Nobody interested in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

Post Reply New Topic

There are a lot of stupid ppl in the world.
The "trick" is to simply ignore them.

Keep in mind Russia has exhausted itself in this war against Ukraine.
Even if these ferals did gain power, they would still have a federation that is on the brink of collapsing.

That's exactly what makes me feel relatively safe - together with maintaining reasonably strong military of our own and with our NATO membership (including 10 000 American troops with their toys in Rzeszów), we're not an easy prey, while the predator is wounded from another fight. Chances for an attack are low and even if it happened, chances for successful defense are high.

Indeed. European part of NATO started to rapidly arm themselves and expand only after Feb 24, as a direct reaction to a full-scale invasion being a fact in Europe.
Before this, the main forces of Europe were pacifist beyond reason. The invasion was an unpleasant awakening from a sweet dream of peace and prosperity.

I don't disagree with the idea that NATO was a bit of a paper tiger and still is in many regards. But it is not relevant - placing weapons and troops ever closer to Russian borders is enough of a provocation regardless of the circumstances and would be enough for us if things were reversed.



As I said it was not intended as a put-down, you have said on multiple occasions that you are "semi-dyslexic" and either can't or won't read long pieces of writing and prefer videos where possible. That is fine, but I do not know of a video equivalent to that article I posted, which is a damning summary of how this war is a result of US/NATO provocation and the invasion probably justified by the laws of war in this age or any other.

The other "put downs"? You mean when I accused you of being susceptible to Western propaganda? Which you took very personally, but it was not so much to put you down, but a genuine warning. It was disappointing though. The same people who fell for Iraq, Syria, Libya are falling for the propaganda about this Russian situation one too. I expect it of them, but not you.

Nope.
Buildup of forces on your territory is something very different from violating a territory of another - especially that no offensive weapons were being placed in "new NATO" despite Kaliningrad Oblast boasting about pointing nukes at Warsaw.
The policy of not placing the treatie's offensive weapons nor permanent bases in the "new NATO" ended after Feb 24, as a direct result of it.

The line is drawn at direct, intentional violation of someone else's territory. That's why North Korea keeps making nuke tests and threats while being a synonyme of human right abuses and still no one decided to invade it.

You keep ignoring what I'm writing about East Europe and how conflicts that precede the very existence not only of NATO but even of USA are central to what's going on the ground.

Some proof before the mods decide to banhammer me:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=382599&p=8402125#p8402125

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=383638&p=8537082#p8537082



viewtopic.php?f=20&t=376874&p=8542004#p8542004



viewtopic.php?f=11&t=388925&p=8567807#p8567807



viewtopic.php?f=13&t=389127&p=8579419#p8579419





viewtopic.php?f=7&t=391638&p=8638512#p8638512



I apologise if it came off like a put down, but really I was just acknowledging something you have talked about on these forums. It is a 13,000 word article after all and espousing an opinion you are already hostile to. I knew it was very unlikely you would read it, but I still encourage you to do so, if only to understand my position better.

So far, I haven't seen any reasonable argument against a simple claim that war in Ukraine is about Ukraine.
The only "arguments" I saw/heard all sound like "you're naive" and other ad personams, followed by elaborate plots built on an assumption that I was wrong about it.

So far, my simple claim that a war between Russia and Ukraine is all about Ukraine and Russia and everyone else is just a third party reacting to it according to their own worldviews and interests - has not been proven wrong.

Yeah. Territorial incursions have become the "never hit a woman" of international politics since Nuremberg. The idea itself doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny but most unfortunately the act itself is so vilified and the propaganda so strong that it stops people investigating or even thinking about whatever lead up to the initiation of violence in the first place.



What's good for the goose is good for the gander. But it is difficult to see any way in which it was not the Russian side that was on the defensive for the years preceding. It is very clear which side was expanding its territory, which side unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty and which side was constantly calling for de-escalation, demilitarisation and buffer states and which side wanted other things...

It's a difficult argument to have with you magz because your standard of proof regarding covert (or sometimes very overt) activities is so high.

My standard of proof is generally high, especially in areas where I have both general knowledge and personal experiences.

You really think I haven't been thinking about what was going on where I live for all my life?
You really think I haven't been collecting and systemizing knowledge about things that had been a hovering threat to me since I can remember?
You really believe all my encounters with Russians and Ukrainians (who don't blend into a shapeless mass of "Russkies" for me, never did) contribute nothing to my understanding of how Russia and Ukraine came to the place where they are now?

You have very strange sources of news if answering these questions would lead you to the opinions you keep advocating here.

Nope, all you post here are just exceuses for an agressor. East European states don't want to be in Russian "zone of influence" - we know from experience what it means for us: corruption, poverty and lack of civil freedoms - and Kremlin can't accept it. That's why these states try to join NATO as quickly as possible, not to share the fate of Chechnya, Georgia and now Ukraine.
That causes NATO to expand. It's not pushed from the West, it's pulled from the East.

I see we are just going to be retreading the same circular arguments again, magz. Let's not do it for a fourth time. Though I would be interested in your thoughts on that essay I am keen for Pepe to read, if you find time to read it.

What I posted here are my thoughts about the essay. A short summary:
1. Alternative histories that never happened don't matter;
2. The war between Russia nad Ukraine is about Russia and Ukraine;
3. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is a part of a broader historical conflict that predates not only NATO but even USA.

In other words - the essay completely misses what it all is about.

Additionally:
4. Expansion of NATO was not pushed from the West, it was pulled from the East. So if you insist on driving parallels with USA, you would need Mexico asking, even begging China (and Russia, and anyone available) for protection from a possibility of invasion from USA. For years.
What other aspects of the situation would have to be there to make something like this even remotely realistic?

Never hit a woman. It doesn't matter what she is doing, or the people she hangs out with and what they are doing. It is always the man's fault.



Alright, magz, I don't think we will ever get anywhere on this topic. Let these posts be our last, at least until nukes start flying.

1. They absolutely do matter, it helps you understand how we got here and how things might be resolved. If you don't understand how a conflict started and what the parties involved want - e.g. if you believe the Western propaganda about Putin - there can be no negotiated settlement. The conflict only ends when one side is utterly devastated and prostrate. You might want that for Russia, but it is still more likely the outcome for Ukraine than Russia.
2. I disagree, but I'm not going to argue with you about it any more. This conflict is a textbook proxy war. I think, contrary to your claims of superior wisdom through proximity - this is a blind spot for you because of your proximity.
3. No, that particular conflict and those emotions have been commandeered, as it has been in previous wars.

It's mostly about Russia not wanting to let go of its "breadbasket."

And about their notion that Ukrainians are really runaway Russians.

And Russia not wanting to let go of their hold on Black Sea ports.

Russia used a perceived "threat" from NATO, and the alleged presence of "Nazis" in Ukraine, as justifications.

If Russia would succeed in Ukraine, various other nations would be next. Yes, a "domino effect," if you will.

Just like how the Nazi success in Poland----led to confidence in their success in invading France and much of northern Europe.

NATO and Europe (except for a few nations) reacted in an appropriate manner to a potential threat.