• 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.
Ok, do you have something for me to read from an expert who doesn't see provocation? I am happy to read it, seriously, please.
Former Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev: Putin's claim of NATO's so-called aggressive expansionism is just a "conviction of convenience" because he needs a foreign enemy to blame for Russia's disastrous economy.


"NATO expansionism and/or aggression" is a bullshit excuse for this war. Period.
 
No, I am explaining to you the law of war as it is understood to apply. And then explaining that Sergey lavrov does not admit to violating it. Sergei Lavrov’s words contain no admission of violating the law.

They are literally throwing people in concentration camps, and I don’t believe for one second that Shana will fight a war in Taiwan cleaner than the Russians have been fighting in Ukraine. People in Taipei will wish they were living in Grozny when China is done witsh them if they resist too hard.
For someone that wants his own country to become a dictatorship you really have very little understanding of how a dictatorship works.
 
For someone that wants his own country to become a dictatorship you really have very little understanding of how a dictatorship works.
I do not wish for America to become a dictatorship.

But that aside, that is not a retort to any arguments I have made.
 
I also feel that it is partly to buy into the Russian way of looking at the different countries, were it is either west or Russia and that every country is part of one of those. Russia feels their "cut" has been unfavorable.
I feel like the cold war was a very formative experience for Putin.
 
You asked where the illegality of the coup was, I told you. When the coup toppled the government in 2014 and replaced it with a new government, that was outright unconstitutional in Ukraine, something even Ukraine admitted, they just felt they had to do it anyway. Again imagine if a Chinese backed coup toppled the Mexican government and then helped install a new pro-chinese government which promptly began allowing chinese troops into the country and took concrete steps towards a military alliance.
1. Yanukovych campaigned and won based on closer ties to the West (political association and trade agreements with the EU). That's what the Ukrainian people wanted.
2. Yanukovych broke his campaign promise and was subsequently impeached by the Ukrainian parliament (not one vote opposing impeachment). That's not a coup, unless you live in the alternate world of Putin's lies.
 
I believe a tactical mistake just has been made. Sergej Lavrov said in a press conference after the talks with his Ukrainian contrapart that the attack on the maternity hospital was justified because the hospital had no patients and was taken in by the oppositions forces.

Do you write fiction for Russia?

I did not see what Lavrov said, but if what he says is true and it was a militarized facility then it is a valid target. This happened in Iraq a fair bit where hostiles would use schools, hospitals, and mosques as bases of operation and strongpoints under the idea that adversaries would be reluctant to target them.

"NATO expansionism and/or aggression" is a bullshit excuse for this war. Period.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that Putin is justified in his war, I am simply saying that there were provocations for him to go to war. Those two things are not the same.
 
1. Yanukovych campaigned and won based on closer ties to the West (political association and trade agreements with the EU). That's what the Ukrainian people wanted.
2. Yanukovych broke his campaign promise and was subsequently impeached by the Ukrainian parliament (not one vote opposing impeachment). That's not a coup, unless you live in the alternate world of Putin's lies.

Here's the rub, the impeachment by the Ukrainian parliament was illegal because it failed to follow the constitutionally prescribed methods and steps.
 
No, you simply refuse to even acknowledge my viewpoints
That you have a viewpoint? I replied did I not?
Acknowledge as valid? Of course not it is crap.
and your counterargument relies on the (false) assumption that I'm justifying Russia invading Ukraine when I'm simply just pointing out the West's role.
Whether you do it purposely or not, it has the same net effect.
If we wanna talk about past behavior literally look at NATO's actions in the Middle East, as well as America's numerous coups of democratically elected governments in Latin America and beyond due to the Red Scare.
Whataboutism is a poor argument.
That's hypocrisy at its finest.
That may very well be, but it is still not a valid reason to kill civilians.
Furthermore, you seem to have come to the conclusion that I'm a "Putin apologist" despite not supporting it anywhere in my posts.
Your line of reasoning amounted to it.
 
I appreciate your response to my post. I don't have time right now to address all the points, but I wanted to say one thing.

I said this some thousands of posts ago in this thread, but I actually don't think NATO is the problem. I know I know, but hear me out. Is the problem that a defensive military alliance exists? Or is the problem that some of the members of that alliance are imperialist powers? I don't feel like the existence of NATO is what allowed the US to invade Iraq, but it has benefited the smaller soviet block nations immensely. The strongest proponent of NATO isn't the US. We don't need NATO. In recent years, the countries that NATO is most relevant for are countries like Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, etc.

Essentially, I don't really think that NATO or more countries joining NATO is a bad thing.
The problem with NATO is that it's inherently designed as a counter to the USSR, and the Soviet, (and Russian) leadership view it as such. Ofc therefore they would be viewing the eastern expansion with no lack of apprehension, and would not take the a rival rolling up to their border well. This expansion also coincides with the isolation of Russia. The politicians in Congress know this but they continue this course of action deliberately under the guise of expanding freedom. This is what irks me, that the West knew what this path would only result in conflict.
 
Just to let you know how serious we are taking it here in Sweden. The military has now started weekly pressconferences that will be live broadcasted in the 2 most watched channels...
 
