Arming the Ukrainians

[Piers, nothing between the ears]

Ukraine wasn't shelling Donetsk or Lugansk before Russians invaded it, nor was there any indication that they would.

If that is true then please explain why these elderly people from near the city of Donetsk say (on 3 February 2022) they've been living in a bomb shelter for nearly 8 years.
https://youtu.be/-brDwwkHUdw?si=ywZ2xltYfWMtIDLx

[ad_orientem]

If that is true then please explain why these elderly people from near the city of Donetsk say (on 3 February 2022) they've been living in a bomb shelter for nearly 8 years.
https://youtu.be/-brDwwkHUdw?si=ywZ2xltYfWMtIDLx

Ah! Patrick Lancaster, the proven liar. We've gone through this before. Also, many of these people were crisis actors.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/02/28/exploiting-cadavers-and-faked-ieds-experts-debunk-staged-pre-war-provocation-in-the-donbas/

https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/07/14/victims-of-donbas-genocide-were-paid-actors-prigozhins-fired-trolls-reveal/

This is what really happened:

https://x.com/5G_Reptilian/status/1736224061121040788?s=19

[Maeght]

If that is true then please explain why these elderly people from near the city of Donetsk say (on 3 February 2022) they've been living in a bomb shelter for nearly 8 years.
https://youtu.be/-brDwwkHUdw?si=ywZ2xltYfWMtIDLx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Lancaster

[Outrider]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Lancaster

Arguably the most telling piece of this is: "Lancaster has often appeared on Alex Jones' InfoWars show."...

Is any further comment necessary?

O.

[Piers, nothing between the ears]

Ah! Patrick Lancaster, the proven liar. We've gone through this before. Also, many of these people were crisis actors.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/02/28/exploiting-cadavers-and-faked-ieds-experts-debunk-staged-pre-war-provocation-in-the-donbas/

https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/07/14/victims-of-donbas-genocide-were-paid-actors-prigozhins-fired-trolls-reveal/

This is what really happened:

https://x.com/5G_Reptilian/status/1736224061121040788?s=19

If you look at his YouTube channel, he has a lot of videos showing the aftermaths of shelling of residential areas in Donbass, between 2014-22. It doesn't  make sense to say that these were carried out by Russia or separatists. Or that they were staged.

[Outrider]

If you look at his YouTube channel, he has a lot of videos showing the aftermaths of shelling of residential areas in Donbass, between 2014-22.

He has videos of areas that appear to have been shelled - how confident are we that these areas are in Donbass?

It doesn't  make sense to say that these were carried out by Russia or separatists.

How does it not make sense? Your presumption here is that Russia would not repurpose damage that it has caused, deliberately or through incompetence - I'm not making that assumption.

Or that they were staged.

It's Russia. The potential that any given piece of evidence is staged is always a consideration. It's almost as though, and I think this might have been mentioned before, but RUSSIA LIES. PUTIN LIES.

O.

[ad_orientem]

In case someone didn't already know (LOL), TACO is a moron. Just read what he said about russia and WWII.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/kyivindependent.com/trump-praises-russian-wwii-role/amp/

And seeing as my post yesterday got lost, here it is again: One million fewer rapists and murderers. 👇

[Maeght]

Spud. What do you think about what Putin has now said i.e. "I have said many times that I consider the Russian and Ukrainian people to be one nation. In this sense, all of Ukraine is ours."

[Piers, nothing between the ears]

Spud. What do you think about what Putin has now said i.e. "I have said many times that I consider the Russian and Ukrainian people to be one nation. In this sense, all of Ukraine is ours."

It boils down to the fact that when Ukraine became independent, it was neutral, which Putin is saying is why Russia originally recognized it as a sovereign state.

[Maeght]

It boils down to the fact that when Ukraine became independent, it was neutral, which Putin is saying is why Russia originally recognized it as a sovereign state.

He i saying he wants all of Ukraine, which you have always said he doesn't.

[ad_orientem]

https://kyivinsider.com/cannibalism-among-undersupplied-russian-troops-raises-alarm-in-ukraine/

[ad_orientem]

Spud. What do you think about what Putin has now said i.e. "I have said many times that I consider the Russian and Ukrainian people to be one nation. In this sense, all of Ukraine is ours."

He also said "Wherever a Russian soldier steps, it is ours".

Best argument for anti personnel mines ever, giving every invading russian the opportunity to lose their legs, just like Ivan below.👇

[Piers, nothing between the ears]

He i saying he wants all of Ukraine, which you have always said he doesn't.

It might help to read it  in full
He said "(Ukraine) is ours" not that he wants it. What he wants ("we are insisting on") is a recognition of the realities of the situation on the ground, and they are not seeking the capitulation of Ukraine. I take that to mean he wants the oblasts already captured, as well as the territory within them remaining under Ukraine's control.
The Sumy buffer zone is to prevent shelling of Russian territory from that region, so will only be a relatively small area.

[Outrider]

It boils down to the fact that when Ukraine became independent, it was neutral, which Putin is saying is why Russia originally recognized it as a sovereign state.

Conditional sovereignty isn't sovereignty. You can be independent as long as you do as we tell you isn't recognising a sovereign state.

O.

[Piers, nothing between the ears]

Conditional sovereignty isn't sovereignty. You can be independent as long as you do as we tell you isn't recognising a sovereign state.

O.

Not so much "do as we tell you" as "do whatever you choose, except for such and such".
Do you think the US would do nothing if Canada, Greenland and Mexico formed a military alliance with Russia or China?

[ad_orientem]

Not so much "do as we tell you" as "do whatever you choose, except for such and such".
Do you think the US would do nothing if Canada, Greenland and Mexico formed a military alliance with Russia or China?

Ah! The old spheres of influence. Only so-called super powers are truly sovereign. The rest have to submit or be invaded.

[ad_orientem]

The extortion, beatings and executions will continue until morale improves. Да!

https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1937249129849368786?s=19

[Outrider]

Not so much "do as we tell you" as "do whatever you choose, except for such and such".

Either way, it's 'you're 'sovereign' so long as you're compliant'.

Do you think the US would do nothing if Canada, Greenland and Mexico formed a military alliance with Russia or China?

Probably not, certainly not under Trump, but that still wouldn't justify it. And I don't think the US would invade, and then claim it was Canada's fault. Trump's rhetoric, for instance, on his tariffs isn't that it's anyone else's fault that they've got these imaginary trade surpluses with the US, they're doing what they can to get ahead, he sees it as fighting back. Putin's pitching this not that he has to defend Russia's interests, but rather that Ukraine has had the gall to transgress against his wishes and the greater Russian good.

It's a fundamentally different mindset even from Trump's bullshit sense of entitlement and twattery. Prior to Trump (and even, to be honest, with Trump) America hasn't had to worry about that, because it's been an infinitely preferable partner to China or Russia - maybe if Russia tried that, it's overtures to neighbouring states for alliances and cooperation wouldn't have to be delivered in poorly maintained, ineffectively led and corruptly equipped armoured columns (with inadequate and ineffective air support)?

O.

[Piers, nothing between the ears]

Ah! The old spheres of influence. Only so-called super powers are truly sovereign. The rest have to submit or be invaded.

Ok but there is still the principle that a state should not join a military alliance if that would cause its neighbour to have security concerns. Being required to be neutral for that reason doesn't affect the state's sovereignty.
By the way, I mentioned this in a recent post that was lost, along with yours and outrider's replies. Unfortunately I didn't get round to reading your replies, and when I did they had gone. (I also said that the timing of Russia's annexation of Crimea and of the start of the special military operation suggested those were not about trying to grab more land, but about security.)

[Outrider]

Ok but there is still the principle that a state should not join a military alliance if that would cause its neighbour to have security concerns.

No.

a) that's not a thing; and,
b) Ukraine joining anyone is no security concern for Russia, you keep trotting out that bullshit. It's a concern to Russia's expansionist strategic policies, but that's why it was necessary; because Russia was looking to expand westward.

Being required to be neutral for that reason doesn't affect the state's sovereignty.

Being required to do anything affects a state's sovereignty. Sovereignty means not being beholden to anyone.

By the way, I mentioned ..  that the timing of Russia's annexation of Crimea and of the start of the special military operation suggested those were not about trying to grab more land, but about security.

And I called bullshit on that too - Russia's annexation of Crimea was prompted by concerns that Ukraine was going to be accepted into NATO, and internal political activity within Russia. It's never been about security, there was never any threat from anyone to invade Russia: Putin knows it, NATO knows it, every news organisation in the world knows (even the two that don't admit it, Fox and the Russian State Media). The only person on Earth that seems to believe that is you.

I'm not saying it's solely about the land or the mineral wealth or the agriculture, it's also about the strategic land-corridor access to the already illegally annexed territory in Crimea that also wasn't about security.

O.

[Piers, nothing between the ears]

The extortion, beatings and executions will continue until morale improves. Да!

https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1937249129849368786?s=19

This is very sad and disturbing. I hope there aren't other commanders like this one, though I'd guess there are, as well as anti-retreat drone operators on both sides.

[Maeght]

No.

a) that's not a thing; and,
b) Ukraine joining anyone is no security concern for Russia, you keep trotting out that bullshit. It's a concern to Russia's expansionist strategic policies, but that's why it was necessary; because Russia was looking to expand westward.

Being required to do anything affects a state's sovereignty. Sovereignty means not being beholden to anyone.

And I called bullshit on that too - Russia's annexation of Crimea was prompted by concerns that Ukraine was going to be accepted into NATO, and internal political activity within Russia. It's never been about security, there was never any threat from anyone to invade Russia: Putin knows it, NATO knows it, every news organisation in the world knows (even the two that don't admit it, Fox and the Russian State Media). The only person on Earth that seems to believe that is you.

I'm not saying it's solely about the land or the mineral wealth or the agriculture, it's also about the strategic land-corridor access to the already illegally annexed territory in Crimea that also wasn't about security.

O.

I think that that is true of a purely defensive organisation which NATO is suppose to be - but do (and have before) questioned that NATO have acted or appeared to act in a way which wasn't directly defensive. Thoughts on that?

[Outrider]

I think that that is true of a purely defensive organisation which NATO is suppose to be - but do (and have before) questioned that NATO have acted or appeared to act in a way which wasn't directly defensive. Thoughts on that?

There is some limited scope - humanitarian action, peacekeeping and 'crisis resolution' - within the NATO charter, but it needs to be implemented cautiously. The intervention in Libya in 2011 was probably widely accepted as humanitarian in nature. The intervention in Yugoslavia as it fractured was - in hindsight - probably beneficial, but from up front that was neither guaranteed nor an easy fit into the terms of the charter, and that gives a fairly clear argument that NATO isn't a purely defensive organisation.

That, I think, NATO learnt from that and have subsequently held back doesn't stop people with long memories calling it up and making the case. It's a case that easy to answer, but equally easy to dismiss if you don't care to trust the last thirty years of evidence, say if you've got a tu quoque argument to make because you want to justify the latest in an ongoing string of invasion of foreign countries.

O.

[Piers, nothing between the ears]

There is some limited scope - humanitarian action, peacekeeping and 'crisis resolution' - within the NATO charter, but it needs to be implemented cautiously. The intervention in Libya in 2011 was probably widely accepted as humanitarian in nature. The intervention in Yugoslavia as it fractured was - in hindsight - probably beneficial, but from up front that was neither guaranteed nor an easy fit into the terms of the charter, and that gives a fairly clear argument that NATO isn't a purely defensive organisation.

That, I think, NATO learnt from that and have subsequently held back doesn't stop people with long memories calling it up and making the case. It's a case that easy to answer, but equally easy to dismiss if you don't care to trust the last thirty years of evidence, say if you've got a tu quoque argument to make because you want to justify the latest in an ongoing string of invasion of foreign countries.

O.

The problem is that collective defense results in a disproportionate response to an attack.
Article 5 was invoked after 9/11, resulting in 46,000+ Afghan civilians being killed by the allies. bin Laden claimed the attack was a response to US support for the Israeli persecution of Palestinians.
Translate that to Ukraine joining NATO: Russia annexes Crimea to protect its interests following civil unrest in 2014, we now have probably millions dead because Ukraine wants it back, and NATO offered to support them. Yes, the annexation was illegal and unjustified, but the NATO response is disproportionate.

[Outrider]

The problem is that collective defense results in a disproportionate response to an attack. Article 5 was invoked after 9/11, resulting in 46,000+ Afghan civilians being killed by the allies.

That's not a result of  collective defence, that's a result of disproportionate reaction - if it had been one of the more 'lightweight' NATO members making the call, moderate voices would have restrained the response to something more reasonable, but because it was the US gorilla throwing its political weight around we ended up with the 'War on Terror' nonsense.

bin Laden claimed the attack was a response to US support for the Israeli persecution of Palestinians.

Not really sure how that's relevant, but there were all sorts of motivations behind the twin towers attack, and some of them probably were to do with the ongoing issue of the State of Israel - bin Laden, of course, is going to claim the one that 'justifies' his actions.
 

Translate that to Ukraine joining NATO: Russia annexes Crimea to protect its interests following civil unrest in 2014, we now have probably millions dead because Ukraine wants it back, and NATO offered to support them. Yes, the annexation was illegal and unjustified, but the NATO response is disproportionate.

And still you pretend like Russia will somehow stop here without being forced to. Russia has further ambitions; defending Ukraine isn't just about reclaiming Ukrainian territory that's been illegally occupied, it's also about preventing further incursions into other territories in a continuation of Russia's pattern of the last thirty years of international relations.

O.