Russian-Ukrainian war

[Deleted member 53669]

This entire discussion on the topic is, well, it's good that it is happening. However, a lot of the statements made regarding political motivations are hypothesis and assumptions of a process that is based off of tailored information from the propaganda outlets from both parties to the conflict.

A macro-view of the conflict is more appropriate given the apparent aspect of both sides using minute details to distract the general population from the real motivations of the parties involved.

It all boils down to power and control, no mater how you distill it, what spyglass you use to examine it, what filter you use to sift through it.

If I were to assume that the Machiavellian power-struggles that are ongoing are a philosophical truth, then in all actuality, Russia has more right to govern and indoctrinate its borders than the United States does.

If I were, of course, assuming that the covert subjugation programs of the United States and the USSR are still in full swing and that the fall of the Berlin wall didn't magically have both sides of the conflict in progress, develop an altruistic motivation in the lives and prosperty to the peoples of Eastern Europe and the world for that matter, I would recommend that all European countries expel both NATO and BRIC influences from the region and realize that any outside interferences are large disembodied hands moving pawns around on a chess board.

If I read the political histories of both countries involving Imperialist expansion (Russia is Imperialist as well, no matter what their propaganda will want you to believe), I would take great initiative in creating energy markets that are not reliant on trade with other countries so that I may become myself sovereign.

I must also advise that during this time-period, such a change in the economic structure of a nation would require an economy dictated by the country, rather than the laws of American/British so called "Free-Market" dominance.

Ideology based off of the idea of "Class Struggle" or "Democracy vs Dictatorial Communism" is weak in this situation, for it means nothing. It has an infulence on events, and the motivations of the people...but assigning a fundamental ideology to one state over the other would deny the socio-ethnic and political differences in the wide variety of people within both the United States and Europe.

Example of reasoning:






Both sides are throwing propaganda at the world full steam, and Russia has actually developed a media conglomerate actually powerful enough to rival the United States, and is using alternative media sources inside the U.S. itself to demotivate its citizens in the patriotic ideals of the old zeitgeist.

Example of reasoning:




Numerous among numerous examples of these actions all over the internet and in public record. The issue of the 21st century is how do the formation of think-tanks and the use of mind control influences the sovereignty of the common man.

 

[BigBoss]

So, I'm guessing your pro-Russia then.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

So, I'm guessing you're a moron then.

I'm pro-everybody.

 

[BigBoss]

Whoooa. Ok, now I'm guessing you have some kind of personal stake or emphasis. Either that or your just a prick. I'm not sure.

Anyways to the rest of the board, on the topic of media;

Since majoring in history I can tell you personally that civilizations since the ancient period have used similar techniques which would be considered "pre-modern" media as a way to spew out propaganda. In the Middle Ages they used to set Harolds and Town Criers everywhere to yell out "the news", or course this news was written by none other than a handful of selected government informants chosen by the Kingdom/Sultanate/whatever at the time. Mass propaganda is first evident though in the Dark Ages after the fall of the Roman Empire, being used through the Church. Those working under the Church would receive specific directions on what to tell people of a certain region that Sunday. However the first recorded use of using actual mass media to relate propaganda info was during the first World War. Printing presses and radios were constantly blaring out propaganda which, depending on where you lived, could be just a simple advertisement encouraging you to support the military in some way, or could be an entire talk show orchestrated and set up by the government with the goal of giving their people a patriotic flare. This was brought to an even more vivid height during the second World War. Around this time both sides were also steadily printing lies (or more like "half truths") in order to boost morale.

The point is, governments using media and other social methods should come as no surprise to anyone. It's been done ever since mankind developed language skills. I'm not saying that free-press doesn't exist. I'm just saying that there's also a good chance that the government is influencing the press, probably through cash.

