Russia Invades Ukraine

[il Duce McTarkin]

The truth is that the imperialist powers recklessly and deliberately provoked this war for decades, consciously taking the risk even of nuclear war, no matter the consequences for the population of Ukraine, Russia and the world. Since the Stalinist dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO systematically expanded to Russia’s borders. A US-backed 2014 far-right coup in Kiev installed a government that spent the subsequent eight years transforming the Ukrainian army into a NATO proxy force and arming Ukrainian neo-Nazis to the teeth to prepare a war with Russia. 

The Russian oligarchy, having emerged out of the Stalinist bureaucracy’s restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, was provoked into invading Ukraine, believing that by military means it could achieve some sort of compromise with the imperialist powers. All of the military and political calculations of the Putin regime have been motivated by this delusional belief in the possibility of “peaceful coexistence” with imperialism, which it inherited from the Stalinist bureaucracy, and its profound fear of an international movement by the working class directed against capitalism.

[Libertarian]

14 minutes ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

The quotes are in black and white, sure, but the interpretation and opinion are hardly from a balanced source.  It puts the blame for this war squarely at the feet of socialism's sworn enemy, the capitalist west. It makes little if any mention of any underhand Russian strategy in the region. Are we to believe that there is/are none? Is Russia the entirely innocent party here?

Big, bad capitalist NATO goaded poor, downtrodden, Russia into sending a 40 mile armoured column on Kyiv and doing a spot of killing and raping on their way. It's the west's fault if Russia nukes us all to ****. Etc.

If it all tallies with what you're inclined to believe, or to your political leaning, then fair enough, but objectively we both know that the 'truth', in so much as there can ever be a 'truth', lies somewhere amidst the competing interests, ideologies, and skewed interpretations. This is why historians seldom agree, despite centuries of poring over - and meticulously dissecting - the 'facts'.

 

 

Of course it could, but this thread isn't about that, is it, and I'm no apologist for misguided western interference and interventionism. Let's leave the whattaboutery out of it.

 

So anyway, are you going to answer the first question I asked earlier on, what do you see as an alternative to the impasse we are currently at? Do the west withdraw support for Kyiv? What then becomes of Ukraine? Do Russia push for a ceasefire and dialogue?

And the second question, what's the gen on Russian strategy and foreign policies? Over the top? Justified? Don't go far enough? What about Putin? Stand up guy? Misunderstood pragmatist who's ends justify his means? Ruthless gangster? Psychopath warlord? Or a terrifying combination of the lot?

 

 

To be honest I'm quite pessimistic about the long term future of what will be left of Ukraine once this is all over. Ukraine has lost its industrial base, and it ain't going back. It's also likely to lose the remaining coastline. Ukraine is likely to be left (if Poland & Romania don't gobble up the remnants) land locked and impoverished. It's a real shame as if its leaders had shown some wisdom Ukraine could have prospered as a buffer state. Fantastic climate, rich and fertile soils, access to the sea. All wasted by political incompetence and an inability to accept the political reality of there geographical position and inability to accept that what had been Ukraine had been a multi ethnic state.

[Mikey1874]

3 hours ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

Thanks for the reply. 👍

 

So could the conflict have been avoided if Ukraine had agreed to become a neutral state before or after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, or before or after the full-scale invasion of 2022?

I'm aware that the situation in Donetsk and Lugansk has never been black-and-white, and that there is a toxic strain of extreme right-wing ideological element running through pretty much every country in Eastern Europe, but, to your knowledge, did the Russian Federation seek to engage the 'West' in its dispute with Ukraine?

 

Ukraine been neutral state since 1991 when Russia guaranteed its security. 

