Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 309. (Read 58977 times)

In light of the current situation, Ukraine's desire to join NATO is clearly justified. Ukraine was concerned about Russian aggression, especially after the Crimea, and wanted protection. NATO membership became a shared goal for the majority of Ukrainians after Russia's military occupation of Crimea. Who is Putin to deny them that right?

Regardless of how you spin it, aggression against a sovereign state with a legally elected government can never be justified. No matter what the issue, Ukraine's sovereignty and independence must be respected by all powers. Putin is a war criminal and it is time for Western countries to stand up to this aggression.

What right does Putin have to allow or forbid another independent country to do something? If Putin decides to attack neighboring countries that could even potentially have nuclear weapons, why hasn't he attacked China yet, which already has nuclear warheads? Or Turkey?

And sure, all Ukraine wants to do is to create new deathly weapons near Moscow. Because we have nothing else to do. Only Putin and his sick followers really think that Ukraine is focused only on Moscow. Probably, except for Ukraine, Russia does not even potentially interest anyone. Not everyone is like Russia. So they shouldn`t measure everyone by their own low standards.

Yes it is, and the only reason why this hasn't escalated far more than it is right now is cause of non-interference by other countries, at least militarily, they have only responded via sanctions, and though this sanctions continues to hit the economy hard, but Russia doesn't consider it to be a direct interference in the war, so the battle still continues solely between the two countries (Russia and Ukraine). I do not know for how long this mayhem will continue, but as long as it does, the entire Europe will feel the brunt in one way or another, with Ukraine bearing the most of it.
But isn't Ukraine a sovereign nation, don't they have the constitutional right to join any organization/institution they like and feel will be best for the progress and peace of their nation?

 Brutal Truth about How to Demilitarize and deNazify a Country
https://youtu.be/wf3pc_2n_s0
Great now Europe has tons of Nazi refugees to deal with, what possible could go wrong. Politicians really are the lowest form humans

Oliver Stone documentary from 2016 about Ukraine.

  https://www.bitchute.com/video/Dm8sLn03K33Q/

I will say that it's pretty slanted (toward Putin/Russia) probably in part so that Stone could get access to the Russian side players.  Probably in part because Stone is partial to them, or at least partial away from the West.  I'll also say that it aligns pretty well with my understandings (and/or guestimates) about things over there.

The history covers some stuff around WW-II times and before which is especially interesting.  I think it would have been important to cover a lot more about what happened in Soviet times and they would help explain a lot about what we are seeing now, but it was totally left out (which is why I critique it above.)

Anyway, the piece is well worth the watch for anyone who cares much about this stuff and/or wants to understand it better.

Putin warned Ukraine back in 2014, he said if they try to join NATO he would invade their country. They did try to join NATO and Putin shows that he is not in the making empty threats business. He is simply honoring his words.

The muppet Zelensky is responsible for all the deaths imo. You just don't fuck with a superpower especially if you have borders with that country.

What was Putin going to do, let Ukraine join NATO and have nuclear warheads right near of Moskow? Not happening.

If not military aggression, then what about the increasing a number of victims?
Russian propaganda seems to say that the civilian casualties were caused by their own fault. The Kremlin has committed a big lie.
The Kremlin spreads its baseless justifications for invading Ukraine. The aim of Russian propaganda is to build a support for their invasion of Ukraine.
The repercussions of a Russian attack would be catastrophic. Civilian casualties are increasing, destruction everywhere, and more severe famine will occur because energy prices are getting higher and food prices are also soaring due to this war.
Russia's attack on Ukraine is a threat to peace and a stability on the European continent and the world.

Yes, propaganda is a powerful weapon to be able to control public opinion about something. And Russia seems to be using their media to carry out propaganda acts by calling this not military aggression or war, but only as a warning to Ukraine for their mistakes https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/26/propaganda-filters- truth-ukraine-war-russian-media

That's your best argument? Asking for a proof that something wasn't dangerous?

You seem to be missing the whole point of Red Cross guaranty. I'm also going to assume that you're just trolling. From your own article "the evacuation has been postponed" yeah you try to make it through a checkpoint of the besieged city during a martial law after that.

Looks like there might be a chance for another ceasefire tomorrow. Lets hope that no one plays dirty, both sides let the civilians pass under the flag of the red cross, and "concern for safety" will not be used as an excuse to keep civilians in the besieged city for a full attack.

What does Europe plan to do with all the refugees of Ukraine?

Total refugees nearing 1.5 million: https://www.wsj.com/articles/refugees-fleeing-ukraine-now-represent-biggest-movement-of-people-in-europe-since-world-war-ii-11646493910

IMO the sovereignty of any one nation lies within their borders, so it should remain an individual country's choice whether they choose to accept refugees. What's remarkable is Poland's acceptance of Ukrainian refugees, they certainly haven't felt the same about immigration when it's people from Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Instead of accusing Poland of white supremacy, what logically applies here is the acceptance of western values and principles, and how that might pertain to a Ukrainian refugee versus a refugee of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

I recall this story, in which an Afghanistan refugee that was brought to the U.S. following its withdrawal was accused of sexually assaulting a 3 year old: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/afghan-refugee-convicted-assaulting-girl-quantico-82447258

He explained his actions as being acceptable in his culture (some culture, huh).

It would be nice to see more countries accept Ukrainians that are fleeing.

