Ukraine Crisis II: Electric Boogaloo

[Allanea]

Sadly human history is full of horrifying, bloody, and possibly pointless wars.

[Constantinopolis]

I would prefer nothing; the Ukrainian government is actively trying to ban opposition groups.

Which is wrong. But really, Russia isn't exactly politically free. I side with the EU over Russia, simply because they have a better track record with human rights/political freedom. Not a perfect record, but a better record.

You should never choose sides in international politics purely based on their respective internal politics.

(although internal politics can be one of several factors to consider)

[Shofercia]

Putin didn't invade Georgia, Georgia invaded South Ossetia, which had gained independence in 1992(?).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1043236/Georgia-overrun-Russian-troops-scale-ground-invasion-begins.html
You sure about that?

Yeah: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8281990.stm

The war in Georgia last year was started by a Georgian attack that was not justified by international law, an EU-sponsored report has concluded.

And the title:

Georgia 'started unjustified war'

Unless you want to argue that the Swiss are less neutral than the Daily Mail. Have fun with that argument on NSG!

[Allanea]

Which is wrong. But really, Russia isn't exactly politically free. I side with the EU over Russia, simply because they have a better track record with human rights/political freedom. Not a perfect record, but a better record.

You should never choose sides in international politics based on their respective internal politics.

Why not?

[Shofercia]

A very short war. Although Estonia bringing up the reserves could take a while

Both sides would probably back off very quickly if NATO and Russia went at it.

"Is it worth killing 7 billion people for this? Nope. Buh bye."

Pretty much. Also, nice sig

[Constantinopolis]

You should never choose sides in international politics based on their respective internal politics.

Why not?

Because just because a government does X at home that doesn't necessarily mean that when they win an international conflict, this will promote X in the world.

For example: The United States has democracy at home, and in the 1980s they were involved in a proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviets. The pro-American side eventually won that war. Did this help to promote democracy in the world? Hell no, it helped to promote Islamism in the world. So if you had lived in the 1980s and had supported the pro-American side in Afghanistan because you like democracy (i.e. American internal politics), that would have been a pretty serious mistake on your part.

[Allanea]

Why not?

Because just because a government does X at home that doesn't necessarily mean that when they win an international conflict, this will promote X in the world.

For example: The United States has democracy at home, and in the 1980s they were involved in a proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviets. The pro-American side eventually won that war. Did this help to promote democracy in the world? Hell no, it helped to promote Islamism in the world. So if you had lived in the 1980s and had supported the pro-American side in Afghanistan because you like democracy (i.e. American internal politics), that would have been a pretty serious mistake on your part.

I'd argue that the danger of Islamism was (and is) less than the threat of Communism.

Additionally, the collapse of the USSR resulted in many countries democratizing.

[Constantinopolis]

Because just because a government does X at home that doesn't necessarily mean that when they win an international conflict, this will promote X in the world.

For example: The United States has democracy at home, and in the 1980s they were involved in a proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviets. The pro-American side eventually won that war. Did this help to promote democracy in the world? Hell no, it helped to promote Islamism in the world. So if you had lived in the 1980s and had supported the pro-American side in Afghanistan because you like democracy (i.e. American internal politics), that would have been a pretty serious mistake on your part.

I'd argue that the danger of Islamism was (and is) less than the threat of Communism.

Additionally, the collapse of the USSR resulted in many countries democratizing.

That's beside the point. The point was that just because the US is a democracy, that doesn't mean the foreign policy actions of the US are always good for democracy.

And "yes we supported a bunch of brutal reactionary tyrants in this part of the world, but their actions contributed to a chain of events that eventually led to democracy somewhere else" doesn't count. That is at best dumb luck, and at worst it's just plain bullshit to justify support for tyranny.

[Dalcaria]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1043236/Georgia-overrun-Russian-troops-scale-ground-invasion-begins.html
You sure about that?

Yeah: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8281990.stm

The war in Georgia last year was started by a Georgian attack that was not justified by international law, an EU-sponsored report has concluded.