 

[Crni Vuk]

A macro-view of the conflict is more appropriate given the apparent aspect of both sides using minute details to distract the general population from the real motivations of the parties involved.

well one thing is clear, at least in my opinion, the real victims are the civlians living in said areas, because I consider them more or less neutral parties. I mean looking at the government in the Ukraine, the Russians or us here in the West (US/Europe), then its clear that everyone is simply following their own goals and agenda while a real solution that might eventually end all the fighting is far away. The people that we support in the Ukraine, the politicians I mean, are hardly better compared to Putin. We should remember one thing, they are not exactly what you call good democrats.

On the other side I also find the politics and propaganda aimed at Russia rather disturbing since really, what are they doing so differet here compared to the US? Don't get me wrong, I would be the last one to call Putin and his friends saints, but in the end people really talk about a nation they hardly know, Russia is not Europe, Russia is not the US, why do we believe they should act like we do? The way how I see it, if I would be a Russian politician, then I would have no other choice but to realize that more and more states on my border become members of the NATO, which is clearls ruled by the US military/government. When ever I see European/US politicans acting enraged about Russia then I cant help my self but feel like they are talking to a mirror.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

I feel the same way about NATO dealing with Putin as George Bush dealing with Saddam Hussein.


You try to topple a government that is the only thing remotely resembling stability and unity in a polarized unstable region, and assume that the political vacuum is going to be full of alturistic advanced capitalist with globalized 21st century ways of thinking,

You get ISIS.


By the way, the Russians are far more civilized relative to the Western World compared to ethnic minorities and political extremists in both eastern Europe and the middle east.


The Russians don't engage in genocide either....


just democide, LAST century.



The thing is however, that's assuming that NATO is stupid. They are not stupid.

It's still the cold-war. It has never ended. I don't think we need to feed the fucking fire here.

 

[Crni Vuk]

By the way, the Russians are far more civilized relative to the Western World compared to ethnic minorities and political extremists in both eastern Europe and the middle east.

Just so I understand you right, you say Russia is dealing better with their minorities compared to Europe (France, Germany etc.) ?

The Russians don't engage in genocide either

Lets be clear though, Putin is a war criminal in my eyes. That simple. But so is Obama. They constantly do things they hold against other nations like terorism for example and and starting agressions/conflicts.

What is the difference between killing people with drones where you have no clue if they are guilty or not compared to the actions of someone like ISIS? Terror is not exclusively owned by Islamic fighters.

 

[BigBoss]

On the other side I also find the politics and propaganda aimed at Russia rather disturbing since really, what are they doing so differet here compared to the US? Don't get me wrong, I would be the last one to call Putin and his friends saints, but in the end people really talk about a nation they hardly know, Russia is not Europe, Russia is not the US, why do we believe they should act like we do? The way how I see it, if I would be a Russian politician, then I would have no other choice but to realize that more and more states on my border become members of the NATO, which is clearls ruled by the US military/government. When ever I see European/US politicans acting enraged about Russia then I cant help my self but feel like they are talking to a mirror.

Well, this all comes down to the age-old question of "Which government/leader are or is a saint?" Since the Cold War, I couldn't think of one government that actually abides by morals, even, or no - especially the religious ones. Maybe a Buddhist-fundamentalist government might, but I doubt it. Besides, look what happened to Tibet before China came in stomping. A government which refuses to resort to 'un-moral' tactics often get's pushed around. During the Cold-War, those who sided with the US/Soviets often had CIA/KGB agents using these same methods to make sure the governments were shaped just like they wanted them to be. About 5 and a half decades of this is going to drive any nation crazy. But every nation, even one where a man has total control (World War II Axis Powers nod here), needs the support of it's people if it wants to make any progress or get anything done. Propaganda, whether true or lies, is the easiest and fastest method of gaining the people's support.

 

[Akratus]

Don't mind ))><((, you guys. He's a breed apart, and don't make no sense.

Telling people they're hostile, and to stop being so, in a hostile manner?

What's even funnier is that his avatar says: "Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves."

Now as far as the russian/ukrainian conflict goes:


Except that Putin seems like a bit of a disturbing leader.

 

[zegh8578]

Russia, imho, is doing what America is doing: Fighting a constructed war for the purpose of fighting a constructed war.

