• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:1][W:11][W:368] Russia invades Ukraine: Live Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nomad4Ever said:
NATO already borders Russia. Are you aware of that?
Click to expand...
It was a provocation then and it's a provocation now. Putin wants buffer states between the West and Russia, and the US knew that yet it still dangled the promises of NATO membership to Ukraine, drawing the ire of the Russians, while leaving Ukraine hanging in the end. Pushing ever more countries into NATO and taking them from Russia's sphere of influence, purposefully and deliberately isolating Russia. The open support of NATO for the Euromaidan movement, largely driven by far-right groups, is not a provocation?
 
prometeus said:
Yea, I took a dump this morning and used toilet paper with Putin's picture on it. I am sure that too was a provocation for an asshole like Putin and the morons who make excuses for him.
Click to expand...

This is where we talk about the meaning of words again. That wasn't a provocation. Putting NATO troops in Ukraine was. See the difference?

Nomad4Ever said:
You agreed with me.

You're the one who said putting hostile troops on the border of a nation is a provocation 100% of the time. Russia put hostile troops on and within Ukraine's border for 8 years. Ukraine's response was to feel threatened and start seeking out NATO protection. A very predictable response. Finland, Sweden, and Moldova are now considering joining NATO too.
Click to expand...

What status quo changed?
 
bave said:
Yup, but it was supported by western nations. That's the problem. When you have adversaries supporting/sponsoring coups, it is a pretty universal provocation.
Click to expand...
That's stupid. That would mean Russia supporting Victor Y was a provokcation of NATO to influence in 2014, which leads to a loop of never-ending "provocation" claims, which is absurd.
Ukraine as a sovreign can do whatever the **** it wants in Ukraine, with NATO or otherwise, it's NONE OF RUSSIAS ****ING BUSINESS. If Russia decides based on Ukraine acting in Ukraine's interests...in Ukraine without them doing something like shooting Russians or sending rockets into Russia or staging an invasion on the border....then Russia had no REASONABLE cause to full-scale invade Ukraine.

bave said:
Yup, sovereign action. Russia considered it a provocation.
Click to expand...
There you go, admitting that whatever Russia claims is therefore reasonable and true.
No, Russia chose unreasonably (to the international community and certainly Ukraine), to invade Ukraine (not counting their prior invasion of Crimea)

You choose Russia's definitions because you're pro-Russian and anti-western/U.S in your posts.
 
Last edited:
ChickenTendies said:
Putin wants buffer states between the West and Russia
Click to expand...
So? Your leaning says you are a socialist. Why should any socialist care that Putin demands using other countries as meat shields in his geopolitical game against their will? I'm sure Ukraine would like a buffer state between themselves and Russia about now. Why are you prioritizing Russia's interests over Ukraine's interests?

ChickenTendies said:
the US knew that yet it still dangled the promises of NATO membership to Ukraine
Click to expand...
The US and NATO didn't dangle anything. That's not how NATO works. You apply to join NATO and NATO chooses to accept you or not. Ukraine is the one who wanted to join NATO.

ChickenTendies said:
Pushing ever more countries into NATO and taking them from Russia's sphere of influence
Click to expand...
Those countries were ALREADY gone from Russia's sphere of influence. They wanted to join NATO because they felt NATO was more likely to guarantee their safety and sovereignty than the Russians were.

After seeing the events in Ukraine, are you really going to argue they made the wrong choice? Do you think Latvia would be better off right now if it was in a similar situation to Belarus?

ChickenTendies said:
The open support of NATO for the Euromaidan movement, largely driven by far-right groups, is not a provocation?
Click to expand...
Source? Did the protest contain many groups, some of which were far right? Or was it a majority far right protest?
 
Nomad4Ever said:
NATO already borders Russia. Are you aware of that?
Click to expand...


So Russia should allow the extension of that front expand? Nato borders with Russia was on the Baltic Sea, basically Russia's frontier with the Three Baltic: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

Acession of Ukraine to Nato would have exposed a much longer portion of Russia to Nato on its south, at Russia's border with Ukraine
 
Mach said:
That's stupid. That would mean Russia supporting Victor Y was a provokcation of NATO to influence in 2014, which leads to a loop of never-ending "provocation" claims, which is absurd.
Ukraine as a sovreign can do whatever the **** it wants in Ukraine, with NATO or otherwise, it's NONE OF RUSSIAS ****ING BUSINESS. If Russia decides based on Ukraine acting in Ukraine's interests...in Ukraine without them doing something like shooting Russians or sending rockets into Russia or staging an invasion on the border....then Russia had no REASONABLE cause to full-scale invade Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Again, no.