And the title:

Georgia 'started unjustified war'

Unless you want to argue that the Swiss are less neutral than the Daily Mail. Have fun with that argument on NSG!

However, the attack followed months of provocation, and both sides violated international law, the report said.

Sorry, just wasn't sure if you read that far down.

Also, Georgia may not have been justified in their actions, but was Russia justified with Chechnya or Dagestan? It's funny how they always run to the aid of Russians, but as soon as it's non-Russians breaking away, then it becomes an issue of "territorial integrity". And lest we also forget, Russia full on invaded Georgia (did everyone forget what happened to Tbilisi?), so Russian isn't what I would consider innocent in this. The only thing I could say is that Russia chooses their fights very specifically, more so to impress Russians than the rest of the world I'll wager, they didn't seem to impress the UN.

[United Marxist Nations]

Putin didn't invade Georgia, Georgia invaded South Ossetia, which had gained independence in 1992(?).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1043236/Georgia-overrun-Russian-troops-scale-ground-invasion-begins.html
You sure about that?

Counterattack in response to Georgia invading South Ossetia and wiping out a joint Russian-Georgian Peacekeeping Mission.

[Kubra]

If we can make having to have most of our population grow its own food obsolete, we should.

Hegel's dialectic was idealistic, Marx's was materialist. Marx goes on at length about Hegel, identifying him as his inspiration.

You do know Hegel was actually the first who divided tge society on burgeious and proletariat?

oh god what am i reading
have you ever read a word of hegel in your life

[Organized States]

Remember that Russia can do the same thing to us. It won't be as drastic, but things such as out space program will be affected.

It's already been affected. But don't worry, Rogozin offered quality advice, he said that America can utilized the trampoline to send astronauts into space.

America's newest trampoline.

[Occupied Deutschland]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1043236/Georgia-overrun-Russian-troops-scale-ground-invasion-begins.html
You sure about that?

Counterattack in response to Georgia invading South Ossetia and wiping out a joint Russian-Georgian Peacekeeping Mission.

Which was a counterattack in response to Russian 'mercenaries'/'Cossacks'/'Green-Men' crossing into South Ossetia...Which was a counterattack in response to Georgian artillery shelling South Ossetian units...Which was a counterattack in response to South Ossetian units mortaring Georgian positions...Which was a counterattack in response to Georgian units shooting at South Ossetian units...Which was a counterattack in response to South Ossetian units shooting at Georgian units...Which was a counterattack in response to...

[Dalcaria]

It's already been affected. But don't worry, Rogozin offered quality advice, he said that America can utilized the trampoline to send astronauts into space.

America's newest trampoline.

I don't usually like the US, but I think that might be worthy of this.

[Organized States]

America's newest trampoline.

I don't usually like the US, but I think that might be worthy of this.

I agree, it is quite neat.

I've started an NSG thread to discuss it further, so I'll refrain from talking about SLS here further.

[Shofercia]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1043236/Georgia-overrun-Russian-troops-scale-ground-invasion-begins.html
You sure about that?

Counterattack in response to Georgia invading South Ossetia and wiping out a joint Russian-Georgian Peacekeeping Mission.

Attempting to wipe out the JKPF base. It was, thankfully, never wiped out. Although thoroughly damaged, it was left standing.

Counterattack in response to Georgia invading South Ossetia and wiping out a joint Russian-Georgian Peacekeeping Mission.

Which was a counterattack in response to Russian 'mercenaries'/'Cossacks'/'Green-Men' crossing into South Ossetia...Which was a counterattack in response to Georgian artillery shelling South Ossetian units...Which was a counterattack in response to South Ossetian units mortaring Georgian positions...Which was a counterattack in response to Georgian units shooting at South Ossetian units...Which was a counterattack in response to South Ossetian units shooting at Georgian units...Which was a counterattack in response to...

Because clearly Putin bribed the Swiss...

It's already been affected. But don't worry, Rogozin offered quality advice, he said that America can utilized the trampoline to send astronauts into space.

America's newest trampoline.

