[RD] Russia Invades Ukraine--Act 3: Ride of the Valkyries

Status
Not open for further replies.
Incorrect. Just as it's relevant to Iranian interests when the US interferes with Iraq (and vice versa), the invasion of a country puts nearby countries on high alert (if not outright alarm). Nearby countries being in, or at least relevant to the EU in terms of things like economy (import / export, not currency) and so on, means it is a matter of interest. Nobody said "obligation", for the record. But Russia invading a country in Eastern Europe? Yes, that's relevant to Europeans, almost by definition.

Not to forget that Russian demands included NATO withdrawing troops from member states who joined since 1997. It wasn't just Ukraine who were threatened but the whole of what used to be within the USSRs sphere of influence.
 
Lets imagine BizaroWorld where Ukraine invaded Russia.

I would have been just as pissed off at Ukraine as I am towards Russia right now. Because it meant starting a war where people are killed. I would want Russia to get as much support as Ukraine is now getting. I would want Russia to be able to repel the invaders.
But it seems Red Elk and Snorrius believe I would have been cheering Ukraine on, because of my inherent hatred towards Russia.

That seems to be the reason for the disconnect.
 
Lets imagine BizaroWorld where Ukraine invaded Russia.

I would have been just as pissed off at Ukraine as I am towards Russia right now.
Your media would spin it as Russian attack, like it did with Georgian war.
And you would be pissed off at Russia just like you are now.
 
Helpful for what, you are seriously expecting we'll reach agreement? :)
We'll write a dozen more posts, try to mock each other couple of times and remain where we are.
No, I don't expect agreement. I have accepted this a long time ago.
But it's a simple question I am asking. Which remains unanswered.
Which is why I was glad you thought it was lack of effort that was the issue, since I know it isn't.

I would accept: I place no responsibility at Putin for invading Ukraine, because he looks really good topless on a horse. There would be some agreement, I wouldn't find it a convincing argument, but I am not looking for an argument.
Because your reasons for not placing responsibility at Putin for invading Ukraine, are your reasons, so you'd be correct whatever you would post.

Your media would spin it as Russian attack, like it did with Georgian war.
And you would be pissed off at Russia just like you are now.
It's quite difficult to reverse invade.

And who I am pissed off at is my decision, not yours.
 
Your media would spin it as Russian attack, like it did with Georgian war.
And you would be pissed off at Russia just like you are now.
You sincerely believe that if Ukraine invaded Russia, the media we consume would present it as Russia invading Ukraine?

Do you understand the absolute bitter irony of this, given that we've spent pages trying to get Russian posters (including yourself) to call Russia's invasion of Ukraine an actual invasion (and war)? Snorrius was literally not too long ago talking about how it can't be called a war because that means something specific that apparently isn't valid in-context.
 
Actually, it does not follow. EU had no obligations towards Ukraine, they have no rational reasons to make themselves enemy of Russia. They could just voice their concerns, continue to make mutual business and live happily with cheap gas ever after.
Peace in Europe is the responsibility of all. Sorry, you are not allowed to wage war and subjugate peoples in the 21st century in Europe without expecting a harsh answer.

We are prepared. Make sure you are too.

Understanding your opponents position requires a little effort, which you seem to be unwilling to take.
Oh it's going to cost us a lot in the short term. But this is a price worth paying. Have no illusion, everybody knew in Europe that this miscalculation is going to be costly. Fortunately, most of us are willing to pay this price. It is our moral obligation to do so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It took you some effort to find explanation which didn't involve your side doing something wrong.
I actually think, that part of western problem is that we are used to criticise only ourselves. One of books I reread was A question of (German) guilt by Karl Jaspers.
I certainly feel some guilt. For example when my Russian colleague was showing me photos of vacation in Crimea and I didnt say word of disapproval.
Lot of people and governments were like me. So called political correctness and keeping mind your business. The general mode represented by Merkel´s Germany let it solve by itself.
 
Serbia was putting down a revolt in one of its own provinces (Kosovo). Ring a bell with Ukraine trying to force its own provinces back (Donbas etc)?
Then again, listen to that, @r16 , we have nukes so proceed with caution unless you want to be vaporized :) More on this thread.
My bad, thought I was replying to our Russian forum members here.
 
I feel that too. This thread is overflowing with Westerners expressing guilt, self-humiliation and political correctness.
The question is why don't you express some critique towards your "own". Why do you become a yesman when it comes to Russian affairs. The fact none of you have said that what Putin is doing is wrong is mind boggling. Tribal gut feelings and neglecting rational thinking runs deep in the Russian society it seems. Every action of the Russian elite you justify, no matter how wrong they are. Every single Russian sin you whitewash (e.g. bombing of hospitals, Bucha etc.).

