Europe Backdrop to the war in Ukraine

[Gethelred]

This is the thread for the geopolitics, history and framework around the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If you want to discuss the events of the war, head over to this thread:

Europe - War in Ukraine - Thread 4 - thread rules updated

This is the thread for discussing the War in Ukraine. Should you want to discuss the geopolitics, the history, or an interesting tangent, head over here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/backdrop-to-the-war-in-ukraine.1302028/ If a post isn't directly concerning the events of the war or...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[IlovethePies]

No the USA did not destroy Iraq. And certainly wasn't trying to absorb Iraq into the US empire.

This statement proves that you are not worth engaging with, if more proof were needed.

 

[Jamolad]

This is not a sensible reply, since my entire post was based entirely on the logic of events. If you either refuse/cannot see this, I can't do anything more.

Again, I did consider your imagined scenario:

In your scenario, Ukraine wants to stop the slow but steady destruction of Ukrainian manpower, so rather than continue to destroy the equipment, logistics, men and infrastructure that is being used to destroy Ukrainian manpower, they decide to pivot to a pointless attack that does nothing to weaken Russia's offensive capabilities and instead it steels Russia's resolve and determination, leads to further retaliatory attacks against Ukrainian civilian centres, and loses Ukraine the support of western nations.

Attacking civilian centres is only logical to the Russian regime and their sympathisers, as a means of weakening the offensive capability of their adversary. Notice you are the only one on this board that thinks this is a viable and logical strategy? Says a lot about you, you campaigner.

I didn't ask what you would do; I asked why you think Ukraine would do it. Your answer is because it is what you would do; to you it is the logical step to take

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I thought i made it pretty clear in my previous post.
Since Feb 2022, Biden has repeatedly stated that he would not carry out Action X, because Action X could trigger nuclear war.

Then, a few months later, he implemented Action X.

This has happened repeatedly over the course of the war.

This has led to the incredible situation where US propaganda is now conveying the message that all of Putin's red lines are non-existent, and the US and NATO can keep doing whatever they like to attack Russia and therefore destabliise his regime.

This is why posters here actually post such inanities as: "Putin's red lines are bullshit". In other words, they are willing to gamble the future of human civilisation on the basis of US propaganda.

What is the next escalatory measure that could now be implemented?
So imagine this scenario (it really isn''t that hard to do): The attacks on Russian military installations are not stopping the slow but steady destruction of Ukrainian manpower. OK, the Ukrainian authorities now decide to hit the Russians where it hurts. " Start bombing their cities. That'll make them think twice. We don't have to worry. All of Putin's red lines are BS".

It really isn;t that hard to visualise the logic.

Sorry , none of that will happen, because its not really logic.

 

[IlovethePies]

Again, I did consider your imagined scenario:

In your scenario, Ukraine wants to stop the slow but steady destruction of Ukrainian manpower, so rather than continue to destroy the equipment, logistics, men and infrastructure that is being used to destroy Ukrainian manpower, they decide to pivot to a pointless attack that does nothing to weaken Russia's offensive capabilities and instead it steels Russia's resolve and determination, leads to further retaliatory attacks against Ukrainian civilian centres, and loses Ukraine the support of western nations.

Attacking civilian centres is only logical to the Russian regime and their sympathisers, as a means of weakening the offensive capability of their adversary. Notice you are the only one on this board that thinks this is a viable and logical strategy? Says a lot about you, you campaigner.

I didn't ask what you would do; I asked why you think Ukraine would do it. Your answer is because it is what you would do; to you it is the logical step to take

I am proud to be the only one on the board who holds these positions.

If no one opposed them, this would be an echo chamber, wouldn't it?

Why would Russian sympathisers want Ukraine to attack Russian cities?

If Ukraine's missile attacks on russian military installations are not stopping the slow but inevitable tide of Russian forces overpowering Ukraine's military (due if nothing else to manpower) why would they not, in desperation, be tempted to try something else, such as bombing Russian civilians?

Do you think that somehow the Ukrainian government is more moral, more ethical, than the Russian government??

