Russia-Ukraine War

[Warenwolf]

But Guantanamo, Golan, Syria aso is fully legit

I asked you before in this thread but you never answered - to paraphrase again : if A rapes a woman, is it ok for B to be raping women?

No of cause it is not.

Now let me ask you one question:
Isn't it a crime to accuse someone who has done nothing?

Beside this,.....if a child doesn't listen when you warn it not to do something, it shouldn't be surprised at the consequences.

Then if you agree that two wrongs don't make a right, don't then consistently use whataboutism as an argument for this discussion.

[Alan Phipps]

Please discuss the topic and not other posters. Thanks.

[Chips]

There has never been a single shred of evidence presented by the US that Russia actually ever planned to invade. The US claimed that Russia will do so - Russia denied. The US claimed any day now - Russia denied. The Russians return to their barracks and the US still claim any day now.
The Russians do as they have been saying from the beginning and are still being accused of being the Axis of Evil? Time to take of your tinfoil hats...

Where are you getting your info from Jericho?

Never been a single shred that Russia planned to invade? What, like Crimea? Funding and supplying and even providing troops with separatists in the east of the country? Or did Russia have no involvement as they said they didn't... and that's 100% truth because they said so.

With the current scenario, no plans at all? There's a huge troop build up, movement of ships including amphibious to the area, shifting troops from the far east? I mean, you can say it's all just "normal troop movement" - but it isn't is it, because nothing like this has occurred in peace time in the last however many years. Doesn't mean they will invade, because there's a very real cost associated with doing so -- but why is everything there if not to at least give the impression they may? Wouldn't the Ukraine be remiss if it didn't view this threat as serious? Would the rest of the world not be remiss if they didn't view and treat this threat as serious? Everyone should just go "huh? lulz1!1" to this?

On the other hand, you have Russia saying "no we're not going to invade!!11!!!", while they also saying they need to have guarantees from NATO that Ukraine won't be allowed to ever join any form of defensive alliance? I mean, why do they need those guarantees. What happens if they don't get them? Why are they saying this now with 130,000 troops on the border? What's the point of all those troops there then? Why should NATO remotely entertain listening or engaging with Russia if the troops pose no threat and there's no intent (100% definitely, categorically, NO INTENT).

Why is Russia's statement so believable to you, while given all the evidence the US statement is not believable? On one hand we can see what Russia has been doing, and draw logical conclusions about its intent. On the other hand, you've got Russia just saying "No"... and that's the one you trust. Seems odd to trust someone saying "no", in comparison to others saying "given what we're seeing, the evidence on the ground... this is a very real possible outcome...".

USA says that Russia has all the required support and logistical and actual forces in place to do an invasion, Russia says they're not going to. Again, US is pointing out that Russia *could* any day, if they wanted to. Would Russia have any other response than "no, we won't" regardless of whether they would or wouldn't? Help me out here, why would Russia ever say yes in this instance (whether they intend to invade or not)? What would they gain by admitting they will prior to doing so?

Russians return to their barracks? Any evidence of this -- I mean you do seem to put a LOT of faith in what's being said by Russia, but zero faith in what is being said by countries and observers in the area... who say nothing has left and they're still waiting to see if anything actually does. Again, believing one side over the other, whereby there's only a statement, vs what people are reportingly seeing on the ground. The latter being dismissed as clearly "false" compared to the former?

The Russians do as they have been saying from the beginning

The Russians said a lot when it came to Crimea - "We have no troops, we are not doing..." - and it turned out it was actually Russia. Quelle surprise. Just like Russia always denies cyber attacks, but they've been behind many of them. They denied poisoning people on UK territory - do you believe Russia on that too despite the catastrophically overwhelming evidence that it was Russian actions? Or do you think it was just citizens of Crimea who took over Crimea... because that's what Russia said it was?

