Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 337. (Read 76906 times)

You are feeding a dangerous and destructive illusion. Ukraine did not have and does not have a chance to defeat Russia. The only question is the number of victims and the scale of destruction. According to NATO estimates, 400 thousand soldiers are needed to take control over Ukraine only east of the Dnieper, Russia, together with the people's militia of Donbass, used almost half as many. Almost 600,000 people were mobilized and armed from the Ukrainian side along with the defense units. Numerical superiority should not be misleading when the military infrastructure is badly destroyed, airfields, weapons depots, fuel depots, military equipment - everywhere there are heavy losses from missile strikes by Caliber and other high-precision weapons. The army of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is now actually deprived of the ability to maneuver in a coordinated manner, it is divided into separate formations under the control of field commanders, and all supply logistics east of the Dnieper is seriously disrupted. This anarchist resistance of Ukraine on naked patriotism, I think, will quickly dry up due to its complete hopelessness and senselessness.

Ok so Russia doing the same shit US and NATO did. Big powers do what big powers do, wage wars for sphere of influence. All are shit. I'm assuming you're a logical person, and addressing the issue starting with the biggest offenders? And being objective you covered demolition of Raqqa the city about the size of Mariupol, how many children, women, elderly died? How many maternity wards, hospitals, kindergartens were bombed there, what percentage of infrastructure was left standing? How does it compare to Mariupol, in term of civilian casualties?


Oh boy, really hoping you didn't mean that. So gov just needs to convince average TV watching population that the regime is despotic, and that somehow makes killing their children better? Dehumanizing opponent is part of every warfare, and we're watching unprecedented levels of this here, i expect lots of books written about psy ops, and media coverage of this war after this is all over. Do you not see the irony in your own words, by your logic Russians are justified because they're fighting Nazis, a despotic regime. Is DPRK, Democratic Republic of the Congo are democracies (after all, it's in their name), Uzbekistan, Hungry a democracy, where is a cutoff? Care to rate democracy in Ukraine? If you can judge school bombings by their level of "democracisness" would you be able to rate a bunch of them if i provide examples?


Care to look up how many mixed Ukrainian/Russian families lived in Ukraine? How many held dual citizenship (even though Ukraine doesn't seem to allow it), how many of those predominately Russian speaking cities in east Ukraine on the boarder with Russia had family/relatives in Russia that can shelter them? Let me know what you find



Well one of the main units assaulting Mariupol is from Donbass, lots of Units (navy) is from Crimea, which Ukraine and majority of the world still considers to be part of Ukraine, so how could it be genocide??? Surely you're not just parroting talking points by mass media, and can explain which category of people is being targeted for you to think it's a genocide?


There's always a choice. Unlike Bandera, I think my grandparents would have higher chances staying in a war zone than trying to go to Nazi Germany. It's an oxymoron to claim genocide when hundreds of thousands of people go to the country supposedly committing said genocide.

If Ukraine is an independent country, then why Joe Biden, by using financial intimidation, dictated to Ukraine which Prosecutor General should be there?


You can read the speech of the Secretary General of NATO dated January 10, 2022, about Ukraine was being prepared for join to the alliance.

When NATO refused Russia's demand to provide guarantees that Ukraine would never join the alliance, Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Aleksandr Grushko warned:

Though Ukraine is not an official member of alliance, but according to the NATO Secretary General, their block have trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops who are now at war with Russia, NATO supplies Ukraine with various types of weapons. I suppose no one will dispute the fact that the alliance forces are taking part in this military conflict on the side of Ukraine. Although the alliance doesn't want to enter into a direct confrontation with Russia, what is happening now is more like NATO fights against Russia to the last Ukrainian.


Even taking into account military actions, I believe that in the civilized world it is unacceptable to talk about "low deaths" among civilians. Need to constantly keep in mind that these are not just numbers but human pain, injuries and broken destinies.

USA spent nothing,,,took their money and gave it to their own companies to "rebuild" what they destroyed, at exorbitant prices

Work in progress.


What about what about what about what about what about what about what about

However the US did spend many billions on infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that's settled then, Putin's gonna pay.

That requires Ukraine to win on battlefield, or USA paying few trillions to Libya, Syria, Iraq etc, to give the world and Russia an example

"Both sides" but only Ukraine must make concessions. Not very "peaceful" is it? To reward the invader.

Here is a proper "peaceful solution" - Russian army goes back to Russia (2013 borders) and Russia pays to restore Ukrainian infrastructure plus large compensations for victims.

As opposed to the morally upstanding and incorruptible Russian cleptocracy goverment?

The break away republics (Luhansk, Donetsk and whatever other country will form from the Ukraine corruption rubble) will be neutral, because the local people will vote for it. No-one else has a say in the matter.

That's what you got from my post?


From all that, the only thing that would not accept, like any other country in the world, is to give away part of its territory without putting up a fight.

Do you think Putin would ever accept those conditions anyway?