With Russia supporting the previous government there was no underlying change to the status quo. Ukraine was still not a member of the EU or NATO nor were they hosting foreign military units. That changed when a new government was illegally installed in a western supported coup. That's the provocation.

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of PROVOKE

to call forth (a feeling, an action, etc.) : evoke; to stir up purposely; to provide the needed stimulus for… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com

Mach said:
There you go, admitting that whatever Russia claims is therefore reasonable and true.
No, Russia chose unreasonably (to the international community and certainly Ukraine), to invade Ukraine (not counting their prior invasion of Crimea)

You choose Russia's definitions because you're pro-Russians and anti-western/U.S in your posts.
Click to expand...

No, this has absolutely nothing to do with anything Russia says. I could have told you these exact same things prior to this war. If you go back to when the US first started deploying troops to Ukraine there was talk then, in US media, about this being viewed as a provocation. NATO officials have repeatedly called any overtures to Ukraine joining NATO as provocative. It has nothing to do with what Russia says, we all knew it long before it happened and we decided to pursue the course anyway.

It isn't my definitions, or Russia's definitions, it is the english language. I provided you the definition above.

Anti western? I was born, raised, and reside in the US. I served in US military combat units in foreign theatres. That's why I am so ardent in my opposition of actions that will start new wars and entangle more US boys and girls.

We (all of us) didn't need to be here. We didn't need to go down this road of escalating provocations that would almost certainly have (and did) lead us to war. It's stupid, pointless, and no one is going to benefit from it. However if you don't understand why and how it happened then you are going to keep making the same ignorant and stupid decisions that get us into wars.
 
bave said:
Ukraine was still not a member of the EU or NATO nor were they hosting foreign military units.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
bave said:
That changed when a new government was illegally installed in a western supported coup. That's the provocation.
Click to expand...
Lies. They overthrew a corrupt president and chased his ass back to Russia where he belongs. The people rebelled and decided they wanted to be more western/European. Notice this has zero to do with Russia. That you believe Russia is justified in claiming this is provocation, is just you either supporting Russia over Ukraine and being willing to lie about it, or you believe Russian absurd propaganda. Take your pick.

bave said:
It isn't my definitions, or Russia's definitions, it is the english language. I provided you the definition above.
Click to expand...
Russia says the girl asked for it buy wearing a low-cut dress.
You agree with Russia.
Most of the rest of the world, 141 countries to 5, disagree.

Claiming Russia was reasonably provoked is just agreeing with Russia. The rest of the world knows it was unjust, unreasonable, and voted to condemn it based on that fact.

Shame on you.
 
Mach said:
Rapist: She asked for it by wearing a dress!!
No, Ukraine didn't provoke the war, and the western alliance didn't use Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is more like Ukraine after breaking up with her old, drunk, abusive, broke boyfriend Russia started talking to a nicer, handsomer gentleman named European Union. That got Russia jealous so he broke into her apartment and started attacking her saying "If I can't have you, no one can!" but she is putting up a fearsome fight and just stabbed Russia in the eye with a fondue fork.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
Actually, it is more like Ukraine after breaking up with her old, drunk, violent, broke boyfriend Russia and started talking to a nicer, handsomer gentleman named European Union. That got Russia jealous so broke into her apartment and started attacking her saying "If I can't have you, no one can." and she is putting up a fight and just stabbed Russia in the eye with a fondue fork.
Click to expand...
That ... is surprisingly apropos.
 
Juin said:
So Russia should allow the extension of that front expand?
Click to expand...
I mean, yeah? Should they have invaded all the other countries that are now thinking of joining NATO too? Should they invade Finland?

Juin said:
Acession of Ukraine to Nato would have exposed a much longer portion of Russia to Nato on its south, at Russia's border with Ukraine
Click to expand...
Well, Ukraine already shares a border with Russia. The only reason Russia should care if Ukraine joins NATO or not would be if because they had plans on invading Ukraine or believed NATO would invade Russia.
 
Juin said:
So Russia should allow the extension of that front expand? Nato borders with Russia was on the Baltic Sea, basically Russia's frontier with the Three Baltic: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

Acession of Ukraine to Nato would have exposed a much longer portion of Russia to Nato on its south, at Russia's border with Ukraine
Click to expand...
Oh well. He might think about being a good boy and making friends with NATO, because we outnumber him, outgun him, and sure as shit out freedom/prosperity his country.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
So? Your leaning says you are a socialist. Why should any socialist care that Putin demands using other countries as meat shields in his geopolitical game against their will? I'm sure Ukraine would like a buffer state between themselves and Russia about now. Why are you prioritizing Russia's interests over Ukraine's interests?


