Jump to content
JKane

Curious what happened to the Russian invasion thread?

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, vinapu said:

...like everybody else they want to have their tea and go to bed quietly in order to have good sleep and wake up in the morning.

 

 

Which is why there will not be a nuclear war.

If Putin's hand hovers over the nuclear button his generals will quickly step in and remove him from power. Afterall, they and their families want to live, not die for Putin or any perceived glory for the motherland.

And the retaliation against Putin by the Russian people would be swift and decisive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, reader said:

So you're advice is to wait 11 years so the Putin can have a well-deserved "honorable" exit?

And you think Putin plans to leave the Ukraine?

There's one Russian we understand all too well. His intentions to invade the Ukraine were predicted with complete accuracy despite his denials.

My advice and every sane person's was to abide by the Minsk treaties and see how it worked out in the next decade instead of giving Russia an excuse (after 8 years and 14,000 dead in Donbas from non-adhereance to the treaty) to intervene. Now that Russia had an excuse to go in, who knows how much of Ukraine will be left after many dead on both sides and who knows how much the war will escalate as wars always do. Abiding by Minsk was simple and predictable. War never is except that it's 1000 times worse than when we go into one being told it's going to be quick and glorious for noble reasons. It may be a bloodbath with many atrocities on both sides now. That's war. But I doubt Ukraine will "win" or get as good a treaty as Minsk was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, a-447 said:

Which is why there will not be a nuclear war.

If Putin's hand hovers over the nuclear button his generals will quickly step in and remove him from power. Afterall, they and their families want to live, not die for Putin or any perceived glory for the motherland.

And the retaliation against Putin by the Russian people would be swift and decisive.

That's what they said about Hussein in Iraq, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Castro in Cuba, Allende in Chile, and dozens of other leaders we made war on. "NATO and the US will be welcomed by the people as liberators with parades !" . Biden, Bush and Clinton all repeated that guarantee a lot.  It's astounding (and frankly terrifying) people still fall for that line. 

Supersonic undedectable missiles change much chance Russia would suffer a counterattack. A country with it's back against the wall would do it. I'd rather see everyone ease off the buttons with honor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There's also the likihood that with a Russian victory, Putin becomes a national hero like Hitler after extremely harsh sanctions on Germany. Today in Doha at the world gymnastics championships: 

2592.jpg?width=620&quality=45&auto=forma

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tassojunior said:

That's what they said about Hussein in Iraq, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Castro in Cuba, Allende in Chile, and dozens of other leaders we made war on. "

 

Those leaders did not have a nuclear button to push.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, reader said:

There's one Russian we understand all too well. His intentions to invade the Ukraine were predicted with complete accuracy despite his denials.

They were predicted only because of organized leak: Russia need to be sure no foreign diplomat will be killed in Kyev, no foreign instructor will be killed in fields, for not to give to NATO reason to be involved. When all embassies were moved to Lviv, and US and UK instructors recalled from Ukraine, Russia started actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 "There's also the like hood that with a Russian victory, Putin becomes a national hero like Hitler after extremely harsh sanctions on Germany. Today in Doha at the world gymnastics championships": 

Is that Putin in Doha? I thought he is much older !

" When all embassies were moved to Lviv, and US and UK instructors recalled from Ukraine, Russia started actions."

you mean "Russia started war" ?

( for some reason my 'quote " button doesn't work )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, reader said:

Apologists for Putin need ask themselves one question at this point: are you better off today than before the invasion?

 

Wanting to see as few people killed as possible and avoiding wars is not being an apologist. That's a tired accusation of jingoists in the leadup to every glorious war. 14,000 people have been killed in 8 years, mostly Ukranians by Ukraine because Ukraine refused to honor the Minsk treaties after signing them eight years ago. That simply is a fact surpressed as "misinformation" in our new censorship society. 

Why is it before every major war Americans are so eager for it to start and turn on it after the bodies and costs pile up. We are so gullible to the pro-war press everytime. Look at our interventions just since WW2:

 

 

 

wars.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, tassojunior said:

Wanting to see as few people killed as possible and avoiding wars is not being an apologist.

If you really were serious about "wanting to see as few people killed as possible" one would think you'd would be calling on Putin to get the hell out. Instead, you're trying to justify why he went in.

Sorry, my friend, but that sure sounds like an apology.

By the way, you avoided the question you cited in your post: are you better off now than before Putin started his invasion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, reader said:

Apologists for Putin need ask themselves one question at this point: are you better off today than before the invasion?

 

I'm for sure feel better than citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Moses said:

I'm for sure feel better than citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945

The USA was (unfortunately) avoiding all direct participation in WW2 until Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.     So Japan started the hostilities and deserved the consequences.

 

Just changing topic slightly.    

Do you think your total and never ending support for Putin's invasion will increase or decrease international sales for Siamroads etc ?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Moses said:

I'm for sure feel better than citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945

And do you recall what happened about three weeks later?

Japan surrendered to the allies, thus avoiding an invasion of its homeland, savings hundreds of thousands on both sides.

