War in Ukraine, assorted opinions

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, DB said:

It's an interesting map, but like hypothetical arguments about someone wanting to subsume Scotland and the Scots into some dubious racial categorisation, it has no merit except as a diversion from what is actually happening.

The only foreign entity I'm aware wooing Scotland at the moment is the EU, and it's pitch is purely political.

Quote

Which remains that Russia invaded a foreign country that had borders it recognised without any duress and continues to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians, and which will likely result in decades of lost development opportunities for Russia, and all this down to the deluded hubris of one shiny-pated narcissist and his cult of personality.

Your crocodile tears for the Russian people are noted, but the fact remains that the war in Russia remains popular.  Russians do not trust NATO and did not trust NATO's intentions in its drive for eastern expansion, so see the war as a necessary evil.  

[DB]

Glenn the mind-reader in action. It's a toss up between you and a few of the even less nuanced Russophiles as to who presents the worst signal to noise ratio.

And fuck you for claiming that I'm lying about the waste of lives in this stupid war.

[seahawk]

16 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Here we go again, you are anti Slav/Russian. Really, can't you guys come up with some new material? It's been 9 years, and in all that time I've invaded nowhere.

It's not me or British imperialism that's your problem here. Nobody hypnotised Putin and turned him into a homicidal maniac. That's on him.

The future will tell us if he was a homicidal maniac or the saviour of the Russian people.

[Stuart Galbraith]

No, the future tells us nothing of the sort. The past does. Dawn Sturgess tells us he was a homocidal maniac. So does Anna Politovskaya. And if he saves anything of Russia from the chaos he himself created, then im your dutch uncle.

[Stefan Kotsch]

4 hours ago, seahawk said:

saviour of the Russian people.

From what actually? And why is Russia fighting for survival?

@Roman Alymov should be able to say something about it.

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

And why is Russia fighting for survival?

 

Russia is not fighting for survival, it's fighting to dominate its near abroad in the face of a NATO challenge. 

[glenn239]

13 hours ago, DB said:

Glenn the mind-reader in action. It's a toss up between you and a few of the even less nuanced Russophiles as to who presents the worst signal to noise ratio.

And fuck you for claiming that I'm lying about the waste of lives in this stupid war.

AFAIK, you have expressed zero concern around here over horrific Ukrainian losses in a year and a half, so it's hard to take at face value your statement of concerns to Russian losses.  If you did not wish to have your motives questioned, perhaps in the future you should take care to make more posts supporting posters here that are appalled at Ukraine's conduct towards its own troops, and not heap insult on posters expressing concern at what appears to be massive Ukrainian losses?   

Edited September 1, 2023 by glenn239

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Russia is not fighting for survival, it's fighting to dominate its near abroad in the face of a NATO challenge. 

That is wrong, as if NATO is not pushed back and Russian dominance is not restored, Russia will soon be the victim of a colour revolution.

[JWB]

 

[mandeb48]

47 minutes ago, seahawk said:

That is wrong, as if NATO is not pushed back and Russian dominance is not restored, Russia will soon be the victim of a colour revolution.

And that would be much worse for Russia than the  kleptocratic and bootlicking of the West oligarchy  that it had in these 30 years? 

[seahawk]

7 minutes ago, mandeb48 said:

And that would be much worse for Russia than the  kleptocratic and bootlicking of the West oligarchy  that it had in these 30 years? 

A lot worse.

[JWB]

 

[Stefan Kotsch]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

6 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

And why is Russia fighting for survival?

 

Russia is not fighting for survival, it's fighting to dominate its near abroad in the face of a NATO challenge. 

Yes, you say so. But in Russia it sounds different.

[mandeb48]

12 minutes ago, seahawk said:

A lot worse.

worse than gorbachev + yeltsin? ,  impossible ....

[seahawk]

3 minutes ago, mandeb48 said:

worse than gorbachev + yeltsin? ,  impossible ....

Sure, the same corruption but now with woke politics.

[R011]

On 8/30/2023 at 5:41 AM, ink said:

That Wiki article is misleading since it doesn't mention multiple international and UK court cases* or UN General Assembly resolutions that have ruled the British presence to be unlawful. 

 

* these were overturned in the House of Lords but that is hardly a fair or depoliticised arena.

Compared to the UN General Assembly, the UK House of Commons, let alone the Lords, is the epitome of fair, unbiased, apolitical justice and, unlike the GA, the Lords actually has jurisdiction.

[ink]

39 minutes ago, R011 said:

Compared to the UN General Assembly, the UK House of Commons, let alone the Lords, is the epitome of fair, unbiased, apolitical justice and, unlike the GA, the Lords actually has jurisdiction.

Over egging things there somewhat aren't you?

Anyway, how does the House of Lords compare to the International Court of Justice? Because they also ruled on the illegality of Britain holding on to the islands... And the British High Court also ruled that the islanders had a right to return. But, of course, the British legal system has neat checks and balances in place to ensure concepts like the law and justice never get in the way of certain interests.

[R011]

25 minutes ago, ink said:

Over egging things there somewhat aren't you?

Anyway, how does the House of Lords compare to the International Court of Justice? Because they also ruled on the illegality of Britain holding on to the islands... And the British High Court also ruled that the islanders had a right to return. But, of course, the British legal system has neat checks and balances in place to ensure concepts like the law and justice never get in the way of certain interests.

No, I'm not.  The General Assembly is pretty worthless and has been since at least the sixties.  As for the International Court, you didn't mention them for some reason so why would I comment on them while commenting on your post?

[Ssnake]

He did mention the International Court (first, in fact), just a few posts further upstream than you may remember.

[R011]

14 hours ago, Ssnake said:

He did mention the International Court (first, in fact), just a few posts further upstream than you may remember.

OK.  Fair enough.  The UK is just like Russia and so Russia is immmune fro critiicism.

[bojan]

No, Russia is not immune to criticism, it is just that critics should look at their own yard sometimes.

[R011]

6 hours ago, bojan said:

No, Russia is not immune to criticism, it is just that critics should look at their own yard sometimes.

Which is why we're talking about Diego Garcia in a thread about Ukraine and not, of course, for whataboutery.

[ink]

13 minutes ago, R011 said:

Which is why we're talking about Diego Garcia in a thread about Ukraine and not, of course, for whataboutery.

The Diego Garcia example was brought up in response to a specific post that insinuated Russian expansion was somehow unique. It isn't/wasn't, of course, and I see no reason to avoid pointing that out just to dodge claims of whataboutery.

There has been a lot of material online (and on here too) recently claiming that Russia has usurped a lot of land that doesn't naturally belong to it. It has obviously done that (mostly a long-ass time ago) and so have other powers. Saying so doesn't, in my opinion, detract from criticisms of the current invasion.

I believe we're all smart enough to hold more than one thought in our heads concurrently.

 

[JWB]

 

[JWB]