Why would they not go just that extra step, just to try to get an advantage? Afterall, Putin is just bluffing (according to US propaganda).

The sooner you realise that no capitalist government cares about the death of its own civilians, or any other civilians, the better you will be able to grasp reality.

 

[Jamolad]

Quite a bit to unpack there.

Why would Russian sympathisers want Ukraine to attack Russian cities?

That is not what I said. I said it is the Russian regime and their sympathisers that think attacking civilian centres is a good idea.

If Ukraine's missile attacks on russian military installations are not stopping the slow but inevitable tide of Russian forces overpowering Ukraine's military (due if nothing else to manpower) why would they not, in desperation, be tempted to try something else, such as bombing Russian civilians?

Why does that "something else" have to be bombing Russian civilians? I get that is where your thought process immediately took you, Russia has been using that tactic since the start of the war even when they are not under threat and have had the upper-hand.

Do you think that is the only other option? Do you think that is viable, is what Ukraine should do? Or do you think that might make things worse?

You obviously have delusions of grandeur, think you are smarter than everyone including those involved in the conflict that have access to intelligence and data sets you do not - and you think you are the only one with the intellectual capacity to figure out Ukraine using long range missiles to attack civilian centres could/would lead to escalation from Russia and lack of support/weapons from the west, when we all think the same (and so do Ukraine). We all know that; you are the only one that thinks Ukraine can't figure that out and will therefore do it

Do you think that somehow the Ukrainian government is more moral, more ethical, than the Russian government??

No, I think they are smarter and better advised. I think they realise, and also likely have been explicitly told, that attacking civilian centres will see the means for long-range strikes removed.

Why would they not go just that extra step, just to try to get an advantage? Afterall, Putin is just bluffing (according to US propaganda).

It is not US propaganda telling us Putin is bluffing, it is Putin's own actions (moreso his inaction after every one of his supposed red lines has been crossed).

But attacking civilian centres with long range missiles? That is one red line that I truly believe should not be crossed, should not be challenged. All the other ones to date were obvious bluffs (and proven to be bluffs) as they were stupid.

I think attacking Russian civilian centres is a red line for western backers - and that is the red line that Ukraine will not cross.

That, and the fact that Ukraine have suffered enough to seek revenge/retribution against Russian civilians, and have still refrained from doing so when presented the opportunity to do so (both close range and long range), makes me think it is illogical that they will use western weapons to strike Russian civilian centres.

The sooner you realise that no capitalist government cares about the death of its own civilians, or any other civilians, the better you will be able to grasp reality.

Why single out "capitalist" governments as not caring about death of civilians? Do your beloved socialist governments have an unblemished record when it comes to the care and security of their civilians?

 

[IlovethePies]

I guess there's no point continuing to arguie along these lines. As usual time will tell.
The only point i want to make in reply is in relation to your last paragraph.

There is no such thinkg as a "socialist" government.,,,Every government on the planet is a capitalist government (yes, even the regime in China). Capitalism is a global system and it now operates across the entire globe. The Chinese government claims to be "communist" but it presides over a completely capitalist economy.

Socialism, when used in the correct sense, refers to a world planned economy in which rival nation states do not exist. Socialism is the next stage of human development, and has not yet come into existence.

Contrary to what both the Stalinists and Western propaganda maintain, socialism cannot exist in a single country. The Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites were never "socialist" - they were Stalinist dictatorships.

The current regimes in Ukraine and Russia are the result of the liquidation of the Soviet Union, when the Stalinists used their political power and wealth to privatise the former nationalised wealth and convert themselves into capitalist oligarchs.In other words, from their very origins, all the national governments created from the liquidation of the former Soviet Union are based on the plundering of what was formerly state assets. All of these governments therefore are based on corruption, social parasitism, extreme nationalism etc.

 

[Jamolad]

I guess there's no point continuing to arguie along these lines.

Why is there no point? I've made clear my positions but will summarise below, so you can let me know what you can't answer:

Why do you think attacking Russian civilian centres is the only option for Ukraine?

If not their only option, why do you think that is the option they will take?

Do you think attacking Russian civilian centres will benefit Ukraine?

