Russian-Ukrainian war

[Tagaziel]

I wasn't pointing out how you should view yourself, I know how you view yourself, I was just pointing out how we view you. You can give a damn or you wont, it doesn't matter, just letting you know we don't need Russia to do our thinking for us, we just comerce with them because we make profit out of it, but we can think on our own.


Also, so nice of you to share how the people in the EU view us, we decide to trade with the "enemies" of the US and EU and all of a sudden we are their lapdogs. I suppose it's only ok to trade with the US and the EU, or whoever is in their conviniece to trade with. Maybe we do things one way and not the other because when we did things one way our economy got ass-raped by our firends and allies without even a call on the next morning, kind like what is happening in Greece.

Gonzales, kindly read what I write, not what you think I write. I said that I could dismiss you as a lapdog, but I won't, because that's asinine.


By the way, do your research. Russia continues to trade with Europe, because we're their biggest client. Of course, since they decided to antagonize us, they got the shit end of the deal and their economy is currently of the process of melting down. Second, Greece is in shit because of its own government. It's the only EU country where the blame for the crisis is shared by the government.


The Greek government deliberately rigged economic data to get admitted and then went on an unsustainable spending spree. It wasn't the EU.

Geopolitics does not necessarily involve troops on the field, more often than not, it does not. Also, were is the proof of the russian troops invading, of the rebels shooting down the malasian plane and that the armament was supplied by Russia. I'm asking because I've been asked to present "proof" (yeah, like we are on a trial) to support my arguments.

Sander already explained that. There's a body of evidence indicating direct Russian involvement, including Russia officially stating that it was their troops that occupied Crimea and issuing decorations for the brave annexation and conquest of territories belonging to a foreign, sovereign nation, and sighting of T-72BM/B1s in separatist hands. As a tank fan, you ought to know it was not operated by the Ukrainian Army.

 

[Gonzalez]

What I question is the "democratic natural process" being either democratic nor natural. The ukranian president had already agreed to have early ellections, the coup wasn't necessary, and his succesor who no one ellected first official act was to ally himself to the EU and to accept loans that make the Ukraine economically dependant on the EU. So yes, I see this as a geopolitical fight between the US/EU and Russia, and not as an unilateral act of Russia to thwart freedom and democracy.

 

[Tagaziel]

What I question is the "democratic natural process" being either democratic nor natural. The ukranian president had already agreed to have early ellections, the coup wasn't necessary, and his succesor who no one ellected first official act was to ally himself to the EU and to accept loans that make the Ukraine economically dependant on the EU. So yes, I see this as a geopolitical fight between the US/EU and Russia, and not as an unilateral act of Russia to thwart freedom and democracy.

He agreed after trying to brutalize the protesters failed to get him any ground - and after he agreed to the terms, he bailed on Ukraine entirely. The entire executive branch hinges on the President in Ukraine and with Yanukovych deliberately sabotaging his own nation's ability to run properly, he hanged himself.

Furthermore, Russia does thwart freedom and democracy. The EU and the United States, as many errors as they have made, are not deliberately conquering and annexing parts of sovereign countries, their Presidents aren't publicly calling gays pedophiles, and they aren't legislating against the freedoms of minorities. The idea of RusFed being equal to the EU and the US insofar morality is concerned is hard to swallow, due to the sheer amount of bullshit within.

 

[Gonzalez]

You know what, maybe you are right, maybe the US and EU governments are only acting out of the kindness of their heraths and only want to make this a better world, they don't at all care that Russia is gaining strenght and not at all trying to act to stop other nations to compete for dominance in the geopolitical picture. That's why they took into the EU a country that is totally baknrupt and has a civil war going on. The injections of money they gave them are, i'm sure, given under no conditions and they allow them to spend it anyway they deem propper, without conditions and with generous interest rates and clauses so that they are able to return the money whenever they can, no strings attached, because, you know, the EU/US block is charitative and helps anyone who needs it. You are right, I have been seeing it wrong all along. It's all about saving the peoples of this earth from the russians, who are evil, twarth democracy and freedom and have small penises.

 

[Tagaziel]

You know what, maybe you are right, maybe the US and EU governments are only acting out of the kindness of their heraths and only want to make this a better world, they don't at all care that Russia is gaining strenght and not at all trying to act to stop other nations to compete for dominance in the geopolitical picture.

Never said they acted purely out of kindness. Just said that they care, which is far more than what can be said for Russia, who is only interested in Ukraine only as a buffer state and colony to buy their goods.

Also, Russia gaining strength? Don't make me laugh.

