International Russia/Ukraine Megathread V9

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blayt7hh said:
I was going to respond to @CyberRubberDuck. Your claim is just a well known fact. I already knew though that no matter what source I used he was going to say it was fake. Let’s ignore the fact that you can just type it into google and find a bunch of them. Have you noticed they all repeat the same lies that Russia stated since the beginning? Yet he wants us to think he isn’t buying into Kremlin propaganda. These guys are just a stereotype now.

I think I’m worn out by these edge lords that come in here and talk about the mainstream media. He’s having a little meltdown now that he’s being faced with reality like @San Marino and already got himself carded lol. I’m sure if you ask it’s not his fault and the mods are trying to silence the truth. Honestly, I sounded kind of like these goobers when I was 17 but I grew up.
Click to expand...

People like him don't even make sense anymore I don't even bother responding. The guy is literally posting that the US\NATO started this and then in a later post saying that all the governments are in this together and it's part of some greater plan. Every single major event that happens now you always have people on the internet now who want to claim it's part of some greater plan.
 
 
The battle for Kherson is about to begin. Ukrainian forces are 25k away.

There is of course an easy solution. Russian forces go back to Russia.

Russia cannot win this war and won't be allowed to do so.

Russian power has always waxed and waned. They went from the gendarme of Europe after Napoleons defeat to getting their shit pushed in during the Crimean war 50 years later.

It's 30 years since the fall of the Soviet Union. They put the first men in space. Now they can't put a trained tank crew together.

Putin is reaping what he sowed. Russia is a tragedy. With its resources and intellectual capital it could be amazing. Instead it's a second rate power at best. A gas station for China.

Putin and his oligarchs gave Russia the stability of the grave. Russia is finished.
 
brothir said:
In the case of the Iraq election we have extensive knowledge of how it was conducted. In the case of the forced elections in the Ukrainian territories, the Russian military conducted them as quickly and as nontransparently as possible so as to prevent any information. That's why no one considers them legitimate elections.

That's not based on a single photo, it's just abstract knowledge we can glean from the obviousness of the timeline of events.
Click to expand...

information was there... western politicians and media just labelled it as "sham referendum" from the start

again when it doesn't fit their narrative and agenda its "sham", when it does then it "legitimate" like what they did in serbia
 
grimballer said:
countries that pretend to care about international law and sovereignty of ukraine don't practice what they preach
Click to expand...
Fully agreed. Two wrongs don't make a right. The USA wasn't right to invade Iraq and Russia wasn't right to invade Ukraine. Do you have a deeper point than this whataboutism?
 
Andy Capp said:
Unless "democracy promotion" is a euphemism--in which case I'd like to see the evidence of that--it doesn't really accord with what people think of as having backed a coup, wouldn't you say? But then, that's why I asked the question, obviously.
Click to expand...

Yeah this kind of money is quite fungible and normally flows in all sorts of ways. Its quite difficult to track what it does or doesn't do. Nevertheless, I doubt that money was disinterested.
 
grimballer said:
information was there... western politicians and media just labelled it as "sham referendum" from the start

again when it doesn't fit their narrative and agenda its "sham", when it does then it "legitimate" like what they did in serbia
Click to expand...
No, the information wasn't there. It was not an election from the ground up by the inhabitants, but orchestrated by the Russian military with no transparency. This was obvious to everyone, and so no one has accepted the elections as valid. And your reference to Serbia is just such a revealing clue as to the source of your spite. Get over yourself.
 
Siver! said:
Yes, he was, that is true.

I'm not saying there wasn't some sort of coup, because there was.

And you're right, he wasn't "installed" per that last post, so I retract that.
Click to expand...

The tough thing about trying to unpack the events from 2013-14 is there are really unanswerable values questions involved about one's views of law, national sovreignty, and when the social contract is broken, self determination, etc. The pro-western group has a pretty straightforward view: Yankovych was a traitor, therefore he lost his office. He was corrupt, he was bribed. They would have absolutely killed him had he not fled. For those that were on Y's side though, their questions open up more questions, like, at one point does the state lose legitimacy? When is your duty to obey it released? Is adherence to the law more important than "the nation"? And so forth.

I try to imagine if in my country, there was a president that I voted for, that I liked. And he takes a position that is a minority position (I believe the Russian economic agreement had like 30% approval versus over 50% for the EU one). This minority position is met with protests, street action. There is shooting and people die. A mob goes to the president's house to kill him and he flees the country. He is not impeached, but a new government is declared without new elections, though new elections are scheduled. Am I obliged to obey this government? Why or why not? Is this a breach of the social contract, such that I can declare some sort of independence? Why or why not? And so forth. These aren't easy to answer, and of course Russia seized on this chaos very effectively in 2014.
 
