Address by the President of the Russian Federation
en.kremlin.ruAll the doublespeak is actually pretty amazing to witness... We're defending Russia but also "liberated" Kherson and Zaporizhzhia... The west is threatening us with nuclear weapons... The regime which came into power in 2014 (nevermind that Poroshenko and that whole group were voted out in a democratic election where Zelenskiy and his party, who were notably more friendly to Russia at first, came to power)...
But see, if all of Ukraine is really part of Russia, then it all makes sense. They are "liberating" occupied territory, and "defending" Russia itself.
If. But that's a psychological point in Putin's mind, not a reality in the real world. We're at the point where the pathologies of one man are driving this war.
Even that spin doesn't really work, who threatens to nuke their own territory?
What's actually amazing to witness is an A-list Hollywood director making a documentary on the CIA financing of neo-nazi groups inside Ukraine and their involvement in the killing of Donbass civillians in the civil war now raging for over 8 years and being censored so effectively, few US citizen seem to know about it.
Another fact I find amazing is the maidan revolution being televised for weeks across the globe on all major news channels, with prominent EU leaders traveling to Kyiv and holding speeches to the crowds. One of those was Angela Merkel and hundreds of millions must have seen it. Today this fact is considered Russian propaganda and apparently never happened. Anyone watched the news 6 years ago and isn't afraid of being downvoted on an internet forum? Remember Merkel's "Right to be forgotten" act? Guess what she used it on.
I came to this forum expecting a higher level of conversation than the horror I've witnessed on reddit. Instead I see outrage over "Russia support everywhere" in a thread where literally 1 heavily downvoted comment was not making fun of Russians(at the time of writing of course). I question the sincerity of people behind such comments. We all know psyops exist, but apparently never in our neighborhoods. Another theory is it's just trolling, which is basically a modern version of wife-beating. "Husband comes home from work frustrated where he was taking insults all day from an abusive boss and takes it out on his wife." vs. "Modern internet user is put down by society/boss/wife and takes it out on strangers on the internet." This whole propaganda shit-fest is playing right in the hands of abusers. My father used to say "come war, the bastards move up in society".
And for gods sake, can someone tell me what percentage of the global production is weapons manufacturing? One used to be able to find that piece of information, but not anymore.
If you are making claims about suppressed media, why not include links to said media or information about them? Some might be interested in the documentary or the speech you mentioned.
Fully intentional. As well as not mentioning the name of the prominent Hollywood director. If you're too afraid to google it, the 1984 comments in this thread bashing Russia will create their own gravity well from the irony displayed. Am a EU citizen, a communicologist and programmer.
If it's censored so effectively, how do you expect people to find it via googling based on vague allusions? If you believe this is so important, why be so vague in the first place? This is not how speaking in good faith looks.
I think that I recognize the parent's allusion. The film is Ukraine on Fire, directed by Igor Lopatonok.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_on_Fire
The executive producer (better known for his work as a director) was Oliver Stone. You can buy it on DVD from several major retailers or pay to get it instantly via streaming on Amazon Prime.
The reason "few US citizen seem to know about it" is probably because most US citizens don't watch political documentaries.
Thank you. I'd agree with that presumption. It should also be clear that events in Ukraine have definitely evolved since 2016. Reception seems to imply that multiple sources dismissed the film as Russian propaganda at the time as well. Of course I can't say that for myself without watching it, but I'm noting it as significant.
How else am I to demonstrate that the information has been removed clean from the internet? If that makes me a bad actor in your opinion, in my opinion you have your reasoning screwed up somewhere, because I'm not following that logic at all. Please refrain from such redditish personal attacks. If you want to aggravate me, disprove my points. Unfortunately I'd more likely thank you than being mad in that case. If you're actually into making people mad, you should stick to reddit.
I don't think there's a single person on this forum that's not an ace at googling. So I take it you didn't google it for other reasons. Which is also a point I'm making and has been additionally explained in the post you're replying to.
I did attempt to search it based on the information you provided, but unfortunately couldn't find anything particularly relevant when I can't search in reference to the A-list Hollywood director you're alluding to and with any searches about Ukraine optimizing to being about the war with Russia which is obviously at the forefront of results.
You are being needlessly obtuse in your responses and in providing any clarifying information, which is either acting in bad faith or arrogance. If you believe me calling that out as such is a personal attack, then I suggest you provide sources so your points actually can be accessed and addressed.
There you go: https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-removes-ukraine-on-fire-do...
I already explained my motivations behind what you describe as "acting in bad faith or arrogance" and would rather not be going in circles.
Thank you for providing a source. Although, the claims of censorship here appear hollow per checking currently -
- It's available on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKcmNGvaDUs and was posted in April 2021
- It's searchable on Amazon currently despite being blocked in March of this year per the archived result in the article: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Ukraine+on+Fire&rh=n%3A2625373011...
This feels out of date; the movie is not being censored now. It was blocked by private companies likely as a quick response to the beginning of the war, and has since been made accessible again.
the claims of censorship here appear hollow
Please do realize you didn't check any of my points. Found any footage of Merkel in Kyiv that millions remember from weeks of news coverage, but apparently never happened? What percentage of the global economy is the weapons industry? I could continue with more concrete examples of censorship, but we can't even tackle any basics as they are getting ignored.