If it is obvious to you (and us) they will not benefit from attacking Russian civilian centres, why do you think Ukraine cannot see what we can see?

If your argument is Ukraine knows it is not a good idea, but they will do it out of revenge for Russian atrocities, why have they not taken that revenge in any of the many opportunities they have had and currently have?

As usual time will tell.

Can you give us a timeframe? How long do we have to wait to know who was right?

Otherwise this is a piss-weak cop out. Anyone can make an outlandish prediction and hide behind "time will tell" when challenged, as without a timeframe for their prediction to occur they can never be proven wrong, you'll just keep telling us to be patient.

 

[CD Xbow]

....Russia has not devastated any countries based on a pack of lies either (Iraq, 2003)

I think 20+ million Urainians would disagree. You have a blindfold on.

 

[Chadwiko]

Russia has not devastated any countries based on a pack of lies either (Iraq, 2003)

LOL.

Tell me you have no idea about history, without telling me.

Let's ignore the current situation in Ukraine for a moment, and just ponder the brutality that Afghanistan experienced in the 1980s.

Let alone the enormous cruelty and oppression that many of the fringe Soviet countries experienced under the USSR regime to keep them in-line.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I think 20+ million Urainians would disagree. You have a blindfold on.

Rose coloured glasses, or is that Russian Red?

 

[Zidane98]

This statement proves that you are not worth engaging with, if more proof were needed.

Good, because you are being schooled in this thread about your blatant amplification of pro Russian propaganda where the will of Ukraine and its people who have decided a long time ago to no longer be pillaged by fascist Russians is clearly last on your agenda. It goes back to the belief that Ukraine isn't a real state, Ukranian people aren't real, they couldn't possibly want to pursue a path of European integration themselves.

 

[IlovethePies]

I think 20+ million Urainians would disagree. You have a blindfold on.

Russia has indeed inflicted terrible damage on ukraine.

Does not approach the same level of magnitude and intensity compared with the US backed genocide in Gaza (for which the US is equally responsible as Israel) nor the complete destruction of the nation of Iraq.

And for those who want to go back further than 25 years (that poster who brought up the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) let's also reference the barbarism that the US inflicted on Vietnam,

The history of the US is that of the most powerful imperialist nation. Straight after WW2 reorganised the world economy, which had been destroyed by WW2. From 1945 to about 1965, the US was the undisputed hegemon of world capitalism.

Since then it has been declining relative to its rivals,- especially China - and as history demonstrates, when the global hegemon is challenged, there is no limit to how much violence it will unleash to defend its position.

This is why the US has used its Ukrainian stooges in the Zelensky regime to pressure Putin into making the disastrous decision of invading Ukraine.This is why the US is arming Israel and is in fact supervising its military decisions. Nothing Netanyahu does is done without US knowledge and approval. At the moment, Israel is destroying Iran's allies and proxies in the Middle East, and soon Iran itself will be directly targeted by the US and Israel.

All around the world, the US is using its proxy military forces - armed and trained by the US military, and always with US military on the ground as well, or firing missiles from the air - to destablise and ultimately overthrow regimes which are in some way blocking it from full access to resources and raw materials.

If this is interpreted to be an apology for Russia by those here, it is simply because they are unable/do not wish to break out of an extremely narrow and suffocating ideological framework, ie that of US propaganda.

They do not wish, or are not capable of breaking from the main US propaganda narrative: "the war in Ukraine was unprovoked, it was caused only by Putin's innate lust to expand, and the US and NATO are only there to protect freedom and democracy in Ukraine" ( I laughed as I typed that propaganda narrative - it is just such an absurd fantasy take on reality.)

 

[IlovethePies]

Why do you think attacking Russian civilian centres is the only option for Ukraine?

If not their only option, why do you think that is the option they will take?

Do you think attacking Russian civilian centres will benefit Ukraine?

If it is obvious to you (and us) they will not benefit from attacking Russian civilian centres, why do you think Ukraine cannot see what we can see?

If your argument is Ukraine knows it is not a good idea, but they will do it out of revenge for Russian atrocities, why have they not taken that revenge in any of the many opportunities they have had and currently have?