Just to let you know how serious we are taking it here in Sweden. The military has now started weekly pressconferences that will be live broadcasted in the 2 most watched channels...

Isn't the Swedish military in total something like a total of a handful of regiments?
 
To be clear, I am not suggesting that Putin is justified in his war, I am simply saying that there were provocations for him to go to war. Those two things are not the same.
The "provocations" are bullshit. Everyone in the world who has their head screwed on straight knows that no NATO nation was EVER going to be an aggressive threat to Russia.

To believe otherwise is to live in an alternate reality where a historical precedent for such a threat actually exists. NATO is only a threat to rogue nations who would wage wars of aggression to steal countries.

The only threat that a West-leaning Ukraine would pose to Russia would be to halt Putin's ability to "annex" the old Soviet Union back together.

Don't be fooled. Putin doesn't want "buffer states" for security, he wants puppet states like Belarus for power.
 
Just to let you know how serious we are taking it here in Sweden. The military has now started weekly pressconferences that will be live broadcasted in the 2 most watched channels...
What do you think the odds are of Sweden joining NATO?
 
The "provocations" are bullshit. Everyone in the world who has their head screwed on straight knows that no NATO nation was EVER going to be an aggressive threat to Russia.

To believe otherwise is to live in an alternate reality where a historical precedent for such a threat actually exists. NATO is only a threat to rogue nations who would wage wars of aggression to steal countries.

The only threat that a West-leaning Ukraine would pose to Russia would be to halt Putin's ability to "annex" the old Soviet Union back together.

Don't be fooled. Putin doesn't want "buffer states" for security, he wants puppet states like Belarus for power.

I will say it for a fifth time. Does anyone have a source where a non-political military expert or analyst has said there was no provocations by the West?

Putin would also make the argument that the US and West just want a puppet government as well courtesy of a coup.
 
What do you think the odds are of Sweden joining NATO?

I believe just yesterday they said they were not even considering it.

Sweden is as neutral as Switzerland. Hell, they helped the Nazis for the entire second world war...
 
Here's the rub, the impeachment by the Ukrainian parliament was illegal because it failed to follow the constitutionally prescribed methods and steps.
1. You cannot prove that the impeachment was unconstitutional. Nobody can, because it was an unaccounted-for gray area since Yanukovych had skipped town. Nothing in the Ukrainian constitution prohibits what parliament did.
2. It was not a "coup".
 
The problem with NATO is that it's inherently designed as a counter to the USSR
It was, but for a few decades it didn't really have much of a purpose.

The politicians in Congress know this but they continue this course of action deliberately under the guise of expanding freedom. This is what irks me, that the West knew what this path would only result in conflict.
This is a weird way of framing it. NATO didn't come to countries like Latvia begging them to join NATO, Latvia applied to join NATO. The West didn't expand NATO, in fact many countries that were already part of NATO were often hesitant to allow these smaller soviet block countries that didn't have much to offer back to NATO. For countries like Germany, the US, the UK...NATO is largely meaningless. It's the Eastern block countries for which NATO is important.

Looking at Ukraine...can you really blame the other small soviet block countries for wanting to join NATO?
 
1. You cannot prove that the impeachment was unconstitutional. Nobody can, because it was an unaccounted-for gray area since Yanukovych had skipped town. Nothing in the Ukrainian constitution prohibits what parliament did.
2. It was not a "coup".

From the revolution's own website:

"Although there were no constitutional grounds for shortening the presidential term, the new government was established in accordance with Ukrainian law."

From just a basic wiki:

The action did not follow the impeachment process as specified by the Constitution of Ukraine (which would have involved formally charging the president with a crime, a review of the charge by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and a three-fourths majority vote – i.e. at least 338 votes in favor – by the Rada); instead, the Verkhovna Rada declared that Yanukovych "withdrew from his duties in an unconstitutional manner" and cited "circumstances of extreme urgency" as the reason for early elections. Oleksandr Turchynov was then voted by parliament Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament and acting President and Prime Minister of Ukraine.
 

Does 50-50 mean something different in Sweden? :)
A poll on Friday by Demoskop and commissioned by Aftonbladet newspaper showed 51% of Swedes were in favour of NATO membership, up from 42% in January. People against joining fell to 27% from 37%. It's the first time such a poll has shown a majority in favour.
Finland and Sweden have close military ties and a move by one to join NATO would put added pressure on the other to apply.

Seems like there is still a chance, especially if Finland joins.
 
I will say it for a fifth time. Does anyone have a source where a non-political military expert or analyst has said there was no provocations by the West?
And I'll post this, for the 3rd time:

Former Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev: Putin's claim of NATO's so-called aggressive expansionism is just a "conviction of convenience" because he needs a foreign enemy to blame for Russia's disastrous economy.


"NATO expansionism and/or aggression" is a bullshit excuse for this war. Period.
Putin would also make the argument that the US and West just want a puppet government as well courtesy of a coup.
Putin can shit in his hat and call it ice cream if he wants. A government controlled by Ukrainian people is, by definition, not a puppet government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom