Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 361. (Read 73486 times)

Right no significance to operation in Afghanistan which didn't overthrow Taliban, and US didn't put in its own puppet regime, which was also overthrown, and now the world once again back to recognizing Taliban as the governing body in Afghanistan? And operation in Iraq didn't overthrow Sadam? Operation in Lybia didn't overthrow Gaddafi? Assad in Syria and Maduro in Venezuelan (holding on so far). If anything overthrowing governments to take over or install your own friendly/puppet government seems to be the main purpose of every conflict after WW2. The cause of every war is never honestly made, no surprise there either. And I'm not even going to address calling the other side "intellectual impotent", and "incapable of critical thinking". Dehumanizing opponent is as old as war itself, and why Russia went with the whole denazification angle.

History judges "scariness" of wars by casualties, that's why UN reports of civilians killed is so important and one of few pieces of information that currently can be trusted.

I'm sorry to say this, but this war was already over when it started, the only unknowns now are how many casualties there will be, and whether Putins regime will be able to survive this. To limit the former any fuckery with Red Cross should be condemned by everyone no questions, as for the latter, we're currently seeing unprecedented global campaign to form "hearts and minds" of the population.

Of course it's justified, Putin never actually stopped making threats and provoking Ukraine, this current situation was foreseeable for the past decade at least, especially after the annexation of Crimea to Russia.

Certainly, invading a country isn't justifiable by any means, while Putin's threats are definitely real and concerning. There needs to be a stop to his madness, but I don't see it happening.

I do not underestimate the significance of what happened in those situations. And I'm not one to cover such horrific events as "special operations" and the like. The difference is that the war in Ukraine was started to overthrow the legitimately elected government. To change it to the one that would suit Russia, and which would not actually be the government, but would simply be an executor of orders from Moscow. The war was launched to wipe Ukraine off the map as a state. The war has begun because Russia does not consider Ukrainians an independent nation that is different from them, and is trying to convince the whole world about that. Although there is a big difference between us. Even the causes of the war are not honestly named. Russia stubbornly persuaded its own population that this is a "special operation in the Donbass", and the goal declared - "demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine."

The difference is that this is a war on two fronts - not only against Ukrainians, but also against Russians, who for decades have been made intellectual impotent, who only consume information from television and are incapable of critical thinking. And it is still unknown which of these wars is scarier and more dangerous. Ukrainians are fighting now. Can the same be said about the Russians?

I don't support anyone.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the west. Any sanctions on Russia by the west is simply bullshit. I am now reading news that the western governments are seizing the Russian properties. What happened to the right to own property^[1] which btw is a human right?

The west is free to invade any country they see fit, have the right to steal and kill but when some other country does the same thing suddenly they go apeshit. Here is Russia doing it in your face and you can't do anything other than banning Disney in Russia. Get mad.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property

You are correct, whataboutism, and thus we are now at the "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law" impasse. First mover advantage, whats done is done now just need to make sure no one else can follow and do the same because apparently what we did was so wrong but it benefited us greatly and got us to where we are now.

Ah, good old Russia is bad, but the U.S. is even worse card.
Does this have any relevance to the current situation? This is not a discussion of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.


Do you mean other than the UK, Australia, Spain, and Poland as members of the Coalition forces? But again, irrelevant to the current discussion.


So you literally support "the strongest bully in the playground" argument?

---

That would be true if Ukraine invaded Russia, not the other way around.


"Two wrongs don't make a right!"

no no no. Completely different, it wasn't a war, US just had an operation to bring freedom to Iraq which ended great with cookies and smiles. OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) led by the United States of America (Operation Iraqi Freedom), United Kingdom (Operation Telic), Australia, Spain and Poland, responsible for conducting and handling military operations. And blockade of sovereign country of Cuba wasnt a blockade but just a quarantine also totally legal because reasons... Plus their people were "different" so our population didn't care for them as much. NATO bombing of Yugoslavia without the UN's approval was just an Operation Noble Anvil! And dont get me started on the Operation Enduring Freedom Afghanis endured so much freedom they couldn't endure anymore. Thought we already covered all of this, are we now all clear on the history, and how this operation is completely different and unprecedented because there are casualties? /s

https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/middle-east/operation-iraqi-freedom.html

You're making the claim, you should substantiate. Is that not how it works?


You seem to be a bit confused as to who's surrounding those two cities. Hint: it ain't Ukrainians.

No, I don’t see it. Because I don’t defend US in the Iraq situation. I simply tell about the current situation in my country. And it doesn’t become less painful and wrong if you make some similar examples with other conflicts.

Ah the good old independence card.

What right the US had when they decided to invade Iraq? Wasn't Iraq independent enough for your taste? See? This shit cuts both ways. (Which countries sanctioned the US for this btw? None?)

I'll tell you what rights... Russia got nukes. Lots of it. They don't want their neighboring countries to have the same nukes.


In the light of same situation one could say Putin has the right to invade Ukraine.


Wasn't Iraq a sovereign nation? Where are the sanctions against the US?

Civilian casualties can be relatively low when comparing them to any other similar conflict (although I have questions about what similar conflicts you are referring to, because in the 21st century there seems to have been no full-scale open invasion to another sovereign country), because most of the civilian population has created a territorial defense that protects the settlements, and thus they are no longer actually civilians.

By the way, the main sourse of mine are my eyes. Being where the war is going on is not the same as reading about it in the media. So yes, the source is really silly, because this whole war is based on the stupidity of people who are unable to understand that other people want to live without their intervention.

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.