And while on the topic, less not forget the Soviet's role in the episode. Prior to the nuclear bombings, Japan's leaders were privately making entreaties to the publicly neutral Soviet Union to mediate peace on terms more favorable to the Japanese. While maintaining a sufficient level of diplomatic engagement with the Japanese to give them the impression they might be willing to mediate, the Soviets were covertly preparing to attack Japanese forces in Manchuria and Korea. So Uncle Joe passed on an opportunity to avoid the Japanese catastrophe in order to gain some more of the spoils of war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, reader said:

If you really were serious about "wanting to see as few people killed as possible" one would think you'd would be calling on Putin to get the hell out. Instead, you're trying to justify why he went in.

Sorry, my friend, but that sure sounds like an apology.

By the way, you avoided the question you cited in your post: are you better off now than before Putin started his invasion?

14,000 people in Donbas were killed by Ukraine. That killing had to stop. I don't understand war so don't understand why Russia attacked all of Ukraine. But the fact is the official demand from Russia in the peace talks appears to be the same today (which shocks me) and Ukraine still refuses (which shocks me more).  No NATO and Minsk Treaty adherence. Ukraine is going to end up refusing easy peace settlements and more people are going to die and we're going to spiral into a bigger war. 

  Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Monday revealed Russia's harsh demands: Ukraine halt its military activity, change its Constitution to include neutrality so it can't join the EU or NATO, recognize Crimea as Russian territory and recognize independence for the separatist regions of Donetsk and Lugansk.

I'd like for Ukraine to be in the EU and would rather Dombas be autonmous than independent but again, I'd jump at this chance to save so many lives and keep Ukraine a country. Ukraine refused the Minsk provision of just autonomy for Donbas and has lost that bet. It's just going to keep getting less favorable terms and more people are going to die. And after a certain point total surrender will be the terms and many more will be dead. Thousands of lives matter more than pride in a glorious war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, tassojunior said:

And after a certain point total surrender will be the terms and many more will be dead.

In a situation like this, I prefer to go with Churchill or Patton.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a bit of context on the figures of deaths in the Donbas conflict that Tassojunior quotes in almost every post. The number of civilians who died in the Donbass conflict went from over 2000 in 2014, to 26 in 2019 and 27 in 2020. This was a more or less frozen conflict in military terms. In the wake of the Russian invasion last month, more civilians are being killed every hour in Ukraine than died annually in the Donbass conflict in recent years.

Obviously every death is more than just a statistic, but Tassojunior quoting the figure of 14,000 overall in the conflict is misleading when many posters who are unfamiliar with the Donbass conflict may assume it was still going at that sort of level.

Also remember that the conflict was started when Putin unilaterally invaded Crimea and aided an insurrection in the Donbass region. Perhaps the most famous incident in the early years was when Putin, with incredible recklessness, sent Buk missiles to the rebels, along with people could operate it, and they promptly bombed a civilian aircraft out of the sky, in the Flight MH17 tragedy.

Another issue that Tassojunior continually raises is the failure of the Minsk process. However, the failure of the Minsk II process was not purely a stubborn refusal by Ukraine to accept a fair deal from Russia. Although France and Germany tried for several years to get the Minsk instruments to work, they came up against what has been referred to as the “Minsk conundrum.”

This is how Al Jazeera explains the problem. I’m just using Al Jazeera here as example of a news website that wouldn’t be necessarily pro-Western.

“Ukraine sees the 2015 agreement as an instrument to re-establish control over the rebel territories.It wants a ceasefire, control of the Russia-Ukraine border, elections in the Donbas, and a limited devolution of power to the separatists – in that order. Russia views the deal as obliging Ukraine to grant rebel authorities in Donbas comprehensive autonomy and representation in the central government, effectively giving Moscow the power to veto Kyiv’s foreign policy choices. Only then would Russia return the Russia-Ukraine border to Kyiv’s control”

Full article here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/9/what-is-the-minsk-agreement-and-why-is-it-relevant-now

The real stumbling block was that Putins real aim was never rights of self-government for Donbas, but instead his demand that the  terms of the agreement would result in the Donbas region having a veto in international treaties and agreements by Ukraine, which would result in Ukraine being prevented joining NATO or the EU, even if a huge majority of the rest of country wanted to.

In other words, Putin would have control over Ukraine is foreign policy, despite the policies of whatever person was elected democratically as the President of Ukraine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, reader said:

In a situation like this, I prefer to go with Churchill or Patton.

 

 

gotcha. 

Even if it causes a million deaths or a nuclear war and a billion deaths don't give an inch on anything. Death with honor is preferable to giving any compromise at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, forrestreid said:

Just a bit of context on the figures of deaths in the Donbas conflict that Tassojunior quotes in almost every post. The number of civilians who died in the Donbass conflict went from over 2000 in 2014, to 26 in 2019 and 27 in 2020. This was a more or less frozen conflict in military terms. In the wake of the Russian invasion last month, more civilians are being killed every hour in Ukraine than died annually in the Donbass conflict in recent years.

Obviously every death is more than just a statistic, but Tassojunior quoting the figure of 14,000 overall in the conflict is misleading when many posters who are unfamiliar with the Donbass conflict may assume it was still going at that sort of level.

Also remember that the conflict was started when Putin unilaterally invaded Crimea and aided an insurrection in the Donbass region. Perhaps the most famous incident in the early years was when Putin, with incredible recklessness, sent Buk missiles to the rebels, along with people could operate it, and they promptly bombed a civilian aircraft out of the sky, in the Flight MH17 tragedy.

Another issue that Tassojunior continually raises is the failure of the Minsk process. However, the failure of the Minsk II process was not purely a stubborn refusal by Ukraine to accept a fair deal from Russia. Although France and Germany tried for several years to get the Minsk instruments to work, they came up against what has been referred to as the “Minsk conundrum.”

This is how Al Jazeera explains the problem. I’m just using Al Jazeera here as example of a news website that wouldn’t be necessarily pro-Western.

“Ukraine sees the 2015 agreement as an instrument to re-establish control over the rebel territories.It wants a ceasefire, control of the Russia-Ukraine border, elections in the Donbas, and a limited devolution of power to the separatists – in that order. Russia views the deal as obliging Ukraine to grant rebel authorities in Donbas comprehensive autonomy and representation in the central government, effectively giving Moscow the power to veto Kyiv’s foreign policy choices. Only then would Russia return the Russia-Ukraine border to Kyiv’s control”

Full article here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/9/what-is-the-minsk-agreement-and-why-is-it-relevant-now

The real stumbling block was that Putins real aim was never rights of self-government for Donbas, but instead his demand that the  terms of the agreement would result in the Donbas region having a veto in international treaties and agreements by Ukraine, which would result in Ukraine being prevented joining NATO or the EU, even if a huge majority of the rest of country wanted to.

In other words, Putin would have control over Ukraine is foreign policy, despite the policies of whatever person was elected democratically as the President of Ukraine.

I didn't realize so few had been killed in Donbas the past couple years but my point is still that giving Donbas autonomy or even independence is much preferable to having thousands now killed and risking a nuclear war. And one of the reasons I doubt a low number is that the famously Nazi Azov Battalion is centered on the lines in Donbas for the express purpose of killing seperatists there. The Washington Post had a front page story 2 days ago on a "volunteer" group of Ukrainian snipers who live in a large house on the Donbas front lines and how much fun they have watching seperatists heads blow up through the sight when their bullet strikes the seperatists' heads.  I always thought it was just childrens' heads that exploded when sniper bullets struck them. (I doubt it matters to snipers). The story certainly doesn't sound as if this wonderful group had only killed a couple people in the past years. 

On a high note at least we know Ukrainians don't just enjoy killing Jews, Blacks and Arabs anymore. 

I don't see Ukraine coming out of this as well as the Minsk treaties and in fact that's what they're wanting now. 

Ukrianian sniper group in Donbas. Not killing Russians but Ukrainian seperatists. :

 5YPFX3E32UI6ZGMHTXHO4YVD6Y.jpg&w=916

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nine nations possess nuclear weapons. If we were to follow your illogical line of thinking, tassojunior, then any one of them would be given carte blanch based simply on the fact that they have nukes.

Brilliant!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, tassojunior said:

"Well this was certainly better than compromising on autonomy for Donbas"

FA17454E-7E11-48BF-8153-9955D579B1C0_cx0

 

Well congratulations Tassojunior, you are now reduced to using the excuse of every thug and bully:

"Look, if you had given me your lunch money when I asked you first, you wouldn't have a bloody nose now. Why do you have to make it hard for yourself?"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
41 minutes ago, reader said:

Nine nations possess nuclear weapons. If we were to follow your illogical line of thinking, tassojunior, then any one of them would be given carte blanch based simply on the fact that they have nukes.

Brilliant!

 

A lot of people have noticed that the US does not invade countries that have nuclear weapons. Everyone else is fair game. 

Only China and Russia have undetectable supersonic nuclear weapons. Everyone else's can be shot down like the US's. Our $750 Billion military budget obviously isn't enough lol.  And China has few warheads compared to the US and Russia.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
25 minutes ago, forrestreid said:

 

Well congratulations Tassojunior, you are now reduced to using the excuse of every thug and bully:

"Look, if you had given me your lunch money when I asked you first, you wouldn't have a bloody nose now. Why do you have to make it hard for yourself?"

 

 

Sounds like the US in our last few dozen embargos & invasions. It's terrible Russia is being that bullyish...too. 

Everyone and every country has to make a decision how much to compromise vs. consequences of escalating any dispute. Those who fight every single issue to the extreme are fools. People or countries. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, tassojunior said:

Wanting to see as few people killed as possible and avoiding wars is not being an apologist. That's a tired accusation of jingoists in the leadup to every glorious war. 14,000 people have been killed in 8 years, mostly Ukranians by Ukraine because Ukraine refused to honor the Minsk treaties after signing them eight years ago. That simply is a fact surpressed as "misinformation" in our new censorship society. 

Why is it before every major war Americans are so eager for it to start and turn on it after the bodies and costs pile up. We are so gullible to the pro-war press everytime. Look at our interventions just since WW2:

 

 

 

wars.jpg

That list is incomplete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...