the by-laws of NATO.
2) NATO was never a threat to Russia. As of late 2021, NATO was withering on the vine. Its still rather toothless, even after almost 4 years of this war.
3) The entire "NATO expansion" concern is bogus. Putin couldnt care less about NATO. After all, he worked real hard to get SWE and FIN to join.

The entire issue revolves around keeping UKR a vassal state, a puppet state, like Belarus. If UKR was firmly under the control of a Ukrainian Lukashenko, then NATO wouldnt involvement wouldnt be an issue at all.

If you want a metaphor this is more like building a fence on your neighbors lawn after he told you that if you did that he would tear it down. Both the building of the fence and the tearing of it down in that case are highly aggressive actions

Yet, building a fence is entirely rational and ethical. Does UKR have the right to not be Russian ? I would think so.

 

[vikingatespam]

My "beliefs"?

Like... The Tooth Fairy?

Once again, you provide zero context. No where in my post did I talk about your beliefs, but rather how you express yourself. For example, how does the "tooth fairy" factor into this conversation ?

I could take it to mean that you think that I believe in something fantastical. Unfortunately, I have no context for what you think this might be.

Do you see your issue now ?

Putin made (past tense) clear to Bush that NATO is a threat to Russia; maybe Bush needed that to be explained to him. Ukraine (or Georgia) joining NATO makes that threat bigger and closer. NATO's opinion on the definition of "threat", "fear" or "irrational" (or "evidence", for that matter) is irrelevant to Russia, as Russia's opinion on the definition of "threat", "fear" or "irrational" is irrelevant to NATO. No need for analogies, NATO is a threat to Russia.

At what point do the irrational fears of Putin weigh more heavily than the independence of other nations ?

If anyone is going to mention Sweden and Finland again, when was the last time that there was a coup d'état in those two, not that densely populated, countries in the far north? Too late now anyway, Russia is already at war.

Putin worked _very hard_ to push SWE and FIN into NATO. Clearly, Putin does.not.care. NATO expansion is nothing more than a smokescreen.

This is all about establishing a puppet state in UKR. No more, no less. No NATO, no biolabs, no nazis, etc etc.

 

[Redshift]

My neighbour wanted to get a pit bull. Based on historical evidence and, perhaps, perceptions, the country decided that it should be illegal to own one though. Poodles and goldfish are welcome, on the other hand. Some don’t like any dogs at all for various reasons, one being a potential damage to their lawn, especially in fence-free or limited-fence communities, but they have to tolerate it because some in the community see a benefit of having a dog to either protect their yard (or to have the appearance of protection - some just put signs up, “beware of dog” without actually having a dog) or for emotional support or whatever other reason.

Goldfish and other marine pets are fine with most, though still not everyone, because even if you live in an apartment/flat, worst comes to worst you get a stain on your ceiling.

To note, neither is a reasonable comparison or analysis of a fairly complex issue at hand.

Strange then that when the subject was bought up by RSEMMES as an apologetic for Russia's behaviour you didn't feel the need to address it.

 

[rsemmes]

simply state what you believe.

True, you were not talking about my beliefs, only about what I believe. Wait... Irrelevant and confusing.

Anyway, I am not really confused about imagination feeding fantasy and delusions. Putin said it is a threat: There is a threat against Russia. (Again, because NATO considers NATO's perspective. Again, Russia considers Russian perspective.)

 

[rsemmes]

Putin worked _very hard_ to push SWE and FIN into NATO.

I disagree, as you read.
Collateral damage? Less important than Ukraine, anyway.

 

[rsemmes]

as an apologetic

Imagination rides again.

 

[rsemmes]

@Feanor
"I saw Ukraine pushing Russia to the other side of the river before, but not this time. No counterattacks or not yet? My only (actual) information is looking at maps."

https://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtm...t: Poulet Volant - @pouletvolant3.bsky.social

[/URL]
About Ivanivka... It was 'in and out' before, but it seems that Ukraine is taking its time now.

