Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Build a Bridge, Get Over It

[Lytenburgh]

1. I'm not sure the existence of the Cauldron was actually acknowledged by the Ukrainian government at the signing of the treaty, so I'm not sure if it applies.
2. Yeah. I agree. I'm with the rebels, but I will agree that their logic is a bit off.

Also,Poroshenko on the Ceasefire.

Oh - so in less then one month Novorossiyan forces basically destroyed everything that Kiev have scrambled and patched back in service since September? And now you want to repeat this process? Bravo, Петро Oлiксеич! Btw, do you know the definition of insanity?

[Lytenburgh]

An abundance of "y'all should be eradicated" threats?

1) By whom?

2) As opposed to "Москалiв на ножи!"?

[Alien Space Bats]

Yes, penned by the Western Free and Independent Press. But surely, even here on NSG there are a lot of people in the anti-Russian camp beholden to such Manichean approach of viewing the West as the force of Good.

I'll bite.

First, some of us ― no, Hell, a fucking LOT of us ― opposed Reagan's efforts to back the Contras in an effort to overthrow the Sandinistas. As a matter of fact, it pretty much came to be the position of one of America's two major parties (the Democratic Party... which, now that I think of it, just happens to be PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA'S PARTY) that such efforts were wrong and ought to be halted.

In fact, not only was Reagan's Nicaraguan policy opposed by the Democrats, but in fact they actually moved to block it within the American political system. Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate enacted something called the Boland Amendment, which effectively cut off all funding for American efforts to undermine Nicaragua's Sandinista government.

This, of course, led directly to efforts by the Reagan Administration to circumvent the law by illegal means, via the illegal sale of arms to Iran in exchange for monies that were to then be funneled to the Contras. In America, we dubbed this the Iran-Contra Affair, and it badly damaged Ronald Reagan's political fortunes, to the point where it virtually ruined his second term as President.

So if we can pause here for a minute, we are able to see a significant difference between American efforts against Nicaragua and Russian efforts against the Ukraine: In the former case ― that is to say, the case of American intervention in Nicaragua ― there was widespread public opposition to a policy that was seen to be unjustified and unjustifiable, even to the point where the people who undertook said policy ended up suffering major political damage. In the latter case ― that is to say, Russian intervention in the Ukraine ― there appears to be only very minimal domestic opposition, and virtually no press criticism; nor does it appear likely that Putin will suffer much political blowback from his inexcusably aggressive policies.

So on the simple level of "whataboutism", any attempt to justify Russian buttfuckery in the Ukraine on the basis of similar American hijinx in Central America back in the 80s falls flat on its miserable face. Whereas (among Americans) only right-wing assholes ever really supported such criminal acts, while the majority of Americans thought them inexcusable ― a reality that in time led to the policy's failure ― apparently Russians in general don't know any better, which leads them to blindly and stupidly support unwarranted aggression on the part of their government.

That doesn't cast Russia or Russians in a very flattering light, now does it?

Ah, but that's not all. Europe opposed American efforts in Central America, just as it opposes Russian aggression in the Ukraine today. Like the Democratic Party in the 80s, they have nothing to be ashamed of on this score, and no hypocritical "gotcha" to have to explain away in opposing Russia's efforts to screw over Kiev.

Then, too, American efforts in Nicaragua never got so far over the line as to see American soldiers volunteer to fight alongside the Contras, bringing their equipment along with them as part of whatever inexplicable "leave" arrangement allowed them to go off and fight a war under someone else's banner under the cloak of plausible deniability.

Nor did America grab a chunk of Nicaraguan territory (such as, say, the Mosquito Coast), hold a referendum there in support of annexation, and then incorporate said territory into the US. So there's still the whole "land grab" aspect of Russian intervention in the Ukraine that doesn't line up here with your analogy, leaving it embarrassingly dangling out there for everyone to see (a flaw this analogy shares with the usual "But-America-invaded-Iraq-without-justification!" whataboutist excuse, BTW).

But here's the most annoying part of the whole comparison: Ultimately, Nicaragua proved that American (or, rather, to be more precise, REPUBLICAN lies about the nature of the Sandinistas and their government were, well, just that: LIES. The FSLN ultimately held elections, ultimately lost one of those elections, and then eventually returned to power again THROUGH ADDITIONAL ELECTIONS ― and none of that ended up harming American security or destabilizing Central America one single jot. IOW, the Sandinistas proved that everything American right-wingers said about them was absolute bullshit: They proved that they in fact were NOT a threat to the region or America, that intervention against them had NOT be justifiable, and that the Democratic alternative policy ― namely, that of leaving them alone to determine their own fate on the basis of self-determination and national sovereignty ― WAS, in fact, the right approach.