I did not say any of the things that you're ascribing to me. Still waiting for your proof that the evacuation route was safe and clear and that the Ukrainians were trying to hold the people hostage. So far there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

That's not how it works, you can't say you trust Red Cross's guarantee just to turn around and claim not to trust their judgement on safety. Red Cross is capable of calling off any operation themselves. Once people are allowed to leave they come under additional protection of the red cross, any attack on a red cross convoy is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention. You seriously trying to say that innocent civilians are safer in the city which is about to be attacked than under the protection of the Red Cross?

Yes, they should be allowed to leave. However Red Cross can't guarantee protection against shelling. It relies on Russian compliance, which did not happen.

And people did try to leave:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60629851

Jesus man!! Should innocent civilians (children, women, elderly etc) be allowed to leave an actively besieged city which is currently without power and water, with the guarantee from the Red Cross? Yes or No? If not, whos else guarantee do you want before letting those people go? Or are you saying no guarantee would be good enough for you and those people shouldn't be allowed to leave at all, as long as one side can claim that theres shelling going around?

Wearing a business suit does not make you a businessman.
Just like having a pickup truck does not make you a general contractor.

They should not appropriate Nazi symbols.  They are ultra-nationalists, I agree. 
But comparing them with Nazis is like comparing bumblebees to lions.

Whoever does such a comparison does not know what Nazis did in WWII.  Go visit concentration camp museums in Poland, then we'll talk.

Bombarding LOL, nice choice of words here comrade. I'm getting back at your original post about the evacuations and trying to understand what you were trying to say there. It didn't have any questions (unless you count WTF as a question). It sounded like you were blaming solely the Ukrainian side. Now you've confirmed that that's indeed what you are doing. Still unclear what you wanted to happen if there was indeed shelling going on, or any proof that there wasn't any shelling, but I don't expect a direct answer given your fallacious "both sides" argument. Have fun playing with your straw people.

Same dude in this RT report:

  https://www.bitchute.com/video/Rc42GWAySk9G/

I personally found the guy pretty credible and his narration aligns with what I have come to understand of the Donbas stuff over the years, and as I understand things, a lot of the other parts of the country are Donbas lite but just don't get the same kind of attention for whatever reason.  At the end of the day, the 2014 coup was pretty ugly on a lot of levels, and the following 8 years didn't put much lipstick on the pig.  It's pretty easy to understand how people from around the world could side with the non-Western-Favored element of the Ukrainian population without being particularly 'communist' or 'antifa' or whatever.  That said, a lot of them probably are and are shrewd enough to recognize Putin as a crypto-continuation of many of the Soviet project(s).

At the risk of seeming 'pro-Putin' (to idiots), I will say, again, that over the years I've found him much more credible than 'the West' which includes the ludicrous mainstream media.  Again, it's mostly a matter of there being some space in the 'basically say it like it is' zone of the psychological battlefield whereas the Western politicians and media seems to have a compulsion to lie even when it _doesn't_ help them in any tangible way.  It's weird, but there it is.  I can absolutely understand Russian national security needs and see the West as very much the aggressors who bend over backward to push the envelope seemingly with the fondest hopes of getting bad shit to happen.

My best guess is that Putin is smart and plans to simply pacify Ukraine to be a puppet state, buffer zone, and energy corridor.  Or parts of it at least.  Maybe some other minor targets of opportunity as well.  After that, just wait until Europe and the U.S. collapse, and it won't probably be a long wait.  I see a lot of people being sure that Putin is on the move to conquer the rest of Europe and the world.  What I don't see is any reasonable evidence for this, reasonable rationale for him to try it, or any reasonable hope of being able to do it.  Just a lot of hyperventilating.

The unfortunate element of this whole thing is that when all is said and done, Russia and it's leadership will be relatively stable and fairly well poised to capitalize on the implosion of the West, and the life he's made for the Russian people isn't a particularly great one.  I suspect that if Putin's real controllers let their true colors be shown, it will be even worse.

Maybe, but i just don't have a more reliable source to use. One side will always exaggerate and the other will always minimize their losses. Also, logically thinking the country has been flooded with weapons, 18yr olds are given out weapons after 3day training. They released some prisoners to fight and there are reports of saboteurs, marauders as expected in any conflict. In fact Security Service of Ukraine killed Denis Kireev, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating group, during his detention. He was suspected of treason. Ukraine even takes out its own negotiator for treason. So its safe to assume that some of the civilian casualties can be attributed to Ukrainian side too. Sure there are a ton of reports of friendly fires etc

Edit: No its not weak at all, and frankly absolutes don't matter as long as we compare apples to apples. Think its safe to assume that in all other conflicts Afghanistan, Kosovo, Syria, Iraq etc.. OHCHR had the same problems. And I cant imagine how this conflict is any different. If numbers are lower then they would be lower for all the other conflicts as well.

I have enough critical thinking skills to not trust any side to the conflict, that's why i find Tashs and Etranger sources silly. But UN report showing that objectively so far civilian casualties are relatively low when comparing them to any other similar conflict. (But we really haven't entered urban warfare yet.) And now we just saw how one side refused to let civilians leave besieged city which is under shelling because it didn't trust Red Cross's guarantees. I don't know how anyone can spin that positively

And speaks of above 1000 civilian casualties confirmed including wounded. This seems like a low figure, but the report in full clearly states that:


on top of that, there is no way to effective account for the total number and the verification of the numbers is at least, weak:


Some of the wide area pictures show a large number of civilian buildings destroyed. It is impossible that has happened without significant casualties.