Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 339. (Read 73826 times)

"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)?

- "Russian soldiers are in Ukraine on a peaceful mission so they could not have killed anyone."
- "Russian Federation did not invade Ukraine."
- "Russian army provides security for the civilians and delivers humanitarian aid."
- "Russians did not kill those people because Russians did not stage this fake massacre."
- "Russians could not have killed them because they were Russian speakers."
- "Russian soldiers did not kill them because they run out of ammunition."
- "Russian soldiers did not kill them because they did not see any civilians in Bucha."
- "Russian soldiers did not kill them because they were too drunk to aim well."
- "Russian soldiers did not kill them because their guns jammed."
- "Russian soldiers did not kill them because they were too busy packaging and loading all the loot they have collected."
- "Russian soldiers did not kill them because Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin did not order the killings."

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

So what do we have so far...

• No dead civilians, they're actors, waving their hands.
• But if there are dead civilians then Ukrainians killed them.
• But if Russians killed them then we'll call the victims "nazis" and it's ok to kill them.
• But if they're not nazis then Americans have killed civilians so it's ok to kill civilians.
• But if it's not ok to kill civilians, they provoked Putin so it's their own fault.

Did I miss anything?

By not answering Branko is already answering. Once more people are not what they say, but what they do. In this case, what he does not do - giving an answer because he would have to recognise that, in his mind, his view of the world is about force and despotism.

Asking? He was taking, not asking - Donbas and Crimea. That's unacceptable.


Loaded question. The current Ukrainian government is democratically elected. I wouldn't be so sure about Putin's buddy Yanukovych, but it's definitely up to Ukrainians to decide whom they want to elect, not up to Putin.


Loaded question again. It's up to each country to decide if they want to join NATO, not up to Putin.

---

So I take it you think that Ukraine and subsequently every country in Europe should just give up and gift themselves to Putin.

Is that a yes or a no?

What was Putin asking them to do that was unacceptable?
Do you approve 2014 CIA organized coup in Ukraine?
Do you approve NATO spreading to east, although they promised they won't to Gorbachev?