Putin has changed the nuclear doctrine of Russia, expanding greatly the conditions under which Russia could resort to nuclear weapons.

If the Putin regime believes that the actions of NATO threatens it existentially, there is no reason to doubt that it will use nuclear weapons.

Afterall, the US in 1945 used nuclear weapons against Japan when the US government was NOT existentially threatened. Why do you think it impossible for Putin to do so if he and his advisors believed that his government is on the verge of collapse/ military defeat?

Putin has observed what US imperialism does to those whom it overthrows (Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Milosevic) - he doesn't want to end up like them.

Attacking Russian civilian centres will not benefit Ukraine at all. It will, as I mentioned, very likely trigger nuclear war. But as I have made clear so many times, this war is not about what benefits Ukraine. The US government could not give a damn about the fate of Ukraine or the Ukrainian people. Ukraine is small change for US imperialism in its drive to reassert its dominance against its rivals.

The Zelensky regime and the handful of Ukrainian capitalist oligarchs that it represents are bought off agents of US imperialism. The fascists in the leadership of the Ukrainian army would be right now as I type placing enormous pressure on Zelensky to use long range missiles against Russian cities.

At the moment, he is resisting. But the US won't let this war go to waste, after all the billions of dollars they have already funnelled into the ukrainian war effort. So, if the Ukrainian army goes into ongoing collapse, what is the next move?
US and NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine? Ukraine targeting Russian civilian centres?

Whatever it is, it is Russian roulette with nuclear armageddon being the weapon of death.

 

[Zidane98]

This bloke cannot be negotiated with.


The world will not take credence to any of Putin's red lines, they are all nonsense.


The wishes of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine is the most important thing in this war. They've spoken and they reject Russian fascism being imposed on them by a USSER era dinosaur unequivocally.

 

[wannabejack]

This bloke cannot be negotiated with.


The world will not take credence to any of Putin's red lines, they are all nonsense.


The wishes of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine is the most important thing in this war. They've spoken and they reject Russian fascism being imposed on them by a USSER era dinosaur unequivocally.

Aug. 4, 2023 (Still applies)

Why There Will Be No Negotiating with Putin - The Moscow Times

Opinion | Читайте русскую версию здесь. “No one wants to negotiate with Russia,” President Vladimir Putin has complained several times on camera in recent days.

www.themoscowtimes.com

The difficulty lies in the fact that negotiations with Putin are currently pointless because he cannot make any meaningful commitments. He can make promises in words, but in reality, these promises are worthless. Over his 20-year rule, he has promised practically everything — his signature is on the border treaty with Ukraine [January 28, 2003] , for example. And he violated all of it. Over the past two years, he has broken almost every promise he made. [note the article was written 2023]

The same applies to those who could engage in negotiations. Who would negotiate with Lavrov, Polyanskiy, Antonov, and other “diplomats” who lied to the whole world about Bucha with a straight face?

 

[tricknologist]

This is what the people who keep going on about negotiations don't get. Putin constantly negotiates in bad faith and has a zero-sum understanding of politics. Unless he's strongarmed or coerced, negotiations will never provide an equitable outcome or security for Ukraine. If you actually care about Ukrainians and their national sovereignty, then you should be in favour of supporting them in their fight against an expansionist authoritarian power.

 

[jatz14]

Really?

In my list I did not enumerate all the wars that the US has been involved in on the African continent, but they are a similar to the number that Russia has been involved in because that is where the US and Russia are competing for influence (along with China).

As for the ones you are listing re Chechnya, Georgia, these countries are on the borders of Russia, not across the globe, (but the targets of the US are). We are comparing "expansion of empires". Russia's expansion, according to your own list, could only be considered to be around its periphery, while that of the US is truly global.

On the basis of any objective assessment ( I doubt you are capable of this though) it is clear that the US is much more of an expansionist nation than Russia.

Russia has not devastated any countries based on a pack of lies either (Iraq, 2003)

Moreover, given that the US incinerated the nation of Iraq based on criminal lies about non-existent weapons of mass destruction, why do you swallow so easily their latest propaganda narrative, that "Putin woke up one day on the wrong side of the bed and "unprovoked", decided to invade Ukraine?