[il Duce McTarkin]

8 minutes ago, Libertarian said:

To be honest I'm quite pessimistic about the long term future of what will be left of Ukraine once this is all over. Ukraine has lost its industrial base, and it ain't going back. It's also likely to lose the remaining coastline. Ukraine is likely to be left (if Poland & Romania don't gobble up the remnants) land locked and impoverished. It's a real shame as if its leaders had shown some wisdom Ukraine could have prospered as a buffer state. Fantastic climate, rich and fertile soils, access to the sea. All wasted by political incompetence and an inability to accept the political reality of there geographical position and inability to accept that what had been Ukraine had been a multi ethnic state.

 

See, I actually agree with a lot of this, but one point eludes me. A buffer state for what. Why do we need buffer states? And what, in your opinion should Ukraine be buffering for, and against?

[il Duce McTarkin]

2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Ukraine been neutral state since 1991 when Russia guaranteed its security. 

 

Apparently not. 🤷‍♂️

[Mikey1874]

Russia just got pissed off when Ukraine ditched its pro Russian Government. Being closer to West and EU isn't a crime. Russia was even doing that for a while. 

 

You need to argue for Scotland being allied to Russia with a pro Russian Government if you think Ukraine did something wrong.

 

Ironically Zelensky was being criticised for being too friendly with Russia and he certainly was willing to accept a peace deal last February. Russia changed all that and the only outcome is Russia defeat.

 

Anyway who wants to ally Scotland with Russia?

[henrysmithsgloves]

 

[Cade]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Ukraine continues to advance, taking the hills overlooking the valley which leads south from Velkya Novosilka, outflanking Russian positions and forcing a 10km retreat from at least three towns down in the valley.

Around Bakhmut, Ukraine continues to push both north and south of the remains of the town, coming very close to taking Yahidne village.

Wagner chief is raging, as usual.

 

In the south, the Kakhova reservoir is draining fast. Towards the northern end, where there was a kilometres-wide reservoir, there is now just a small, rather narrow river and some mud flats.
If the mud flats become passable, then that opens the possibility of a Ukrainian attack here, where there are barely any Russian defences.

Combat footage from the ambushed Ukrainian convoy in the opening days of the offensive shows that almost all soldiers were recovered alive from the stricken de-tracked Bradleys.

As I said previously, two of the three Leopards have since been repaired and returned to active service.

 

 

[Mikey1874]

2 minutes ago, Cade said:

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Ukraine continues to advance, taking the hills overlooking the valley which leads south from Velkya Novosilka, outflanking Russian positions and forcing a 10km retreat from at least three towns down in the valley.

Around Bakhmut, Ukraine continues to push both north and south of the remains of the town, coming very close to taking Yahidne village.

Wagner chief is raging, as usual.

 

In the south, the Kakhova reservoir is draining fast. Towards the northern end, where there was a kilometres-wide reservoir, there is now just a small, rather narrow river and some mud flats.
If the mud flats become passable, then that opens the possibility of a Ukrainian attack here, where there are barely any Russian defences.

Combat footage from the ambushed Ukrainian convoy in the opening days of the offensive shows that almost all soldiers were recovered alive from the stricken de-tracked Bradleys.

As I said previously, two of the three Leopards have since been repaired and returned to active service.

 

 

Early days and a ban on speculation might be appropriate.

 

This was discussed a few months ago but the main thrust of the counter offensive could be towards Melitopol.

 

 

[Libertarian]

53 minutes ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

See, I actually agree with a lot of this, but one point eludes me. A buffer state for what. Why do we need buffer states? And what, in your opinion should Ukraine be buffering for, and against?

Ask Viktoria Nuland and the US government. 

[highlandjambo3]

38 minutes ago, Cade said:

Combat footage from the ambushed Ukrainian convoy in the opening days of the offensive shows that almost all soldiers were recovered alive from the stricken de - tracked Bradleys.

As I said previously, two of the three Leopards have since been repaired and returned to active service.

 

 

A lot of de - tracked vehicles with a high proportion of survivors would/could suggest they strayed into a mine field.  Most AT mines will not kill the crew inside, more track splitting which is called an M kill (M for mobile).

 

The British army used to use mark 7 AT mines (pictured below) which had a double impulse fuse, in simple terms this meant the mine had to be pressured twice, this allowed the first bunch of tracked vehicles to enter the mined area before the second/third/fourth bunch (complete luck/random) of vehicles detonated the mines, this also would catch armour trying to reverse out of the mined area.

 

To maximise the chance of a kill, you could fit a 2 foot mast/antenna to the centre of the mine which meant if the tank drove over a mine in between both tracks then the tank hull would snap the mast detonating the mine…..this would most defiantly kill the crew.

 

To maximise efficiency, the British army also used the bar mine (picture below) it had a longer pressurised plate meaning a higher chance of success, these could also be buried with a mine layer towed behind a vehicle…..much quicker than a Mk7 which was hand laid.

 

Just thought I’d put that out there.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by highlandjambo3

[il Duce McTarkin]

6 minutes ago, Libertarian said:

Ask Viktoria Nuland and the US government. 

 

I don't give a **** what Viktoria Nuland and the US government think, we're once again going down the road of facts and counter facts. What do YOU think?

[Cade]

And what's with all this "Ukraine should be a neutral country" pish?

 

To be denied the fundamental right to choose your own path of self determination under threat of force from a hostile nation?

To be constantly monitored by a hostile nation and to have to get their permission to make any kind of international deals, from trade to security, to imports and exports to the make-up of your own military?

Naw, feck that.
That's not being neutral. That's being a satellite state.
 

Whereas the most other eastern European nations formerly under Soviet domination joined the EU and NATO as soon as they could after declaring independence, Ukraine had been content to stay fully independent and make its own path in the world.
Then the Russians undermined that independence by corrupting its political class and installing a pro-Russian puppet President.
In 2004 there was even talk of a Russia-Ukraine merger.
Seems that Russia was quite happy for Ukraine to not be neutral then, funny eh?

 

Then as soon as the pro-Russian president was removed in a popular uprising, Russia launched insurgencies in the east in an attempt to annex land.

That's not how you treat a neutral neighbour, is it?

This act of stupidity has only pushed Ukraine to look West. 

Russian imperial ambitions have been undone by their own sheer hubris.

 

The Russian narrative keeps changing. 

The war was to protect the Russian population of the independent Donbas (you know, the illegally annexed parts which had deported all the Ukrainians living there)
The war was then about continuing the work of the Great Patriotic War and eliminate all nazis (ignoring the swathes of neo-nazis in the ranks of the Russian military)
The war is now about how Ukraine doesn't even exist, and has never existed and is Russia and Russia should control it all.
And most recently the war has become about saving Russia from an imminent threat of total destruction by a global conspiracy, or something.

The narrative keeps changing, on a weekly basis, as if they're simply making it up as they go along. Which, of course, they are.
 

[il Duce McTarkin]

24 minutes ago, Cade said:

And what's with all this "Ukraine should be a neutral country" pish?

 

To be denied the fundamental right to choose your own path of self determination under threat of force from a hostile nation?

To be constantly monitored by a hostile nation and to have to get their permission to make any kind of international deals, from trade to security, to imports and exports to the make-up of your own military?

Naw, feck that.
That's not being neutral. That's being a satellite state.
 

 

 

2 hours ago, Libertarian said:

 It's a real shame as if its leaders had shown some wisdom Ukraine could have prospered as a buffer state.

 

= the smart thing would've been to accept their place as a quasi-satellite state within Russia's immediate sphere of interest, and allow economic, foreign and military policy to be dictated on the whim of Russian paranoia (well justified or otherwise).

 

2 hours ago, Libertarian said:

 All wasted by political incompetence and an inability to accept the political reality of there geographical position

 

= bend over and accept whatever boabying your Russian overlords fancy dishing out, because frankly, they're bigger than you, have nukes, need a base for their Black Sea fleet, are above you in the food chain, and that's just the natural order of things - so you'd better learn to like it.

 

p.s. @Libertarian, I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on Russian strategy on Ukraine and wider foreign policies? Over the top? Justified? Don't go far enough? What about Putin? Stand up guy? Misunderstood pragmatist who's ends justify his means? Ruthless gangster? Psychopath warlord? Or a terrifying combination of the lot?

 

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Dirk McTarkin

[il Duce McTarkin]

23 minutes ago, Cade said:

And what's with all this "Ukraine should be a neutral country" pish?

 

 

I'll just add, it would be nice if all countries could be 'neutral'.

[Mikey1874]

2 hours ago, Libertarian said:

To be honest I'm quite pessimistic about the long term future of what will be left of Ukraine once this is all over. Ukraine has lost its industrial base, and it ain't going back. It's also likely to lose the remaining coastline. Ukraine is likely to be left (if Poland & Romania don't gobble up the remnants) land locked and impoverished. It's a real shame as if its leaders had shown some wisdom Ukraine could have prospered as a buffer state. Fantastic climate, rich and fertile soils, access to the sea. All wasted by political incompetence and an inability to accept the political reality of there geographical position and inability to accept that what had been Ukraine had been a multi ethnic state.

 

A bit like where Finland was

 

 

[periodictabledancer]

2 hours ago, Libertarian said:

To be honest I'm quite pessimistic about the long term future of what will be left of Ukraine once this is all over. Ukraine has lost its industrial base, and it ain't going back. It's also likely to lose the remaining coastline. Ukraine is likely to be left (if Poland & Romania don't gobble up the remnants) land locked and impoverished. It's a real shame as if its leaders had shown some wisdom Ukraine could have prospered as a buffer state. Fantastic climate, rich and fertile soils, access to the sea. All wasted by political incompetence and an inability to accept the political reality of there geographical position and inability to accept that what had been Ukraine had been a multi ethnic state.

Did you miss the bit when Putin invaded Russia in 2014 after Ukraine kicked out the corrupt pro-Russia puppet ?

Did you miss the bit in 2022 when he said he had no plans to invade Ukraine (when he'd ALREADY done so, in 2014) ? 

Did you miss the bit when Putin said in 2008 that Ukraine is a territory of Russia ? 

Did you miss the bit when when Ukraine gave up it's nuclear arsenal and then got shafted by EVERYBODY ? 

 

Buffer state ? Run by another pro Putin puppet ? An utterly defenceless state.

 

[il Duce McTarkin]

6 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

Did you miss the bit when Putin invaded Russia in 2014 after Ukraine kicked out the corrupt pro-Russia puppet ?

Did you miss the bit in 2022 when he said he had no plans to invade Ukraine (when he'd ALREADY done so, in 2014) ? 

Did you miss the bit when Putin said in 2008 that Ukraine is a territory of Russia ? 

Did you miss the bit when when Ukraine gave up it's nuclear arsenal and then got shafted by EVERYBODY ? 

 

Buffer state ? Run by another pro Putin puppet ? An utterly defenceless state.

 

 

Western policy since the fall of the old Soviet Union until the present day has to be viewed as a strategic failure by anyone in any position of power who is remotely interested in World peace, stability, egalitarianism, and the well-being of all peoples, everywhere.

 

Massive missed opportunity.

[Libertarian]

 

[il Duce McTarkin]

Well that clears that up.

[Libertarian]

Wrong video. Try this one

 

[il Duce McTarkin]

Youtube is blocked where I am, bud, so you'll need to use words if you're remotely interested in engaging with my as-yet unanswered questions.

 

Nae whattaboutery mind.

[Homme]

Don't answer questions posed to you. Just retort with little YouTube clips that offer nothing to discussion.

 

An absolute joke figure.

[il Duce McTarkin]

12 minutes ago, Homme said:

Don't answer questions posed to you. Just retort with little YouTube clips that offer nothing to discussion.

 

An absolute joke figure.

 

The sad thing is he's doing himself and the wider point he's trying to get across a big disservice.

Western media, and even Kickback, can be hawkish, and it should be easy to appreciate why this would get under the skin of folk who have experience of, and a vested interest in, Russia and its people.

The old 'the West is a c%^t' whattaboutery argument is tired, and shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone with eyes on their face and ears on the side of their head. We get it, so let's here about Russia. Let's here about Putin. Let us see where we're all going wrong.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Dirk McTarkin

[Cade]

1 hour ago, highlandjambo3 said:

A lot of de - tracked vehicles with a high proportion of survivors would/could suggest they strayed into a mine field.  Most AT mines will not kill the crew inside, more track splitting which is called an M kill (M for mobile).

 

The British army used to use mark 7 AT mines (pictured below) which had a double impulse fuse, in simple terms this meant the mine had to be pressured twice, this allowed the first bunch of tracked vehicles to enter the mined area before the second/third/fourth bunch (complete luck/random) of vehicles detonated the mines, this also would catch armour trying to reverse out of the mined area.

 

To maximise the chance of a kill, you could fit a 2 foot mast/antenna to the centre of the mine which meant if the tank drove over a mine in between both tracks then the tank hull would snap the mast detonating the mine…..this would most defiantly kill the crew.

 

To maximise efficiency, the British army also used the bar mine (picture below) it had a longer pressurised plate meaning a higher chance of success, these could also be buried with a mine layer towed behind a vehicle…..much quicker than a Mk7 which was hand laid.

 

Just thought I’d put that out there.

 

 

 

The column in question was travelling down a road with mined fields on either side.

Front of the column was a Leopard 2R heavy mine clearer.

That got hit and stopped.

Instead of withdrawing and waiting for the 2R to be recovered and repaired, the commander tried to maneuver the rest of the column around it and carry on down the road.

The lead vehicles then also got hit by mines and stopped.

Troops and tank crew were evacuated in Bradleys.

Then the Russian artillery took potshots at the stricken vehicles.
One Leopard 2 was set on fire, the other 2 were recovered and repaired along with most of the Bradleys.

 

See when your mine clearer gets hit and you're in the middle of a minefield?

Perhaps don't just drive around it through the minefield.

[highlandjambo3]

2 minutes ago, Cade said:

 

See when your mine clearer gets hit and you're in the middle of a minefield?

Perhaps don't just drive around it through the minefield.

Top tip of the day

[Libertarian]

For all the armchair generals on here.

[Libertarian]

The information is out there but you have to look for it.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/57602.htm

[Mikey1874]

21 minutes ago, Cade said:

 

The column in question was travelling down a road with mined fields on either side.

Front of the column was a Leopard 2R heavy mine clearer.

That got hit and stopped.

Instead of withdrawing and waiting for the 2R to be recovered and repaired, the commander tried to maneuver the rest of the column around it and carry on down the road.

The lead vehicles then also got hit by mines and stopped.

Troops and tank crew were evacuated in Bradleys.

Then the Russian artillery took potshots at the stricken vehicles.
One Leopard 2 was set on fire, the other 2 were recovered and repaired along with most of the Bradleys.

 

See when your mine clearer gets hit and you're in the middle of a minefield?

Perhaps don't just drive around it through the minefield.

 

https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1667859359265595392?s=19

[milky_26]

3 hours ago, Libertarian said:

To be honest I'm quite pessimistic about the long term future of what will be left of Ukraine once this is all over. Ukraine has lost its industrial base, and it ain't going back. It's also likely to lose the remaining coastline. Ukraine is likely to be left (if Poland & Romania don't gobble up the remnants) land locked and impoverished. It's a real shame as if its leaders had shown some wisdom Ukraine could have prospered as a buffer state. Fantastic climate, rich and fertile soils, access to the sea. All wasted by political incompetence and an inability to accept the political reality of there geographical position and inability to accept that what had been Ukraine had been a multi ethnic state.

i'm warming to scottish independence as it means rUK can legally invade scotland and make it a buffer state between rUK and Europe

[il Duce McTarkin]

8 minutes ago, Libertarian said:

The information is out there but you have to look for it.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/57602.htm

 

Aye, the west are propping up a bunch of Nazis, bang to rights a shitty thing to be doing. What a shower of c&*ts. There's definitely no internet research (arf) that would reveal in weighty/bombastic/emotive/alliterative terms that the precise opposite is true. You can see how folk get taken in and confused. Now, enough about the lying, cheating, Nazi-loving West, what are your thoughts on Russian strategy on Ukraine and wider foreign policies? Over the top? Justified? Don't go far enough? What about Putin? Stand up guy? Misunderstood pragmatist who's ends justify his means? Ruthless gangster? Psychopath warlord? Or a terrifying combination of the lot?

[Ked]

17 minutes ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

Aye, the west are propping up a bunch of Nazis, bang to rights a shitty thing to be doing. What a shower of c&*ts. There's definitely no internet research (arf) that would reveal in weighty/bombastic/emotive/alliterative terms that the precise opposite is true. You can see how folk get taken in and confused. Now, enough about the lying, cheating, Nazi-loving West, what are your thoughts on Russian strategy on Ukraine and wider foreign policies? Over the top? Justified? Don't go far enough? What about Putin? Stand up guy? Misunderstood pragmatist who's ends justify his means? Ruthless gangster? Psychopath warlord? Or a terrifying combination of the lot?

Russia recently produced a foreign policy concept approved by Putin.

A sort of rework of the old Soviet 5 year ones maybe.

Anyway it depends what you read, on how it's interpreted.

 

[Jeffros Furios]

1 hour ago, Libertarian said:

The information is out there but you have to look for it.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/57602.htm

Everyone knows about the UK and the US meddling in others affairs, but if you see fault in our foreign policy then you must see the issues surrounding Russia and Putin ? If you think there's no issues you must be brainwashed.  

[BudgeUp]

More and more starting to come out with some gains across a large swathe of russian first defences.

 

Usually he first defences will be the hardest(?

 

I'll give the Ukrainians one thing, they're definitely great at controlling the press and don't care if in the short term they're seen to be losing.

[scott herbertson]

Lots of small incremental gains - main thrust likely to be down to the Azov coast either at Mariupol or Melotpol - either would drastically reduce Russia's ability to supply Crimea and the are above it. Can see this speeding up in the next few days and there must be some concern as to how Russia will react - the cracks in Putin's centrifugal power balances are starting to show. 

[Libertarian]

8 hours ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

The sad thing is he's doing himself and the wider point he's trying to get across a big disservice.

Western media, and even Kickback, can be hawkish, and it should be easy to appreciate why this would get under the skin of folk who have experience of, and a vested interest in, Russia and its people.

The old 'the West is a c%^t' whattaboutery argument is tired, and shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone with eyes on their face and ears on the side of their head. We get it, so let's here about Russia. Let's here about Putin. Let us see where we're all going wrong.

 

 

The old trope. Someone points out that the war in Ukraine is a disaster and a catastrophe for the people in Ukraine, therefore they are a Putin apologist. Aye very good . If you really believe that the current situation that the Ukrainians find themselves is all for the best and that at the end of the process Ukraine and the west will triumph, you are welcome to your opinion. However my view, and the view of many informed observers is that you are wrong and that at the end of this process Ukraine and their western backers will lose.

[Jeffros Furios]

2 minutes ago, Libertarian said:

The old trope. Someone points out that the war in Ukraine is a disaster and a catastrophe for the people in Ukraine, therefore they are a Putin apologist. Aye very good . If you really believe that the current situation that the Ukrainians find themselves is all for the best and that at the end of the process Ukraine and the west will triumph, you are welcome to your opinion. However my view, and the view of many informed observers is that you are wrong and that at the end of this process Ukraine and their western backers will lose.

[SwindonJambo]

30 minutes ago, Libertarian said:

The old trope. Someone points out that the war in Ukraine is a disaster and a catastrophe for the people in Ukraine, therefore they are a Putin apologist. Aye very good . If you really believe that the current situation that the Ukrainians find themselves is all for the best and that at the end of the process Ukraine and the west will triumph, you are welcome to your opinion. However my view, and the view of many informed observers is that you are wrong and that at the end of this process Ukraine and their western backers will lose.

That Russian wife really has got you by the nads. 

[Libertarian]

11 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

That Russian wife really has got you by the nads. 

If only. Have you seen Russian women? Stylish and classy. 

[Libertarian]

8 hours ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

Aye, the west are propping up a bunch of Nazis, bang to rights a shitty thing to be doing. What a shower of c&*ts. There's definitely no internet research (arf) that would reveal in weighty/bombastic/emotive/alliterative terms that the precise opposite is true. You can see how folk get taken in and confused. Now, enough about the lying, cheating, Nazi-loving West, what are your thoughts on Russian strategy on Ukraine and wider foreign policies? Over the top? Justified? Don't go far enough? What about Putin? Stand up guy? Misunderstood pragmatist who's ends justify his means? Ruthless gangster? Psychopath warlord? Or a terrifying combination of the lot?

Here's some of your pals

 

[Thunder and Lightning]

9 hours ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

Youtube is blocked where I am, bud, so you'll need to use words if you're remotely interested in engaging with my as-yet unanswered questions.

 

Nae whattaboutery mind.

Where are you posting from? 

[doctor jambo]

25 minutes ago, Libertarian said:

Here's some of your pals

 

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Uncomfortable bed fellows for sure - as are the crypto fascists currently invading Russia, who are all Russian neo- nazis.

Yet Russia did not seen fit to invade itself .

 

[Homme]

40 minutes ago, Libertarian said:

Here's some of your pals

 

 

Thanks for the reminder that Nazis are confined to the Ukraine. None in Russia, Germany or even Scotland these days.

[Cade]

Here's some of your pals having a wee march in St Petersburg in 2014.

 

[Cade]

Mind I was telling you that Ukraine had taken the high ground along a valley overlooking several Russian occupied towns?

Russia has blown the nearby dam and emptied the local reservoir down the valley.

Could be to cover their retreat from all the towns along the valley floor.

Or just another act of spite to leave infrastructure in ruins as they leg it.

The dam is 12km behind the front lines.

 

Of course, this act only further underlines that they are more than likely also responsible for the Kakhovka dam disaster.

[John Gentleman]

17 hours ago, Cade said:

And what's with all this "Ukraine should be a neutral country" pish?

 

To be denied the fundamental right to choose your own path of self determination under threat of force from a hostile nation?

To be constantly monitored by a hostile nation and to have to get their permission to make any kind of international deals, from trade to security, to imports and exports to the make-up of your own military?

Naw, feck that.
That's not being neutral. That's being a satellite state.
 

Whereas the most other eastern European nations formerly under Soviet domination joined the EU and NATO as soon as they could after declaring independence, Ukraine had been content to stay fully independent and make its own path in the world.
Then the Russians undermined that independence by corrupting its political class and installing a pro-Russian puppet President.
In 2004 there was even talk of a Russia-Ukraine merger.
Seems that Russia was quite happy for Ukraine to not be neutral then, funny eh?

 

Then as soon as the pro-Russian president was removed in a popular uprising, Russia launched insurgencies in the east in an attempt to annex land.

That's not how you treat a neutral neighbour, is it?

This act of stupidity has only pushed Ukraine to look West. 

Russian imperial ambitions have been undone by their own sheer hubris.

 

The Russian narrative keeps changing. 

The war was to protect the Russian population of the independent Donbas (you know, the illegally annexed parts which had deported all the Ukrainians living there)
The war was then about continuing the work of the Great Patriotic War and eliminate all nazis (ignoring the swathes of neo-nazis in the ranks of the Russian military)
The war is now about how Ukraine doesn't even exist, and has never existed and is Russia and Russia should control it all.
And most recently the war has become about saving Russia from an imminent threat of total destruction by a global conspiracy, or something.