Ivanivka topographic map, elevation, terrain

Average elevation: 325 m • Ivanivka, Хрустальненська міська громада, Ровеньківський район, Luhansk Oblast, 94644, Ukraine • Visualization and sharing of free topographic maps.

en-gb.topographic-map.com

Yes, Russia has to go left or right into, at least, the first line of heights. I am wondering if Ukraine ran out of forces to counterattack, because if it allows Russian troops on the eastern heights, it may be too late.
Of course, I cannot see any other clear objective past Ivanivka. This could be just another place where to keep Ukrainians busy, Prosiana looks a bit too far.

 

[vikingatespam]

True, you were not talking about my beliefs, only about what I believe. Wait... Irrelevant and confusing.

Hardly irrelevant since I asked you.

You simply choose to not answer, time and time again.

Anyway, I am not really confused about imagination feeding fantasy and delusions. Putin said it is a threat: There is a threat against Russia. (Again, because NATO considers NATO's perspective. Again, Russia considers Russian perspective.)

Unless of course the entire "NATO is a threat" is simply a lie from Putin. His actions indicate NATO is not a threat. Putin has no fear of NATO.

 

[vikingatespam]

I disagree, as you read.
Collateral damage? Less important than Ukraine, anyway.

This is old ground, but just to state it again:

Putin did everything in his power to push SWE and FIN into NATO. All he had to do was to conclude a friendly trade deal and say some nice words. Instead he issued threats and sent a nuclear capable bomber to the borders. Dumb, stupid and politically naive.

Whether or not its less important than UKR isnt relevant. Its simply further proof that Putin has no fear of NATO.

 

[vikingatespam]

Happy New year !

 

[KipPotapych]

Strange then that when the subject was bought up by RSEMMES as an apologetic for Russia's behaviour you didn't feel the need to address it.

Sorry, but you would have to point me to the specific post you are referring to.

Happy New year !

Indeed! Hopefully, it is better for all, regardless of how good or bad the previous one was.

 

[rsemmes]

Hardly irrelevant since I asked you.

You simply choose to not answer, time and time again.



Unless of course the entire "NATO is a threat" is simply a lie from Putin. His actions indicate NATO is not a threat. Putin has no fear of NATO.

It is relevant because you asked?

As I understand this forum, we give the opinions we want to give. Maybe a Supreme Being has a different opinion and we have to bend to his will.

Of course, if the only explanation of everything is exactly what your confirmation bias is telling you it is... You are right.

 

[crest]

I think we can agree I am being somewhat sarcastic here.



I have been around and around this issue with rsemmes:

1) Ukraine was not going to join NATO. It couldnt, according to the by-laws of NATO.
2) NATO was never a threat to Russia. As of late 2021, NATO was withering on the vine. Its still rather toothless, even after almost 4 years of this war.
3) The entire "NATO expansion" concern is bogus. Putin couldnt care less about NATO. After all, he worked real hard to get SWE and FIN to join.

The entire issue revolves around keeping UKR a vassal state, a puppet state, like Belarus. If UKR was firmly under the control of a Ukrainian Lukashenko, then NATO wouldnt involvement wouldnt be an issue at all.



Yet, building a fence is entirely rational and ethical. Does UKR have the right to not be Russian ? I would think so.

You know there is some irony in the fact you constantly disregard Russia's perceptions as irrelevant despite all the evidence of it being there long-standing position. Well expecting your view of how they should perceive things as the baseline for discussion on the subject.

Truth is they don't see things they way you think they should and infact do see things the way they constantly say they do. Again this isn't about right or wrong it's about the why and ultimately how peace however that looks is going to be achieved. A refusal to accept the other side's arguments as relivent to the issue when they are clearly willing to go to war over the issue is about the worst idea I can think of for limiting the damage this war will cause.

