Why Russia will likely win by the end of next summer!

[oneworld2]

In other words you are unable define your terms clearly, nor to deny the facts presented, so you stream us more fact free rhetorical denunciations? "Global hegemony" apparently means what, that since the end of WW2 the US has mostly been the world's largest economy ? Or that it's been the default cultural influencer in much of the free and unfree world? Or perhaps you mean that it has shouldered the role of leader of western civilization because no other nation had the economic and military power in the west to do so?

Spending and armed conflicts in defense of the West is not, by definition, warlike - spending and armed conflict in the offense to seize new conquests and crush the independence of conquered tributary states is.

Tibet, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungry, East Germany, India, Afghanistan, South Korea, France, Finland, Georgia, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Greece, Nationalist China, South Vietnam and many others have been the targets of "expanded interests" of Communist and/or Fascist empire builders, none of the them posing an impending military or economic threat to their attackers... anyone who assisted in their defense isn't "war like", it isn't the victims or their supporters who initiated lethal collective force.

I know that you resent the innocent victims of a mugging, and are in a greater rage when someone helps the assaulted fend off the mugger, but your perverse moral take isn't going to cut it with the sane... no matter what hyperbole you reach for.

Even progressive Sweden and Finland know who to fear, by now you ought to know it as well.

They are not necessarily facts though are they. They are interpretations of policies/actions.

NATO expansionism can be thought of a " defensive" but it can also be thought of as unnecessary militarist aggression/expansionism. It can also be seen as promoting western business interests using a military cloak sold as defence seeing as this expansionist military alliance required the mass sale of western arms to any new member states, states that are now more militaristic than they were before joining.

Militarism is defined as being the maintenance of a large/strong military to be used for the alleged, " national interest "

The only reason the US ended up as the leader of the West was because they Europeans decided to set the world on fire twice. When you think about that the notion of " western civilisation" looks a bit of a hollow vessel.

Most of the Cold War wars were to do with nations freeing, or trying to free themselves, from western colonialist rule. You talk of Vietnam war but don't mention the start was to free itself from French colonial rule, a war where the attempt to restore French colonialism was funded by the USA. No mention that the ceasefire agreement reached after the defeat of the French was built around unifying elections aimed at national reunification. The US and its lackie in South Vietnam refused to engage in that process and a war resulted in the deaths of millions of Vietnamese and hundreds of thousands in Laos and Cambodia.

People can vote in communists if they want to, it's not your remit to say who and what can be voted in by the people of other countries. You ridiculously portray this as " defense" whilst having no sense of irony about where this is being discussed.

The US rap sheet for state terrorism of/against other countries is vast and dwarfs the likes of Russia and China, to try to paint that all as " defence" is preposterous. It's just bog standard imperialism by the global hegemon to keep down rivals and control markets and profiteering for its own gain. No different from the French or British before them but an empire with extended use of client state management.

Your comments are just too ridiculous to be taken seriously and are the result of a very well constructed conditioning. imo

 

[Irredentist]

They are not necessarily facts though are they. They are interpretations of policies/actions.

NATO expansionism can be thought of a " defensive" but it can also be thought of as unnecessary militarist aggression/expansionism. It can also be seen as promoting western business interests using a military cloak sold as defence seeing as this expansionist military alliance required the mass sale of western arms to any new member states, states that are now more militaristic than they were before joining.

Militarism is defined as being the maintenance of a large/strong military to be used for the alleged, " national interest "

The only reason the US ended up as the leader of the West was because they Europeans decided to set the world on fire twice. When you think about that the notion of " western civilisation" looks a bit of a hollow vessel.

Most of the Cold War wars were to do with nations freeing, or trying to free themselves, from western colonialist rule. You talk of Vietnam war but don't mention the start was to free itself from French colonial rule, a war where the attempt to restore French colonialism was funded by the USA. No mention that the ceasefire agreement reached after the defeat of the French was built around unifying elections aimed at national reunification. The US and its lackie in South Vietnam refused to engage in that process and a war resulted in the deaths of millions of Vietnamese and hundreds of thousands in Laos and Cambodia.

People can vote in communists if they want to, it's not your remit to say who and what can be voted in by the people of other countries. You ridiculously portray this as " defense" whilst having no sense of irony about where this is being discussed.

The US rap sheet for state terrorism of/against other countries is vast and dwarfs the likes of Russia and China, to try to paint that all as " defence" is preposterous. It's just bog standard imperialism by the global hegemon to keep down rivals and control markets and profiteering for its own gain. No different from the French or British before them but an empire with extended use of client state management.

