The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[Redshift]

It seems that no one read the first post in Russia - General Discussion or that only our opinion counts. NATO is a four-letter-word for Russians, I read that a long time ago.

Oh off you go again wittering on to the void

 

[Redshift]

Really? but an intelligent debate can contain a sentence like 'we are arming Ukraine to fight for freedom'. followed by a lecture on how Ukraine hates Russia. don't you know what Russia says they are fighting for? Russia said they are fighting for so many reasons including liberating the Donbass, so they are fighting for what they believe is freedom for Russian speakers in Ukraine. it's not intelligent because it's Russian version of freedom?

I was replying to you not anyone else, basic comprehension, you should try it

 

[personaldesas]

I think post-'91 there wasn't anything Russia could have realistically done to prevent NATO expansion. Despite assurances, NATO would have expanded eastward to some extent regardless.

I think often the framing aroudn this issue misses an important distinction. NATO did not expand by invading countries and forcing them to join. Those countries actively sought membership because of their own security concerns and historical experience.

You can still criticize NATO for accepting them. But then the agency of Poland, the Baltics, Romania, etc. has to be part of the argument too.

Equating voluntary accession to an alliance with Russia imposing its will by force on neighboring countries, as some here do, is just not a strong argument.

 

[tonnyc]

No man, i posted a video here of Tulsi Gabbard admitting to the bio-lab thing. is she propaganda too?

You have no clue at all about American politics, do you? Yes, she is propaganda.
God damn. Learn about the world. Get out of your shell.

My country (Indonesia) is supposed to be a friend of yours (Russia) but holy shit either you're dumb or you think we here at defencetalk are dumb.

 

[swerve]

the partial invasion of Ukraine, doesn't count as an "invasion". In 1941, not even Hitler (and he was demented) planned to go beyond the Urals; that was too, a "partial" invasion.

Nonsense!

An invasion isn't "partial" if it isn't intended to occupy the whole country. Napoleon invaded Russia: he didn't intend to conquer it, just force it to change its policies & alliances. He invaded Austria with no intention of conquering it. Saddam Hussein didn't intend to conquer Iran (he wasn't that stupid). Bismarck neither wished nor tried to conquer France when he invaded in 1870, & he won the victory he wanted . India successfully invaded Pakistan in 1971, achieving all its war aims & a complete victory - & only occupied about 15% of the country (though it had over half of the population). And so on . . . . . None of these is considered to have been a mere partial invasion.

Remember, I'm qualified to teach this language. I'm being very generous here, giving you free lessons.

 

[deyhere]

I was replying to you not anyone else, basic comprehension, you should try it

you was replying to me off the response i gave someone else, basic intelligence, why is it hard for you to understand

 

[deyhere]

You have no clue at all about American politics, do you? Yes, she is propaganda.
God damn. Learn about the world. Get out of your shell.

My country (Indonesia) is supposed to be a friend of yours (Russia) but holy shit either you're dumb or you think we here at defencetalk are dumb.

Mr clue, well done, i see you. whether it's propaganda or not, it's coming from high ranking US official. you can conclude what you like.

I am not Russian, am British. because of my views you have concluded very quickly that i am Russian. how dumb are you? i am ready to prove my identity any time, just to show you how dumb you are, thinking am Russian

 

[rsemmes]

Nonsense!

An invasion isn't "partial" if it isn't intended to occupy the whole country. Napoleon invaded Russia: he didn't intend to conquer it, just force it to change its policies & alliances. He invaded Austria with no intention of conquering it. Saddam Hussein didn't intend to conquer Iran (he wasn't that stupid). Bismarck neither wished nor tried to conquer France when he invaded in 1870, & he won the victory he wanted . India successfully invaded Pakistan in 1971, achieving all its war aims & a complete victory - & only occupied about 15% of the country (though it had over half of the population). And so on . . . . . None of these is considered to have been a mere partial invasion.

Remember, I'm qualified to teach this language. I'm being very generous here, giving you free lessons.

Of course not! That's why I used partial and “invasion”. The Sino-Soviet War or border conflict, was a “war”, but not an “invasion” (just troops inside another country without invitation); but it was after 1941.

In Georgia, Russia set the trap but Georgia (choosing what words to use) “started the war”, that does not overrides everything else.
Agents provocateurs? There was nothing going on in Donbas? There was no “conflict” in Crimea? There was no “issue” with the Hungarian minority in Ukraine? What about the Russian minority? (The Catholic minority in NI?).
No, Hungary did not invade Ukraine. (It would have been interesting to see EU/NATO sanctions against Hungary and weapons supplies for Ukraine.) On the other hand, conflicts don't surge by “spontaneous generation”, who fired the first shot does not overrides everything else; it's just politics by other means.

Generous and kindly reminding us about your generosity. And yes, I used "partial" as agent provocateur, I could have used your "overrides" instead. The point was about simplistic storylines.