Obviously Russia considers NATO expansion a threat they went owar over this Germany had to prevent it along time ago knowing that fact. Also think about that again Germany had to shoot down Ukraine membership consideration, that is a major hole in your it was never going to happen theory. Even if you are right and it was some bluff for no practical reason intended to do I have no idea what... Clearly Russia wasn't going to take the risk it was just a bluff especially after the zelenski government implemented it's anti Russian policys. Because it's rational to think that after kicking Russians out of Ukraine they would next invite parties in that Russia would consider a threat perhaps the very parties they were currently talking about inviting in. The parties that themselves were talking about coming into Ukraine. Seriously man how do you not see that picture things as relivent to the war in Ukraine and vital to the conversation needed to ultimately bring peace back? Because your not going to get peace if you refuse to accept that the other side is fighting you for a valid reason just because you think they shouldnt care about that reason. I mean they went to war over it the truth is self evident here


Out of curiosity tho if you don't think NATO or NATO forces being in Ukraine is a issue. Then how do you explain the refusal to make a peace deal that would formally prevent this from happing from being signed? There have been multiple attempts at this. Unfortunately the refusal to accept such proposals has lead to greater demands as it lead to war.... And do you think continued refusal to limit the military potential of Ukraine to that as basically being toothless is going to bring peace? Not asking if it's right or wrong for Ukraine to have as many its own or whoever's forces it wants but the actual practical problom of should they? Because that ultimately is the fulcrum of decision that peace rests on imop. If you disagree with that then how do you think a practical peace deal should look. One that Russia would be willing to accept because obviously the have to agree or be forced to agree by means other then words at this point

Edit
Also worth noting in a very real way Ukraine is more likely to have peace thru lack of military strength then peace thru it. It's a tragedy that it could not achieve that peacefully

 

[vikingatespam]

It is relevant because you asked?

Yes. It is relevant.

As I understand this forum, we give the opinions we want to give. Maybe a Supreme Being has a different opinion and we have to bend to his will.

You are conflating "relevant" and "mandatory". The discussion we are having, the 2-way exchange of questions and answers, is "relevant". You are not required to answer any questions - it is not mandatory.

Of course, if the only explanation of everything is exactly what your confirmation bias is telling you it is... You are right.

Another classic rsemmes response. Lacking in clarity, context and content.

 

[vikingatespam]

You know there is some irony in the fact you constantly disregard Russia's perceptions as irrelevant despite all the evidence of it being there long-standing position. Well expecting your view of how they should perceive things as the baseline for discussion on the subject.

Who exactly is "Russia" ? Lets be honest here - "Russia" is Putin. The Russian people have nothing to say in this matter as they have no power at this stage.

I am not ignoring Putins perceptions. The question is rather why Ukraine is important. If UKR was in NATO, but friendly to, or under de facto control (aka, Belarus), Putin wouldnt care. The question is not about NATO, it is about de facto control of UKR. Being in NATO makes it harder to control UKR, but not impossible.

Being in NATO does not in and of itself pose a threat to Russia. After all, RU was doing great trade with a whole host of NATO countries for a long time - no complaints from Putin. Putins own actions show his disregard of NATO. Again - UKR was not getting into NATO.

Truth is they don't see things they way you think they should and infact do see things the way they constantly say they do.

Who is "they" ? The RU populace has shown itself to be utterly apathetic. They have no voice here at this stage of war (this might change if a general mobilization was declared, which is why I dont think it will happen). This is about Putin. Putin is acting in his interest, not the interest of Russia. Can we all agree this war has been a bloody fiasco in the military, political and economic sense ? What rational actor would continue this charade. Even if UKR surrendered tomorrow, the damage to RU will continue to be immense.

Again this isn't about right or wrong it's about the why and ultimately how peace however that looks is going to be achieved. A refusal to accept the other side's arguments as relivent to the issue when they are clearly willing to go to war over the issue is about the worst idea I can think of for limiting the damage this war will cause.

Im not arguing right or wrong, Im arguing just because Putin declares something, doesnt make it true, and Putins actions are the more important indicator. Yes, Putin wants to keep UKR firmly as a RU puppet state. No, he doesnt fear NATO.

