Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
He objectively lied more than other politicians by a huge margin. This is clearly verifiable.
No post body was provided.
Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war
201–210 of 267 posts
Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war
#202Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look I think you're missing the point. Chew on it for a bit, don't respond half-cocked. You: I want do to X. B: If you do X, I will do Y. You can try to convince B not to do Y if you do X... but if B is prepared to do Y, and is showing you he's prepared to do Y... and you can't convince him not to... then you have to consider, that if you continue trying to do X, that You are the one agitating.
Depending on what X and Y are, we condemn different actors. Agitating not really a word I would use for any pairing. "Keep me from taking your purse" and "shoot you" we condemn B as a mugger. "Leave me and meet someone new" and "shoot both of you" and we condemn B as a domestic abuser and potential murderer. "Return a library book late" and "charge you $0.10 a day as a fine" and we condemn A lightly. I would contend…
Let's make your examples actually match the structure I set up. You've created some weird analogies that don't relate.
A: I want to take your purse.
B: If you take my purse, I will kill you.
If A continues to try and take the purse, A is obviously the agitator.
A: I want to leave you.
B: If you leave, I will kill you.
We agree B is a monster here, and this is a police matter, not global politics.
Maybe we can create a better example...
A: Hey B I want to nail your cousin.
B: I will not allow that to happen. Bro I will ruin your world. Literally, armageddon. Don't do it.
If A continues trying to nail the cousin, clearly the agitator.. no?
Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war
#204The Economist has traditionally the worst coverage of Russia amongst Western media. To the point where it starts looking like it is something personal for the editors: always the same narrative, facts and opinions that not fit in the picture are conveniently ignored etc. This article has a lot of pure speculations, that oversimplify the internal politics and decision making process in Russia. Yes, there’s a relativel…
Literally everything the west said is happening before our eyes. Russia is mounting a false flag operation trying to find an "excuse" for war. They were supposed to finish the "exercise" and instead they're adding troops. Will you "accept this as facts" when they march through the entire country or will that just be "an extended exercise". I understand it's hard to admit your own country is run by a power hungry dict…
My country is Germany, the party I voted for is in the government and I’m pretty happy with our current foreign policy and the person responsible for it. I fully support the ban on shipping military hardware to the zones of conflict and focus on diplomatic effort.
That said, there is no evidence that this military buildup will result in anything and all those parrot talks about invasion or false flag operations are based only on mind guessing and wild assumptions of Putin’s insanity. There is more plausible explanation of what is going on. To understand it, it is necessary to look at the Russian military doctrine, its history of diplomatic interactions with NATO and the history of Russian-Ukrainian relations. Something that most of American and British media are apparently too lazy to do (German media are trying hard to understand what’s really happening and to present a nuanced picture).
Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Russia annexed Crimea The Russian military was in the Crimea back when redcoats were stationed in New York City, and has been in the Crimea ever since.
> The Russian military was in the Crimea back when redcoats were stationed in New York City, and has been in the Crimea ever since. No, it hasn't. From the creation of Soviet Ukraine in 1919 through 2014, Russia neither controlled nor pretended to control Crimea (except for a 9 year period from 1945-1954), which it acknowledged was its own entity (prior to 1945) or part of Ukraine (after 1954). (People sometimes equa…
Strange, Wikipedia thinks it was a part of RSFSR:
> The Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic[a] was an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic *of the Russian SFSR* (1921–45) and the Ukrainian SSR (1991–92) located on the Crimean Peninsula. The political unit was succeeded by the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.
[0]
> On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Oblast *from the Russian SFSR* to the Ukrainian SSR.
> Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet decrees:
> To approve the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian SFSR Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukrainian SSR Supreme Soviet on the transfer of the Crimea Province *from the Russian SFSR* to the Ukrainian SSR.
Regarding "...is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, not the USSR":
> The Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, as successor states of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in connection with the Treaty, shall assume the obligations of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the Treaty
[1]
Does USA position on this matters?