That's why they took into the EU a country that is totally baknrupt and has a civil war going on. The injections of money they gave them are, i'm sure, given under no conditions and they allow them to spend it anyway they deem propper, without conditions and with generous interest rates and clauses so that they are able to return the money whenever they can, no strings attached, because, you know, the EU/US block is charitative and helps anyone who needs it. You are right, I have been seeing it wrong all along.

Talk about a critical research failure. The Ukraine is not part of the European Union. It has signed an Association Agreement, which is the first step on the way to get admitted into the Union, but it's still far off. Ukraine has to make a lot of changes, a lot of reforms, and do plenty to manage its corruption. Funnily enough, the statement above is something I'm pretty sure was thrown around in 1994, when Poland signed the Association Agreement. It took us ten years of hard work to get into the EU and another ten to get to where we are, a fast developing, large, and influential member of the European community.

Regarding charity: You do know that the European Union and the United States are the largest contributors of foreign aid in the whole wide world, with 70 and 35 billion dollars of development aid contributed in 2013, right? Russia has not managed to meet even half a percent of that sum. For the lack of a better indicator, it shows pretty clearly who cares.

It's all about saving the peoples of this earth from the russians, who are evil, twarth democracy and freedom and have small penises.

It's interesting how you don't even try to disprove anything I say or provide evidence to back up your claims of Euro/US interference in Ukraine. Me and Sander showed you where the evidence is, all you need is to familiarize yourself with it.

By the way, you still haven't disproved Russia being a hostile country, what with annexing a territory that belongs to a sovereign country using its military (an act of aggressive war), aiding and abetting a separatist insurgency in Ukraine, repeated violations of foreign air space as a show of military power, and generally being a giant asshole on the international stage. But it's all EU-US fault, right? All of Eastern Europe is really Russia's backyard and everyone should go back to being Russian slaves, like it was under the Soviet Union, right?

 

[BigBoss]

A few things here;

1) On Russia gaining strength... they may have made a few technological advances in the military arms field within these past few years, but ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia has had to sell off a large part of their weapons arsenal to other nations (namely China) throughout these last two decades because they couldn't support the maintenance costs for such a large army (not to mention they had to pay off the massive debts the Soviet Union accumulated and they're economy started out in a not-so-good position after the USSR collapse, but then again it wasn't that great while the USSR was around either) under a free market government. So in all actuality while they may have a nice looking military, that's what we see from the outside. On the inside they're actually losing strength. Imagine someone is showing you a beautiful mansion, and asking you buy it. You're standing in the huge backyard looking upon this beautiful mansion, but the moment you want step inside the mansion they get really nervous and keep coming up with excuses why they can't show you the inside. But by law he's required to. So you guys step in to the house, and it's a disaster. Ripped floorboards, broken staircases, holes in the walls, and shoddy wiring.

2) Also Tagz understands how much of a contribution the United States has laid down in the area of foreign/international aid (shame we couldn't lay down as big of a contribution for our OWN people, like during hurricane Katrina in New Orleans). Yet it's other people who have no idea about the subject and who've done little to no research whom do nothing but hate and try to degrade us, and say we've done nothing to help the world. Nobodies saying we're the perfect godlike all knowing greatest nation in the world, or the resurrection of the Roman Empire. But we're damn sure not anything like some people make us out to be.

Apply this video to Russia and Putin's case of why the Ukraine should be annexed. The "D.A." being Russia:

 

[Crni Vuk]

make no mistake though, it simply is more benefitial for the US and Europe to be the "good guys". Given the chance, they are just as bad like Russia is today - at least in some cases, I am not calling nations really evil, just saying, historically speaking, we are all are assholes, they sure proven it on several occasions, some nations simply had more chances to prove it, while many other nations have been most of the time the victims.

It has simply become a problem for Europe and in some situations for the US to make buisness when they are to heavily involved in questionable topics, that is somehow a positive effect of free press. But at the end of the day, European or US politicans - in general don't give more fucks for dieing Africans or poor Ukrainian citizens then Russian or Chinese politicians.

 

[Sander]

2) Also Tagz understands how much of a contribution the United States has laid down in the area of foreign/international aid (shame we couldn't lay down as big of a contribution for our OWN people, like during hurricane Katrina in New Orleans).Yet it's other people who have no idea about the subject and who've done little to no research whom do nothing but hate and try to degrade us, and say we've done nothing to help the world. Nobodies saying we're the perfect godlike all knowing greatest nation in the world, or the resurrection of the Roman Empire. But we're damn sure not anything like some people make us out to be.

As a percentage of gross national income, the USA is 20th in the world in foreign aid as a percentage of gross national income. It gives a shamefully low less than 1% of its national budget to foreign aid. Yes, the USA should absolutely be doing more for its own citizens. But that has fuck-all to do with how much it's doing outside its own borders, which is also far too little -- and the aid it is giving is often contingent on pro-USA policies.

And this defensive attitude about the USA is complete nonsense too. It's not about people hating and degrading you and "not doing research". It's about people looking at American interventions over the past sixty years and concluding that they've basically been pretty fucking terrible. Because it's filled with atrocities like supporting a military anti-communist coup in Indonesia that killed 500,000 people. Like propping up Pinochet's oppressive dictatorial regime in Chile, or fomenting anti-democratic revolution in Nicaragua, or supporting Jorge Videla's murderous regime in Argentina, or propping up Mobutu Sese Seko's dictatorial regime after supporting the murder of democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. Like the decades-long Vietnam War costing millions of lives, like starting the second Iraq War under false pretenses, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Like the Cuban embargo that caused direct harm to Cuban citizens with no measurable benefit whatsoever. Like the support for South African Apartheid. Like the entire War On Terror and its massive human rights violations. I could go on and on and on. The USA has a consistent, centuries-long history of supporting dictatorial, oppressive regimes as long as those regimes support American policies. And I haven't even touched on the damage done by American corporations nor on the domestic human rights abuses.

No, when people who do the research look at the USA they see it for exactly what it is: just another world power promoting its own, selfish interests. Just like every other world power.

 

[zegh8578]

America can make all the different and creative excuses they want "Terrorists!" "Communists!" "Terrorcommunists!" fact remains the same: They put troops in a whole bunch of places, against those places' will, and also dismantle legitimate governments, and fight proxy wars through ravaged nations.
If we look solely at the actions performed, while ignoring the excuses, America becomes Mordor. Thank God for communist terrorists!

 

[Deleted member 53669]

The new slogan for the 21st century should be.

"Don't hate me because I was born here".

 

[BigBoss]

2) Also Tagz understands how much of a contribution the United States has laid down in the area of foreign/international aid (shame we couldn't lay down as big of a contribution for our OWN people, like during hurricane Katrina in New Orleans).Yet it's other people who have no idea about the subject and who've done little to no research whom do nothing but hate and try to degrade us, and say we've done nothing to help the world. Nobodies saying we're the perfect godlike all knowing greatest nation in the world, or the resurrection of the Roman Empire. But we're damn sure not anything like some people make us out to be.

As a percentage of gross national income, the USA is 20th in the world in foreign aid as a percentage of gross national income. It gives a shamefully low less than 1% of its national budget to foreign aid. Yes, the USA should absolutely be doing more for its own citizens. But that has fuck-all to do with how much it's doing outside its own borders, which is also far too little -- and the aid it is giving is often contingent on pro-USA policies.

And this defensive attitude about the USA is complete nonsense too. It's not about people hating and degrading you and "not doing research". It's about people looking at American interventions over the past sixty years and concluding that they've basically been pretty fucking terrible. Because it's filled with atrocities like supporting a military anti-communist coup in Indonesia that killed 500,000 people. Like propping up Pinochet's oppressive dictatorial regime in Chile, or fomenting anti-democratic revolution in Nicaragua, or supporting Jorge Videla's murderous regime in Argentina, or propping up Mobutu Sese Seko's dictatorial regime after supporting the murder of democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. Like the decades-long Vietnam War costing millions of lives, like starting the second Iraq War under false pretenses, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Like the Cuban embargo that caused direct harm to Cuban citizens with no measurable benefit whatsoever. Like the support for South African Apartheid. Like the entire War On Terror and its massive human rights violations. I could go on and on and on. The USA has a consistent, centuries-long history of supporting dictatorial, oppressive regimes as long as those regimes support American policies. And I haven't even touched on the damage done by American corporations nor on the domestic human rights abuses.

No, when people who do the research look at the USA they see it for exactly what it is: just another world power promoting its own, selfish interests. Just like every other world power.

Funny, how the United States receives all this hate when there are other nations who do the exact same kind of shit, and are really no better than us (yet we seem the to be the only ones who get the hate). And I'm not defending what the US has done, per like you say.

 

[Hassknecht]

And Iran, Iraq, the Soviet Union/Russia, Israel and Pakistan don't get tons of hate? Seriously.
All these countries already very vilified in western media, except for Israel. And these countries have serious problems trading with the western world because of their actions. Often because of US-enforced embargos, as if the US is any better.

 

[BigBoss]

Yeah, you forgot China. And their corrupt invasion of Tibet...
And the UK who laid out the plans and foundations for the Iranian Coup.

 

[Sander]

BigBoss, no one's arguing that the USA is uniquely evil. Just that it's not any better than other world powers. That's all.

 

[Gonzalez]

Tagz, you do know you just made a step by step analysis of me mocking you, don't you? And if you ask why I mocked you it's because that's all the seriousness I can give someone telling me there is no geopolitical angle and implying NATO is acting because "they care" about the ucranian people. They are doing it to screw Russia over, not because they all of a sudden became a superpower who competes for world dominandce, so maybe I explained mysefl wrong, they do it just because Russia acts regarding their own interests and not those of NATO, and don't you dare to go against NATO interests.

Siding with the Assad regime?! They must be taugth a hard lesson for daring to go aginst us! (that's just one example off the top of my head, as you can guess because I don't hit the books or the wikipedia every single time I want to make a comment on a forum).

You can't go into Ukraine, Russia's backyard, and steal the entire country away from them. What did you think they were going to do? Let go of its entire Black Sea fleet into NATO's hands just like that?! You've got to be kidding me! Someone should have seen this one comming. Actually, I'm surprised Russia didn't full out sent a regular troops invasion and managed to conduct operations as carefully as they did.

Balance of power is a very delicate thing in this world, you can't just alter it and then innocently say "it was a natural democratic process" "they are helping only because they care".

Also, my problem is that by the president beign overthrown, because protests continued after he called early ellections (now don't deny this to me because I was paying attention as the events were happening real time), now we wont know what the majority of the country really wanted as a whole nor at what rates, because neither Crimea nor the territories of the newly created "New Russia" participated in ellecting Poroshenko.

 

[Tagaziel]

Tagz, you do know you just made a step by step analysis of me mocking you, don't you? And if you ask why I mocked you it's because that's all the seriousness I can give someone telling me there is no geopolitical angle and implying NATO is acting because "they care" about the ucranian people. They are doing it to screw Russia over, not because they all of a sudden became a superpower who competes for world dominandce, so maybe I explained mysefl wrong, they do it just because Russia acts regarding their own interests and not those of NATO, and don't you dare to go against NATO interests.


Siding with the Assad regime?! They must be taugth a hard lesson for daring to go aginst us! (that's just one example off the top of my head, as you can guess because I don't hit the books or the wikipedia every single time I want to make a comment on a forum).

I never denied a geopolitcal angle, I denied that it was the only angle played by the EU and the US. The Russian oligarchs and leadership don't give a damn about the Ukrainian people, they only care about Ukraine as a spot on a map that acts as a buffer against the West (Cold War mentality) and buys their gas and oil (because that's the only thing that props up the Russian economy).


It is obvious that there's a containment angle at play, but more importantly, there's a pro-Ukrainian angle in the game. Don't reduce the world to a simplistic Russia-U.S. spectrum, because it's not only disingenous, it's also too simplistic to be used as a regular measure.

You can't go into Ukraine, Russia's backyard, and steal the entire country away from them. What did you think they were going to do? Let go of its entire Black Sea fleet into NATO's hands just like that?! You've got to be kidding me! Someone should have seen this one comming. Actually, I'm surprised Russia didn't full out sent a regular troops invasion and managed to conduct operations as carefully as they did.


Balance of power is a very delicate thing in this world, you can't just alter it and then innocently say "it was a natural democratic process" "they are helping only because they care".

It's surprising to me that a person from South America can be such a vocal advocate for Cold War neo-colonialism. Depriving Ukraine of the right to self-determination and supporting Russian interference because of "balance of power"? Really?

Also, my problem is that by the president beign overthrown, because protests continued after he called early ellections (now don't deny this to me because I was paying attention as the events were happening real time), now we wont know what the majority of the country really wanted as a whole nor at what rates, because neither Crimea nor the territories of the newly created "New Russia" participated in ellecting Poroshenko.

He wasn't overthrown. He escaped to his Russian masters, deliberately attempting to trigger a constitutional crisis in Ukraine.


By the way, Ukraine has made attempts to allow the inhabitants of Donbass, Crimea, and other affected regions to vote, but the insurgents and Russian forces deliberately interfered with that process. You can't claim that Poroshenko wasn't democratically elected, when it was a foreign power deliberately interfering with the vote.