It's a very odd perspective to exhibit. What is giving you reason to trust Russia so implicitly and ignore every other nation's (including the Ukraine) spokespeople instead? What do you think Russia are up to then; just moving hundreds of thousands of men and equipment because training? I'd genuinely like to know why Russia is the trustworthy and believable one in this -- after all, they are the ones who've created this entire scenario by moving huge numbers of troops to a border

Also, notice how Russia are saying that NATO deploying a few thousand in response to troop build ups is highly provocative and so on and so forth, yet them moving 130,000+ is just routine with nothing for anyone to worry about? Why the differing opinion by Russia in that case? If it is highly provocative, why are Russia not moving troops to those locations to counter?

[felter]

So if we are to get this right, Russia has made the largest deployment of military personnel that is known to be the largest to have been made since WW2. With all the wars and conflicts that have happened in the past 77 years, not once has anyone moved that amount of military personnel for any reason. So they have moved 100,000 soldiers and their equipment to a border of a neighbouring country that they are not friendly towards, and they did it for fun or a practical joke of some form. That must make it the most expensive joke of all time, as this must have cost several Billion Ruble's and counting. To put it into some form of perspective, I stay in a town which as of 2016 had a registered population of 57,030 that means Russian would have taken nearly twice the population of where I stay every man, woman and child twice over and moved them to somewhere else for a joke. Just the sheer logistics of it all is amazing when you think they all have to have some kind of accommodation let alone the amount of food to feed 100,000 soldiers for numerous months for a joke. Not to mention that they did all of this right in the middle of winter, I'm sure all those soldiers are happy to know that they are freezing their behinds off, for a joke.

[EGO_Aut]

@Chips, you answered a lot of you questions yourself.

About Chrimera 2014:
It was a democratic election. Why wasn't Crimea defended by Ukrainian soldiers? Not even their flagship left the port.

Maybe it helps to not just listen to one-sided press releases?

[Warenwolf]

What I found amusing - in addition to the points Chips points out, it is worth mentioning that Putin threatened the NATO member Norway, implying nuclear strikes, when in 2016 300 US marines had exercise in Norway.... 500 kilometers from the border between Russia and Norway...

[Vertigo 7]

Ego, he clearly pointed out where Russia said "nuh uhh"... It's pretty obvious that he's listened to Russia's BS and dismissed it as such as rational people do.

We have both sides of the story here. Russia is lying, as it always does. Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that out.

[Cpt.Jericho]

There has never been a single shred of evidence presented by the US that Russia actually ever planned to invade. The US claimed that Russia will do so - Russia denied. The US claimed any day now - Russia denied. The Russians return to their barracks and the US still claim any day now.
The Russians do as they have been saying from the beginning and are still being accused of being the Axis of Evil? Time to take of your tinfoil hats...

Where are you getting your info from Jericho?

Certainly not from Bloomberg.

Never been a single shred that Russia planned to invade? What, like Crimea? Funding and supplying and even providing troops with separatists in the east of the country? Or did Russia have no involvement as they said they didn't... and that's 100% truth because they said so.

Crimera wasn't invaded, it was annexed after a local referendum. Of course, that is a questionable course of action - but an invasion normally includes lot of shooting of dying.

With the current scenario, no plans at all? There's a huge troop build up, movement of ships including amphibious to the area, shifting troops from the far east? I mean, you can say it's all just "normal troop movement" - but it isn't is it, because nothing like this has occurred in peace time in the last however many years. Doesn't mean they will invade, because there's a very real cost associated with doing so -- but why is everything there if not to at least give the impression they may? Wouldn't the Ukraine be remiss if it didn't view this threat as serious? Would the rest of the world not be remiss if they didn't view and treat this threat as serious? Everyone should just go "huh? lulz1!1" to this?

It's not like NATO hasn't been massing troops right at the Russian border ever.

On the other hand, you have Russia saying "no we're not going to invade!!11!!!", while they also saying they need to have guarantees from NATO that Ukraine won't be allowed to ever join any form of defensive alliance? I mean, why do they need those guarantees. What happens if they don't get them? Why are they saying this now with 130,000 troops on the border? What's the point of all those troops there then? Why should NATO remotely entertain listening or engaging with Russia if the troops pose no threat and there's no intent (100% definitely, categorically, NO INTENT).

