cancel2 2022
Canceled
I want the Russians to fail, you brainless cunt!
Patrick Lawrence: Why Are the Russians Retreating in Ukraine? | Scheerpost
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
I want the Russians to fail, you brainless cunt!
floridafan
Verified User
Naturally!
I know that Mark Milley was appointed by Trump, but as the highest-ranking officer in the United States Armed Forces and the principal military advisor to the president of the United States, the secretary of defense, the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council, I think it's safe to say that he does hold some influence. I know that the Biden administration is generally stacked against him, but the amount of average Americans who are struggling financially has climbed significantly since the beginning of the year, according to a study by Ramsey Solutions. A graphic I found educational on the subject:
Source:
The State Of Personal Finance In America 2022 | ramseysolutions.com
Perhaps in recognition of this, CIA Director Bill Burns, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin have begun to have conversations with Russia, as an article from Doug Bandow, writing for The American Conservative revealed last Thursday:
**
Washington also should further open diplomatic channels with Moscow, as appears to be happening, at least to some degree, given reports of CIA Director Bill Burns meeting with his Russian counterpart last week. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin have also engaged with Russia, but such conversations need to be broadened to discuss possible political accommodations.
**
Source:
War in Ukraine Reaches a Tipping Point | The American Conservative
The other factor I suspect is coming into play is Ukraine's blatant dishonesty. That's actually the first subject that Doug Bandow writes about in his article:
**
Give President Joe Biden credit: he apparently wasn’t happy when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky attempted to lie the U.S. into war. There was a collective intake of breath in Washington and across Europe as everyone waited for a determination as to whose missile struck rural Poland last week, killing two. Thankfully—for the cause of world peace, anyway—the projectile was Ukrainian. But that didn’t stop Zelensky from beating the war drums.
Last time, it was a U.S. president, George W. Bush, who dishonestly took America into a conflict, but that at least was against a weak Third World nation. The consequences were still disastrous: thousands dead and tens of thousands of wounded Americans and hundreds of thousands dead Iraqi civilians, trillions of dollars wasted, and a Middle East in flames.
But what Zelensky would do is much more serious. He called the Poland strike “a really significant escalation” requiring a response, even though the issue would have nothing to do with Ukraine had the missile been launched by Russia. NATO, not Kiev, is responsible for deciding what constitutes a casus belli for the alliance. If that were Zelensky’s decision, American bombs and missiles would have been raining down upon on Moscow since at least February 25th.
Zelensky's attitude is understandable, of course. He cares about Ukraine, not the U.S., and would be happy to fight Russia to the last American if necessary. For Americans, however, his attitude highlights the danger of waging a proxy war with a serious, nuclear-armed power while formally turning over all decisions in the conflict to the party most interested in continuing and escalating the fight.
**
Last edited:
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
I did see that article you posted Phoenyx.
It is difficult to see through the fog of war and the propaganda lies. So I attempt to view the big picture and form my own opinion.
The Ukrainian threats to the Russian Black Sea fleet began back in 2006 after the Orange Revolution ...
"Pressure on Moscow to get out of Sevastopol has been mounting since Mr Yushchenko came to power, but during the gas crisis that pressure hit gas mark eight.
At the apex of diplomatic hostilities, senior Ukrainian Government members reopened the Sevastopol question.
It was time to review Russia's 20-year lease of the port which expires in 2017, they argued, with a view to raising the rent from the current $98 million a year, possibly by a factor of four.
Ukraine made known that it also wanted to raise the price Russia pays for leasing radar stations in the area, and there was even loose talk of giving the Americans access to those same facilities.
To increase Moscow's discomfort, an overtly hostile inventory of the facilities used by the Black Sea Fleet is underway and Kiev has already accused Russia of illegally occupying some facilities and of illegally sub-letting others to private businesses.
Kiev's message is clear: Russia is no longer wanted in Sevastopol."
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/black-sea-fleet-port-in-a-storm/ZFVHXPVZSIFQSQXX5D4MS7SHUY/
The 1997 lease was renegotiated in 2010, but IMO the damage was already done.
Last edited:
I can certainly agree that Ukraine has been pretty hostile with Russia ever since the Euromaidan coup, and I can see that Russia's lease of Sevastopol was one area in which it was demonstrating that hostility, but I can't see that comparing to the 10,000+ eastern Ukrainians that the Ukrainian military has killed since Euromaidan in 2014. The fact that Russia's lower house of Parliament wanted Putin to recognize the Donbass republics on February 15th due to the Ukrainian military amassing its forces on the Donbass republic borders, coupled with the Ukrainian military then beginning a massive military bombardment the next day put Putin in a very difficult situation. As Jacques Baud put it:
**
On February 17, President Joe Biden announces that Russia will attack Ukraine in the coming days. How does he know? Mystery… But since the 16th, the artillery shelling of the populations of Donbass has increased dramatically, as shown by the daily reports of OSCE observers. Naturally, neither the media, nor the European Union, nor NATO, nor any Western government reacts and intervenes. We will say later that this is Russian disinformation. In fact, it seems that the European Union and some countries purposely glossed over the massacre of the people of Donbass, knowing that it would provoke Russian intervention.