Which is kind of embarrassing for you, Bunky ― because it suggests that your country's hysterical "OMFG Banderist Zombie 4th Reich Rising KILL IT WITH WITH FIRE KILL IT NOW!!!!!" stance is similarly overblown; indeed, it implies that you'd have been better off keeping your hands off the Ukraine and just watching from afar, rather than shoving your fingers in where they don't belong.

And, worse, it ALSO makes both Europe and America's Democrats ― including the current Administration ― RIGHT on this, because both can say that, just as Reagan went too far and did things he shouldn't have back in the 80s, Putin is going too far and doing things he shouldn't be doing 30 years later.

<pause>

Methinks you fucked up with this argument, son ― and that this will now be the last time we hear an Occidentophobe us what happened with the Contras in the 80s as justification for what Russia is doing in the Ukraine today.

Suddenly!

What Putin Learned From Reagan

You admit that Putin is arming the Ukrainian rebels like Reagan armed the Contra rebels?

I suspect he thinks we Americans all worship St. Ronald.

[United Marxist Nations]

State Emergency Committee, why u cause USSR to fall? This all sounds really nice.

I'm pretty sure it'd still be in place if people were actually loyal to the original ideas of the revolution and a proletarian council state.

The way some of the things in the late '80's were going, that could have been a real possibility.

[The balkens]

I'm pretty sure it'd still be in place if people were actually loyal to the original ideas of the revolution and a proletarian council state.

The way some of the things in the late '80's were going, that could have been a real possibility.

If only.

You will be missed, you-ess-ess-are.

[United Marxist Nations]

The way some of the things in the late '80's were going, that could have been a real possibility.

If only.

You will be missed, you-ess-ess-are.

Funny story, the New Soviet Union had to change its name, but it did it in such a way as to preserve the original acronym, because changing that would have meant having to change all of the signs and the UN name.

[The balkens]

If only.

You will be missed, you-ess-ess-are.

Funny story, the New Soviet Union had to change its name, but it did it in such a way as to preserve the original acronym, because changing that would have meant having to change all of the signs and the UN name.

no shit? What was it?

[United Marxist Nations]

Funny story, the New Soviet Union had to change its name, but it did it in such a way as to preserve the original acronym, because changing that would have meant having to change all of the signs and the UN name.

no shit? What was it?

Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics/States (disputed). They changed the name to reflect that each republic had greater autonomy.

[The balkens]

no shit? What was it?

Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics/States (disputed). They changed the name to reflect that each republic had greater autonomy.

huh.

danke.

[Slobozhanshchyna]

An abundance of "y'all should be eradicated" threats?

1) By whom?

2) As opposed to "Москалiв на ножи!"?

1) Some radicals, the hell should I know? I try to avoid any far-right or right-wing groups and whatnot, с черта мне лезть на рожон?

2) Did I ever call for that? Moreover, did I call for the killing of anyone? I don't remember anything like that.

[Alien Space Bats]

Colonel Oliver North, and not a General I believe.

Eh, might as well give him the promotion, Careers as dead as the Russian space station.

You wanted to say "as American Shuttle"?

He never wanted to be anything more than a Colonel. Of course, now he has a new career as a right-wing political media darling/hack and occasional nut-job candidate for office in Virginia.

Which means that, like the American Shuttle, he's doing infinitely better than the totally failed Russian Shuttle.

ADDENDUM: Crushed in a hangar collapse in 2002. God, isn't THAT a great metaphor for Russian leadership in space.

[United Marxist Nations]

Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics/States (disputed). They changed the name to reflect that each republic had greater autonomy.

huh.

danke.

Yeah, would have been pretty cool. But nooooo, State Emergency Committee had to coup, which essentially spooked all the Republics away (and I mean all of them, even Russia).

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Participants, all and sundry - would you kindly keep to the topic? Molto bene grazie.

[United Marxist Nations]

Participants, all and sundry - would you kindly keep to the topic? Molto bene grazie.

Sorry, that was my bad.