Self-awareness is key to self-improvement. I'm sad that some lack this useful skill and some go overboard with it.
 
You sincerely believe that if Ukraine invaded Russia, the media we consume would present it as Russia invading Ukraine?
Yes, I remember when our media reported Iraq's invasion into the US.

Do you understand the absolute bitter irony of this, given that we've spent pages trying to get Russian posters (including yourself) to call Russia's invasion of Ukraine an actual invasion (and war)? Snorrius was literally not too long ago talking about how it can't be called a war because that means something specific that apparently isn't valid in-context.
But Gorbles, do you expect them to join this pro-Ukrainian cheerleading team, which advocates literally killing Russians and inflicting as much economic pain on common folks as possible? :)

I guess that's another reason for the disconnect. When I asked why there's no responsibility placed at Putin's feet for the invasion, the obvious answer is: what invasion?
This is an intervention caused by the West, the EU, Ukraine, NATO and the Intervention Fairy. Russia is a blameless helpless passenger being forced to liberate the good people of Ukraine.
The added lebensraum is just collateral benefit.
 

The BBC has seen significant evidence that Russian forces in occupied areas of Ukraine have been systematically seizing not only Ukrainian grain, but also sunflower seeds from local farmers.
We have spoken to farmers who have lost their crops, and tracked messages in private and public social media groups showing how the seeds are transported from southern and eastern occupied parts of Ukraine to Russia.
The two countries were the world's biggest exporters of sunflower oil in 2021, with Ukraine selling 5.1 million tonnes of oil and Russia 3.1 million.
Now it appears that Russian oil is partially being produced from Ukrainian seeds, one of the symbols of the country's agriculture.
In a closed WhatsApp chat with about 500 participants, users placed orders to transport crops from occupied parts of Ukraine to Russia. Screenshots of the chat were shared with the BBC by one of its members.
"Seeds. From Chernihivka, Zaporizhzhia region [Ukraine] to Rostov-on-Don [Russia]. Large volumes," wrote one member on 18 July.

The BBC also commented on the new quoting functionality of Civfanatics, and deemed it rubbish
 

Russia has accused the US of direct involvement in the war in Ukraine for the first time.
A spokesperson for Moscow's defence ministry alleged the US was approving targets for American-made Himars artillery used by Kyiv's forces.
Lt Gen Igor Konashenkov said intercepted calls between Ukrainian officials revealed the link. The BBC could not independently verify this.
Russia previously accused Washington of fighting a "proxy war" in Ukraine.
A spokesperson for the Pentagon said it provided the Ukrainians with "detailed, time-sensitive information to help them understand the threats they face and defend their country against Russian aggression".
Himars is a multiple rocket system which can launch precision-guided missiles at targets as far as 70km (45 miles) away - far further than the artillery that Ukraine previously had.

They are also believed to be more accurate than their Russian equivalents.
Mr Konashenkov said: "It is the Biden administration that is directly responsible for all rocket attacks approved by Kyiv on residential areas and civilian infrastructure facilities in settlements of Donbas and other regions that caused mass deaths of civilians."

BizaroWorld!

In April, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said US President Joe Biden's decision to supply Ukraine with billions of dollars worth of arms meant "Nato, in essence, is engaged in a war with Russia through a proxy and is arming that proxy".
"War means war," the 72-year-old warned.

BizaroWorld!
 

Hundreds of Ukrainians, including civilians and local politicians, are being subjected to forced detentions by Russian forces in occupied regions, the UN has told the BBC.
Officials said they had verified some 271 cases of forced detentions, with many of those seized facing torture.
Separately, a Ukrainian politician told the BBC that he was waterboarded after being abducted by the Russian military.
Russia's defence ministry did not reply to a request for comment on the claims.
Oleh Pylypenko, the elected head of the Shevchenkivska united territorial community in southern Ukraine, said he was seized by Russian paratroopers near Kherson on 10 March while delivering aid to constituents.

Warning: this article contains descriptions of torture
 
Actually, it does not follow. EU had no obligations towards Ukraine, they have no rational reasons to make themselves enemy of Russia. They could just voice their concerns, continue to make mutual business and live happily with cheap gas ever after.
Russia had those obligations, to Ukraine and to other signatories. And just railroaded the lot. While making threats. And THEN it attacked Ukraine.

The Russian memory is spotty and selective (which makes a bit of a joke of your claim of somehow representing "political maturity", you don't even have functioning recollection so that kills any prospect for you) and this did not begin with Russia attacking Ukraine, but with demanding NATO abandon all its eastern member states, and the US withdraw across the Atlantic – or else Russia would resort to unspecified military means. And those unspecified military means turned out to mean an undeclared war of aggression on Ukraine – which is the situation now playing out. There was never any prospect of "just" continuing to make business with Russia. That was not, and is not, what this Russian government wanted and wants. But it does make it pretty pointless to talk about with Russians, since you don't recall these things anyway. (They're inconvenient...)

That it was all a massive Russian miscalculation (massive over–estimation of self, massive under-estimation of every other part, and of China's actual potential helpfulness under the circumstances to boot) does not detract from this being entirely what the Russian government set up all by itself – and at the timeline of its own choice. It's just that the presumed everyone else would just obligingly comply with the Kremlin's wishful thinking, to their detriment across the board, and that was a mistaken calculation (not really a calculation, more like believing your own propaganda and despising everyone else).

This was never about just Ukraine. It did not start over just Ukraine, and Russia never demanded "just" Ukraine. The fact that it is now looking like getting stuck in Ukraine for some duration does not change how it started.
 
Ok, but this won't end nicely.
I knew it on February 24, 2022.

Of course you have the right to be (more than) angry, but this isn't helping with anything. At best it will drive away all the Russian posters, which wouldn't benefit you in any substantial way.
I'd gladly take your advice to heart if I'd seen a single instance of you condemning Russia's actions in this thread.
 
The post was in response to a claim about ethical condemnation by "the world", so here's some charity.

The context of your post was economic sanctions, not ethical condemnations.

Your media would spin it as Russian attack, like it did with Georgian war.
And you would be pissed off at Russia just like you are now.

It's pretty uncharitable to tell people that what they state as their hypothetical stances are wrong, or a lie, and that they actually wouldn't hold those opinions.

This is akin to someone stating that if Putin were to commence an unprovoked war of aggression against the Japanese mainland tomorrow morning, that the Russian media would spin it as fascist Japan backing Russia into a corner, and that you'd buy those claims. (Note that I'm not making this claim, just pointing out how absurd yours is.)

I don't see how the argument works: "when x lied about war and invaded, we didn't like it, and when y lied about war and invaded, we didn't like it and sanctioned and provided the other side with weapons, so we are doing the same".

One reason it's hard to understand is probably because nobody is making that argument, it's one that you've fabricated.
 
I knew it on February 24, 2022.


I'd gladly take your advice to heart if I'd seen a single instance of you condemning Russia's actions in this thread.
Are you sure? I have been condemning Russia (over the conflict with Ukraine) since Crimea, calling the annexation of Crimea a major mistake and illegal. Then said many times how Russia is too greedy (given it already annexed Crimea, it should at least have east Ukraine return to Ukrainian control). And I also said many times in this thread how I am against the war.
You don't take into account that the war now is ongoing, so there's no longer any point in saying "let the war stop", as if it will stop because some poster here (even if he has the most posts ^_^ ) said so. Russia (unless militarily defeated) is set to de facto annex more of Ukraine, which isn't my fault either.
 
Last edited:
It's pretty uncharitable to tell people that what they state as their hypothetical stances are wrong, or a lie, and that they actually wouldn't hold those opinions.
As uncharitable as calling people paid propagandists and notorious liars or more?
 
I don't see how the argument works: "when x lied about war and invaded, we didn't like it, and when y lied about war and invaded, we didn't like it and sanctioned and provided the other side with weapons, so we are doing the same".
As said, no one made that argument (except you then) – but back in the day what WAS being said over the US invasion of Iraq and forming its "coalition of the willing" was that it was a hugely dangerous, and set an awful precedent, and the US really should not do it, since there might be hell to pay down the line. Which there was, viz Russia milking the US BS for all its worth these days, even as the US conclusion has been that it was a bunch of huge mistakes. (Yes, it is unfair that the US can make catastrophic mistakes, for others – even when having them pointed out in advance – and due to its power, wealth and position still manages to walk away mostly unhurt, it shook-up, from the ensuing car-wreck, leaving a massive trail of dead bodies.)

And that's aside from public protests and various foreign governments advising the US to stop and desist in 2003, because the sanctions were working, and the premise for an invasion was a pack of lies.

There are reasons the UN is a non-entity these days, and Russia can pee all over Guterrez with impunity (hardly a comment on it anymore), and it largely goes back to what the US has done in the mid-East the last couple of decades. We are hardly better off for it, any of us, however. It just highlights that the mechanisms that are operative now are outright containment and deterrence, mostly economic and directly military. If anything it has in the short term strengthened the US. No nation in their right mind picks an economic war with the US – that's also part of the unfairly privileged US position, that makes it neither good nor wise by default. But since the UN system is now on life support anyway, that kind of economic and military strength the US still possess just became even more crucial.
 
So "might is right", only "now primarily economic might is right". Doesn't sound like an ethical argument either.
Won't help when half the planet (economically too, mind) is in another group, which is the way things are going.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom