USSR invades Ukraine. (16 Viewers)
- Thread starter Alan Dugdales Moustache
- Start date
You and your little band of followers don't seem to grasp the very basic concept of mutual exclusivity.
Using your pathetic thought process I can only assume that you supported the Nazi actions in Europe and their horrific war crimes.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Where has this childish mentality come from that if you agree with an individual, organisation or government’s stance on one issue you must automatically agree with them on everything. 6th form debating gets thrown around a lot but this is a primary school mentality. It is possible to agree with a stance on Ukraine while disagreeing with the same person, organisation or government on their stance on Saudi Arabia.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
You made a comment that doubted there was any US commentators who believed the notion Russia were provoked into the war
I have then showed numerous items linking them. One is dismissed as a crank and the rest of it is ignored
You never have any answers to anyone who askes serious questions so act like a child be treated like one.
There is no doubt at all that the foreign policy of the US under Bush was to view Russia as an enemy as soon as the Wests puppet Gorbachov left office. That is a cold hard fact.
When a Russian leader is then found in only underpants in a stupor the US feared the Russian state was going to drift back into its old ways. So it wanted isolationist post Cold War annexation of the state and ultimately wanted the regime change it thought it would get with their puppet. A foolish strategy that will always be doomed for failure.
Bush and every subsequent president has been building up a strategy of alienation and trying to provoke them into a situation where it reacts and then through Western "support" it can be kept for as long as takes in a conflict to - in its stupid ideological view - become a western country with the old KGB guard gone.
The Saudi Arabia link is important as its the same thing. Big arms contract to enable its dirty work in the Middle East to be achieved by proxy. Exactly the same as its strategy in Ukraine in effect. Arm and do their bidding.
In Ukraine of course its worse as if this war ever does end much of the country will be reduced to rubble - many cities are already - so the good old US and its Western Alliance can then embark on great big construction projects with great big price tags and great big Ukrainian debts - so the US ultimately then own Ukraine (in effect it already does)
That is the reality - wake up to it
Grendel
Well-Known Member
This is also an excellent article which everyone should read
It does also show that the US and the West thought sanctions would bring Russia to its knees (a real nonsense argument even if it worked - which it never would - as it ignores the impact of fairly recent history on destitution to the population) and once that failed it has to now attempt to keep this war going and somehow Westernise Russia by force once it owns Ukraine
www.hoover.org
It does also show that the US and the West thought sanctions would bring Russia to its knees (a real nonsense argument even if it worked - which it never would - as it ignores the impact of fairly recent history on destitution to the population) and once that failed it has to now attempt to keep this war going and somehow Westernise Russia by force once it owns Ukraine
What Is America’s Strategic Interest In Ukraine?
As the Ukraine war enters its twelfth month, the military situation remains a stalemate, but a stalemate that gives the political advantage to Russia. If Russia can hold most of the territory in the oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson that it annexed on Sept. 30, 2022, it will...
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Isn’t the only countries strategy that counts here is Ukraines strategy of not bending to Russia? Any other countries strategy that matters is a response to Ukraines strategy.
Also Russia has always had the same strategy as the West. Disruption and interference. Maybe the US should make a fresh invasion of Cuba so we can see who calls for Cuba to concede more land and everyone who doesn’t agree has a blood lust. For the record I’ll be taking the stance that Cuba shouldn’t concede. I suspect that a few people who think Ukraine should concede will juxtapose position and agree with me. I guess it depends on who’s doing the invading and possibly in the US’s case who the president is. If Trump was in charge I can already hear the calls that America was provoked. Some people just love a wrong un. Trump and Putin are two cheeks of the same arse.
Also Russia has always had the same strategy as the West. Disruption and interference. Maybe the US should make a fresh invasion of Cuba so we can see who calls for Cuba to concede more land and everyone who doesn’t agree has a blood lust. For the record I’ll be taking the stance that Cuba shouldn’t concede. I suspect that a few people who think Ukraine should concede will juxtapose position and agree with me. I guess it depends on who’s doing the invading and possibly in the US’s case who the president is. If Trump was in charge I can already hear the calls that America was provoked. Some people just love a wrong un. Trump and Putin are two cheeks of the same arse.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No one on this forum has not said Ukraine are perfectly entitled to defend their country Tony no one has ever said otherwise
This is also an excellent article which everyone should read
It does also show that the US and the West thought sanctions would bring Russia to its knees (a real nonsense argument even if it worked - which it never would - as it ignores the impact of fairly recent history on destitution to the population) and once that failed it has to now attempt to keep this war going and somehow Westernise Russia by force once it owns Ukraine
What Is America’s Strategic Interest In Ukraine?
As the Ukraine war enters its twelfth month, the military situation remains a stalemate, but a stalemate that gives the political advantage to Russia. If Russia can hold most of the territory in the oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson that it annexed on Sept. 30, 2022, it will...
You don't help yourself.