USA has been doing it for decades, and there are powers that benefit from it. Corresponding powers exist in Russia, and have benefitted much less from similar situations in the past. USA has been invonved in constant warfare since, say, 1990. So has Russia, but at a much smaller scale, Chechnya, Dagestan, Abkhazia, Ossetia.

In my opinion, they have simply "upped the ante". As close to the West as this conflict seems, this might be coincidental, as the region is also close to the Caucasus, Russia's favorite hot-spot.

In other words, Eastern Ukraine is Russia's Iraq. It is where Russian missiles go to evaporate, so Russia can buy more missiles.

This does not make the war "less legitimate" or whatever, people die, cities are bombed, and business is usually the real reason wars break out either way. It is only that recently, we mere plebs are typically better informed. We get the official version in the main channels "It's for FREEDOM!" but easily discover the real reasons, without much effort "Oh, hell, it's about oil."

But war was always this way.
OH OH OH

war
war never changes

 

[TorontoReign]

This whole conflict is about Russia reclaiming it's former power in the area. Simple as that. ))<>(( is pretty much on point with his Machiavellian comments. Russia does not like NATO influence, especially in areas it used to control. I have a book called "The Next Hundred Years: A Forecast of the 21st Century by George Friedman that anticipated this conflict and many others simply by researching the history and geopolitical patterns. Russia wants to isolate Eastern Europe and break apart NATO. They are seeking to destabilize the areas on their borders to suit their own agenda. No doubt the US is exercising its influence in unseen ways in the Ukraine itself. Much like Russia has been doing. The 21st century is all about Proxy Wars. Solid Snake would love this shit.

Russia lost a lot after the first two world wars, after the collapse of the Soviet Union it lost even more. Friedman believes, as do I, that if Ukraine and Belarus falls into NATO hands that Russia would be in "danger". Moscow is only a couple hundred miles away from there. It is easy to see, if looking at things from this point of view, that Putin is well aware of this. It is actually pretty interesting to see Friedman outright predict this situation basically word for word in 2009. It does lend his book a great deal of credibility. Not like it isn't fairly apparent when looking at the history though.

Now I'm not saying NATO is dangerous, but they do have a great deal of influence, and they are opposed to Putins Russia. Of course with a weak US President NATO isn't worth much. But from his point of view, they are encroaching on Russia's territory. I also don't think Putin is the worst leader by a long shot. Frankly I respect the guy. Comparing him to President Obama I feel like he actually has balls, whereas Obama is more talk and a lot less action. Sure he is an asshole, probably corrupt as all hell, but he does know how to play the game it seems. The way he pisses of Hillary Clinton is enough for me to giggle.

That being said the whole Russia/Ukraine War is a tragedy. We have Russia doing whatever the hell they want, kidnapping officials across borders, annexing countries, and generally wreaking havoc, all while spinning the whole scene as a "liberation" for the people. Oh these people need protection they say. Yeah from the US and YOU! The whole area is fucked right now between all the conflicting powers at play. You have people that actually care for their country fighting for it, while others that have no right seeking to tear the whole thing apart. The new Cold War might spark into something else in the future. For now it's sanctions and bullshit from the US while Russia does whatever the hell they want.

 

[Crni Vuk]

that's kinda understandable though and not only from a Russian point of view, don't forget what the original idea of the NATO was, it is what I see as agressive organisation unlike the United Nations that are more or less born with the idea of de-esecalation and with more peacefull goals, sadly the UN has no real power. And to be honest, I totally despise the NATO as a structure and organisation today because it is nothing else then a different arm of the US foreign politics. They make the call. And everyone moves. Or he doesnt, then he is "against" the US. The main target for the NATO is to secure resources, this was not even made a secret really as everyone knew already in the late 1980s that the future will be less about politics and idelogy but about resources. Not just oil though.

