Euromaidan demonstrations & Russia's intervention in Ukraine

adun101 wrote:

Vibe wrote:

2015.

There's an entire video, it's very good.

That's great and all, but what if Putin doesn't want a neutral Ukraine?



2014 and yes, there is a longer version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIdUSqsz0Io

I often get stuck in a loop when trying to figure out who's trying to do what. Is NATO expanding in order to prevent an inevitable Russian land grab or is Russia just reacting to an unprovoked encirclement by the west?

One thing is clear, countries like Ukraine and Georgia are being used as geopolitical pawns by the two superpowers, and it's innocent civilians who end up paying the price.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:All this NATO talk is ridiculous. Ukraine was never joining NATO. They had an active conflict with Russia for their Eastern provinces, and due to NATO's self defense clause letting them join would have essentially been a declaration of war on Russia by the entire western powers. Even if the US were willing to go down that path, all the European countries would have vetoed it. This is just a justification Putin is using to sell the war to the west, but not the actual reason for it.

Internally he's been selling the war as necessary because there is a "genocide" of Russians ongoing and because Ukraine's government is a "neonazi" led by a "drug addict". Much like Hitler's invasion of Poland, this is pitched as an attempt to "protect" the Russian population of Ukraine.

This is also why you see them handle if with "baby gloves". This is either an attempt to annex what is allegedly rightfully Russia's or to put a puppet government in charge. Neither of these is sustainable if they commit war atrocities against civilians, they want to be seen as liberators, not conquerors .

Why is it ridiculous? A few former Soviet nations have already joined NATO and the leadership in Ukraine has been drifting closer to the western sphere of influence for years now. The Bush administration publically endorsed Ukraine's bid to become a NATO member during the 2008 Bucharest summit

What's actually ridiculous is acting as if NATO's expansion plans are some fictitious Russian propaganda when the facts tell us otherwise.

Found wrote:

Myesyats wrote:Zelensky is a legend already

Is he ? I thought his decision to shove ak47s in the hands of untrained civilians was despicable. I don’t hold him responsible for the invasion but I do hold him responsible for civilians who die because they got baited into guerrilla warfare by Zelensky

I meant more in terms of shifting european geopolitics and possibly weakening Russia to a point of no return directly or indirectly because of his pro-european/democratic politics or even his choice to stay behind on the front line(US proposed he should evacuate), being a not politically correct politician turned from a comedian, the myth of their supposedly unconquerable army combined with the sanctions and economic collapse (ending dependence on their natural resources, big shift in DE politics too) will have huge consequences for the entire eastern european region and Russian's standing, possibly even Russian national integrity as it is.

honestly have no opinion on giving out weapons to citizens. Whoever stayed behind in the cities may as well help in the fight tbh. This is war, and every man between 18-60 has been "drafted", you get a weapon but you dont have to use it or it may save your life if you're hiding. Anyway its not something he will be remembered for as the course of history changes in front of our eyes

Not looking great for Putin. In the past week he:

1. Unified Europe, doing away with 20 years of cementing dissent
2. Unified America's 2 parties (after some initial bumps), possibly making Trump an nonviable candidate in 18 months
3. Got even typically neutral parties to take a stand against him: Switzerland, FIFA (sidenote, how evil must you be for even FIFA to kick you out?)
4. Destroyed Russia's economy
5. Changed Germany's policy from pacifism and carbon-based to rapid militarization and investing in renewables
6. Diminished his army's reputation by showing them to be uncoordinated, demoralized, unable to take on a volunteer army with no training, and unable to manage supply lines enough to keep their tanks refueled.
7. Harder to say, but he's in danger of losing the trust of the Russian people, who mostly consider him crazy for invading a sister-nation and might be even more-so if he decides to stop protecting civilians and level a few cities

At this point even if he takes Ukraine it might not really be a "win" for him

And in the unlikely event Ukraine somehow manages to repel him? If he was a cornered tiger now, what will he be then?

As Talleyrand famously put it "Worse than a (war) crime, a mistake".

Longer term some worrying signs though
1. The "weaponization" of finances is kind of a one time gimmick. Now that it's been used Russia and China will be prepared next time around. These measures might lead to a less integrated world where the penalty for breaking the world order might be less severe, so it might be more common.
2. For the first time in three decades there's talk of arming up with nuclear weapons, with Belorussia and Japan both entertaining the idea. It's perfectly logical, as Ukraine gave them up in 1994 and look at them now. But it's also insanely dangerous for us all and should be immediately curbed.

Never knew Putin was the one who would save atleast half of the world, SAY NO TO WAR (China you watching bruh?)

BC wrote:Unified America's 2 parties (after some initial bumps)

surely you don't believe this... maybe only on this issue, but not long term going forward

Well no of course, but I'm sure Putin was banking on the GOP having his back after getting them all in his pocket and they all had to backtrack, and now Liz Cheney and Romney have new political wind behind them. Who knows how long it will last, but for now it looks like a united country. And if the conflict drags that could be a serious thorn on the more pro-russia wing of the party.