The narrative keeps changing, on a weekly basis, as if they're simply making it up as they go along. Which, of course, they are.
 

This bloke nails much of what you've said, and then some.....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/11/ecocide-russia-ukraine-war-kakhovka-dam-destroyed

[il Duce McTarkin]

7 hours ago, Libertarian said:

The old trope. Someone points out that the war in Ukraine is a disaster and a catastrophe for the people in Ukraine, therefore they are a Putin apologist. Aye very good . If you really believe that the current situation that the Ukrainians find themselves is all for the best and that at the end of the process Ukraine and the west will triumph, you are welcome to your opinion. However my view, and the view of many informed observers is that you are wrong and that at the end of this process Ukraine and their western backers will lose.

 

I agree that the war in Ukraine is a disaster, for all parties mind, and for the wider world. Not just the Ukrainians. I've said so from the beginning. Does that make me a Putin apologist? 

 

Now, are you going to answer those questions that I put to you half a dozen times yesterday and that you kept avoiding? The ones that give you the opportunity to show that you're not a Putin apologist - which incidently, isn't something that I've accused you of. 

 

7 hours ago, Libertarian said:

Here's some of your pals

 

 

Not my pals, champ, they look a ot like some kind of Nazi. I'm unsure how you drew that conclusion from the post that you quoted, when I quite clearly agreed that the 'west' propping up Nazis was not cricket. Any flippancy was simply an attempt to mimic yours. Make you feel more comfortable, y'know. Help you find yur voice.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Dirk McTarkin

[il Duce McTarkin]

6 hours ago, Thunder and Lightning said:

Where are you posting from? 

 

Somewhere with limited bandwidth. Nothing sinister.

[ri Alban]

Just because Putin started this doesn't mean I have to hate Russians or Russia. Putin and his henchman? But not young lads doing as they are telt, no doubt some are wee *****, just like everywhere, but most won't want to do this and probably know something will happen to them or theirs if they don't. 

 

If the West were so determined they'd make Putin leave, but prices are high, taxes need collected for the covid kitty, so Ukraine must suffer for a wee bit. It's all shite!

[ri Alban]

19 hours ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

The quotes are in black and white, sure, but the interpretation and opinion are hardly from a balanced source.  It puts the blame for this war squarely at the feet of socialism's sworn enemy, the capitalist west. It makes little if any mention of any underhand Russian strategy in the region. Are we to believe that there is/are none? Is Russia the entirely innocent party here?

Big, bad capitalist NATO goaded poor, downtrodden, Russia into sending a 40 mile armoured column on Kyiv and doing a spot of killing and raping on their way. It's the west's fault if Russia nukes us all to ****. Etc.

If it all tallies with what you're inclined to believe, or to your political leaning, then fair enough, but objectively we both know that the 'truth', in so much as there can ever be a 'truth', lies somewhere amidst the competing interests, ideologies, and skewed interpretations. This is why historians seldom agree, despite centuries of poring over - and meticulously dissecting - the 'facts'.

 

 

Of course it could, but this thread isn't about that, is it, and I'm no apologist for misguided western interference and interventionism. Let's leave the whattaboutery out of it.

 

So anyway, are you going to answer the first question I asked earlier on, what do you see as an alternative to the impasse we are currently at? Do the west withdraw support for Kyiv? *What then becomes of Ukraine? Do Russia push for a ceasefire and dialogue?

And the second question, what's the gen on Russian strategy and foreign policies? Over the top? Justified? Don't go far enough? What about Putin? Stand up guy? Misunderstood pragmatist who's ends justify his means? Ruthless gangster? Psychopath warlord? Or a terrifying combination of the lot?

 

 

Ukraine would then become like Scotland 👍