In my opinion the NATO should have been disbanded with the end of the cold war, because it is STILL a relict of the cold war, it should have made room for better solutions which dont follow only military goals, open for reforms and more democratic/transparent politics, one of my dreams would be if they shift the power to the UN. But, that will not happen.

Now I'm not saying NATO is dangerous

In my opinion it is. The history of organisations like GLADIO and their other secret armies - and they are not just some isolated incidents, show very clearly that they have no moral. The NATO is a relict of a militaristic past overshadowed by the arms race. It simply has to go, in my opinion. Or at least it has to be replaced by something where the US is not playing such a big dominance anymore, this can not end well in the future as I feel there will be a lot more competition between Europe and the US at some point, maybe when we finally wake up and realize that we Europeans are not doing us a favour here when we spoil things with Russia.

As far as Putin goes, if you ask me, he is doing a lot of stupid things though, because sanctions and instability on financial matters will hurt Russia a lot, it is less likely that European and US companies will invest into Russia if the political situation isnt clear. Now I dont know if Putin is doing it to satisfy the needs of his people or if he is really convinced of his politics, he might be doing just polemic to keep the Russian nationlists/fanstics happy to stay in power, who knows? I dont remember this historian anymore, but he was Russian, who said that Putin is not even the worst part in Russia, its the people, the people that support him and cheer on Putin as the guy who's showing muscle when dealing with the West, and those people are quite a big part of the population in Russia, which doesnt even realize how much damage they cause to themself with following this politic.

 

[TorontoReign]

I agree with most everything you said aside from NATO being dangerous. Russia is a little more dangerous. For one the Cold War mentality is still around. Hell we are in another Cold War right now. I think NATO protects some of these countries from being reabsorbed into Russia. Not very effectively, but there are lines that can't be crossed. Are you saying that if NATO wasn't around that Russia wouldn't have already tried to reclaim more of their old Soviet satellites? I'm sure Poland wouldn't appreciate such a thing happening. Interestingly enough one of NATO's purposes in being created was to keep Germany in check after World War 2. Germany was able to raise their armies once again because they were a member of NATO. I guess you can say that purpose has long been outlived, but something should exist to prevent Europe from falling into chaos.

I'm sure most would like for the US to stay out of it since we aren't even on the same continent. Who would stand up to Russia though if they decide to invade another country or two on a whim? I would like to think if something happened bad enough that Russia would be stopped. I'm not talking full scale war, but annexation of other countries is...excessive. Sure war and conflict is going to happen, but even the US doesn't just annex other fucking countries on a whim. Not recently anyway. Sure we bomb the hell out of them, invade, and put puppet leaders in charge while leeching their national resources and destabilizing the surrounding areas, but at least we let them keep their country.

I think the fear is if some of the smaller Eastern European countries aren't a part of NATO, they will be annexed by Russia as they attempt to restore their empire. I respect Russia and their right to do what they must for their survival, but Putin is leading the country down a dangerous road. It feels like so many of these conflicts go back to decades old disputes that were never properly resolved. It's actually fascinating when you think about it.

 

[BigBoss]

all while spinning the whole scene as a "liberation" for the people

Isn't this the same bullshit story they used when they kept power over the countries they took from Germany during World War II and created the Eastern Bloc out of them? Funny how history repeats itself. You'd figure people would be like; "Whoa wait a minute here! Where have I seen this before?!?"

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Don't mind ))><((, you guys. He's a breed apart, and don't make no sense.

Telling people they're hostile, and to stop being so, in a hostile manner?

What's even funnier is that his avatar says: "Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves."

Just so I understand you right, you say Russia is dealing better with their minorities compared to Europe (France, Germany etc.) ?

Hmmm, let's do that thing again that you need some help on, which is sentence syntax. It's okay we all have flaws.

Original Sentence:

By the way, the Russians are far more civilized relative to the Western World compared to ethnic minorities and political extremists in both eastern Europe and the middle east.


Russians

are (what?)

More Civilized

than (who)?

Ethnic Minorities and political extremists.



Do I think Russia does better than Ethnic Minorities and political extremists in conducting civic rule of law?