Bulgaria (MiG-29) - 16
Bulgaria (Su-25) - 14
Poland (MiG-29) - 28
Slovakia (MiG-29) - 12

— Misha Komadovsky (@komadovsky) February 28, 2022

call an ambulance, but not for me

Some of the predictions I'm reading seem more like wishful thinking than an actual assessment of the events. Russia is too self-sufficient and strategically powerful to be deterred by Western sanctions. A Russian gas embargo, on the other hand, would spell disaster for most Western European countries.

This conflict will end with the western powers calling for de-escalation and Ukraine getting brought back under Moscow's control. This already happened with Georgia in 2008.

farfan wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:All this NATO talk is ridiculous. Ukraine was never joining NATO. They had an active conflict with Russia for their Eastern provinces, and due to NATO's self defense clause letting them join would have essentially been a declaration of war on Russia by the entire western powers. Even if the US were willing to go down that path, all the European countries would have vetoed it. This is just a justification Putin is using to sell the war to the west, but not the actual reason for it.

Internally he's been selling the war as necessary because there is a "genocide" of Russians ongoing and because Ukraine's government is a "neonazi" led by a "drug addict". Much like Hitler's invasion of Poland, this is pitched as an attempt to "protect" the Russian population of Ukraine.

This is also why you see them handle if with "baby gloves". This is either an attempt to annex what is allegedly rightfully Russia's or to put a puppet government in charge. Neither of these is sustainable if they commit war atrocities against civilians, they want to be seen as liberators, not conquerors .

Why is it ridiculous? A few former Soviet nations have already joined NATO and the leadership in Ukraine has been drifting closer to the western sphere of influence for years now. The Bush administration publically endorsed Ukraine's bid to become a NATO member during the 2008 Bucharest summit

What's actually ridiculous is acting as if NATO's expansion plans are some fictitious Russian propaganda when the facts tell us otherwise.

NATO is a defensive alliance to which independent nations may choose to apply. NATO doesn't draw up expansion plans, it either accepts or denies applications from independent nations. Arguing that "NATO shouldn't take on new members" is the same as saying "some small nations shouldn't be 100% independent, but rather accept being pawns whose policies superpowers can dictate."

farfan wrote:

Spoiler:

Why is it ridiculous? A few former Soviet nations have already joined NATO and the leadership in Ukraine has been drifting closer to the western sphere of influence for years now. The Bush administration publically endorsed Ukraine's bid to become a NATO member during the 2008 Bucharest summit

What's actually ridiculous is acting as if NATO's expansion plans are some fictitious Russian propaganda when the facts tell us otherwise.

I thought I already pointed it out, but it's because NATO will never accept a member with active conflicts (as their ongoing fight for the eastern provinces is). Due to their defensive nature accepting a member currently engaged in a border skirmish is as good as a declaration of war, something they're very keen to avoid right now.

farfan wrote:Some of the predictions I'm reading seem more like wishful thinking than an actual assessment of the events. Russia is too self-sufficient and strategically powerful to be deterred by Western sanctions. A Russian gas embargo, on the other hand, would spell disaster for most Western European countries.

This conflict will end with the western powers calling for de-escalation and Ukraine getting brought back under Moscow's control. This already happened with Georgia in 2008.

I can see how it came out that way, but for all that I find it hard to believe that Ukraine will manage anything more than a "dignified defeat". And if Putin decides to say fuck it all and level a few cities it will be carnage for them.

Interesting in India, considering Russia has always supported us, the anti-Ukraine propaganda is running strife now. India abstained from voting against Russia citing how Ukraine has never supported India while a lot of Indian students in Ukraine trying to evacuate have been kicked and beaten with rods including women who were pulled around by their hair by Ukrainian soldiers while travelling and waiting to cross the border to Poland after the abstention, very big in the news but I doubt it would reach you guys in the west but this is as expected causing jitters in India on treatment of students especially the "right wing" who now are taking to social media to essentially support Putin.

For me, I mean it's quite easy if you are going to Eastern Europe for anything, you are on your own. Just kind of reminds us how humanity and peace is being called out while never being justified when it comes to non white communities. I think even African community has called things out as Mc mentioned in another thread.

Yes it's shameful to reject people at the border. I think they're hiding behind some technicality like "the countries must request access" or some such, but they're in a war, just let everyone in and send them to the relevant embassy for them to sort out...

Honestly, it is the norm and not at all surprising. We can call this shameful every year but it doesn't change anything and the progress is extremely slow (including non white countries who hold grudges). Sorry I am bringing this up on GL where majority like hopefully most people in the world do not look at race.

in Europe Putin considers only Macron and a bit  Sholz as worthy interlocutors
United Kingdom immediately proved hostile, and it is a reciprocated hostility, therefore it excludes itself.
Germany so SPD led by Schloz has still to get rid of Schroeder's figure ( pro Russian ),   party is trying to "clean up" itself by  this , dumping the former leader but inevitablt  it presents itself  in the debate in  a weak form.
On the contrary, France has some aspects that makes it the most  authoritative interlocutor: it hold the rotating Presidency of the European Union, it is  nuclear power,even  Macron is not a great pro Atlantist figure eventually.
Italy has Draghi who is an authoritative personality but as always the system Italy has very little to offer.   we are not so hostile towards  Russia but obviously we are not neutral, and so  we follow closely what others decide for Europe. As always.

Lord Spencer wrote:I think the US, and all their athletes, should retroactively be suspended for the illegal war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Even if it's not retroactive, they, along with Saudi Arabia and the UAE should be suspended for the illegal war in Yemen.

I don't know of this double standard is because of anti-Russian sentiment or because white people's blood is more important than Arab blood.

Because it threatens Europe, and so we' re directly involved. Others are perceived as distant wars. I don't say it's right but it's real reason , not racism

Robespierre wrote:Because it threatens Europe, and so we' re directly involved. Others are perceived as distant wars. I don't say it's right but it's real reason , not racism

I think its more to do with Europe being the under the US's thumb. Otherwise, if Europe was so worried about war with Russia, they wouldn't continue to expand NATO eastward and basically weaponize the border with them.

That being said, if sport is going to be pulled into this, then the murderous US regime and their UK lackeys should be the first to be kicked out. Along with Russia, China, some Gulf states, and any country that currently engage in open or covert warfare.

To suddenly treat one war more important than others sends a signal that other countries' people are less important (or that some aggressors and their allies are untouchable).

Finally, while it makes sense for Europe to take the war more seriously than others, it should be noted that other countries (Japan), international organizations (FIFA), and even supposedly neutral countries that were castrated by the US (Switzerland), have all weighed into this issue when NONE of them paid any attention to US continuous crimes throughout the last 30 years and more.

More evidence that the Russian army is an uncoordinated joke:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1498619303717142529.html

And for all this they might still win...

farfan wrote:I don't think Ukraine and most other former Soviet states are "past" any of those things @Myesyats. The majority are still ruled by kleptocrats or have very fragile and young democracies.

I'm also not getting these constant references to "developing" and "third world" countries as if Ukraine isn't one. They have a lower GDP than countries like Algeria and a lower human development index than Iran

Yeah true but there are levels to this. Constant russian interference results in the region being unstable but all out invasion, bombing major cities and civilian housing etc is a step-up from misinformation/election meddling/policy-making pressure type of instability.

The operator of Nord Stream 2 AG, a major gas pipeline connecting Russia with Germany, has laid off all of 106 workers and filed for bankruptcy

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nord-stream-2-gas-pipeline-lays-off-all-employees-11646162990

farfan wrote:
I often get stuck in a loop when trying to figure out who's trying to do what. Is NATO expanding in order to prevent an inevitable Russian land grab or is Russia just reacting to an unprovoked encirclement by the west?

One thing is clear, countries like Ukraine and Georgia are being used as geopolitical pawns by the two superpowers, and it's innocent civilians who end up paying the price.

I think it's both. It's like the guy said in the video: Russians need to expand in order to survive and Nato doesn't want that to happen. It's not a right versus wrong thing

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Not looking great for Putin. In the past week he:


2. Unified America's 2 parties (after some initial bumps), possibly making Trump an nonviable candidate in 18 months

Yeah, about this:



The really juicy part starts after the first minute

Robespierre wrote:in Europe Putin considers only Macron and a bit  Sholz as worthy interlocutors
United Kingdom immediately proved hostile, and it is a reciprocated hostility, therefore it excludes itself.
Germany so SPD led by Schloz has still to get rid of Schroeder's figure ( pro Russian ),   party is trying to "clean up" itself by  this , dumping the former leader but inevitablt  it presents itself  in the debate in  a weak form.
On the contrary, France has some aspects that makes it the most  authoritative interlocutor: it hold the rotating Presidency of the European Union, it is  nuclear power,even  Macron is not a great pro Atlantist figure eventually.
Italy has Draghi who is an authoritative personality but as always the system Italy has very little to offer.   we are not so hostile towards  Russia but obviously we are not neutral, and so  we follow closely what others decide for Europe. As always.

But none of them is Berlusconi:

https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdSoXhLh/

The video can be seen in a browser without an account

adun101 wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Not looking great for Putin. In the past week he:


2. Unified America's 2 parties (after some initial bumps), possibly making Trump an nonviable candidate in 18 months

Yeah, about this:



The really juicy part starts after the first minute

the world's a meme algorithm

Lord Spencer wrote:
I think its more to do with Europe being the under the US's thumb. Otherwise, if Europe was so worried about war with Russia, they wouldn't continue to expand NATO eastward and basically weaponize the border with them.

That being said, if sport is going to be pulled into this, then the murderous US regime and their UK lackeys should be the first to be kicked out. Along with Russia, China, some Gulf states, and any country that currently engage in open or covert warfare.

To suddenly treat one war more important than others sends a signal that other countries' people are less important (or that some aggressors and their allies are untouchable).

Finally, while it makes sense for Europe to take the war more seriously than others, it should be noted that other countries (Japan), international organizations (FIFA), and even supposedly neutral countries that were castrated by the US (Switzerland), have all weighed into this issue when NONE of them paid any attention to US continuous crimes throughout the last 30 years and more.

Well said, fully agree with this