In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers. from the Donbass being run over.
If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “ Responsibility To Protect ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21.
That day, he acceded to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Republics of Donbass and, in the process, he signed treaties of friendship and assistance with them.
The Ukrainian artillery bombardments on the populations of Donbass continued and, on February 23, the two Republics requested military aid from Russia. On the 24th, Vladimir Putin invokes Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which provides for mutual military assistance within the framework of a defensive alliance.
**
Source:
Former NATO Military Analyst Blows the Whistle on West’s Ukraine Invasion Narrative | Scheerpost
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Russia invaded the Ukraine (Crimea) in Feb 2014, that is why there was bombing in the Donbas, as Russia tried to take that, too . I'm sure many ethnic Ukrainians died as well. And the country is very young, having only been independent from Russia since 1995.
And any idea that Putin was acting out of human compassion for the 'victims' is ludicrous. I've found that the 'experts' are wrong 90% of the time. I prefer to look at the facts and form my own opinion.
Last edited:
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Because the only reason for the Ukraine even existing right now is for the West to fuck with Russia. That land always should have been Russian, except for a small part of the very western part.
I don't know about that. I think that had the west not helped instigate the violent ousting of elected Ukrainian President Yanukovych during Euromaidan in 2014, Ukraine might have continued to have its 2014 borders and also continued to act as a buffer between the west and Russia. That changed after Euromaidan, however. Crimeans and Russia decided that Crimea would be best served as being part of Russia again. The Donbass region also wanted more independence from a new government that had taken a decidedly anti Russian turn, in a region that had a lot of ties to Russia, both ethnically and culturally. Putin actually discouraged the Donbass republics from having referendums, but they had them anyway, and after the results clearly showed they favoured more independence, Putin supported said results. At that point, had the new Ukrainian government made serious diplomatic overtures, I believe they could have saved themselves from the Donbass republics leaving them. Instead, they sent the military, starting an 8 year civil war, using the 2 Minsk agreements more like tactical retreats rather than a serious effort at finding a peaceful solution to the conflict. At this point, I can't see the Donbass republics rejoining Ukraine barring Ukraine taking it by force, which I believe is what they had been attempting to do days before Russia stepped in with its military operation.
At this point, I think that Russia has achieved its land goals for the most part and the main reason it continues to fight is simply because the Ukrainian military is continuing to fight. If Ukraine were to offer to cede the lands that Russia has taken control over, I think Russia could well find those terms acceptable.
Legion?
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Go back further, to the fall of the USSR. The only reason Ukraine exists at all right now is because the Soviets had nuke bases in the Ukrainian SSR. Prior to that the Ukraine had never been a nation.
I think we can agree that invasions usually involve a hell of a lot more deaths than the deaths that occurred due to Russia taking over Crimea. There's also the fact that Crimea had sought more independence from Ukraine mere days after the dissolution of the U.S.S.R.. Even Wikipedia admits as much:
**
In January 1991 the Crimean sovereignty referendum re-established the Crimean ASSR.[16] On 26 February 1992, the Crimean parliament renamed the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic the Republic of Crimea and subsequently declared conditional independence on 5 May 1992.[17]
**
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Crimea#1990s_Sovereignty_Dispute
The new Ukrainian government had other ideas, however, and fought against Crimea essentially going its own way:
**
That independence was never confirmed by referendum amid opposition from the government of Ukraine and on 21 September 1994 the Ukrainian Parliament renamed the Republic of Crimea as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.[18] On 17 March 1995, the Ukrainian parliament abolished the Crimean Constitution of 1992 and all the laws and decrees contradicting those enacted by Kyiv, ending Crimea's brief existence as a post-Soviet republic.[19][20][21]
**
Ukraine's efforts to rein Crimea in were unsuccessful, however. Crimea kept on pushing for closer ties with Russia and more independence from Ukraine:
**
Following the ratification of the May 1997 Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty, the 1998 Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea designated the region as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. In 2006, anti-NATO protests broke out on the peninsula.[22] In September 2008, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko accused Russia of giving out Russian passports to the population in Crimea.[23] On 24 August 2009, anti-Ukrainian demonstrations were held in Crimea by ethnic Russian residents. Sergei Tsekov (of the Russian Bloc[24] and then deputy speaker of the Crimean parliament)[25] said then that he hoped that Russia would treat Crimea the same way as it had treated South Ossetia and Abkhazia.[26] The 2010 Ukrainian–Russian Naval Base for Natural Gas treaty extended Russia's lease on naval facilities in Crimea until 2042, with optional five-year renewals.[27]
**
The Crimean opposition to being integrated into Ukraine reached a fever pitch with the takeover of the Ukrainian government by the Euromaidan forces:
**
To facilitate the annexation politically,[29] the Crimean parliament and the Sevastopol City Council announced on 6 March, in violation of the Ukrainian Constitution,[30] a referendum on the issue of joining Russia, to be held on 16 March. The upcoming vote allowed citizens to vote on whether Crimea should apply to join Russia as a federal subject of the Russian Federation, or restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine.