Obviously Russia considers NATO expansion a threat they went owar over this Germany had to prevent it along time ago knowing that fact.

Everyone in Europe is afraid of the RU war machine - or at least was, before the clown show started.

Also think about that again Germany had to shoot down Ukraine membership consideration, that is a major hole in your it was never going to happen theory.

You cant join NATO if you have an active conflict going. Period. Thanks to Putin, and the 8th Gds army elements he introduced into the LPR/DPR in 2014, we have the conflict needed to keep UKR out. Heck, even the RU occupation of Crimea (with no treaty) means UKR cant enter NATO.

Never gonna happen.

And no, given the fractured nature of Europe and the pro-RU elements), there was no way the NATO bylaws would be changed to allow UKR entry.

Even if you are right and it was some bluff for no practical reason intended to do I have no idea what... Clearly Russia wasn't going to take the risk it was just a bluff especially after the zelenski government implemented it's anti Russian policys. Because it's rational to think that after kicking Russians out of Ukraine they would next invite parties in that Russia would consider a threat perhaps the very parties they were currently talking about inviting in. The parties that themselves were talking about coming into Ukraine. Seriously man how do you not see that picture things as relivent to the war in Ukraine and vital to the conversation needed to ultimately bring peace back? Because your not going to get peace if you refuse to accept that the other side is fighting you for a valid reason just because you think they shouldnt care about that reason. I mean they went to war over it the truth is self evident here

At the end of the day what is Russia fighting for ? To repeatedly punch itself in the face with a tire iron ? UKR will _never_ be friendly to RU in my lifetime, barring massive political change in RU.

The die is cast, the fat lady is singing, the game is over - what can RU hope to achieve ? Nothing. But this isnt about RU, its about Putin.

UKR and NATO have already agreed to keep UKR out of NATO. If this is what Putin wants, why is the fighting continuing ?

Out of curiosity tho if you don't think NATO or NATO forces being in Ukraine is a issue.

NATO is a smokescreen, just like Nazis and biolabs and (now) "UKR bombed muh villa". All excuses.

Then how do you explain the refusal to make a peace deal that would formally prevent this from happing from being signed?

Sunk cost fallacy ? Putin doesnt want peace, he wants, at the very least to wreck UKR to such an extent that will take decades to rebuild, and be a drag on western economies.

There have been multiple attempts at this. Unfortunately the refusal to accept such proposals has lead to greater demands as it lead to war.... And do you think continued refusal to limit the military potential of Ukraine to that as basically being toothless is going to bring peace?

What military potential will UKR have after the war, to be able to threaten RU ? They will be too busy spending money trying to clear the rubble and rebuild to fuck with RU. The so called "limit" of 800K armed forces is a joke. UKR wont be able to afford such a standing army - probably ever. At the same time, RU trying to limit UKR to basically a police force is just Czechoslovakia 1938 all over again.

Not asking if it's right or wrong for Ukraine to have as many its own or whoever's forces it wants but the actual practical problom of should they? Because that ultimately is the fulcrum of decision that peace rests on imop. If you disagree with that then how do you think a practical peace deal should look. One that Russia would be willing to accept because obviously the have to agree or be forced to agree by means other then words at this point

Peace, if it happens soon, means UKR is going to lose territory it doesnt want to lose. Maybe the rest of the Donbas ? Neither sides maximalist demands can be met. Putin is likely going to have to accept that UKR will have a defense army, and he wont be able to control it like Belarus.

Then Putin dies of old age soon and then we shall see what happens. The average age of RU leader deaths in the 20th century is about 70 years. Tick-tock, tick-tock, the reaper is coming for him sooner than later.

 

[rsemmes]

You are conflating "relevant" and "mandatory". The discussion we are having, the 2-way exchange of questions and answers, is "relevant". You are not required to answer any questions - it is not mandatory.

"Thank you for the moderation in the exercise of your power."
I cannot understand, then, your insistence on me answering questions, not everyone is answering every question. You may have noticed.