I hope you're not talking about that propaganda piece from Oliver Stone? One time I spoke with a dog. It told me humans are pretty low level for not understanding the importance chasing balls.
Again though, Zelenskiy's government isn't the post-Maidan government.
It's not 2014 any more...
True. He ran for office on the promise to stop the civil war in the east and enact the Minsk agreement. Instead the shelling intensified.
What's sad is up to two months ago there were UN observers in the area, publishing all their observations daily in an open public online database. If one so chooses, one can read up on the intensified shelling of the Donbass regions leading up to Russias intervention. Took me seconds to find the first time. Up to 1000 artillery explosions per day counted by international observers and published online. Go on. We're in the information age, with all that information available to us, yet no one seems to know anything concrete or where to find it. Why is that?
There's plenty of concrete information - like the fact that this is an artificial conflict manufactured by Russia, and it's perfectly normal to use artillery to fight enemy combatants - but you're ignoring it, because it doesn't fit your story which (I'm sure this is a pure coincidence) matches Russian propaganda. Same with alleged escalation, whereas the numbers show the exact opposite: the total number of people killed was less than those murdered by Russian nazis in Bucha alone.
Can I get a source on the Russian nazi claim? It's the silliest of the claims you made and if you present a shred of evidence for it I'll reevaluate everything.
Oh, I’m sorry, me calling nationalistic genocide perpetrators “Nazis” was just a rhetorical figure here.
As for literal Russian Nazis: https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1572972414451027970 for just one example.
A thing the psyche does is make people willing to accept any information that supports their views without questioning where it came from, while at the same time dismissing any piece of information that contradicts it, also without having the mental fortitude to check. It's easier to hide and feel strong in a crows than to stand alone with your views. That's why the artificial echo chambers in social media, that all the censorship created, are so effective.
I did some light digging with the information you provided. The source is not an "independent researched", but a member of a Washington based think tank "The Woodrow Wilson Center". Literally everything he wrote in the past years was slandering Russia. Where did you think the gigantic budget of the CIA went?
The proof you provided is a telegram screenshot. You want me to make one that reads "Russian troops offering lollipops to Ukranian POWs"? Should take the average ycombinator reader minutes to whip up such a picture. You should know better.
So it was CIA who murdered Bucha residents, not Russians?
I always found this strategy of telling your debate partner what they believe, then mocking them for it, remarkably wide spread on a technical forum, considering how juvenile and unproductive it is.
Propaganda's a hell of a drug eh?
We used to use the word "kremlinology" to describe efforts to decipher ("bake") the USSR official rhetoric.
That word's time has come again!
Apparently, the size of the mobilisation will be 300k people, so this isn't going to be an overwhelmingly large force. The speculation I've seen is that this move is about 1) stopping the attrition of professional soldiers as their contracts expire and 2) providing manpower in logistics and controlling the occupied areas, so as to allow more rest and rotation of front-line soldiers.
They invaded with less than 300k. It is doubtful that Ukraine has a similar number of professional soldiers (excluding Territorial Defence ).
It’s possible that this will give them an overwhelming force.
Ukraine has more than 300k because their survival is on the line and they mobilised en masse...
Keep in mind Ukraine had 45 million people before the war versus Russia's 144 million. But Ukraine mobilized absolutely everyone they could versus Russia which needs to keep their population content and downplay the "special operation".
Ukraine didn't have 300k when Russia invaded. They may have more now. Anyone have data?
And, 300k without artillery, tanks, air support, and logistics isn't an overwhelming force. Does Russia have the rest of what it takes to make them an effective force?
Russia’s main problem throughout has been their lack of manpower. Yes it could be they don’t have the equipment to equip a force this large, it could be that even giving them warehoused Soviet equipment is enough to make them effective on the ground agaisnt Ukraine.
Like my favourite defense analyst likes to say “war is contingent”.
No.
They have less than 800 multipurpose and attack planes combined (because i don't want to explain it in another comment: they have air superiority, so their fighter plan count isn't relevant).
If we consider Russian hardware as well maintained as France or US, it means 650 available planes max for offensive operations. A bit more than 50 planes are confirmed destroyed, so I'll round it up to 600. That means 300 sortie a day max (if each plane have 2 maintenance crew fulltime). But as the long-range air defense is effective, you cannot penetrate too deep, and that limit the efficiency.
Ukraine is like twice the size of Irak, with more population and vegetation. Russia do have air superiority but they cannot action it.
Hopefully for the conscripts, Putin just want to defend and wait it out . In this case, manpower is effective.
Another way to use manpower is to assault continuously WW1 style, supported by artillery fire. This would be stupid.
Russia doesn't have air superiority. That's the suspected reason they hadn't been using their air force very much. And it will only get worse to them, because of NATO air defenses.
They do have air superiority, it's just not the air superiority we use to see when the US is involved in a war.
Air superiority during WW2 meant that your fighter+recon force is dominant in the 3rd dimension. You can have air superiority and suffer more from air interdiction than the enemy (and usually that's how it goes btw, see WW2 and Korea war).