[snip]
On 16 March 2014, according to the organizers of Crimean status referendum, a large majority (reported as 96.77% of the 81.36% of the population of Crimea who voted) voted in favour of independence of Crimea from Ukraine and joining Russia as a federal subject.[34][35][36][37] The referendum was not recognized by most of the international community and the reported results were disputed by numerous independent observers.[38][39][40][41][42]
**
One independent observer, Canadian-American journalist Eva Bartlett, decided to actually go to Crimea and ask Crimeans what they thought of the referendum and rejoining Russia. I think her article on what she discovered is well worth a read:
Return to Russia: Crimeans tells the real story of the 2014 referendum and their lives since | mintpressnews.com
That's a false narrative. Former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud makes that clear in an article he wrote shortly after Russia started its -actual- military operation in Ukraine. Here's what he had to say on the matter:
**
In 2014, I am at NATO, responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we are trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels in order to see if Moscow is involved. The information that we receive then comes practically all from the Polish intelligence services and does not “match” with the information from the OSCE: in spite of rather crude allegations, we do not observe any delivery of arms and materials Russian military.
The rebels are armed thanks to the defections of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units which cross over to the rebel side. As the Ukrainian failures progressed, the entire tank, artillery or anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what drives the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Accords.
[snip]
However, let us remember, there were never any Russian troops in the Donbass before February 23-24, 2022. Moreover, OSCE observers have never observed the slightest trace of Russian units operating in the Donbass. Thus, the US intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in Donbass.
**
Source:
Former NATO Military Analyst Blows the Whistle on West’s Ukraine Invasion Narrative | Scheerpost
A fair amount in the Ukrainian army, certainly, but they only died because they were ordered to fight their fellow eastern Ukrainian citizens who had decided to rebel against the new anti Russian government in Kyiv. As Jacques Baud mentions in his article, many preferred to defect.
A bit off- it's been independent since 1990/1991, depending on one's definition of independence:
**
As part of the so-called parade of sovereignties, on 16 July 1990, the newly elected Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine;[136] after a putsch of some Communist leaders in Moscow failed to depose Gorbachov, outright independence was proclaimed on 24 August 1991[137] and approved by 92% of the Ukrainian electorate in a referendum on 1 December.[138] Ukraine's new President, Leonid Kravchuk, went on to sign the Belavezha Accords and made Ukraine a founding member of the much looser Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS),[139] though Ukraine never became a full member of the latter as it did not ratify the agreement founding CIS.[140] These documents sealed the fate of the Soviet Union, which formally voted itself out of existence on 26 December.[141]
**
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#Independence
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion?
I certainly prefer facts over alleged experts, but I've also found that it's not nearly as easy to ascertain what the facts are as one might assume at first glance.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Forgot to mention something here and it's important...those borders are artificial. That's the main problem here.
Up until Ukraine hit the Crimean bridge with explosives, Russia was going easy on Ukraine. Even Newsweek admitted this in an article back in March:
Putin's Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He's Holding Back. Here's Why | Newsweek
Things changed to some extent after the Crimean bridge bombing. A mainstream news publication gives good indications as to why that happened:
Putin allies are pushing for swift retaliation after an explosion on a key Crimean bridge delivered another humiliation for the Russian president | Business Insider
However, while Putin decided to hit Ukraine's energy infrastructure after that point, I have never seen strong evidence that Russia has actively targetted civilians themselves. This is in sharp contrast with Ukraine's military, according to journalists like Canadian-American journalist Eva Bartlett. Here's a video she did a few days aga of an eastern Ukrainian town called Zaitsevo that I think is quite educational:
Let me guess, you're asking if I'm someone who's posted on this board called Legion? Assuming that's the case, no, I'm not.
I don't understand why you think the Soviets having nukes in Ukraine is the only reason Ukraine exists. As far as I can tell, the fact that there were once Nukes in Ukraine made little if any difference to Ukraine becoming a nation.
It's a long story. Legion responds to almost everything with a one or 2 word question. Great guy though.
Seems to be pretty clear that Ukraine is a very divided country. Both sides need to let it go.
You are definitely not Legion.
Ukraine's borders at the time it became independent were determined by the Soviet Union. I know that Russia has essentially made the argument that the Supreme Soviet's decision to transfer Crimea from the Russian S.S.R. to the Ukrainian S.S.R. back in Soviet days wasn't done legally, but until Ukraine became an independent nation, it wasn't an issue. Ultimately, I think we can agree that people should have a say in who they want to be governed by, which is why I think that the referendums held in Crimea and the other Ukrainian regions was a very good idea. If there are any questions as to whether the votes were legitimate, I don't see a problem with redoing them. I think it would be wonderful if people would focus more energy on referendums and less energy on killing each other.