Another classic rsemmes response. Lacking in clarity, context and content.

Do you know that game about matching the two parts of a sentence? You provided three lines, your 3rd line:
"Unless of course the entire "NATO is a threat" is simply a lie from Putin. His actions indicate NATO is not a threat. Putin has no fear of NATO."
...
"NATO is a smokescreen...", " Putin doesn't want peace..."
Me: "Of course, if the only explanation of everything is exactly what your confirmation bias is telling you it is... You are right."
You are right, things are exactly (and only) as you say they are. My 3rd line (this shorter one is also) an answer to your, guess what?, 3rd line.

On the other hand, if we take NATO, for example, Russia has been talking about it for a very long time; an eternal smokescreen? The last thing I remember was a kind "Ukraine has the right to join NATO" statement by NATO. When did your "UKR and NATO have already agreed to keep UKR out of NATO." happened? I haven't been able to read it. Did they sing a treaty? Where?

I am even more curious about the referendum you had in your country before invading Iraq. People decide what exactly? "This is about Putin. Putin is acting in his interest, not the interest of Russia." You mean... Business as usual? Human History? Reagan was importing drugs into US for the good of the people? Bush invaded Iraq (remember, the same dictator, good old Saddam, that invaded Iran. Reagan, again) to overcome homelessness in the US? Trump is going to invade Venezuela to provide health insurance to the US?

You are right. As in "...the one who doesn't want to see." You have one opinion about Russia and NATO, western media disagrees with you; and History books too.

Edit.
Repeating "Czechoslovakia 1938" is repeating "Teschen 1938", but we all know that "International Law" is and always have been a joke, right?

 

[personaldesas]

It’s a bit odd that in large-scale conflicts like the Ukraine War, the deaths of tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians are often treated as an expected consequence of war. At the same time, direct threats to political leaders, such as the claimed attempts to kill Putin or the actual capture of Maduro, are described as especially unacceptable or “barbaric.”

This seems striking given that these same leaders are often seen as central decision-makers whose policies and actions contribute directly to the deaths and suffering caused by the conflict. What an odd difference in framing and a weird implicit judgment about the relative value of different lives.

 

[rsemmes]

Russians troops in Ukraine are self-defending.

Troops engaged in multiple self-defence engagements as they made their escape from Venezuelan territory. The chair of the joint chiefs of staff, Gen Dan Caine.

 

[Feanor]

It’s a bit odd that in large-scale conflicts like the Ukraine War, the deaths of tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians are often treated as an expected consequence of war. At the same time, direct threats to political leaders, such as the claimed attempts to kill Putin or the actual capture of Maduro, are described as especially unacceptable or “barbaric.”

This seems striking given that these same leaders are often seen as central decision-makers whose policies and actions contribute directly to the deaths and suffering caused by the conflict. What an odd difference in framing and a weird implicit judgment about the relative value of different lives.

I'm of the opinion that there's an agreement about attacking national political leaders between Russia and Ukraine that wasn't made public. Otherwise it's hard to see why neither side has made any credible attempts to take out the other until now. And it would explain the outrage.

Russians troops in Ukraine are self-defending.

Troops engaged in multiple self-defence engagements as they made their escape from Venezuelan territory. The chair of the joint chiefs of staff, Gen Dan Caine.

What exactly is your point? It doesn't seem to be a reply to anything, and doesn't add anything to the discussion.

 

[rsemmes]

What exactly is your point? It doesn't seem to be a reply to anything, and doesn't add anything to the discussion.

In a way... It doesn't.

It is more about a certain sadness about all those high horses I see around here, so upright in their saddles. Well, here they have it from an American general: "Keep killing Ukrainians, you are doing a good job".
Maybe next time they want to insist that Russia started the military operations they may recall the words of a American general today. Of course, they may only pay attention to the "scape" part, not to the fact that they got there; that someone got somewhere.
(And I love the "self-defence", it's just poetry.)