Your comments are just too ridiculous to be taken seriously and are the result of a very well constructed conditioning. imo

Russia has a much longer and more extensive history of militarism and imperialism than the US does.

 

[oneworld2]

Russia has a much longer and more extensive history of militarism and imperialism than the US does.

The historical aspect should be obvious to anyone, including you.

Your history , at least relative to this discussion, only starts after the genocide of the indigenous population and freeing from British colonial rule.

I am talking about the post WW2 era and on that you are miles ahead by any measure available imo

 

[Fledermaus]

The historical aspect should be obvious to anyone, including you.

Your history , at least relative to this discussion, only starts after the genocide of the indigenous population and freeing from British colonial rule.

I am talking about the post WW2 era and on that you are miles ahead by any measure available imo

Russia won prectically all of their current lands through imperialist expansion and started long before the US. And they carried on in spirit after WWII with the Warsaw Pact being little more than client states of the USSR.

 

[Irredentist]

The historical aspect should be obvious to anyone, including you.

Your history , at least relative to this discussion, only starts after the genocide of the indigenous population and freeing from British colonial rule.

I am talking about the post WW2 era and on that you are miles ahead by any measure available imo

Russia also committed genocide against indigenous populations during their eastward expansion. They also invaded Poland, Ukraine, Finland, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Mongolia, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, Armenia, Hungary, and Afghanistan. Among others.

 

[oneworld2]

Russia also committed genocide against indigenous populations during their eastward expansion. They also invaded Poland, Ukraine, Finland, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Mongolia, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, Armenia, Hungary, and Afghanistan. Among others.

Really? Since the end of WW2, who knew?

Shall we list US invasions, coups, proxy wars, wars since the end of WW2 ? I'm sure you can look that up all by yourself.

Then research how many US military bases there are around the world ? Compare that to Russian ones or Chinese ones.

 

[Antiwar]

I haven't espoused a single racist view. All of my commentary has been about the fact that I favor and prefer Western cultural values and some of the more important underlying principles of Western or Modern civilization. And when you describe my views as racist, you are lying, and the reason I don't appreciate your comments because you're lying.



To what end oneworld2? The West will never stop advancing its own interests no matter how much you hate the West, and no matter how much you want every Westerner to engage in continual, ritual self-flagellation.



I don't think it's a crime to view one's beliefs as being superior to another person's beliefs. This extends to cultural values as well. And everyone pretty much feels good about their own culture. So this expectation you have of Westerners is really strange to me. Also, you think that same thing about your worldview, yet you don't think it's a crime to think your worldview is the correct and proper political ideology, and that everyone else is wrong. The only explanation for your behavior is that you hate the West and you want the West to fail.

I think that this video describes much of what seems to be your position:

Video: How Capitalism Robs The Developing World

debatepolitics.com

 

[Rogue Valley]

Your default position for the US.....

 

[Fledermaus]

Really? Since the end of WW2, who knew?

Shall we list US invasions, coups, proxy wars, wars since the end of WW2 ? I'm sure you can look that up all by yourself.

Then research how many US military bases there are around the world ? Compare that to Russian ones or Chinese ones.

Ah the "US military bases" shibboleth.

Last time I checked the only in unfriendly territory is Guantanamo.

Doesn't smack of Imperialism.

 

[Fledermaus]

Really? Since the end of WW2, who knew?

Shall we list US invasions, coups, proxy wars, wars since the end of WW2 ? I'm sure you can look that up all by yourself.

Then research how many US military bases there are around the world ? Compare that to Russian ones or Chinese ones.

Since WWII they held the entire Eastern Europe and the Baltics as virtual slaves. They engaged in proxy wars world wide. Korea ring a bell?

 

[oneworld2]

Ah the "US military bases" shibboleth.

Last time I checked the only in unfriendly ( sic) territory is Guantanamo.

Doesn't smack of Imperialism.

Client state managers and imperial allies. I suppose deflection was preferable than honesty about the numbers.

 

[oneworld2]

Since WWII they held the entire Eastern Europe and the Baltics as virtual slaves. They engaged in proxy wars world wide. Korea ring a bell?

And?

The US has kept Latin America, Central America and the Caribbean as virtual slaves over a similar period.

So the US wasn't involved in Korea either? lol bad example.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Nobody claimed the oil/das could be available in two weeks, We are talking 4 years from discovery to 2014 coup in Ukraine that installed an anti Russian govts and have seen only anti Russian govts since.