The US and NATO didn't dangle anything. That's not how NATO works. You apply to join NATO and NATO chooses to accept you or not. Ukraine is the one who wanted to join NATO.


Those countries were ALREADY gone from Russia's sphere of influence. They wanted to join NATO because they felt NATO was more likely to guarantee their safety and sovereignty than the Russians were.

After seeing the events in Ukraine, are you really going to argue they made the wrong choice? Do you think Latvia would be better off right now if it was in a similar situation to Belarus?


Source? Did the protest contain many groups, some of which were far right? Or was it a majority far right protest?
Click to expand...
1. I'm only stating the fact that Russia wants buffer states. The US knows this, yet is actively chipping it away. By backing Russia into a corner, the US is forcing the bourgeois and nationalistic Russian leadership to bite back. In violation of a disingenuous pledge made to the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the US has drawn numerous Eastern European countries (Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia) into the lethal NATO alliance whilst arming NATO countries to the teeth uncomfortably close to Russia's borders, including Nuclear Weapons.

2. Before the Euromaidan protests, the Ukrainian public did not favor joining NATO as Russia had no reason to act aggressively towards Ukraine as it does now. It was only after the fascist led protests and the consequent heavy-handed Russian response that pushed public opinion in favor.

3. IF Ukraine had acquiesced to Russian demands that they not join NATO and became a connection between the East and West, Putin would have no reason to invade. As to Belarus, nothing changed before and after it basically became a Russian puppet state. The only thing that changed is that Russia is now conducting combat operations from Belarus.

4. https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea Far-right groups were at the forefront
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/12/who-are-the-protesters-in-ukraine/ Support for Euromaidan was evenly down the middle

This isn't to say the Russia is in the right, but simply to point out that to absolve the west of any responsibility is to obfuscate the facts.
 
ChickenTendies said:
1. I'm only stating the fact that Russia wants buffer states.
Click to expand...
Who gives a ****? Try that reasoning with some other retarded Putin ass kissers.
ChickenTendies said:
Before the Euromaidan protests, the Ukrainian public did not favor joining NATO as Russia had no reason to act aggressively towards Ukraine as it does now.
Click to expand...
More ignorant crap. Is that why Putin does not think that there should be an Ukrainian state?
 
prometeus said:
Who gives a ****? Try that reasoning with some other retarded Putin ass kissers.

More ignorant crap. Is that why Putin does not think that there should be an Ukrainian state?
Click to expand...
Ok sheeple cope harder
 
Metric Mouse said:
NATO flying armed aircraft into Ukraine to attack Russia would be an act of war
Russia would justified in defending itself. No one wants a hit war with Russia. Not escalating the conflict is of the utmost importance, and that is why the United States is being so cautious.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. If we were so worried, why are we ok if Poland or Germany does it. Everyone wants deniability.
 
tacomancer said:
politicsheadlines.com

McDonald's Is Closed In Russia: Hamburgers Are On The Black Market - Politics News Headlines

The company's CEO, Chris Kempczinski, announced yesterday that the company will temporarily close 850 restaurants in Russia due to the war in ...
politicsheadlines.com politicsheadlines.com

This one is funny and sad.

Also, I expect hamburgler jokes from you people.
Click to expand...
Rumor has it that Putin was in an early morning strategy session with a couple generals when he felt a bit hungry. He reached into his pocket and pulled
out a couple million rubles and told Igor to run to McDonalds for coffee and some breakfast burritos, Igor started to the door, pulled up short, turned and said "um, boss".........
 
Mach said:
Lies. They overthrew a corrupt president and chased his ass back to Russia where he belongs. The people rebelled and decided they wanted to be more western/European. Notice this has zero to do with Russia. That you believe Russia is justified in claiming this is provocation, is just you either supporting Russia over Ukraine and being willing to lie about it, or you believe Russian absurd propaganda. Take your pick.
Click to expand...

Again, find me a military expert who doesn't think the West provoked Russia in Ukraine. Find me one, seriously.

Now, imagine if China destabilized Mexico, illegally installed a new government that was Pro-China, allowed Chinese troops into the country, and they entered into a strategic military alliance. Do you think that would be provactive ?

Mach said:
Claiming Russia was reasonably provoked is just agreeing with Russia. The rest of the world knows it was unjust, unreasonable, and voted to condemn it based on that fact.

Shame on you.
Click to expand...

I am not agreeing with anyone, I am simply seeing both sides and seeing how we got here. Otherwise you would just be intentionally ignorant and naive.

I would keep in mind that ~half the worlds population did not vote to condemn the invasion. India and China both abstained.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom