You are just repeating how you justify killing civilians by definition games.I already provided you with another video that has a russian tank crush a civilian vehicle.
The shelling of Kyiv also killed several civilians.
You faulting these average joes for fighting back is the cherry on top of your imperialist cake. While making up stories about evil ukraine.
Seemingly, you like to not source any hostilities against russians in the free parts of ukraine. Because there were no recent such hostilities that would ever justify an invasion. No genocide, no insurgency.
Quoting the fucking Geneva Convention isn't my words or 'definition games' - that's definitively what the world has agreed on as to who is and who isn't a combatant.
As opposed to YOU who are unilaterally saying they are "heroes" and not combatants - I guess that's your choice of a designation. They are quite literally combatants. You can be a hero AND a combatant, but they are certainly the later, and thus considered fair game in combat. \
Do you have some sources showing that Russian forces are targeting non-military occupants/locations?
And facts about the civil war in Ukraine aren't "evil stories" - you sound completely propagandized to the point you can't even discuss what is or isn't reality without just glossing over everything you don't like and labeling it as 'evil stories' or the like. What SPECIFICALLY do you take issue with me saying about Ukraine?
Quoting the fucking Geneva Convention isn't my words or 'definition games' - that's definitively what the world has agreed on as to who is and who isn't a combatant.
As opposed to YOU who are unilaterally saying they are "heroes" and not combatants - I guess that's your choice of a designation. They are quite literally combatants. You can be a hero AND a combatant, but they are certainly the later, and thus considered fair game in combat. \
Do you have some sources showing that Russian forces are targeting non-military occupants/locations?
And facts about the civil war in Ukraine aren't "evil stories" - you sound completely propagandized to the point you can't even discuss what is or isn't reality without just glossing over everything you don't like and labeling it as 'evil stories' or the like. What SPECIFICALLY do you take issue with me saying about Ukraine?
Then source it. Which Ukrainian hostilities against Russians in the free regions of Ukraine have been happening this year? Which genocide happened to justify a war killing countless of civilians by shelling a million city?
If you are so apathetic about dead civilians, at least show me the reason about why they need to die for your supposedly anti imperialist fascist leader Putin.
I dont care what you did, america is not the center of the world and right now you defend these kinds of war crimes in europe from your safe home somewhere across the ocean.
Then source it. Which Ukrainian hostilities against Russians in the free regions of Ukraine have been happening this year? Which genocide happened to justify a war killing countless of civilians by shelling a million city?
If you are so apathetic about dead civilians, at least show me the reason about why they need to die for your supposedly anti imperialist fascist leader Putin.
Are you implying that he's just shelling the entire city indiscriminately, to include civilians, which of course would be the "millions" you cite?
I've ALREADY said I'm not a fan of war. I didn't like our role in Iraq (Baghdad as I mentioned). Or Syria/Libya/Afghanistan/Central America etc etc.
I am CONCERNED about the civilian population, and the potential humanitarian risks.
All that can be true AND I can seek to understand the CAUSES of a conflict, and our role it it, and be against our meddling all the same.
Discussing other elements of this conflict and what lead up to it rather than placing the blame on one party entirely does in no way make me a fan of the Russians, or war in general. Try and keep perspective.
I dont care what you did, america is not the center of the world and right now you defend these kinds of war crimes in europe from your safe home somewhere across the ocean.
If only that were true. Everyone seeks to see what we'll do, via NATO, and economically, possibly militarily.
And anyone speaking about Ukraine honestly knows we have a heavy hand in what's been going on.
Please quote me 'defending war crimes' - *I'm* the one citing the Geneva Convention, which specifically spells out what is and isn't a war crime, not you.
Are you implying that he's just shelling the entire city indiscriminately, to include civilians, which of course would be the "millions" you cite?
I've ALREADY said I'm not a fan of war. I didn't like our role in Iraq (Baghdad as I mentioned). Or Syria/Libya/Afghanistan/Central America etc etc.
I am CONCERNED about the civilian population, and the potential humanitarian risks.
All that can be true AND I can seek to understand the CAUSES of a conflict, and our role it it, and be against our meddling all the same.
Discussing other elements of this conflict and what lead up to it rather than placing the blame on one party entirely does in no way make me a fan of the Russians, or war in general. Try and keep perspective.
Yes I am implying that she shelled that city to an amount at which it was clear that dozens if not hundreds of civilians would die.