They should reject disarming, accept neutrality, ask for EU membership,  reject Donbas area as sovereign countries (but give them broad autonomy inside Ukraine), and they should forget about Crimea

Each passing day more people will die and more both sides will be reluctant to give up fighting and looking for peaceful solution

Of course, they could both choose to be stubborn

Ironically enough, Putin is demanding that Ukraine remains neutral and disarm themselves in order for the war to end. You don't think Russia wouldn't immediately invade once more after some number of years when Ukraine is fully demilitarized? If you don't think trusting the West is a good idea, fine. Putin wouldn't be the lesser of two evils though.

I didn't mention NATO attacking Ukraine

So you are basing the right of Putin to invade Ukraine on the theory that NATO would attack Ukraine. How would that exactly be? Like all the sudden the US would decide to invade an European country, which in your own theory has a CIA created government, basically alienating in the process all his major allies by causing a war in Europe?

Could it be that the explanation of why the Ukrainian people and army have decided to fight a cruel and inhuman destruction machine such as Putin's army because it is actually them that do not want to be ruled by such an animal?

Like going to Russia was free choice for most of them... And when there is war and your life is at question, going to Russia is probably better option than die.

Offcourse it's unaceptable. You can call 2014 coup organized by CIA, but I approve that Ukrainians wanted to get rid of president who worked in interest of Russia and not his own country.
I approve that independent country can decide themselves what organisation they want to join. Especially when they such neighbour like Russia. I talk from my country perspective also. Joining NATO was one of best things which happened to my country.
And I'm not sure why there is so much talk about Ukraine joining NATO when there is no sign that they would be accepted anytine soon. They weren't accepted in 2008, after 2014 it become even more unlikely.
Also, Russia broke their promises too. They had to provide security assurances to Ukraine after they get rid of nuclear weapon.

So Putin is killing Ukrainians to save them from being killed by Americans? What if Ukrainians prefer not to be "saved"?

---

I've seen (can't find the source, sorry) a more insane variation of this with regards to Mariupol:

"This is not genocide against Ukrainians because Russian forces are killing Russian (or Russian-speaking) civilians".

---

Another soon-to-be-called-fake about looting gangs (can you imagine the budget Ukrainians must have had to make all this):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLA5YimatXY

USA would attack them, and millions would die. Look no further than Libya...USA promised them security after they destroy WMDs, and look what happened.
USA also promised not to expand NATO, and look what happened. USA installed Saddam and look what happened to their friend. USA created Osama bin Laden,
and look what happened to him.
Never trust USA.

As Putin said in the interview you don't want to watch: "the more we trusted USA, the more greedy they became"

Once more, I would need you to clarify your position: Are you saying that Putin has invaded Ukraine because if not more people would have died? And if so, what are the grounds for such an assertion?

For now, your timeline of posts is:

- Ukraine wanted to be invaded.
- Putin is right in invading because Ukraine did not do as told, so he is in his right to kill them.
- Putin can invade Ukraine because the US blockaded Cuba in the 60s.
- Putin can commit crimes against peace and humanity because others committed them before.
- Putin is doing this because he is trying to avoid people being killed.

I just cannot wait for your next justification for the shelling of cities, the deaths of thousands of young Russian soldiers and the criminal killing of Ukrainian children . It is amazing how children can make excuses for their behaviour (I forgot my homework at home, he started first...) and how this sometimes goes into adulthood, just a bit more elaborated (sometimes anyway).


You are a fountain of humour. I obviously was speaking about the moral right or at least an international mandate of shorts, not about the permission from his own politicians (with no opposition visible) and the laws that he makes to his own liking.

Your argument then is that Putin can do it because he controls an larger army and (in theory) superior to Ukraine's. On that you are honest, you are not even pretending to have any real reason. That is the argument that led to WWII, Hitler started the war because he felt his country was superior, his army better and somehow their were due something. It is well know to be the source of escalation and hundreds of years of war that have made Europe (and Russia) weaker in each iteration.

Can anyone stop Putin? It depends of what you understand by stopping. For example, can someone stop him from invading Kyiv? Apparently yes. The Ukrainian army and people.  Can anyone stop him from imposing a regime in Ukraine? Apparently yes, the Ukrainian army and people.

Can someone stop him from killing children, his own young soldiers and defenceless civilians while impoverishing his own country? Probably not in the short term.

The current version of the Russian Constitution declares the priority of Russian law over international law. Putin made a request to the State Duma to use the army outside of Russia in the interests of Russia and the Duma said yes, and the Council of Federations also approved this. All the formalities have been met, in principle Putin is acting within the legal framework of Russia, so the answer to your question is yes.

I would formulate the question differently in the current realities: Can anyone stop Putin to tell Ukraine what they can and cannot do in their country (if it threatens Russia's interests)?

As comrade Xi said: if we did not kill 10 000 students at Tienanmen, CIA backed colour revolution would kill
10 million. Statesmen sometimes have to make tough decisions

Now you can continue to be moral verticals in a perfect world