Thx for the link I read it and will use it to show to people how, far from the preferred narrative you and the others present here ad nauseam , Ukraine is NOT free to make it's own decisions and has swapped servitude to Russia for ongoing servitude to the EU/West. A situation that was obvious from the start for people with any understanding of how these things play out.

There are legal restrictions on invading countries too. There are economic prices to pay in the form of sanctions and such. You make it sound as though Putin feels bound by legal restrictions and/or contractual obligations. Either way he will be probably having Gasprom and co help develop the newly acquired fields, something that could have been avoided had the West not insisted on throwing Ukraine under the bus so as to weaken Russia.

Additionally, how do you know that the finds were not a factor in the Wests concerted efforts to drag Ukraine away from Russian patronage into Western patronage? You link is illuminating on just how much the " aid" is dependent on Ukraine toeing the EU line on energy pricing /austerity?.

Maybe only pesky Russians have eyed up Ukrainian resources and the West remains indifferent to them globally

I think the Ukrainian people spoke volumes when they elected Zelenskyy and that you've failed to take any of that into account on purpose.
You must think Ukrainians are too stupid to know what they want, but that doesn't change the facts on the ground, namely that Ukrainians seem more than happy to fight Russia to the last man, which makes your pet theory look awfully weak.

Ukrainians want democracy, Russia doesn't.
Ukrainians want to be part of the EU, you call it being held hostage to well focused US military aid, which by the way they were forced to do without until 2022, but you're pretending you didn't notice that.
Your attempt at Disney animatronics failed.

 

[Fledermaus]

And?

The US has kept Latin America, Central America and the Caribbean as virtual slaves over a similar period.

So the US wasn't involved in Korea either? lol bad example.

And the UN was involved in Korea trying to beat back the Russian backed invasion by the North Koreans.

 

[Juin]

.
Juin said:
You make excellent points. You point out the distinction between persuasion over force. The coup that overthrew the constitutionally elected President is use of same methods you object to from Russians. And at the end of the day what difference does it make to Russia how a military alliance hostile to Russia winds up on its borders? The danger to Russia is the same irrespective of how Nato winds up a few miles from Russia, from close to a thousand miles away in Poland

People protesting an unwanted regime =/= T-90 tanks, BMP's, artillery raining down shells and aerial bombardment, now does it? That's like comparing pepper spray to nerve gas. Had the Russian Federation (RF) treated its neighbouring states better in the post-Soviet era, then they might not have all rushed to join NATO. Finland and Sweden abandoning neutrality for NATO protection are both good examples of how RF militarism have benefitted NATO and the West. Yeltsin and Putin did this to the RF, not some outside force.

I dont think you addressed my point. When you say unwanted regime, by whom? The coup was not supported by the Russophone east from Kharkiv all the way down to Crimea. And what was Victor Yanukovych's crime? He was ethnic Russian and amenable to closer relations with Russia. Period. If the conception of Ukraine tolerable to the ethnic Ukrainian majority was a Ukraine that is hostile to Russia then why should the ethnic Russians of the east and south want to be part of it?

Now to the point you raised.

You said if the Russian Federation had treated its neighbouring states better they may not have rushed to join Nato. Ok. But how does that change the fact that that decision of theirs also placed Nato on Russia's borders? Russia can be expected in that situation to do what the US will do, and did. Is it sufficient for one to argue that if the US had treated its neighbour Cuba better Cuba would not have rushed to invite the Soviet Union to protect her with nukes?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I dont think you addressed my point. When you say unwanted regime, by whom? The coup was not supported by the Russophone east from Kharkiv all the way down to Crimea. And what was Victor Yanukovych's crime? He was ethnic Russian and amenable to closer relations with Russia. Period.

The reason why he was removed from power was because he acted on behalf of the Russian government, not on behalf of the interest of the majority of the Ukrainian people. Period.

If the conception of Ukraine tolerable to the ethnic Ukrainian majority was a Ukraine that is hostile to Russia then why should the ethnic Russians of the east and south want to be part of it?

It wasn't about hostility to Russia. Ukraine just wanted to have a country that wasn't controlled by Russia. That's not a big ask.

And the civil war began, not as a result of conflict between ethnic Russians who were also Ukrainian Citizens and Ukrainians, but rather, as a direct result of Russian intervention.

 

[Juin]

The reason why he was removed from power was because he acted on behalf of the Russian government, not on behalf of the interest of the majority of the Ukrainian people. Period.

That is your reason for why he was removed. The ethnic Ukrainian majority reject any Ukraine that is not Russophobic and anti Russia. They have had their wish and the Russians of the east and littoral are granting them their wish: the are leaving Ukraine.