Yes.

I guess that means I'm a communist doesn't it?

Isn't this the same bullshit story they used when they kept power over the countries they took from Germany during World War II and created the Eastern Bloc out of them? Funny how history repeats itself. You'd figure people would be like; "Whoa wait a minute here! Where have I seen this before?!?"

Not even remotely similar.

In this argument, Russia had more authority over eastern europe back then than they do now.


However, Ukraine's eastern half is majority Russian and Tatar in Ethnicity and Language.

No other country in the G12/8 whatever would allow things like this to happen along their border to their own citizens/ethnic group. "other ethnic groups no one gives a shit about like Mexico and the United States".



I think diplomats shouldn't be lawyers, but a team of chefs and local girls in skimpy outfits going "You like flavor eh? "

 

[Crni Vuk]

I agree with most everything you said aside from NATO being dangerous. Russia is a little more dangerous. For one the Cold War mentality is still around. Hell we are in another Cold War right now.

I am not Pro-Russian, but I would say, dangerous for "who"? Europe? The US? US foreign policy has proven to be a lot more dangerous and agressive after the 1990s, for obvious reasons of course, I mean the Soviet Union colapsed and the new Russian state had to sort out its politics. Russia is definitely not "better" compared to the US or Europe, but they simply are not in a position right now to act on the same level like Europe/the US does. Not to mention when Russia bombed Grosny and Chechenia back to the stone age no one took any offense really or had a problem with that, most people can't even find it on the map. And with getting involved in the Ukraine now all we do is to fuel tensions, I hate to say it, but the Ukraine is (sadly) part of the Russians sphere, it always was, and (most proably) will stay that way. This is not fair nor is it awesome, particularly not for the Ukraine. But you have to ask your self, how would the USA react if Russia decided to mess around with Canada or Mexico in the same way? Maybe even deploying troops there, all for "peacefull purpose" of course. And where they openly support politicans/groups that serve obviously their interests. Of course the US would see it as a threat. And to make things wors more and more former Warsaw Pact nations join the NATO, despite the fact that if I remember correctly they had some kind of agreement in the 1990s that this will not happen, but the Russians also agreed to leave the Ukraine alone if they give up on their nuclear arsenal and the US agreed to protect them in cases where their souvereignty is touched... well we can see how that one worked out. Though from a Russian point of view I guess all this feels like a threat. It is a very silly mentality because the last thing the NATO would do is to attack a nation armed with nuclear weapons, albeit it is based on historical context, because you want to have nations around you that serve as buffer. And you can not forget that easily 50-60 years of cold war.

Are you saying that if NATO wasn't around that Russia wouldn't have already tried to reclaim more of their old Soviet satellites?

Difficult to say, but I believe that the NATO is like an old man that is used to rambling and shouting who has no purpose because it was made for a different time, one where you expected a new World War, potentialy a nuclear one, we needed the NATO back then, but today? Things today are a lot more delicate though. But to say this, yeah, I think the situation would be a lot more peacefull without the NATO and the kind of threat it seems to be for Russia, and I think it is not difficult to see why. I mean just one thing, in NATO manouvers the Russians/Soviets are still quite often the enemy they use for their exercise, the US is training their Marines with captured Russian/Soviet equipment, like the Mil Mi 24, Mig's etc. I am not saying the NATO or the US is planing a war or that they would be so stupid to build up tensions so high that we will see one, but it is not difficult to see why the NATO is perceived as a threat by Russia, why the NATO is not much more then a different tool for the US army/pentagon. And from a Russian point of view, they are in the weaker position, unless Russia is getting military bases on Cuba again.

I guess that means I'm a communist doesn't it?

Sorry that English still gives me sometimes serious trouble and that I just ask for clarification instead of jumping to conclussions.

I promise! Next time I will simply attack you for what I believe you said instead of asking

I would give you some cookies to cheer you up, but I'm all out a cookies. Here, have some Dragon-Brake-Dance instead.