Why should Russia tolerate another territory right at it's borders where missles can be launched from? It was the US that dumped the INF treaty. The point of their troops there has been told all over again and again: A military training; that's what they have been doing so far instead of doing a Crazy Ivan and invading Ukraine. It's been the US claiming to have information that this is not the case; which has been proven to be - mildly spoken - grossly exaggerated so far. Also, the only reason I believe that there is a massive amount of troops in that region is the fact that Russia doesn't deny it. On the grainy satellite pictures the western media aired is neither a timestamp nor are there any coordinates shown; it's not like they haven't tons of stock pictures stored in their vaults. What is your excuse that these show actual what's happening?

Why is Russia's statement so believable to you, while given all the evidence the US statement is not believable? On one hand we can see what Russia has been doing, and draw logical conclusions about its intent. On the other hand, you've got Russia just saying "No"... and that's the one you trust. Seems odd to trust someone saying "no", in comparison to others saying "given what we're seeing, the evidence on the ground... this is a very real possible outcome...".

Because they have been saying they are not going to invade the Ukraine and haven done so; while western gouvernments and media have been proven wrong saying: It can happen any day now. Fact: Russia has a quite a few troops massed on its own territory which haven't moved into foreign territory and are now moving back to their home bases. Western news: We have no evidence that Russia is deescalating; they will invade probably within this week. It's getting tiresome to listen to all those deadlines presented by the West without ridiculing the lack of evidence - i.e. a smoking gun or a single Russian soldier leaving his homeland.

USA says that Russia has all the required support and logistical and actual forces in place to do an invasion, Russia says they're not going to. Again, US is pointing out that Russia *could* any day, if they wanted to. Would Russia have any other response than "no, we won't" regardless of whether they would or wouldn't? Help me out here, why would Russia ever say yes in this instance (whether they intend to invade or not)? What would they gain by admitting they will prior to doing so?

The USA claimed being attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin, they claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and now an invasion that never happened; the USA have cried Wolf a bit too often to be a reliable source of information.

Russians return to their barracks? Any evidence of this -- I mean you do seem to put a LOT of faith in what's being said by Russia, but zero faith in what is being said by countries and observers in the area... who say nothing has left and they're still waiting to see if anything actually does. Again, believing one side over the other, whereby there's only a statement, vs what people are reportingly seeing on the ground. The latter being dismissed as clearly "false" compared to the former?

No evidence you would consider - no doubt about that - but still my argument stays: The US claim there is an imminent invasion happening any day. While Russia says, it's not invading and doesn't.

The Russians do as they have been saying from the beginning

The Russians said a lot when it came to Crimea - "We have no troops, we are not doing..." - and it turned out it was actually Russia. Quelle surprise. Just like Russia always denies cyber attacks, but they've been behind many of them. They denied poisoning people on UK territory - do you believe Russia on that too despite the catastrophically overwhelming evidence that it was Russian actions? Or do you think it was just citizens of Crimea who took over Crimea... because that's what Russia said it was?[/quote]
They did that and probably more while the civilised West tortures civilians in the Caribbean for decades, ended Geronimo instead of bringing him to justice or keeping a journalist in high security isolation prison - and god knows who really was behind Stuxnet. You see this whole thing from a very Western point of view without questioning it. The people in GITMO are terrorists - the US have all the rights to deny telling them why they are actually being tortured, binLaden could be eliminated without trial while at the same time violating Pakistani airspace and Assange had it coming because dared to tear down the pink veil surrounding the US military together with Chelsea Bradley. And you ask why I question what the West tries to tell me what is true? Seriously? Why don't you question a system that has been constantly been lying to you?

It's a very odd perspective to exhibit. What is giving you reason to trust Russia so implicitly and ignore every other nation's (including the Ukraine) spokespeople instead? What do you think Russia are up to then; just moving hundreds of thousands of men and equipment because training? I'd genuinely like to know why Russia is the trustworthy and believable one in this -- after all, they are the ones who've created this entire scenario by moving huge numbers of troops to a border

Because Russia wouldn't gain political nor economical by invading a nationalistic and highly corrupt country without resources noteworthy. While the US can claim to be the top dawg and sell fracking gas to Europe. Not that the Russian would care: they sell their gas to China instead.