It wasn't about hostility to Russia. Ukraine just wanted to have a country that wasn't controlled by Russia. That's not a big ask.

Right. A country that glorifies a Nazi collaborator and war criminal like Stepan Banderas is not about hostility to Russia. A country whose Supreme Court just a week or two ago ruled that symbols of the infamous 14 Waffen SS Grenadier Division are not Nazi. A country that has been naming streets after streets after same notorious Stepan Banderas is not Nazi! If the US had a government that nominated a KKK Grand Wizard for the Medal of Honor the world will rightly shrink in horror. Stepan Banderas is to Russians what the KKK is to US blacks, and what Adolf Hitler was to German Jews.

If ethnic Ukrainians in Ukraine want to close the chapter of their Nazi past and build up an inclusive nation with their fellow Russian citizens, fine. That will be a future that is satisfactory to its Russian citizens. But if their conception of Ukraine is one in the mould of Stepan Banderas, then let them let victims of Stepan Banderas go their ways.

And the civil war began, not as a result of conflict between ethnic Russians who were also Ukrainian Citizens and Ukrainians, but rather, as a direct result of Russian intervention.

There is a US equivalent of your case. Southern whites also argued that their blacks were contented, that it was all the fault of liberals from north coming down south and stirring trouble.

 

[slick]

It wasn't a coup. It was a popular uprising or a revolution, and the removal of Yanukovych was confirmed by the Rada, the political/governmental body in Ukraine most representative of the popular will of the Ukrainian people. All human beings everywhere have the right to overthrow their government, especially a tyrannical, abuse government that is controlled by outsiders, such as was the case with Russia's control of Yanukovych's government. When you use the word coup you are suing Kremlin propaganda. Putin uses the word coup to smear the current government in Ukraine, to make it appear that it is not legitimate. But the current government in Ukraine is legitimate, and the Maidan Uprising was legitimate, because Yanukovych did not represent Ukrainian interests, he represented Russian government interests.

Just stop!!!

You insist that it was 'Ukrainian citizens and their elected representatives that scared
Yanukovych to the point of running away! In fact Ukraine elected representatives,
far from what you stated, agreed to hold new elections later that year. Then came Yarosh, &
Muzychko to force Yanukovich to run for his life. Everything is documented but apparently that doesn't matter to you.

The Kiev Maidan uprisings was boiling undr the surface without much success then:
Svoboda rank-and-file and the Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) militia, led by Dmytri Yarosh & his right hand man Aleksandr Muzychko, battled police, led torchlight marches, and raided police stations mostly from Lviv for weapons. By mid-February 2014, these armed gangs positioned themselves as the leaders of the Maidan Movement. It was Yarosh, backed by the U.S., who took over as the public leader of the Maidan and rejected the Feb. 21, 2014, deal negotiated by the French, German, and Polish foreign ministers, under which Viktor Yanukovich, the democratically-elected president of Ukraine, and opposition political leaders agreed to hold new elections later that year. Instead, Yarosh and Right Sector not only did not give up weapons but instead led a march on parliament and overthrew the government. Yea, there were people similar to those on this site, regular folks from western Ukraine hoping for change but it was Yarosh who planned for this moment for 5 years.

The far right, of course, cared nothing for democracy, nor did it have any love for the EU. Instead, the popular uprising was an opportunity. Dmytro Yarosh, the Right Sector leader, had urged his compatriots in 2009 to “start an armed struggle against the regime of internal occupation and Moscow’s empire” if pro-Russian forces took control. As early as March 2013, One of the organizations that formed Right Sector, had called for the Ukrainian opposition to move “from a peaceful demonstration to a street-revolutionary plane.” They were 100% successful in doing just that

 

[Fledermaus]

That is your reason for why he was removed. The ethnic Ukrainian majority reject any Ukraine that is not Russophobic and anti Russia. They have had their wish and the Russians of the east and littoral are granting them their wish: the are leaving Ukraine.






Right. A country that glorifies a Nazi collaborator and war criminal like Stepan Banderas is not about hostility to Russia. A country whose Supreme Court just a week or two ago ruled that symbols of the infamous 14 Waffen SS Grenadier Division are not Nazi. A country that has been naming streets after streets after same notorious Stepan Banderas is not Nazi! If the US had a government that nominated a KKK Grand Wizard for the Medal of Honor the world will rightly shrink in horror. Stepan Banderas is to Russians what the KKK is to US blacks, and what Adolf Hitler was to German Jews.