Air superiority is needed to be able to send your attack planes in enemy territory overtly, which the russian do. Not much, but they do.
Like i said, i took fairly large numbers to explain why the airforce didn't do much (i don't remember the comment but it should be something like 200 outing per day on average, when in the first gulf war, the US managed 800 outing a day on average for 43 days, on a smaller country with better terrain).
Now, the real number? I think that of their 800 attack planes, they only have 300 to 400 available, because of what we've seen of their equipment and the rampant corruption.
I don't think they have enough mechanics to prepare more than a hundred planes a day originally, and they stupidly lost some their mechanics during the first week of the war (encamped in a Ukrainian airport on the frontline). I think this is the reason whay the outing are so reduced compared to the early days in fact.
My general sense is that not even Putin believes his own rhetoric, such is his inconsistency of thought.
The reality is that Putin has elected to invade a sovereign neighbor country and can unelect to do so. Not one "western" leader, military or civilian, has threatened Russia "existentially" and certainly no one has threatened to invade Russia.
Putin is a liar, to put it simply. He's apparently playing the crazy-card, in attempts to freak the world out, but his constant threats to the entire world of nuclear first-strikes and then saying that "THIS TIME IS NOT A BLUFF" means that people can't really learn much by his unchanging and silly rhetoric. As some boxer said: "Be aware of the main trunk of his body and where it's moving and watch his hands"
Biden publicly called for Putin to be removed. This kind of follows what Chomsky has said, there is no path for PUTIN to de-escalate this situation. I don't see how Putin survives standing down, so he wont.
This is a nonsense commment. Are you trying to say Biden saying something puts Putin is some kind of impossible position? This is an imperialist war of choice.
A quote from Kier Giles, whose article in today's Guardian addresses some of the silliness and contradictions in Putin's speech this morning.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/21/vladim...
"few of Putin’s contradictory storylines stand up to even a moment’s critical thought: we are winning in Ukraine – but the forces of the west aligned against us are so powerful that now we need to dig deeper to stay in the fight; our proxy regimes in Ukraine need to hold referendums to join us – but we already know they all want to join; we’re protecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia itself – but to do this requires incorporating part of another country; our war aim has always simply been to “liberate” Donbas – but to do that we’ve also taken so much of Ukraine that we have a 1,000km frontline."
People on both sides of this debate are exploited by the war propaganda that both sides push.
It doesn't matter which side you stand on today, if you think the solution to this problem is war instead of negotiation and peace, you are being abused by everything you read and hear.
If Russia would stop fighting, there would be no war. If Ukraine would stop fighting, there would be no Ukraine.
Agreed but you have to negotiate for peace from a position of strength.
Putin has no choice. He's had no choice since he started all of this in 2014; he can't back down because that outcome isn't survivable for a Russian leader.
It's going to take 100,000+ dead Russians. At some point the military and civilian leadership in Russia will realize that Putin has to go, and that is when all this will end.
There is a lot of death and destruction yet to go. Ukraine will struggle with hundreds of thousands of new bodies arming Russia's antique military machine. Iran is flying in large quantities of drones that will expose Ukraine's forces to effective Russian artillery. But the outcome won't change; Ukraine will ultimately win because it's not a war of choice for Ukraine and Ukraine has the allies it needs to keep fighting.
People said much the same about Syria, and yet Assad is still there.
Ukraine would be foolish to trust the North America or Europe to support them forever, especially if even more major economic issues happen in either continent.
That seems to be Putins play, he is hoping the West's internal issues sufficiently flare up. This winter will probably determine that. The only real diplomatic path is to convince China to sever with Russia, and thats not gonna happen. Its well understood China is looking at this as a dry run for what kind of responses to expect if Taiwan gets attacked. And China is the clear winner of the Ukraine conflict right now.
Syria isn't a useful analogy for Ukraine. Syria isn't Europe. Syria is a tangled civil war whereas the Russian invasion of Ukraine is bald faced aggression. Syrian rebels do not and will never enjoy the unprecedented level of support Ukraine has.
> The only real diplomatic path is to convince China to sever with Russia, and thats not gonna happen.
It’s not going to fully happen, but Putin met Xi Jinping in Uzbekistan last week, and returned a bit disappointed.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/09/16/world/vladimir-...:
“President Vladimir Putin acknowledged Thursday that China had “questions and concerns” about Russia’s war in Ukraine, a notable, if cryptic, admission that Moscow lacks the full backing of its biggest, most powerful partner on the world stage”
⇒ I don’t think Russia will get much support from China.
My broader point is that there is basically only 1 country who could put sufficient diplomatic pressure now to make Russia change course, and they've already clearly signaled they will not put that pressure on them to do so.
The current status quo where a luke warm ally nearby country whose territory and resources you might want to scoop up some day and your major rival are both burning resources, while you get to profit being the middle man between the 2 benefits China greatly. Fully supporting Russia doesn't.
This makes sense. If the West goes down, who will China sell all their manufactured goods to?
The sudden disruption in an economy with that many people might produce some serious destabilization.
China would probably prefer a slow fadeout of the West rather then a rapid implosion.