[Bratislavskaya]

1. I'm not sure the existence of the Cauldron was actually acknowledged by the Ukrainian government at the signing of the treaty, so I'm not sure if it applies.
2. Yeah. I agree. I'm with the rebels, but I will agree that their logic is a bit off.

Also,Poroshenko on the Ceasefire.

Oh - so in less then one month Novorossiyan forces basically destroyed everything that Kiev have scrambled and patched back in service since Sptember? And now you want to repeat this precoess? Bravo, Петро Oлiксеич! Btw, do you know the definition of insanity?

Sssshhhhh. Let him believe....
Every time you say "I don't believe in Poroshenko" a Ukrainian dies.

[Slobozhanshchyna]

Every time you say "I don't believe in Poroshenko" a Ukrainian dies.

Erm, mods?

[Lytenburgh]

It's time to do something, that I haven't done since the last year - to analyse total Ukrainian losses in hardware via conservative estimates available on the lostarmour.info.

Since the start of the Civil War the Ukraine lost:

1) 523 units of militry vehilces destroyed and 289 captured

2) 27 units of field artillery destroyed and 26 captured.

3) 24 units of MRLs artillery destroyed and 2 captured.

4) 18 military planes and helicopters destroyed.

5) 1 Zhuk class patrol boat.

But, once again - these are very conservative extimates, which didn't (yet) count everything destroyed in Debaltsevo.

[Bratislavskaya]

Every time you say "I don't believe in Poroshenko" a Ukrainian dies.

Erm, mods?

What? Is that flamebating or something? I will remove it if it violates the rules.

[Lytenburgh]

1) Some radicals, the hell should I know? I try to avoid any far-right or right-wing groups and whatnot, с черта мне лезть на рожон?

2) Did I ever call for that? Moreover, did I call for the killing of anyone? I don't remember anything like that.

2) Neither have I.

1) So what's your point? No one here on NSG (at least, no one I know) is advocating mass execution of the Ukrainians.

[Slobozhanshchyna]

1) Some radicals, the hell should I know? I try to avoid any far-right or right-wing groups and whatnot, с черта мне лезть на рожон?

2) Did I ever call for that? Moreover, did I call for the killing of anyone? I don't remember anything like that.

2) Neither have I.

1) So what's your point? No one here on NSG (at least, no one I know) is advocating mass execution of the Ukrainians.

Okay, seems like you aren't familiar with Russian radicals. Case closed.

[Korva]

Oh - so in less then one month Novorossiyan forces basically destroyed everything that Kiev have scrambled and patched back in service since Sptember? And now you want to repeat this precoess? Bravo, Петро Oлiксеич! Btw, do you know the definition of insanity?

Sssshhhhh. Let him believe....
Every time you say "I don't believe in Poroshenko" a Ukrainian dies.

that is funny how?

[Bratislavskaya]

Sssshhhhh. Let him believe....
Every time you say "I don't believe in Poroshenko" a Ukrainian dies.

that is funny how?

"I don't believe in fairies"? Don't get the reference? No?

[Lytenburgh]

Noborossiyan forces captured a lot of trophies in Debaltsevo and environs.

Video.

Among them:

- Lots of tanks, several dozens of BMPs and BTRs that could be easily put back in order. Some of them were abandoned only because UkrArmy forces lacked fuel and/or ammunition for them, or due to some minor malfunctions.

- At least a dozen of "GRADs", several dozens of 122mm and 152mm artillery pieces.

- Enormous number of small-arms, RPGs, heavy machineguns and ammo for them.

- Medical supplies and lots and lots of food rations.

- DPR militiamen are expecially grateful for the Ukrainian volunteers, who supllied their troops (from their own pocket) with Night-visors, heat-visors, radios, kevlar vests and helmets. Now all of this is in their hands.

[Costa Fierro]

why do russian nationalists (capitalitss and fascists alike) worship the soviet union so much?

I imagine that it's romanticism of being a part of something bigger
or wishing back to a time when your country was a global power, rather than a federation of backwater nations, surrounded by yet more backwater nations and aggressively spreading military alliances.

Remember this, everyone. Voluntary entering into a military alliance is aggression.

[Korva]

I imagine that it's romanticism of being a part of something bigger
or wishing back to a time when your country was a global power, rather than a federation of backwater nations, surrounded by yet more backwater nations and aggressively spreading military alliances.

Remember this, everyone. Voluntary entering into a military alliance is aggression.

it is when it hurts russian feelings ;_;