By the way, you do know that in the national elections, seats that would go to the eastern portions of Ukraine occupied by insurgents and the occupied Crimea were left empty, because it was not possible to conduct elections there, due to interference?

 

[Gonzalez]

He wasn't overthrown. He escaped to his Russian masters, deliberately attempting to trigger a constitutional crisis in Ukraine.

That's not the way I remember it, unless history got changed already. Early ellections were called and for days the protests continues and got even more violent. The thick of the violence took place after early ellections had been called, and I was paying attention while the evets were occuring, if someone is rewriting history they will have to wait until I loose my memory for me to buy the revised version.

And I don't really deffend russia, it's just that I don't support western neo-colonialism either.

Maybe I would buy the western version if it wasn't so full of double standards, like the UK (and the EU supporting them), who many were the times they artificially separate a piece of territory from a nation, then hold referendums there and use them to legitimate their annexation of it, be it Northern Ireland, or Malvinas. It sets a precedent (being a legal mind yourself I'm sure you are familiar by what this means), a precedent Russia based itself when they held the referendum in Crimea (wich Argentina doesn't support nor recognizes). It's not "It's ok when I do it but wrong when someone else does it".

 

[Tagaziel]

That's not the way I remember it, unless history got changed already. Early ellections were called and for days the protests continues and got even more violent. The thick of the violence took place after early ellections had been called, and I was paying attention while the evets were occuring, if someone is rewriting history they will have to wait until I loose my memory for me to buy the revised version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#Timeline_of_the_events

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_during_Euromaidan

Brush up. Your memory is failing. The violence was largely stopped on 21st February, when Yanukovych stopped trying to stomp the protesters into the ground and agreed to the deal (which he then immediately sabotaged).

And I don't really deffend russia, it's just that I don't support western neo-colonialism either.

Maybe I would buy the western version if it wasn't so full of double standards, like the UK (and the EU supporting them), who many were the times they artificially separate a piece of territory from a nation, then hold referendums there and use them to legitimate their annexation of it, be it Northern Ireland, or Malvinas. It sets a precedent (being a legal mind yourself I'm sure you are familiar by what this means), a precedent Russia based itself when they held the referendum in Crimea (wich Argentina doesn't support nor recognizes). It's not "It's ok when I do it but wrong when someone else does it".

As a legal mind, I can tell you that your comparison is full of holes. The Falkland Islands (or Malvinas, if you insist) have been under British control for nearly two hundred years and the referendum (with international observers on site with free access to the polling stations) was organized using standard democratic procedures. Same goes for the Border Poll (which is what you're referring to).

The problem is that you're referring to issues that are decades old, if not more. Russia's invasion, occupation, and annexation of Crimea in a blatant military operation, then setting up a fake referendum within a month of the occupation to legitimize it is a completely, utterly different affair.

 

[Gonzalez]

Oh, so now we are citing wikipedia as a reliable source. Not only that, but if it appears there then it is "the" truth, no other arguments valid. Sorry, I trust my memmory much more, like I said, history is already being rewritten, because I know what I saw as it happened. For your info it's not even a reliable source: http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news...tudents-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html And even wikipedia itself admits it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

Crimea has been russian since the Crimean War of 1853, they had a naval base there that still exists today (wich is why there were russian troops already there, there have always been), it was given to Ukraine by Gorbachev when it was all the Soviet Union, and with it's disolution it ended up as part of Ukraine, but most of the population is of russian origin, speaks russian, has russian ancestors and even russian passports (hell there is people who live there who was alive when it was still part of russia before Gorbachev gave Crimea to Ukraine), the referendum was held by the local legitimate government of Crimea from before the coup and not an externally installed one, so explain to me, how the referendum held in Crimea is any less valid than the one in Malvinas.

Oh, and cite me some real inernational laws and UN resolutions concerning self determination, I think we'll find that, if anything, Malvinas referendum is even less legal, even if they are both illegal. Unless you can cite the part of "because if it's only a month or 200 years" makes a difference. I will also remind you that Malvinas was retaken by Argentina and held for 2 month and 12 days and this was done before 150 years of uninterrupted and undisputed occupation by the British could be accomplished. Let's talk legally now, not about if you "think" it's right or not.

 

[Crni Vuk]

if you use that as argument then I think Russia should also give back Königsberg. And pretty much any other piece of land they "conquered" in the last 200 years from their neighbours. And after they gave Königsberg back to the Germans, we can give it back to the Polish people since the Germans took it from them trough the Deutschritter Orden - Teutonic Knights.

Hey! fair is fair! Right? An eye for an eye and such nonsense.