Also, notice how Russia are saying that NATO deploying a few thousand in response to troop build ups is highly provocative and so on and so forth, yet them moving 130,000+ is just routine with nothing for anyone to worry about? Why the differing opinion by Russia in that case? If it is highly provocative, why are Russia not moving troops to those locations to counter?

Well, NATO demands from Russia to deescalate while at the same moving troops to the Russian border and sending defensive weapons to Ukraine? Sounds like telling the lion to hide its claws while putting bullets in your gun.

Russia hasn't invaded the Ukraine, that's a fact. Face it! NATO has been exaggerating and the US will soon claim that the invasion didn't happen because they stopped Russia from doing so. Media who claim that it already has happened is spreading fake news.

[fiksal]

I dont think this so. It's delusions, not legitimate security concerns.

But Guantanamo, Golan, Syria aso is fully legit

Yes those are real places, and yes Kremlin is delusional. What are you exactly asking about Russia?

[fiksal]

Crimera wasn't invaded, it was annexed after a local referendum. Of course, that is a questionable course of action - but an invasion normally includes lot of shooting of dying.

No it was invaded first then Russia held a referendum there, during which vocal opposing minority refused to vote. And who knows who else voted, but the vote doesn't matter for two, three reasons:
- Kremlin would never allow negative vote. That'd be improper.
- Majority of Russians in Crimea either don't mind joining Russia or don't see the harm
- Everyone who doesn't think of themselves as Russian doesn't matter.

To also refresh the memory, the vocal minority were immediately called "separatists" according to Russian law. Which carries consequences.

That's because it's illegal to advocate for leaving Russia. Aka Crimea. And no such referendum is going to be ever possible again.


Also some people died. Not significant many I guess?
Unless you also count that it triggered war in the East of Ukraine, that almost had a chance to go deeper. Perhaps it's the same war

[EGO_Aut]

They did not need to invade 2014 Crimera, RU has always been there.
UKR/US/NATO made a lot of mistakes, bashing against RU, and now they cry out loud.

Those stupid invasion warnings from US medias are laughable, maybe in 4 month it will get hot, meanwhile we will see what the west will do.

And UKR should take care what they are doing with their new mil. toys they got. RU will help the Don/Lu seperatists.

We will see if time proves me wrong.

[Warenwolf]

They did not need to invade 2014 Crimera, RU has always been there.
UKR/US/NATO made a lot of mistakes, bashing against RU, and now they cry out loud.

Those stupid invasion warnings from US medias are laughable, maybe in 4 month it will get hot, meanwhile we will see what the west will do.

And UKR should take care what they are doing with their new mil. toys they got. RU will help the Don/Lu seperatists.

We will see if time proves me wrong.

Russia strong meme would be more convincing if there was less immigrants from glorious Putinland to decadant western countries... just saying...

As to last 3 and 4 paragraphs in your statement - you mean Putin will use that as an excuse (real or imaginary) to add Ukraine to one of his fiefdoms? And certain people will then accuse Ukrainians of soiling glorious Russian bullets with their blood or something like that. And those that disagree are of course under spell of evil American propaganda.

History is full of strongmen starting to believe in their own propaganda. They don't survive that disease in long run.

[fiksal]

They did not need to invade 2014 Crimera, RU has always been there.

That line only works on Russian nationalists, I am immune

[mr.WHO]

Let see whether this is preparation for some sort of Gleiwitz incident or mental preparation of Russians public for what is coming next

Give than man a cookie - seems like there were explosions in separatist held Donetsk and Lugans, plus there was suppose shelling of kindergarden in Dontsk a day earlier.
Doesn't looks suspicious at all.
Ukraine surely would want to provoke things during one of the biggest Russia military exercise at Ukraines borders

[fiksal]

There always something explodes in Donetsk almost on daily basis. This is their way of life



Sometimes it's real, sometimes it's not, sometimes it's in the news, sometimes not. Maybe it's when the propaganda channel has a slow fantasy day, they drop a few spicy things about the Russian version of North Korea


And of course if you need an official reason to invade Ukraine, those are good places to have something happen. All your military just happened to be in the area.