And you not being a fan of war is just you not going "all in". That is not a moral virtue, you defend war, you just don't want to see yourself that way. You are defending putin, a fascist leader invading another country, all day long.
You are not discussing, you are repeating his propaganda and you do it with a smile. You just don't love to source the ukrainian aggression against russians inside the free part of ukraine that happened any time recently that i asked you for.
The person talking about it with your cynical whataboutism is you. I don't care for what america did 20 years ago in Iraq right now, because Russia is doing that to ukraine right now and you defend it.
And you not being a fan of war is just you not going "all in". That is not a moral virtue, you defend war, you just don't want to see yourself that way. You are defending putin, a fascist leader invading another country, all day long.
How did you know I was smiling(?) - where are the cameras so I can remove them. As I mentioned pages ago, I have FAMILY throughout the EU, probably close to you in Hamburg (and elsewhere, to include those in the military) as well, so I'm not happy at all.
You just keep saying I'm repeating propaganda, but refuse to talk about the details of what is true and what isn't. That's not how things work in reality, you sound like a jingoist with his fingers in his ears.
You just don't love to source the ukrainian aggression against russians inside the free part of ukraine that happened any time recently that i asked you for.
It's in the fucking wiki timeline, and sourced from there. I posted a video that showed headlines of the events leading up to this invasion and the breakdown of our involvement, and you clearly haven't read or watched or even acknowledged anything I post.
So here's ANOTHER source. An objective reporting from inside the region in conflict. Literally daily reports. Almost every day has a ceasefire violation, many tens or even hundreds of them. Explosions. Deaths. Damages to civilian property.
I've defended the war, when? The one that's been going on for the better part of a decade, that we had a hand in fomenting? The thing I've been against this whole time?
You realize I can be critical of our involvement, which I think played a major role in destabilizing Ukraine, which helped LEAD to this crisis, AND think that Putin has crossed a line at the same time?
Being critical of the West = automatic Putin shill, and war-defender. Got it.
I know this is hard to accept, but there are MULTIPLE bad actors involved. Ukraine has a corrupt regime as well. Does that justify useless bloodshed? No. But you're not defending all that is righteous at all.
And, yes, there are literal Nazis used in the Ukrainian military, and were welcomed during the Maidan revolution/coup. That's not 'Russian propaganda' it is cold hard fact.
The person talking about it with your cynical whataboutism is you. I don't care for what america did 20 years ago in Iraq right now, because Russia is doing that to ukraine right now and you defend it.
Only we're STILL doing it today as we speak in select countries. We're STILL in Syria while this goes on in Ukraine, and our 'allies' in Israel are bombing targets inside Syrian airspace in recent events, to include ONE FUCKING DAY AGO.
Only I'm not defending it (war in any event). Not when we do it, not when other countries do it. Ukraine is being used for a proxy war between the US and Russia, and they both have interests in snubbing their noses against each other using Ukraine as the location. I'm simply being consistent. I don't like Russian involvement or US involvement in foreign countries. But IF one were to be involved, it's more of the one that has a shared border, people, currency, language than the US. And if Russia were to justify their existence there, right or wrong, unless he's outright slaughtering civilians left and right we have no business getting involved... which we already have been.
I understand the Russian perspective here, but don't agree with Putin's tactics, and further - more importantly - don't want an escalation or to be drawn into direct conflict with Russia.
What's the point of the equivalence between current events or stuff the US has done before to now? The US has not threatened to invade anyone this time around. It's military presence in ukraine was marginal to begin with. Ukraine did not threaten russia. Nato did not threaten to invade russia. The US has definitely not threatened to invade ukraine. Are there 30 years of diplimatic bungles between US-EU-NATO and russia? Definitely. But there was absolutely no credible military threat to russia this time around.
"Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face." - https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
This is what Biden's current CIA director (and former Ambassador to Russia under GW Bush) had to say about the situation a month before the Bush administration invited Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO right before the Georgian incursion in 2008 six months later.
It's arguable there should be ANY presence of our troops in foreign countries, particularly ones we've had involvement in destabilizing. That would literally be like Russian forces in Cuba (or any other NA or CA country for that matter). Oh, wait...
No one said it did? There's always pretense used by the US, and now pretense by the Russians. In the same light Iraq or Syria or Libya or any country ever did not threaten the US, and yet we sent *preemptive* and *peacekeeping* forces into these countries. Russia is using the exact same line we have used multiple times, and now we want to decry you can't use that excuse.
This is a red herring. Not only has anyone suggested otherwise, NATO expansion is a de facto threat to Russia. Did you read any source I put in this thread?
So good you had to say it twice? No, no one has argued they have or had. Rather, we've been involved in aiding 'transitioning' one corrupt government in Ukraine that was more Russo-friendly, to one that is even more corrupt but US-friendly (yes, aided with neonazi help). How convenient for us. I'm sure you'd be happy if Mexico was likewise destabilized by the Russians arming cartel members against the Mexican government? Funding them? Sharing intel? In an effort to aid in a revolution that installed a puppet-regime of their own that was antagonistic towards us and friendly towards them?
Are there 30 years of diplimatic bungles between US-EU-NATO and russia? Definitely. But there was absolutely no credible military threat to russia this time around.
Those 'bungles' cannot be glossed over and have repercussions that are STILL ongoing.
You're missing the point. Russia claims a) that a NATO expansion is an existential threat and promise-breaking to them by the very function of NATO to begin with, and, for the millionth time the exact same thing wouldn't be allowed to us (see: Cuban missile crisis or any other imaginary scenario that flips the roles) and b) that the regions in Donbas were actual separate entities from Ukraine and thus under military threat and duress from the Ukrainian forces (rather convenient for the Russians, but undeniable that the region in question is largely pro-Russian)
Russia invaded on the pretense that independent countries were threatened, which just so happen to have a (largely) pro-Russian population, not that Russia itself was under threat of attack. This is both factual and extremely convenient for the Russians to the point that it was largely orchestrated on their side for their benefit - same as we did with pro-West government installation in 2014/2015 (which never solidified throughout the country, as seen in the ongoing War in Donbass for 8 years now).
"Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face." - https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
This is what Biden's current CIA director (and former Ambassador to Russia under GW Bush) had to say about the situation a month before the Bush administration invited Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO right before the Georgian incursion in 2008 six months later.
JFK was perplexed as to why Soviet Premier Khrushchev would risk war by installing nuclear-capable missiles in Cuba, remarking to his National Security Advisor, “It’s not as if we suddenly put ballistic missiles in Turkey; now that would be goddamned dangerous!” — to which the aide could only sheepishly reply, “Actually, we did, Mr. President.”
"Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face." - https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
This is what Biden's current CIA director (and former Ambassador to Russia under GW Bush) had to say about the situation a month before the Bush administration invited Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO right before the Georgian incursion in 2008 six months later.
1.- Er, does it make sense for russia to be worried at all about military threats? To me it sounds plain absurd that anyone could take this seriously. Russia can claim whatever it wants but what actual evidence has there ever been that NATO is an actual existencial/military threat to russia? What concrete action has nato ever taken that would make a reasonable person believe that it is a military threat to russia? In the sense that it could conceivably take unjustified, unprovoked military action against the russian federation. I just don't buy that nato existing is enough for russia claims of a military threat to them to be taken seriously.
2.- The bit about russia being concerned about efforts to undermine it's influence in the region is fair though. This is definitely the crux of the issue. Which is what has happened over and over... russia loses influence hence it invades as much as it can without going so far that it would start ww3. The reality is that russian interests do collide with US-EU-nato interest.
3.- Ok, on the cultural side of this I am at a loss. Reading about russian politics is downright confusing to me and the only other time in my life I've thought of ukraine is when watching a seinfeld episode where kramer and newman annoy an ukranian on a train. That said, there's a difference between something being an actual concern or said concern being actually about potentially losing influence.
Welp, I think I've made it fairly clear over many months I am generally just not confortable with weapons. Would I be ok with it? Of course not. Would I believe that alone is enough to warrant the US invading mexico? Of course not, that's insanity. Now sure, if there's actual evidence that an invasion and attack is actually happening then sure, bomb away. It's not like most superpowers don't have the capacity to bomb each other from halfway around the world anyways.
Was watching some news showing international reactions, basically its not just China who shows understanding for Russia, but also India, who is buying weapons from Russia against China and Pakistan, and Pakistan who just went for a state visit in Russia??? And even the South African Foreign minister expressed understanding for Russia????
The world is really fucked up. The events unfolding, in the long term, are about toppling world order. Which bears great danger.
It also seems to be the end of Europe. Let's be honest, Europe was never real, the continent is called Eurasia and that is what is going to remain. Europe was a construct that I don't think will survive this crippling blow.
What's the point of the equivalence between current events or stuff the US has done before to now? The US has not threatened to invade anyone this time around. It's military presence in ukraine was marginal to begin with. Ukraine did not threaten russia. Nato did not threaten to invade russia. The US has definitely not threatened to invade ukraine. Are there 30 years of diplimatic bungles between US-EU-NATO and russia? Definitely. But there was absolutely no credible military threat to russia this time around.
The problem is, past actions of the Nato, particularly the invasion of Iraq, pretty much destroyed our credibility. Now every dictator can justify pretty much anything with demonizing the West.
It wasn't the first time the West pulled up something bad, but in the early 2000s something changed and that is the internet becoming a mass media of unprecedented size and the internet never forgets.
If the US really wants to take the wind out of the sails of all these rising autocracies, an apology for past actions is long overdue. An honest apology.
You can't be the force of good values if your credibility in that regard is damaged, but right now we have to be the force of good values because Putin is certainly evil.
Otherwise, just given enough time, at least a quarter of the population will think Putin stopped spacefaring reptiloids drinking childrens blood or something. That's really how much damage was done to our democracies by the stupid military adventures of Nato, and Putin is top among those exploiting that.
Welp, I think I've made it fairly clear over many months I am generally just not confortable with weapons. Would I be ok with it? Of course not. Would I believe that alone is enough to warrant the US invading mexico? Of course not, that's insanity. Now sure, if there's actual evidence that an invasion and attack is actually happening then sure, bomb away. It's not like most superpowers don't have the capacity to bomb each other from halfway around the world anyways.
Was watching some news showing international reactions, basically its not just China who shows understanding for Russia, but also India, who is buying weapons from Russia against China and Pakistan, and Pakistan who just went for a state visit in Russia??? And even the South African Foreign minister expressed understanding for Russia????
I mean, sure, if your hypothetical can simply infinitely escalate then eventually we will get to a point where it's reasonable to invade mexico and nuke the moon just in case. But in this case even ukraine joining nato was not in the cards. let alone that it joining the EU was also problematic for russian interests even though that wasn't in the cards either. This isn't about actual military threats to russia, it's about russian interests.
To add to that, I definitely do not believe the US-EU-nato are saints, there's ton of legitimate grievances for everyone to throw around.
I mean, sure, if your hypothetical can simply infinitely escalate then eventually we will get to a point where it's reasonable to invade mexico and nuke the moon just in case. But in this case even ukraine joining nato was not in the cards. let alone that it joining the EU was also problematic for russian interests even though that wasn't in the cards either. This isn't about actual military threats to russia, it's about russian interests.
To add to that, I definitely do not believe the US-EU-nato are saints, there's ton of legitimate grievances for everyone to throw around.
That scenario is basically the NATO play by play starting with Germany. Obviously it's hard to encircle the US similarly due to geography but the point remains.
And yet NATO membership was extended to Ukraine, and other proximal states. Incrementally right up to their back door.
Seems like if it were never in the cards it should have been infinitely easy to publicly state as much.
That scenario is basically the NATO play by play starting with Germany. Obviously it's hard to encircle the US similarly due to geography but the point remains.
And yet NATO membership was extended to Ukraine, and other proximal states. Incrementally right up to their back door.
Seems like if it were never in the cards it should have been infinitely easy to publicly state as much.
Ukraine wasn't a part of nato though. It is true that it never ruled out an eventual membership but that still takes me back to my point... what's the actual hard evidence that there was an actual military threat around that justifies this? In what universe is this, with the information we have now, being about actual military threats to russia a better explanation than this being about russian interests?
Ukraine wasn't a part of nato though. It is true that it never ruled out an eventual membership but that still takes me back to my point... what's the actual hard evidence that there was an actual military threat around that justifies this? In what universe is this, with the information we have now, being about actual military threats to russia a better explanation than this being about russian interests?
If the mirror-inverse does not paint a good enough picture of what kind of threat it would pose, I'm not sure you're willing to accept one.
Missiles from Ukraine could hit Moscow in mere minutes.
Same reason we would want the lying, expansionist Russian federation on our border, or partnering with Mexico (Cuba) in order to place ballistics there.
It's really that simple.
In any event, US leaders are well aware of how it would be perceived (and the inverse as well), even if you are in disbelief. We came dangerously close to nuclear conflict over just a scenario.