Being from California, I don't mind that at all

If US doesn't get its own trampoline, I can make fun of the stupidity of sanctions, which can be made fun of in numerous ways. If US does, my state is likely to benefit. To quote Mike Ross, it's a win-win for me.

America's newest trampoline.

I don't usually like the US, but I think that might be worthy of this.

Is there a country that you like?

I don't usually like the US, but I think that might be worthy of this.

I agree, it is quite neat.

I've started an NSG thread to discuss it further, so I'll refrain from talking about SLS here further.

You could still link it here, if you want.

Yeah: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8281990.stm



And the title:



Unless you want to argue that the Swiss are less neutral than the Daily Mail. Have fun with that argument on NSG!

However, the attack followed months of provocation, and both sides violated international law, the report said.

Sorry, just wasn't sure if you read that far down.

I've read the actual report. Numerous times. What it goes on to say is that the provocations were insufficient for Georgia to start the conflict. When someone allegedly shoots at you, starting a war with his/her country is what's known as overreaction in sane circles.

Also, Georgia may not have been justified in their actions, but was Russia justified with Chechnya or Dagestan?

Yes. Dagestan was invaded by Wahhabi Radicals, against their will; the group started massacring the locals. Since Dagestan was a part of Russia, that was clearly justified for anyone capable of rational thought.

It's funny how they always run to the aid of Russians, but as soon as it's non-Russians breaking away, then it becomes an issue of "territorial integrity".

No, that's actually untrue. When Chechnya seceded from Russia, after letting Ingushetia secede from Chechnya, I was perfectly ok with letting Chechnya secede. I've stated so, on this forum, numerous times. You should stop completely lying about what I said, getting caught lying red handed, and then boldly continuing to lie.

And lest we also forget, Russia full on invaded Georgia (did everyone forget what happened to Tbilisi?),

Have you any actual evidence for Russian soldiers/tanks being inside Tbilisi? Because, as I clearly pointed out earlier, Tbilisi was spared an assault, since Russians didn't want Georgian civilian casualties. Of course knowing that requires actually reading the posts that you're responding to.

so Russian isn't what I would consider innocent in this.

So you got all of your facts wrong to deliver a strawman? Wow, just wow.

The only thing I could say is that Russia chooses their fights very specifically, more so to impress Russians than the rest of the world I'll wager, they didn't seem to impress the UN.

Russia chose for Wahhabi Radicals to invade Dagestan? Russia chose for Saakashvili to attack the JKPF base? When exactly did Russia make these choices?

[Dalcaria]

Is there a country that you like?

I'm not even going to lower myself to dignifying that question with an answer.

I agree, it is quite neat.

Well placed irony usually is. lulz

I've read the actual report. Numerous times. What it goes on to say is that the provocations were insufficient for Georgia to start the conflict. When someone allegedly shoots at you, starting a war with his/her country is what's known as overreaction in sane circles.

And Russia is clearly in the sane circle! After all, the dirty westerners had to dip so low as to use "video game images" to suggest Russian troops were in Ukraine. XD At any rate, it sounds like the report wasn't overly flattering or Russia either, but I suppose that's irrelevant to your line of logic isn't it?

Also, Georgia may not have been justified in their actions, but was Russia justified with Chechnya or Dagestan?

Yes. Dagestan was invaded by Wahhabi Radicals, against their will; the group started massacring the locals. Since Dagestan was a part of Russia, that was clearly justified for anyone capable of rational thought.

And then Russia decided to dance it's way back into Chechnya where, instead of trying to help stabilize the region or support it's bid for independence, it decided to take advantage of the situation and take back piece of the glorious mother land. Also, although the Wahhabi were probably terrible, you should try reading into the history of both Chechnya and Dagestan more. The actions of Jihadists simply don't lessen the fact that they suffered, and from what it sounds like, they both wanted independence from Russia, for one reason or another.

It's funny how they always run to the aid of Russians, but as soon as it's non-Russians breaking away, then it becomes an issue of "territorial integrity".