That guy published a piece titled 'Why Russia Won't Invade Ukraine'
Three whole days later Russia invaded Ukraine.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Why does that actually matter? His analysis of the situation is entirely accurate on this article
Tony voted for UKIP and then remain. Hes a Tory voter at heart
This is total pitiful deflection from the basic point the US foreign policy is at play here in exactly the same way it is in the Middle East and its the US that will continue to provoke this war and it has all the cards
I can help myself perfectly well thanks - I don't need a few buddies around me to present my argument
Grendel
Well-Known Member
This article does mention someone who it seems has a diagnosis from a poster on here as being a crank but its a great read
nymag.com
Is America to Blame for Russia’s War in Ukraine?
No, but U.S. policy decisions might have caused it.
nymag.com
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Oh and as a follow up to this (no I am not talking to myself and so this is not an indication of a mental disorder) I would not big up my comment on the war at the start as according to you Tony sanctions meant they would run out of weapons and the war would end in 10 days - ooops
Here is Tony without the help of WIKI
"More coming out about how the Russian shock and awe tactic looks to be backfiring, how the only shock and awe is the resistance that Russian forces are facing. How unprepared they were for this battle, how unprepared they are to rearm and if the Ukrainians can hold out for 10 days Russia will be forced to the table
Also looks like sanctions will work because Russia is reliant on the west for raw materials to replenish arms."
This article does mention someone who it seems has a diagnosis from a poster on here as being a crank but its a great read
Is America to Blame for Russia’s War in Ukraine?
No, but U.S. policy decisions might have caused it.
Did you even read it?
It shits on your guy Mearsheimer and says the exact opposite to what you're saying.
Classic.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Without Western intervention it would fall. If it falls then Putin has just annexed an enormous wedge of mainland Europe and taken a country off the map.
You and others don’t see this as a problem.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
“For one thing, much of it rests on the presumption that Putin would have acquiesced to a genuinely neutral Ukraine as opposed to one that marched in lockstep with Russia’s interests. Given that Putin declared Ukraine an “inalienable part” of Russia’s “spiritual space” when justifying his invasion, it is not obvious that this is the case.”Did you even read it?
It shits on your guy Mearsheimer and says the exact opposite to what you're saying.
Classic.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Did you even read it?
It shits on your guy Mearsheimer and says the exact opposite to what you're saying.
Classic.
Yes of course I read it - As I have said I am trying to look at the balancing points of the argument - something you are incapable of
Sorry next time (which I did do on one other article) is to point this is looking at both angles
Look at this quote which is very prophetic as I am sure you will agree
… In 2014, Henry Kissinger, the personification of the American foreign policy establishment, argued, “The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country.” If “Ukraine is to survive and thrive,” he insisted, “it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.”
This is an excellent point
In other words unlike you I am not a simple binary person who lives in a good vs bad world of chocolate box politics.
The other curious point is it says this
"That said, slippage between explanation and justification is actually happening on both sides of the debate over Putin’s motives. A small minority of the left in the U.S. is so fixated on its contempt for American imperialism that it suggests that Russia is justified in seeing a western-aligned Ukraine as an affront to their security. From this point of view, American support for Ukraine’s integration with Europe was not merely reckless but immoral: Supporting Ukraine’s assertion of independence from Moscow was an imperial act of aggression against Russia, as though Putin were entitled to veto power over Ukrainian foreign policy as a matter of right."
That strikes a cord don't you think?
This article in fact does neither does it? It actually acknowledges the provocation but concludes it was a free choice - which you could say it was or you could argue it was an inevitability through provocation.
Either way we can now surely agree the issue is complex and driven by outside forces
Oh now I am going to trigger you
West acts tough with Russia as we're too feeble to stand up to China
PETER HITCHENS: I'm told I am supporting the invasion by saying we provoked it. But if I warn a child that, if he annoys a wasp, it will sting him, am I supporting the wasp?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
‘Armchair general’ for not supporting Ukraine surrendering territory to achieve a temporary ceasefire? Got it.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The generals are the ones who want the death and destruction to carry on. Own it.
By that logic you support Nazi Germany. Own that.
Last edited:
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
They want Russia’s military defeat. Ukraine was already persuaded to give up Crimea in 2014, a full scale invasion happened anyway just 8 years later.
There is zero reason to believe that Ukraine giving up more territory is going to result in a different outcome. Putin is on record as saying he doesn’t recognise Ukraine’s right to exist-a policy of appeasement will change nothing.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
But this is irrelevant
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
No it isn’t. We have already tried non intervention and persuading Ukraine to surrender territory. It changed nothing.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Well done, we got there in the end.
"With the death toll now at 51 people, 10% of the village's pre-war population were killed in one Russian attack"
That's absolutely tragic. Fuck sake.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Russia clearly worried about Crimea enough that its considering moving its fleet to a port in one of the other countries it’s illegally annexed
How many countries has the guy we’re meant to believe is capable of being negotiated with now illegally annexed? Is it 3? Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia? More?
Abkhazia: Russia to build naval base in Georgian separatist region, says local leader
The claim comes from the separatist region as Kyiv steps up attacks on Moscow's Black Sea fleet.
www.bbc.co.uk
How many countries has the guy we’re meant to believe is capable of being negotiated with now illegally annexed? Is it 3? Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia? More?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
its entirely irrelevant if you don’t perceive Russia as a threat to us and there will be negative impacts to our economy - I don’t see that so yes it’s irrelevant