Especially considering Russia is still repaying USSR's foreign debt.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea#Decree
[1] https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/27389.pdf
Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you're too cynical, but we can have our own takes. From what I was able to piece together, Russia isn't the one starting this conflict, in action. It's NATO aligned countries trying to get Ukraine to join NATO. Russia made it very clear, that ain't happening and they'll go to war over it. So who's still agitating for war? The zero-evidence claims that Russia was about to invade sure look like pure propa…
I mean, that's still Russia being the aggressor. Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, can align with who they wish, and be lobbied by anyone and everyone to do so, and Russia doesn't get a say in that.
> a sovereign nation, can align with who they wish...
Oh wow, that's what I call thinking about the world as you wish the world were, rather than as the world actually is.
At the height of Soviet power, the USA were willing to fight enormous wars on the other side of the planet to stop a country voluntarily aligning with the USSR (dropping more bombs on it than all of WWII countries did combined, killing millions). They helped coups in countless countries and helped even genocidal regimes with the sole purpose of stopping USSR expansion, even when doing so was actually economically detrimental to themselves.
And the USA is far from alone in meddling with other countries' affairs. China, Russia, obviously, even not-so-big powers like Australia (ask New Guinea) and the UK (who loved doing that all over the world when it had the power to do so) will absolutely engage in whatever they can to make sure their interests are not compromised or even threatened.
Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why shouldn't it be expanding eastwards? Seems to me that if a bunch of countries want to get together to protect each other, they have every right to do so. Especially when a near-by country has a habit of being an aggressor: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexatio…
If NATO was nothing but a self defense pact, I'd tend to agree, but then if that was the case no one in NATO would want to expand too much. NATO is not just a self defence organisation. It's an offensive tool. NATO has gone into more offensive missions (at least 3) than truly defensive missions (literally zero - I don't count the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan as a defensive act). For many members of NATO, th…
It is well-known that offense is the best form of defense.
Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the Georgia playbook as well. They encouraged Georgia to fight the Russians. Georgians lost territory and lives and the American and Western allies shrugged and said “oh well, that’s unfortunate”.
Your comment implies that Georgia might have had better ways out of that situation, that’s probably not true.
> Your comment implies that Georgia might have had better ways out of that situation, that’s probably not true.
Georgia was pushed and encouraged by Western allies which then turn away and abandoned it.
Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The British government does occupy Ireland, its military is stationed in Thiepval and Holywood. Are you from Ireland? Because I am, and this is an absolutely ludicrous reading of the situation. The British and Irish governments partitioned Ireland, for a bunch of reasons 100 years ago. If you look at what people in the North of ireland (still part of the UK want), most of them want to remain as they are (which is f…
> If you look at what people in the North of ireland (still part of the UK want), most of them want to remain as they are If you look at what the people in Crimea voted for, they voted to be part of Russia. If what people in a region want is paramount as you seem to say then eastern Ukrainian regions seem to want to break from Ukraine and align with Russia. Russia has not done anything in the Ukraine which England ha…
A referendum held amidst annexation cannot possibly be legitimate.
Re: Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
Literally everything the west said is happening before our eyes. Russia is mounting a false flag operation trying to find an "excuse" for war. They were supposed to finish the "exercise" and instead they're adding troops. Will you "accept this as facts" when they march through the entire country or will that just be "an extended exercise". I understand it's hard to admit your own country is run by a power hungry dict…
My country is Germany, the party I voted for is in the government and I’m pretty happy with our current foreign policy and the person responsible for it. I fully support the ban on shipping military hardware to the zones of conflict and focus on diplomatic effort. That said, there is no evidence that this military buildup will result in anything and all those parrot talks about invasion or false flag operations are b…
Sure. All predictions are guessing. Based on prior facts. E.g. annexation of Crimea.
We're literally seeing multiple reports from independent sources of bombings in those areas. The whole kindergarten bombing clearly there to trigger action that would result in a war.
This also piles up on what they say on national TV, the fact that they issue Russian passports to people in the area to justify the whole thing etc.
Will they eventually invade?
Who knows, that's like predicting the weather. But we don't guess the weather. We use maps and facts to make educated guesses based on facts.
Are they trying to trigger a situation that will give them an excuse to invade?
Sure. Obvious as daylight.