 

[BigBoss]

However, Ukraine's eastern half is majority Russian and Tatar in Ethnicity and Language.

Ok, we can say that. Or we can say remember how Hitler invaded all those countries such as Austria because he said there were "German nationals" there. Yeah it took us waiting for him to invade about four of five fucking different countries before people stopped trying to defend his "cause".

I mean if countries were allowed to be invaded based just on the fact that there were a group of unhappy citizens with heritage belonging to another nation, by that logic every nation in the world (or the major ones', anyways) should all invade the United States.

I can understand if the Ukrainian government was pushing Russians into labor camps or something based solely on the fact that they were Russian. But just saying "there's a bunch of unhappy Russians there" doesn't really warrant the cause for an invasion.

I mean, who the fuck justs, you know, invades somebody? This isn't the 19th-20th century. I mean the US invaded Iraq, but they petitioned NATO (and kinda) the UN for support first, after they threw out Saddam they didn't try to keep the country as a "part of the US". I can see it now, fifty one stars on the flag. "State of Iraq".

I mean I (kinda) can agree with your logic here. I'm not just trying to be a dick, I'm trying to make a reasonable argument. But, say, even if suddenly thousands of US citizens started flooding the border into Mexico; and suddenly the Mexican government starts treating kind of shitty (kind of like Arizona and other Southwest states do to Mexican citizens/nationals), I'm not so sure the US would just say "Fuck it, we gave 'em a chance. All divisions full speed ahead!"

 

[Crni Vuk]

Hitler didnt invaded Austria though, the anexesation was fishy, but more or less welcomed by the Austrians. You probably mean the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia when German troops crossed the Czechoslovakian Borders.

 

[MutantScalper]

I wrote earlier about whether this conflict will become bigger or linger on and on as a little conflict...about four months ago. Still I'm not sure what exactly this conflict is. According to latest news a large number of tanks and artillerly pieces was seen rolling somewhere and shooting at...something...a lot.

However, there is a definite Fallout'esque quality about it. A shelled out airport defended by guys called "cyborgs"? Scheming going on by big shot politicians with their fingers on the button(s)? It could be an expansion DLC for Fallout New Vegas, or maybe S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or something.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29793696

 

[Deleted member 53669]

The Dramatization of this conflict is one of the things I hate the most.

This false romanticism that spurs on the violence could start World War 3. A lot of people fail to see the grim reality and consequences this war brings with it.
Diplomatic solutions are always available if someone actually tries, but people want to have a nice little media friendly war to increase stock prices temporarily, and have an energy output from all the excess semen and ovarian ovulation that comes from sexually repressed populations with no educational infrastructure that teaches anything but nationalistic and racist priority.

Honestly, we live in a time where if a majority wants sovereignty over a certain territory, they should get it, and abide by international law. No genocides. No murders. No political assassinations. The minority should get representation in the territory with backing from the international community. In turn, they should be responsible for their own actions and not reliant on anyone from G7.

If these conditions aren't met, G7 should coup d'etat the hell out of them with full UN support.

I do have to give credit where credit is due. Vladimir Putin has done an amazing job in maintaining stability in a very volatile region that the west is haphazardly trying to destabilize. He is no doubt one of the most skilled and intelligent people in government alive today.

He is, however, a facist pig and needs to move towards a democratic implementation of his policies and political structures or the whole world will leave him behind.

The United States and UK have done well to bluff Russia thus far and I give credit for preventing more wide-spread chaos in the neighboring countries. However, their handling of the situation in Ukraine itself has been piss-poor with not nearly the oversight needed to stop this conflict. They have continually exacerbated the problem by playing the fear card in Eastern Europe which could run out of control and cause the situation to get worse quickly.

There is no reason to compare this conflict to the Cold War, and doing that shows an attitude on both sides to throw themselves backwards.

It's not cool. It's not ironic. It's not "Totally Post Modern ya!".

It's really silly. It's the ultimate form of slap-stick comedy involving explosives. And it really is hard to see the funny side, because the whole planet is hanging in jeopardy.