Halloween Jack said:
Fully agreed. Two wrongs don't make a right. The USA wasn't right to invade Iraq and Russia wasn't right to invade Ukraine. Do you have a deeper point than this whataboutism?
Click to expand...

Who says international law is right? Who says current borders are correct and need to be respected?

Also the main tenant of international law is the big 5s ability to ignore it. If you have an enforcement system and 5 parties have a veto in said system that means they are allowed to break the law. That's not explicitly stated but that's just the truth.
 
ferrisjso said:
Who says international law is right? Who says current borders are correct and need to be respected?

Also the main tenant of international law is the big 5s ability to ignore it. If you have an enforcement system and 5 parties have a veto in said system that means they are allowed to break the law. That's not explicitly stated but that's just the truth.
Click to expand...
Okay. So Russia should be able to invade countries and cause instability in the region with impunity because they have veto powers, or?
 
Halloween Jack said:
Okay. So Russia should be able to invade countries and cause instability in the region with impunity because they have veto powers, or?
Click to expand...

I'm saying from an international law perspective they totally are allowed to do that. And the US was totally allowed to invade Iraq. In practice that's what giving a country a veto over international law enforcement means.

But yes I think Russia is in the right in this situation and I have not shied away from that despite being called every name in the book. This war started in 2014 not 2022.
 
ferrisjso said:
I'm saying from an international law perspective they totally are allowed to do that. And the US was totally allowed to invade Iraq. In practice that's what giving a country a veto over international law enforcement means.

But yes I think Russia is in the right in this situation and I have not shied away from that despite being called every name in the book. This war started in 2014 not 2022.
Click to expand...
I think BOTH are bad. Russia invading Ukraine is even worse because it's causing instability in a region of greater importance and a region that has been pretty stable for decades. And it's greatly impacting the Western world and other regions right now...
 
Halloween Jack said:
I think BOTH are bad. Russia invading Ukraine is even worse because it's causing instability in a region of greater importance and a region that has been pretty stable for decades. And it's greatly impacting the Western world and other regions right now...
Click to expand...

That instability was already there. The war was going on since 2014 and Russia's attempts to resolve the issue other ways had failed. Makes perfect sense why they did what they did and when they did it. Seperating the 2 parts of Ukraine that want fundamentally different things would make the region infinitly more stable and be the best for everyone involved including the Ukranian fascists who would never lose an election again.

This could have been over quickly(that was clearly Russia's intent) but West gave Zelensky the weapons he asked for so now this is going to be a multi year thing. While I don't see Ukraine regaining more territory unless Kherson falls I also don't see Russia taking more land they're willing to give back to Ukraine(which is really the only route to this war ending settlement). All the land they currently hold were core goals of the mission(which is still not done) and are not going to be given back via negotations. That was probably the purpose of trying to take Kharkov. With Kharkov Oblast almost completley in Ukraine hands Russia has nothing over Ukraine and Ukraine has no reason to stop fighting even if they can't continue to regain territory.

It is going to suck but there's a clear cause and effect here and it didn't have to go down this way.
 
ferrisjso said:
That instability was already there. The war was going on since 2014 and Russia's attempts to resolve the issue other ways had failed. Makes perfect sense why they did what they did and when they did it. Seperating the 2 parts of Ukraine that want fundamentally different things would make the region infinitly more stable and be the best for everyone involved including the Ukranian fascists who would never lose an election again.

This could have been over quickly(that was clearly Russia's intent) but West gave Zelensky the weapons he asked for so now this is going to be a multi year thing. While I don't see Ukraine regaining more territory unless Kherson falls I also don't see Russia taking more land they're willing to give back to Ukraine(which is really the only route to this war ending settlement). All the land they currently hold were core goals of the mission(which is still not done) and are not going to be given back via negotations. That was probably the purpose of trying to take Kharkov. With Kharkov Oblast almost completley in Ukraine hands Russia has nothing over Ukraine and Ukraine has no reason to stop fighting even if they can't continue to regain territory.

It is going to suck but there's a clear cause and effect here and it didn't have to go down this way.
Click to expand...
What Russia did there in 2014 and prior to the FULL invasion didn't really destabilize the region and cause problems in the rest of the world like it did AFTER the full on invasion. That's why the US and other countries are reacting the way we are. The US invading Iraq was bad, but it was mainly a waste of money for us and it was just further destabilization in a region which was already destabilized. This is much, much worse...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,282,687
Messages
58,454,394
Members
176,041
Latest member
jaybuff

Share this page

Back
Top