No, that's actually untrue. When Chechnya seceded from Russia, after letting Ingushetia secede from Chechnya, I was perfectly ok with letting Chechnya secede. I've stated so, on this forum, numerous times. You should stop completely lying about what I said, getting caught lying red handed, and then boldly continuing to lie.

Caught lying red handed, good one. You may have said that, but I'll be honest and say I have not seen you say that once till now. Also, I half hope you were wanting Ingushetia to be independent of both then, since it's a majority non-Russian region. But then again, it's only got a population of about 400 000, so I question how stable a region like that would be, financially at least. One last note here, I didn't claim you didn't support Cechnyan independence, I claimed Russia was hypocritical for not respecting their claims, but respecting all the Russian ones. Now who's getting caught "red handed"?

And lest we also forget, Russia full on invaded Georgia (did everyone forget what happened to Tbilisi?),

Have you any actual evidence for Russian soldiers/tanks being inside Tbilisi? Because, as I clearly pointed out earlier, Tbilisi was spared an assault, since Russians didn't want Georgian civilian casualties. Of course knowing that requires actually reading the posts that you're responding to.

What, jets suddenly don't count as attack weapons? Reuters apparently reported on bombings quite close to Tbilisi, and I believe their airport was hit. And the point I'm making isn't about damage, it's about the fact that they went all the way to the capital city of Georgia, something that really didn't seem necessary. They went from defending South Ossetia to completely invading Georgia. And as for "sparing Georgian casualties", I really question how much of that is just Russian PR at work.

So you got all of your facts wrong to deliver a strawman? Wow, just wow.

You have this really annoying tendency to say I got ALL my facts wrong, and then tell me I did a "strawman", and then never explain where I made a strawman. I'm not sure how else to respond to this other than telling you that A) you really shouldn't jump the gun on attacking someone's "facts" (especially since you use RT as a "reliable resource"), and B) figure out what a strawman actually is before you say someone used it.

Russia chose for Wahhabi Radicals to invade Dagestan? Russia chose for Saakashvili to attack the JKPF base? When exactly did Russia make these choices?

Russia chose to support Chechen independence? Russia tried to convince Viktor Yanukovych to not ban Ukrainian military parades (which were used to celebrate Ukrainian independence)? Or when he threatened to ban the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church? Russia chose to fight the Neo-Nazis that are viciously abusing homosexual children in Russia? Also, just to repeat, I don't think Dagestanans were necessarily as thrilled with Russian rule as you like to think. True, the Wahhabi Radicals were going too far, but I don't see that as much grounds to shut down Chechen independence entirely. Also, I'd still like to know if they've even investigated the claims about Russian Neo-Nazis marking the doors of Tartars in Crimea. As I said, they really like to pick their fights.

[Jinwoy]

>SNIP<

Of your entire post, I noticed one thing:
1) He won't source RT unless they source someone reliable, like Gallup. Which is exactly what they did.
Nice strawman.

[Dalcaria]

>SNIP<

Of your entire post, I noticed one thing:
1) He won't source RT unless they source someone reliable, like Gallup. Which is exactly what they did.
Nice strawman.

Gallup is a POLL company! A POLL COMPANY! Not news, not journalism, POLLS! Meaning OPINIONS! They could be sourcing a UN poll and it would still mean NOTHING in the grand scheme of things! And for the record, I'm fairly certain he HAS sourced RT a few times where a poll wasn't done, though I don't remember exactly because I barely get past the title of each RT editorial before I laugh off back to BBC. Come get me when RT starts sourcing BBC, Reuters, and Vice on a regular basis.

Strawman? Please, do yourself a favor and google that!

[Costa Fierro]

Why not?

Because just because a government does X at home that doesn't necessarily mean that when they win an international conflict, this will promote X in the world.

For example: The United States has democracy at home, and in the 1980s they were involved in a proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviets. The pro-American side eventually won that war. Did this help to promote democracy in the world? Hell no, it helped to promote Islamism in the world. So if you had lived in the 1980s and had supported the pro-American side in Afghanistan because you like democracy (i.e. American internal politics), that would have been a pretty serious mistake on your part.