If ethnic Ukrainians in Ukraine want to close the chapter of their Nazi past and build up an inclusive nation with their fellow Russian citizens, fine. That will be a future that is satisfactory to its Russian citizens. But if their conception of Ukraine is one in the mould of Stepan Banderas, then let them let victims of Stepan Banderas go their ways.






There is a US equivalent of your case. Southern whites also argued that their blacks were contented, that it was all the fault of liberals from north coming down south and stirring trouble.

The same people bleating "BANDERA" over and over keep stupidly using the term Russophobia.

A fear of Russia is warranted based the Crimean illegal annexation, the Russian proxy war in Donbass and this invasion...

 

[Top Cat]

Because it will never be. That's the point. They are depending on NATO

Sure thing comrade.

 

[Top Cat]

We will see Russia 'take the gloves' off before any final outcome arrives.

That's the price for NATO's proxy war.

NATA's war? Who started it?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Just stop!!!

NO.

You insist that it was 'Ukrainian citizens and their elected representatives that scared Yanukovych to the point of running away! In fact Ukraine elected representatives, far from what you stated, agreed to hold new elections later that year. Then came Yarosh, & Muzychko to force Yanukovich to run for his life.

The Right Sector played a role in the Maidan Uprising, but the principal reason that Yanukovych fled was because the vast majority of Ukrainians opposed him, and he knew that. Yanukovych's political position became even more precarious after he changed the laws to imprison his political opponents and after he hired snipers to kill peaceful Maidan protestors and his snipers began killing Maidan protestors. There is no credible evidence that Yanukovych fled because members of the Right Sector, or Yarosh, or Muzychko were just about to kill him. The stories about Yanukovych being on the verge of being physically assaulted come directly from Yanukovych or Putin, so when you spout these lies about the Maidan Uprising not being a legitimate uprising of the people you are lying on Putin's behalf. Yanukovych did not run from his life because he was in imminent danger at the hands of Yarosh or Muzychko. That is a lie.

Everything is documented but apparently that doesn't matter to you.

Oh really? Everything is documented. That's funny. If everything is documented why don't you ever provide any links or actually reference anything in any of your posts? But you can't do that without linking to a website with an "ru" at the end, can you?

The Kiev Maidan uprisings was boiling undr the surface without much success then: Svoboda rank-and-file and the Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) militia, led by Dmytri Yarosh & his right hand man Aleksandr Muzychko, battled police, led torchlight marches, and raided police stations mostly from Lviv for weapons. By mid-February 2014, these armed gangs positioned themselves as the leaders of the Maidan Movement. It was Yarosh, backed by the U.S., who took over as the public leader of the Maidan and rejected the Feb. 21, 2014, deal negotiated by the French, German, and Polish foreign ministers, under which Viktor Yanukovich, the democratically-elected president of Ukraine, and opposition political leaders agreed to hold new elections later that year. Instead, Yarosh and Right Sector not only did not give up weapons but instead led a march on parliament and overthrew the government. Yea, there were people similar to those on this site, regular folks from western Ukraine hoping for change but it was Yarosh who planned for this moment for 5 years.

You are lying.

After Yanykovych fled to Russia with money he looted from Ukraine, the Rada impeached Yanukovych.

The vast majority of the Ukrainian population opposed Yanukovych. Yarosh and the Right Sector did not single-handedly overthrow the government. You are being ridiculous. The Right Sector was ctively involved, but they were not prominent players, and we know this because they were completely sidelined after the subsequent government took shape.

Putin and Kremlin propaganda have gone out of their way to exaggerate the influence and impact of the Right Sector. And you fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.

These lies are intended to smear the current Ukrainian government and justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Spread your lies somewhere else. And tell your Kremlin handlers that Russia needs to leave Ukraine, and that Russia's disgusting propaganda isn't working.

The far right, of course, cared nothing for democracy, nor did it have any love for the EU. Instead, the popular uprising was an opportunity. Dmytro Yarosh, the Right Sector leader, had urged his compatriots in 2009 to “start an armed struggle against the regime of internal occupation and Moscow’s empire” if pro-Russian forces took control. As early as March 2013, One of the organizations that formed Right Sector, had called for the Ukrainian opposition to move “from a peaceful demonstration to a street-revolutionary plane.”

You greatly exaggerate the influence of the Right Sector.

If the Right Sector never existed, Yanykovych would still have been removed from power.

We know that the vast majority of the Ukrainian people supported the Maidan Uprising and the goals of the Maidan Uprising based on polling data from that time period.

If you want to make some effort to make a persuasive argument you're going to have to provide non-Kremlin references, or references that do not come from disgusting, pathetic Russian shills.