China needs Russia. As tensions rise between China and USA regarding hegemony China will need Russian commodities.
This is why Nixon sought to keep China and Russia separate. I don't know what the US State department's strategy is with Ukraine except to become energy supplier to Europe and grind Russia down. But in the process make China stronger?
Which commodities? The only useful thing Russia can offer China is gas, and that’s only because it’s cheap.
Well, another thing China might want from Russia is Manchuria, but it’s not the time I think.
And to buy Chinese goods. Especially when China and USA are no longer "friends".
Not really - Russian society is piss poor, their market is worthless compared to US or EU. That’s why China prioritizes western markets over Russia.
>Iran is flying in large quantities of drones that will expose Ukraine's forces to effective Russian artillery.
Not really, Russia doesn’t have precision guided munitions. Ukraine - or NATO - is at least decade ahead technologically, maybe two.
> Not really, Russia doesn’t have precision guided...
Russia has ample artillery. While they're blind it isn't very effective. Drones correct that deficiency, which is why Russian drones are a serious threat.
Drones make it possible to aim. Russians don’t have anything to aim - they can cover an area with artillery, but for that you don’t need a drone.
> they can cover an area with artillery, but for that you don’t need a drone
This is badly incorrect. You have fantastical ideas about how artillery works. Perhaps you've seen images of a few cratered wheat fields and figure that is Russian SOP and goes on 24x7. It doesn't. Those are major operations that require a lot of costly preparation and time. Russia can't afford to do it on a whim, firing whilly nilly at phantoms. No one can.
Fire must be directed. Otherwise you're just making noise.
We are talking about old, worn out guns firing ammunition way past its expiration date. What you are describing would have worked six months ago — and even then wouldn’t be comparable to what Ukraine is doing, simply because you need an order of magnitude more shots to make up for the lack of guided munitions.
Also, what Russia is doing is mostly making noise. That’s why their offensive over the past couple of months was so hilariously slow. That’s also why they level entire cities instead of specific military targets.
> But the outcome won't change; Ukraine will ultimately win because it's not a war of choice for Ukraine and Ukraine has the allies it needs to keep fighting.
how allies will help if Russia will use tactical nukes on Ukrainian forces?
If Russia uses tactical nukes then god help us all. If one though we were living in interesting times at the moment, they will soon think these are boring times.
If a country invades a neighbor, claims it’s now part of their sovereign homeland while the neighbor is still actively defending, and then uses nukes based the justification their newly occupied “homeland” they just invaded is being invaded by its defenders then it means any country with nukes can use nukes to invade and grab neighboring territory
At the very least, everyone is going to get nukes
> At the very least, everyone is going to get nukes
its ongoing process already. On one hand you have Iran, Israel, N Korea who developed/developing nukes, on another hand US has agreements for sharing nuclear weapons with plenty of countries already, I think American nukes deployed in several European countries right now.
He could try to play that card if he wants. Since we're going full hypothetical here I suspect he'd be removed by Russian military command if he tried. If not then it's WW3 for real; there is no 'tactical' nuke scenario that doesn't lead to a wider war.
> it's WW3 for real; there is no 'tactical' nuke scenario that doesn't lead to a wider war.
How so, why are you confident allies will declare some kind of war in such event?
Very. Nukes are special. There aren't really any degrees of nuance with nuclear weapons. The hysteria over fallout alone will polarize the world like it has never been polarized. Ever.
Mobilization will hurt Putin politically in Russia. Much of his power and following is based on the belief that he is the only one who can provide stability for Russians—"Putin, the one who put an end to the chaos of the Gorbachev and Yeltsin years." But not mobilizing means losing the war, which he would not survive. So, a bitter pill but one he must swallow
So deciphering the double-speak: Russia is instituting a draft, they consider Crimea part of Russia's territorial integrity, efforts to dehumanize the opposition or paint it as a shadowy international conspiracy continue, and they're threatening nuclear war.
Get ready for WW3.
Seems more like a translation TO doublespeak.
You can argue with every point, but won't ever win cuz "it's just a way to communicate without being pedantic", but then you put all of this together and get a complete and utter gibberish. And this is basically how doublespeak works.
Crimea affords Russia with a warm water port. There's no way in Hell they will give that up.
Putin took Crimea because he was afraid of losing it if Ukraine joined NATO.
> Get ready for WW3.
Against who? Russia can't even fight Ukraine. China es calling for peace. This is a minor regional conflict. I feel sorry for the people of Ukraine and Russia that are going to suffer and die pointlessly for the delusional imperial ambitions of an old man that lives 75 years in the pass.
Putin is the new Mussolini, getting his ass handed to him while trying to invade Greece and for exactly the same reasons; mainly a low moral, low quality army that doesn't want to fight that war.
The Nuclear War threat is not a joke. Just imagine if China or Russia had the same activities in Mexico or Canada that the USA/NATO has had in the Ukraine over many years. How would Washington react?
What activities are that? And was it these activities that made it possible to completely ignore international laws on territorial integrity and warrant and invade Ukraine outright?
No.
All this “but USA!”, “but NATO!”, “but the Nazis!” whataboutism is complete nonsense.
It doesn’t even begin to explain one country invading a neighbor with 125k men, leveling entire cities and killing thousands of civilians.
Even making hypothetical Mexico comparisons is impossible without focusing the debate around something other than the invasion and therefore sounding like a Russia apologist.
1993 Ukraine joined a cooperative organization that effectively made them a defacto NATO member. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1993/07/27/US-and-Ukraine-sign-...
2013 Viktoria Nuland orchestrated a coup to oust Yanukovych because he changed his mind at signing an economic agreement with EU and signed one with Russia instead. A pro Western leader was put in place. https://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/23/neocons-and-the-ukrain...
Since 2014 NATO has been training Ukrainian forces. https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/nato-has-been-training-ukr...
Cuba was not allowed to have Soviet missiles but it's ok for Ukraine to become a member of NATO?
The "Nazis" should not be underestimated. They are small but powerful because they use violence and intimidation. Like the Cartels influence with law enforcement in Mexico they influence policy in Ukraine.
https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/the-us-promoted-and-financed-t...
> Ukrainians spontaneously united against the actions of President Viktor Yanukovych after his government refused to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union, which had taken seven years to negotiate, due to pressure from Russia.
If the Ukrainians spent 7 years wanting to get closer to the west and then as you say "[Yanukovych] changed his mind". I think it's easy to see the populace wanting to oust this leader and that the following leader would be pro western, like the leaders in the seven prior years.
> a coup to oust Yanukovych because he changed his mind at signing an economic agreement with EU and signed one with Russia instead.
Does a coup in a foreign country form a valid pretext for invasion you mean?
> Since 2014 NATO has been training Ukrainian forces.
Yes. Are you trying to argue that this forms a reasonable pretext for invading a neighboring country? Or how else is it relevant?
> it's ok for Ukraine to become a member of NATO?
Of course. It's their choice as a sovereign state to have any alliance with anyone.
It seems you are enumerating a number of things that Russia disagreed with or that was even outright hostile or Anti-russian. But that doesn't form a pretext for invasion does it?
> Cuba was not allowed to have Soviet missiles
Accoring to who? The US? Ukraine? The soviet union? Nato? No. It was the US that considered this unacceptable. And the Soviet Union considered the placement of MRBMs in Turkey unacceptable. So you might argue the US "started" that. But a key fact in that story is of course that the drama ended with both countries withdrawing those missiles, luckily (The US from Turkey, and The USSR from Cuba).
The US certainly hasn't always behaved will in international relations. But don't try to make this a whataboutism discussion about "NATO is the US and the US did X so no one can point fingers at russia for doing similar thing Y".
Ukraine isn't in NATO any more than Austria is, and Ukraine takes no responsibility for past US or NATO actions. Ukraine is a sovereign country that has a right to territorial integrity. Did Cuba have that as well? Yes!
If Ukraine feels it needs a military alliance, that's their choice. If Russia fels that the threat of a big military alliance on their doorstep is too much, then they are of course entitled to build up defenses on their borders. This would create tensions, and those tensions could need addressing.
But the bottom line is: if a country invades another country, the case is pretty clear cut. It doesn't matter whether someone else made the same error. It's wrong and must be condemned. There is no valid pretext for this invasion.
"Of course. It's their choice as a sovereign state to have any alliance with anyone"
Really? So Canada can become a close ally of China? Maybe invite Chinese military to train Canadian troops? Maybe even allow the Chinese Navy to use Canadian ports?
Is Canada "free" to do that?
And there is Iraq. They were invaded because they had WMDs. Oops sorry Iraq we were wrong. Oh right Blair got Bush to get UN approval so they had to fake WMD evidence. Just ask Colin Powell.
Cuban missile crisis ended Peacefully because both Kennedy and Khrushchev wouldn't listen to their respective War hawk cabinets.
Ukraine was a defacto NATO member before the invasion.
> And there is Iraq. They were invaded because they had WMDs. Oops sorry Iraq we were wrong
That was an invasion on incorrect pretexts. But you are resorting to whataboutism again. Can one not condemn both invasions? Ukraine wasn’t part of the Iraq invasion…
> Ukraine was a defacto NATO member before the invasion.
No, NATO members are defended by the troops of other members, not just their money and equipment. You aren’t a “de facto” member otherwise.
Countries that would be defended by NATO troops (and not only NATO weapons and money) could perhaps be said to be de facto members, I’d argue that applicants like Sweden have been already before applying.
But whether or not someone is a de facto member of NATO or not doesn’t change the fact that invasions of sovereign countries are, well, bad.
"That was an invasion on incorrect pretexts" Colin Powel knew beforehand that the evidence of WMDs was FAKE! That's why he demanded that the Director of the CIA sit right behind him within camera shot when he made the presentation on TV. It was a lie and Colin Powel knew it was a lie.
NATO members ARE helping Ukraine. They are behaving a lot like they would if Ukraine was an OFFICIAL member of NATO. They only reason they dont send troops is because Russia is a NUCLEAR power. Simple as that.
I'm not arguing whether the Invasion was good or bad or moral or immoral or justified or unjustified. I'm arguing that, over what the US has been doing in Ukraine for years was bound to provoke a Russian invasion.
International Relations is ruled by power not morals.
> NATO members ARE helping Ukraine. They are behaving a lot like they would if Ukraine was an OFFICIAL member of NATO.
They are behaving like Ukraine is a country that is friendly towards NATO but not a member.
> They only reason they dont send troops is because Russia is a NUCLEAR power. Simple as that.
You know that the entire reason for NATO was to stave of the USSR and now Russia right?, saying 'NATO won't intervene with a nuclear power' is useless when your alliance was literally formed to fight a nuclear power.
NATO isn't intervening because Ukraine isn't a member, is that simple.
> I'm not arguing whether the Invasion was good or bad or moral or immoral or justified or unjustified. I'm arguing that, over what the US has been doing in Ukraine for years was bound to provoke a Russian invasion.
no one did anything 'provoke' an invasion, that just removes all agency from Russia itself, and Ukraine. Russia is the sole entity that decided to invade, no one else made that decision for them.
Russia is the one solely to blame for all the war crimes that are being committed in Ukraine right.
> International Relations is ruled by power not morals.
Then clearly Russia is going to be knocked down a beg in international relations, because its quite clear that Russias army cannot even get to a city less then 300km from there border in 6 months, and not even against, but against a country using second rate NATO gear.
I’m only arguing the invasion is a violation of international law.
Of course power is a layer on top of that, but we don’t sit idly watching countries being invaded.
The question at this point is: should the international community be ready to accept (any) escalation in order to restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity (1991 borders)? And that’s mostly up to Ukraine who suffers most of the sacrifices, but the answer must be yes. We must ensure this example is made. I’m more afraid of a world where Russia annexes an inch of Donbas than even direct conflict between NATO and Russia.
I’m arguing that at the end of the day “spheres of influence” or “buffer zones” aren’t relevant concepts here. Basically: borders are holy, cross one and that’s it.
The mistake the West has made here is not suring up Ukraines borders sooner, and of course not reacting stronger when Crimea was invaded. That invasion should have come with all the sanctions we see now, and more.
Putin can't even elevate to full out war and conscription, yet you think he will jump all the way to using nuclear weapons? The threat is completely hollow.
Can anyone clarify something that I have recently heard in interview (Russian language)[1]: that U.S. citizens believe that U.S. defeated Nazis and won WW2, and not USSR. Is this in your experience is mostly true or false ?
The broadly accepted view is that the USSR won their front of the war using American supplies and Russian blood. And that the western fronts would have been far worse except for the Eastern front bleeding Germany dry.
The US won against Japan essentially without help from the USSR.
I would agree and add that the American and British soldiers were "lions lead by donkeys" and if not for the might of the American industrial machine supplying materiél the superior trained and leas German forces would've at least prevailed much longer than they did.
Fun facts: - Wall Street partly funded the Russian communism revolution.
This isn't taken as factually true but is part of the US narrative, so it feels true even to people who were told about WWII. After all, the Allied Powers were fighting Germany, so USSR contributions feel limited, even if their contributions exceeded Allied ones.
Yes I believe this is true reflection of Western opinion.
There was an article a while back that showed a much higher recognition of Soviet efforts and sacrifices in WW2 immedistely after the war ended but tapering away ever since.
It's sad to see how easily westerners are mislead by our own leaders, who ape Soviet contempt for constituents and maliciously ignore voter inputs.
You should at least make an effort to see things from the Russian point of view. To say there's nothing valid in the Russian state's actions, is really idiotic.
1) Are post WW2 borders sacred?
2) The dissolution of the USSR was chaotic, unnegotiated, and basically due to the magnanimity of Gorbachev.
3) Therefore, post USSR space resembles post-colonial Africa: former co-nationals are now minorities, depending on which post-Soviet state one examines. Armenia and Azerbaijan are good examples. Oh, but the news didn't tell you to get upset about it yet, so you have no opinion? That's why these opinions on Ukraine are so unprincipled.
4) The Turks depopulated Ukraine via the slave trade. Russia conquered the land, pushed the Turks back, and colonized E Ukraine for themselves. 18th century stuff. What I want to know is why the wokester position (the official Western "Good Guy" position, otherwise known the Party Line Winston) finds the USA's existence an affront to Native Americans and Mexicans, Israel's existence an affront to Palestinians, but cares not one whit for Poland occupying half of historic Germany, Turkey's ongoing genocide of Armenians (They back Azerbaijan, and Turkey is also a NATO power), and Greeks (threatening to invade... read proper journalists and you'll know)?
5) The West did the same thing to Serbia. The West in fact helped with the Muslim genocide of Serbians. Kosovo is the origin of Serbian culture and the Muslims overran it in the last 400 years. If you weep for the Native Americans and Tibetans, then you should care about what happened in Serbia too. Worse, the precedent is the one that the Russians used as the pretext to invade Ukraine.
6) Crimea was given to Ukraine in the 1950s by Khrushchev. It was Tatar and then it was Russian. HOW IS THAT SACRED? The same international law the US breaks constantly?
7) Remember that post-Cold War Magnanimity by Gorby? Know how people keep saying 'uh oh, if Putin loses, he'll nuke us all?' Do you really think that political shift came from nowhere? The west has been attacking Russia ever since the Cold War ended. If western idiots (sadly, most of us) haven't recognized (or are too ignorant to even know about because you don't read) the damage, that's only because you do the same thing the Russians do: slavishly listen to leaders without actually questioning the fact-stack. The US broke the promise not to move NATO eastward. That was the original sin. That was not nothing. That was as aggressive as attacking Ukraine. The demographic decline of Russia is not war damage? The economic damage of allowing China into the WTO and not Russia (when they were trying to be good) is not war damage? The use of western financial institutions to pillage Russia and financialize and control its mineral assets, while at the same time encouraging the de-industrializing of Russia is not war damage?
8) The Russians stopped the Cold War, but the US and the West did not.
9) Now they are mobilizing. They can't do it like we do: the US uses war to pillage its own people. The Russians are mobilizing the only way they can: the old fashioned way. The Russians are pushing back the only way they can: the old fashioned way.
10) Everywhere I go, supposedly intelligent people act like citizens of Oceana who can't seem to remember what happened the prior news cycle and remember only what the Wokeing class demands. Everything else goes in the memory hole.
11) THE WEST IS JUST AS BAD! CYBERPUNK IS JUST AS SH!T AS FALLOUT!
12) I didn't want any of this. The time to have stopped this was in the 1990s when the Western Trojan horse known as Chubais was busy annihilating the Russian economy. We nurtured China because their slaves were going to make our masters more profits and turn the majority of Americans from a free people with trades into a poor, welfare dependent people from the noblesse oblige of our 'elites' who shipped our manufacturing overseas... Russia has resources, China has slaves. Russia didn't play along when we tried financializing their economy and pulling it into our orbit. So now it's war.
13) To all you stubborn ignorant dummies: Good job. You have caused global starvation, European economic collapse, the annihilation of Ukraine, and it all benefits... you?
14) Hacker News is filled with beneficiaries of US policies. You can rely on a man to not understand something when his paycheck is dependent on him not understanding.
15) Keep on downvoting. The truth is a virus and I hope it destroys your brains.
Confused. post-WW2 borders are not sacred, but 400yo events are...the history of something is more important than the current reality...an independent self-governing Ukraine means less than 'who gave it to whom'. This is mostly political doublespeak rationalization.
Reality: in this day and age it's not OK to begin bombing your neighbors for any reason. Never mind blamethrowing, equating old treaties to bombing, and appeals to good ol-fashion murder.
> Reality: in this day and age it's not OK to begin bombing your neighbors for any reason.
1) you didn't say "bombing anyone for any reason", does it imply it's ok to bomb distant countries for some reason?
2) if (1) is yes, then:
2.1) what is the appropriate distance to a country to count it as distant?
2.2) what are the appropriate reasons and is this list of reasons exhaustive?
3) where has "this day and age" begun and why on that moment specifically?
> Are post WW2 borders sacred?
You can stop reading here
They aren’t. But the only international law that matters says you don’t try to change borders by force. You don’t murder civilians or stage fake referendums to annex territories.
There is no “other perspective” worth nothing other than as an excercise in trying to predict the criminals next step.
Just to nitpick but this quote:
"What I want to know is why the wokester position (the official Western "Good Guy" position, otherwise known the Party Line Winston) finds the USA's existence an affront to Native Americans and Mexicans, Israel's existence an affront to Palestinians"
Is not entirely true in the US. The majority of the political class supports Israel and looks the other way to what is happening to Palestinians. In fact right now multiple states have introduces anti-BDS laws (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) to help stop any attempt to curtail Israeli expansion via peaceful means.The Native American population also isn't doing great either which goes against your narrative.
All your points completely miss the fact that Ukrainians want to be free from Russia. They're not a pawn to be passed between powers, they're a free country.
Are post WW2 borders sacred? Is Crimea, transferred by Soviet Russia to the Ukraine in 1954, sacred? It's called international law. Yes it should be sacred. Nothing you say justifies by any means Putin's aggression and war crimes. Putin is a thug. He is a mob boss. Ukraine will join the EU. Ukraine will join NATA. Ukraine's economy and culture will flourish while Russia will be a pariah until Putin dies of old age and a respectable and honourable leader takes his place.
AMerIcA bAd, ANti-amEricA goOD !1!1!!
Non-existent moderation and both side-ism is killing HN. Now the median post is barely better than reddit, but with lots of DK and idiotic contrarian garbage up top. @dang what's it gonna take for you to do start deleting this crap? A nuke?
That's not a rebuttal dummy.
Do you want the legitimacy debate confers your position? Then debate.
None of my points are any one else's talking points. That's a sign of a non-dogmatic thinker, dummy.
You ignore that entities other than 'the West' (one homogenous blob apparently) and Russia have agency. NATO doesn't expand, countries voluntarily join because they don't want Russia to fuck them over (again). Your points have been made by Mearsheimer and his ilk many times before. You people keep asserting that Russia is a superpower without backing it up with anything. Your worldview is stuck in the Cold War, you are unable to absorb new information. As was made clear by recent events, having nukes is not sufficient to be a superpower. Hell, fucking Pakistan has nukes. Iran, too, what a superpower, right? Maybe we should ask all of them for permission before we use the shitter, eh?
It's not like the mainstream US narrative is correct either, but you are so wrong it's not even funny. One of the bigger reasons we are in this mess is that 'the West' was too timid, not because it was too aggressive. If you give Russia an inch, they are (and always were) going to take a mile, because they see willingness to compromise as weakness. Weakness provokes, strength deters. But what the fuck do I know, I only live in a post-communist country. I'm sure some tankie or a champagne socialist will be along shortly to explain that if only we would all be nice to each other we would live in some post scarcity Star Trek paradise already and why the military budget should be used to house the poor instead...
Excellent post. Thank-you for this.
And to anyone who thinks taking the Russian point of view means you are Russian shill please view some John Meersheimer on YouTube. He also references prominent and respected IR American scholars who criticize American policy towards post Soviet Russia. It's been a disastrous mess. And now we face possible nuclear war because of arrogance.
Defending the invasion is being a Russian shill.
Arguing that policies have been poor isn’t.
It’s possible that this war could have been avoided through different policies, but this is an unprovoked invasion. Arguing it somehow has any responsibility outside Russia is like arguing rape victims should have dressed more appropriately.
Unprovoked? Have a read through these: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/09/07/its-not-okay-for-gro...
Rand Corporation https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
By unprovoked I mean “no one walked into Russia or committed any acts of war against Russia”
It’s a term that’s used as “justified”.
One big difference with living in the west is that I can read your post, and the GP. I can "take in the truth" and I can (and do) go further and read other, more credible sources and come to the conclusion that the worlds history is not black and white. The US is certainly not an innocent player. And then I can read Putin's own words and I can read Dugin and come to the conclusion that Russia is 100% at fault for the current situation in Ukraine. I might be wrong in this judgement, but at least I won't go to jail for expressing it.
Is this even appropriate for HN? Is this related to tech somehow? Seems having this sort of post here, all it does is bring out Reddit level bad takes.
Funny that in all criticism of Russia on HK, every opposing post has to include reference to Reddit. You are not going to manipulate people so easily. 'Oh man, come on guys, you're sharing positions with those simple minded Reddit posters'.
How about you just make an argument on it's merits, instead of injecting your own bad take?
How about limiting this forum to what it’s supposed to cover?
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
I would say Putin escalating a major war in the heart of Europe and his threats of nuclear warfare with the West fall under 'interesting new phenomenon'.
Interesting read for anyone that might be interested:
2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Ukraine
BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR
https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-...
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/313615_UKRA...
(I love how the downvotes have already begun not even a minute in... how is this not context to the speech? Zealots...)
Hot damn, the whataboutisms are out in force on this article, and not even an hour in.
I’d love to ask the residents of Bucha or Izium what they think about the relative respect for human rights between Russia and Ukraine but of course the Russian military invaded their land and then murdered large swaths of their population and then buried them in mass graves. These things are just the weakest deflections in service of a psychopathic dictator’s imperialistic war.
Mickey what is the name of your drug dealer ? He sells good stuff it seems.
if wikipedia says it, it might be true then. thank you mickey .
You can follow the references that it has yourself.
american gov writing about human rights abuses around the world makes me laugh so hard my balls hurt. Thx for the links
This may very well be the eve of WW3. The latest Ukrainian victories were due to NATO forces taking over so many core operations, it's basically Russia vs NATO.
This formal declaration by Russia is basically saying they are about to stop holding back. They have purposefully avoid destroying infrastructure like water and power in ukraine for an unusually long time. They also have been sending their b-c teams not their A-list because they wanted to save them.
This action pleases a great deal of the america military complex because money. At least it would have if American troops were in better shape, enlistments were dropping heavily, and troop fitness is dropping radically. The desire for the common man to die for his country has dropped significantly in Russia AND NATO countries.
So you will soon see the following, America will try to rebuild "patriotism" prior to instituting a draft. This is why the pentagon is reviewing all psyops, they are about to reverse the social engineering psyops in motion such diversity and "woke". Russia will push religion to build morale on their side.
I believe a draft in America will lead to disintegration, but only time will tell.
> They also have been sending their b-c teams not their A-list because they wanted to save them
That this comment claims this really says all one need about the comment. Russia Just admitted it was over extended and had exhausted its professional army by declaring a mobilization of reservists.
Everyone clearly knows the professional army is the C list and it’s the reservists that are the true A listers. <heavy sarcasm>
> The latest Ukrainian victories were due to NATO forces taking over so many core operations, it's basically Russia vs NATO.
Evidence?
NATO is sending a lot of materiel and weapons. NATO is helping with intelligence. If that's what you mean by "core operations", maybe I can see it. More than that? Let's see the evidence.
Wait the paper is under peer review. This was not clear the experiment was in double blind procedure so the author have to rework the paper before acceptance.
I don't think you're far off with your first couple of points, but I don't think the USA will try conscription, precisely because it would have destabilizing effects you mention.