I'm amused that people think that the US was directly responsible for the rise of Islamism in places like Afghanistan. America did provide aid, but the American's policy and intentions were to provide aid to all groups operating in Afghanistan, both radical and moderate.

Pakistan, on the other hand, wanted a radicalized neighbor which it could essentially control for its interests. So they gave American aid to all the evil radical groups operating in Afghanistan. The moderates were subsequently left out, became weaker and were overpowered by the stronger groups.

You should probably keep that in mind for future reference.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Because just because a government does X at home that doesn't necessarily mean that when they win an international conflict, this will promote X in the world.

For example: The United States has democracy at home, and in the 1980s they were involved in a proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviets. The pro-American side eventually won that war. Did this help to promote democracy in the world? Hell no, it helped to promote Islamism in the world. So if you had lived in the 1980s and had supported the pro-American side in Afghanistan because you like democracy (i.e. American internal politics), that would have been a pretty serious mistake on your part.

I'm amused that people think that the US was directly responsible for the rise of Islamism in places like Afghanistan. America did provide aid, but the American's policy and intentions were to provide aid to all groups operating in Afghanistan, both radical and moderate.

Pakistan, on the other hand, wanted a radicalized neighbor which it could essentially control for its interests. So they gave American aid to all the evil radical groups operating in Afghanistan. The moderates were subsequently left out, became weaker and were overpowered by the stronger groups.

You should probably keep that in mind for future reference.

Both the Pakistani and CIA sources I've read indicate that the US knew full well where Pakistan was funneling its aid, but kept on going because "gotta fight da Ruskies!"

"Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll and "The Bear Trap" by Mohammad Yousaf don't agree on many things, but they do concur on that point, at least. Coll, though, makes it seem that the CIA attempted to direct aid to more moderate groups, while Yousaf implies that they didn't really care.

[Cartalucci]

Why not?

Because just because a government does X at home that doesn't necessarily mean that when they win an international conflict, this will promote X in the world.

For example: The United States has democracy at home, and in the 1980s they were involved in a proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviets. The pro-American side eventually won that war. Did this help to promote democracy in the world? Hell no, it helped to promote Islamism in the world. So if you had lived in the 1980s and had supported the pro-American side in Afghanistan because you like democracy (i.e. American internal politics), that would have been a pretty serious mistake on your part.

How can anyone observe current events in Wall Street, Ferguson and Detroit and claim that the US is a democracy at home? The US is an oligarchy of corporate interests where economic policy is dictated by a small cadre of bankers and industrialists, people are being denied access to water and the police can shoot unarmed people without consequences. The US lack of regard for democracy, human rights and civilian deaths in places like Ukraine and Syria is completely in line with those exact same policies at home.

[Cartalucci]

Anyways, these are the current demands that I've seen circulating on RuNet, and the ones that I posted earlier:

1. Self-determination, fully democratic votes in the DonBass Republic and Crimea
2. Federalization of Ukraine, Swiss style
3. Joint economic package, Russia to Novorossiya, US/EU to Rump Ukraine
4. Punish war criminals for crimes they committed
5. Self-determination, fully democratic vote in Moldova
6. Russian as official language in all former SSRs with significant Russian populations
7. Massive suppression of Svoboda, Right Sector, and their allies

It would be great if this could happen but unless Novorossiyan forces can drive NATO entirely from Ukraine I don't see how this can be achieved. The US and EU didn't sponsor a fascist coup in Kiev and wage war against Russians in the East just so that the people there could have a free vote on their future.

[Lyttenburg]

The infamous commander of former battalion "Donbass" (now completely annihilated) Semyon Semenchenko, who became quite known for the last week for his histerical posts on FB and calls for inflicting harm on family members of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence officials for their lack of support of encircled National Guard units in the east has done unprecenednted.

He has finally took off mask!

On oublic, he was always covering his face with balaclava, like this:



But now - big reveal! In Dniepropetrovsk he finally shoved his true face!



Yep - that's him. The Great Ukrainian warlord and patriot, who's actions in no small part, caused his and other battalions encircelement and destruction for which he blamed everyone, save his precious self.

[Lyttenburg]

I'm just not impressed with someone posting links of Ukrainian POW's being mistreated and seeming rather pleased about said poor treatment.

Mistreated? How? That they are shown houses they've bombed? That they were made to stand near civillians that they've bombed and apologise for their actions? This is "mistreatmnet"?

Or, what, you have trouble that they were made "jump"? Previously they were jumping all the time just to prove that they are not "Moscals". Besides, the context of them jumping - it's quite obvious, that they are doing their morning exercises under the guard of DPRs militiamen. Morning exercises, you know, are routine way for any military (and, probably, even for the National Guard of the Ukraine) to keep troopers in shape. And what you've expected? That they would be fed hamburgers and diet Coke?

I've got insanely crappy internet at the moment so I have only looked at a few of those videos but they don't seem to show extensive losses for urban combat using Soviet era-vehicles. (especially when the insurgents are being co-ordinated, trained, equipped and directly supported by Russian forces) ANNA in Syria has plenty of videos that show the huge losses that can be expected when attacking a heavily fortified urban area.

Now, specially for user Malgrave, and all denialists, who still beleive in "2000 dead since April" number plus for Westerner followers of perverse logic, that states - "rebels are to blame for all those civillian deaths - not the Ukrainians who actually kill them" - your own propganda Free and Objective media is reporting it!

Photos of a besieged city draining of life

(CNN) -- Bodies torn apart by the weapons of war. The bloody corpse of a man hit by shelling as he walked under trees, a shopkeeper's mutilated body in front of her store, a broom lying nearby.

Some three months after pro-Russian rebels declared an independent "Donetsk People's Republic," Ukrainian government forces are encircling the city of Donetsk.

Photojournalist Jonathan Alpeyrie was in the city in May and returned two weeks ago to find it battle-scarred and slowly draining of life as its people flee.

The images he has captured show the anguish of the immediate aftermath of shelling -- the relatives of victims, people left homeless, the dead. Others depict those left behind sheltering in Soviet or WWII-era cellars and boarded-up buildings as their homes are engulfed by the conflict.

The photographs, many too graphic to show here, leave no doubt about the true horror of the destructive conflict.

"If you go north of the city towards the airport you have entire areas that are no-man's land -- they are not controlled by anybody and they are being shelled daily ... with mortars and tanks," Alpeyrie tells CNN.

"You see some families that have remained there -- mostly elders and a lot of people that don't really have any money, they have to stay. You also get people who stay because they don't want to leave their homes. It's been their family home for a long time and they have their belongings inside, so they want to stay close to that. "You do have a lot of elders who are pretty tough and they're very pro-Russian, so for them that's also their struggle but a lot of them are hoping that this will end quickly."

The center of Donetsk, in peacetime much like any other modern city, is less damaged, though suffering from water shortages and largely shut down, he says, abandoned by an estimated half of Donetsk's population of around one million. "People do get killed. If you're walking down the street it's like a lottery, you just don't know," Alpeyrie says.

The day before Alpeyrie spoke to CNN, the group he was with -- fellow photographers and a local driver/translator -- had almost been killed in the town of Marynivka. Four people died nearby.

"It's always hard when we see people getting killed where you are, that's tough, because they're just regular people and they're not really involved in the war," he says.

The team's driver was one of the residents trying to earn a living while it was still possible. Many of those still facing the dangers of Donetsk have sent their children away, Alpeyrie says. The trains have stopped running from Donetsk, so the refugees travel by bus, many making the perilous journey through fighting in Luhansk region to reach Russia.

Others go south to Mariupol, traveling through the conflict's front line to safety, Alpeyrie says.

There, where the fighting is at its most intense, photography is not welcomed by the rebels.

"You can hang out with them if you want, but since just they get hit all the time and as you can't take pictures or photos there's no reason to hang out with them," Alpeyrie says.

However, recently Alpeyrie and some colleagues got lucky -- obtaining rare images of a rebel funeral.

CNN (which IMO is the ultimate epitome of what IS Western Media) even has a gallery with photos of destructions.