Forgive my brainstorming though, but I wonder if that's even necessary, Russians still surely remember that the reason Crimea was officially actually invaded, is because US was going to launch missiles from a well known US Crimea base into Russia. That's already a sexy reason and everything else just kinda meh.

Fun fact - Putin officially said he was going to reply to invasion of Crimea (by US) with nuclear weapons. And then he didn't and replied with unmarked soldiers. What a liar


Anyways

[Chips]

Why are two people spelling Crimea as Chrimera and Crimera respectively?

As for the referendum, it was not recognised by any country in the world other than Russia as legitimate, given it was overseen by Russian armed forces.
Furthermore, take a look at the wiki (which *is* sourced and editable by anyone) and it points out several key points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crim ... referendum

Amidst tensions in the region during the Ukrainian revolution, On February 27, Russian forces cutoff Crimean Peninsula from the mainland Ukraine and took over Supreme Council of Crimea. Under armed occupation, the Crimean regional government was dissolved and reformed, and voted to hold a referendum on the status of Crimea on May 25.[45][46] Olha Sulnikova, head of information and analysis department of the Crimean parliament, reported on the phone from inside the parliamentary building that 61 of the registered 64 deputies had voted for the referendum resolution and 55 for the resolution to dismiss the government.[47] In statement delivered by a spokesperson for newly appointed chairman Aksionov said ousting of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution was a "coup" and the new interim government in Kyiv was illegitimate and stated that the referendum was a response to these developments.[48]

Interfax-Ukraine reported that, "it is impossible to find out whether all the 64 members of the 100-member legislature who were registered as present, when the two decisions were voted on or whether someone else used the plastic voting cards of some of them" because due to the armed occupation of parliament it was unclear how many members of parliament were present.[47] Enver Abduraimov, member of the parliament presidium, said that he did not go inside when he saw that armed guards who secured the building were confiscating all communications devices from deputies. Andriy Krysko, head of the Crimean branch of the Voters Committee of Ukraine, announced that no one from the parliament secretariat was in the building when voting took place.[47]

Originally the referendum was to be about the status of Crimea within Ukraine and was initially set for May 25, but later, on March 1, it was moved up to March 30.[49] The referendum was approved by the Supreme Council of Crimea in February but the Central Election Commission of Ukraine denounced it by stating that the Crimean authorities do not possess the legal jurisdiction to conduct it.[50] Regarding the referendum's initial purpose, The Daily Telegraph reported on February 27, that it, "appears to be for greater autonomy within Ukraine rather than for full independence."[51]

On March 4, the district administration court of Kyiv nullified the no confidence vote in the Council of Ministers of Crimea and the appointment of Sergey Aksyonov as Prime Minister of Crimea and declared the organization and conduct of the referendum as illegal.[52][53] On March 6, the Supreme Council changed the date of the referendum from March 30 to 16 and changed the choice for the referendum from greater autonomy to accession to the Russian Federation. This decision was made with 78 votes in favor and 8 abstentions.[54] Concerns were raised about the presence of armed forces outside the parliament and reports of lawmakers being denied access to the vote.[55][56] Later that day, acting President Turchynov announced "In accordance with power I am conferred on, I have stopped the decision of the Crimean parliament. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine will initiate dissolution of the parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. We will defend the inviolability of the Ukrainian territory." On 14 March, the referendum was deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine,[57] and a day later, the Verkhovna Rada formally dissolved the Crimean parliament.[58]

The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People had called for a boycott of the referendum.[15] Several hundred residents of Crimea, mainly Crimean Tatars, left Crimea for security reasons according to the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine.[59][60]

Namely that the two options available for voters to choose would both lead to de-facto independence.
That Crimea's parliament had apparently already voted for, and enacted, independence from Ukraine prior to the referendum being held; Crimea was according to them, already independent.

Either way, this is all irrelevant. Apparently Putin is NOT GOING TO INVADE UKRAINE. Because you said he said so.

We wait to see whether that's true or not, and if it turns out they do... can you two please correct your postings? I mean we're simply saying look at what is going on... vast numbers of men, bridges across rivers, field hospitals set up and more... and all to not invade. You are saying, Putin can be trusted and obviously his "no means no". Right? That's right, correct? He's not going to invade because he said so and you have 100% faith that he would NOT lie to you. Right?

I wonder why the Ukraine Rebels in those two regions are mobilising then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60443504

Hypothetically (of course) why would Putin, when he's not going to invade, what would cause him to actually attack Ukraine? Any legitimate reason?

Seriously? Why don't you question a system that has been constantly been lying to you?

The thing is... I do. But you're sat there just telling us Putin is categorically not going to invade Ukraine because he said so...
Russia hasn't denied troop build up/position and the transit of Russian military vessels through the seas to the Black Sea is not only well documented but admitted by Russia. All the information we're seeing *is* from Russia, putting their forces there, making demands all of a sudden. The only "western propaganda" we may be listening to is that the intent of all that material is to invade Ukraine.

We don't need to be told that's the intent, it's a fairly logical conclusion to draw when looking at the evidence and the history (hello little green men from Russia in Crimea ...). Evidence that Russia is neither denying (the numbers/locations of their troops) nor hiding.

Why do you think we're just believing what Biden says? Why are we not able to make our own mind up from the information displayed? Meanwhile, you've SPECIFICALLY SAID your trust is entirely in Putin saying "we're not going to invade".

Your quote is back at you. Putin doesn't lie? We've given evidence in this entire thread about Putin himself specifically lying... poisonings in the UK for starters. What questions have you been asking yourself over Russia's honesty and integrity?

Well, NATO demands from Russia to deescalate while at the same moving troops to the Russian border and sending defensive weapons to Ukraine?

Erm, Russia supplies Eastern Ukraine rebels with weapons and hardware? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? NATO is telling Russia to de-escalate because they don't want a war in Europe...

[fiksal]

putting their forces there, making demands all of a sudden.

A funny thing for sure.

I bet Russian media has no idea how to tie these two together in any sensible way and just sort of wings it. Have cake and eat it too has been a repeating problem for the un-creative propaganda.

[EGO_Aut]

This is not about Crimera, you come 8 years too late and you are in the wrong thread.

Simple 2 Options , 1st RU will invade, 2nd it will not invade.

Option 1 - war
Selensky and Biden talk trash and cry every day could be invasion and do nothing.

Option 2 - peace
No Nato in Ukraine, Minsk II will be complied.
Selensky negotiate with RU and stay neutral.

We will see if Selensky can be not only an actor but also a leader, its on him if many inocent ppl will die or not. But it is wrong that he talks with the west and not with RU. He has lost the war before it begins.

[fiksal]

* Crimea
* Zelenskyy


The real option 2 = peace is - Russia never invades Ukraine and troops pack their bags. The end.


Here's the thing about Putin, Kremlin and the rest - never, ever, make any concessions with them. This will never turn to anything good nor avert any aggression.


The only talk worth having with Russian diplomats is to make sure they think they have saved their faces and 1TV can proclaim victory over an imagined issue.


I say it as an actual Russian.

Mark may words, frame them, as they say.


Also, Europe, get off Russia's gas and oil, - these issues will become so much easier to resolve.

[exogenesis]

Also, Europe, get off Russia's gas and oil

Yeah right OK, know any good alternative continental suppliers?

I found it odd (& a little insulting) that earlier biden threatened to 'shut down'
the German/Russian gas pipeline, as if it was anything to do with some american politician.

Europe/Russia has other economic ties apart from that anyway (not least the 'stashed cash' aspect).

Crimea is/was 70% 'russian', in Ukraine it's a lowish minority,
can't see why people are making the comparison,
as if what's true for one in this situation would also be true for the other.