How many of those wars involved a country that the US had declared was really a part of the US?

Americans, unlike Russians, Don March into a country and declare, your all Americans now.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jatz14]

Really?

In my list I did not enumerate all the wars that the US has been involved in on the African continent, but they are a similar to the number that Russia has been involved in because that is where the US and Russia are competing for influence (along with China).

As for the ones you are listing re Chechnya, Georgia, these countries are on the borders of Russia, not across the globe, (but the targets of the US are). We are comparing "expansion of empires". Russia's expansion, according to your own list, could only be considered to be around its periphery, while that of the US is truly global.

On the basis of any objective assessment ( I doubt you are capable of this though) it is clear that the US is much more of an expansionist nation than Russia.

Russia has not devastated any countries based on a pack of lies either (Iraq, 2003)

Moreover, given that the US incinerated the nation of Iraq based on criminal lies about non-existent weapons of mass destruction, why do you swallow so easily their latest propaganda narrative, that "Putin woke up one day on the wrong side of the bed and "unprovoked", decided to invade Ukraine?

Russia hasn't destroyed any country based on a pack of lies?

A statement only possible from someone that believes, with their whole heart, any lies Russia makes.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Zidane98]

Russia hasn't destroyed any country based on a pack of lies?

A statement only possible from someone that believes, with their whole heart, any lies Russia makes.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

A statement that only a person so consumed in propaganda can possibly believe Putin's NATO lies about the Ukraine invasion.

 

[wannabejack]

The Book | Vatnik Soup

#vatniksoup is a Twitter thread series (and a hashtag!) where I’ll introduce pro-Russian actors and propagandists from around the world, be they so-called “independent journalists”, politicians, military personnel or just regular grifters looking to make some easy money.

vatniksoup.com

Russian agents have always lied. They lied in the past. They are lying now. Times are changing, Russian lies are not. Surprisingly, in today’s fast-paced and transparent world of digital technologies, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish lies and disinformation from the truth. Especially when it is your eternal enemy who spreads this manipulation and who has reached great heights in the art of manipulation over a century of such activity.

 

[CD Xbow]

The Book | Vatnik Soup

#vatniksoup is a Twitter thread series (and a hashtag!) where I’ll introduce pro-Russian actors and propagandists from around the world, be they so-called “independent journalists”, politicians, military personnel or just regular grifters looking to make some easy money.

vatniksoup.com

Russian agents have always lied. They lied in the past. They are lying now. Times are changing, Russian lies are not. Surprisingly, in today’s fast-paced and transparent world of digital technologies, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish lies and disinformation from the truth. Especially when it is your eternal enemy who spreads this manipulation and who has reached great heights in the art of manipulation over a century of such activity.

I'm buying a copy for Barroness and Ilovethepies for Xmas. I hope they enjoy them.

 

[Jamolad]

One thing I will give Iateallthepies is they have not quoted kiddie-fiddler Scott Ritter...yet

 

[wannabejack]

One thing I will give Iateallthepies is they have not quoted kiddie-fiddler Scott Ritter...yet

At first I only noticed the teal part of the name.

 

[tricknologist]

Russia is really good at destabilising Western democracies, but their defence strategy and foreign policy are ****ing hilarious. They've spent years struggling to deal with a Ukrainian military that's defending themselves with Cold War hand-me-downs, they couldn't stop Hezbollah from being decapitated, and now they might fail to stop one of their closest allies being toppled by a bunch of rebels. Gas station with nukes, indeed.

 

[wannabejack]

Romanian court annuls election votes after Russian interference fears

The Constitutional Court's unprecedented decision came after Romania's president declassified intelligence that alleged Russia ran a coordinated social media campaign to promote a far-right outsider.

www.abc.net.au

In short:​

A top Romanian court has annulled the first round of the country's presidential election, after allegations that Russia ran a campaign to promote the far-right outsider.
Despite declaring zero campaign spending, Calin Georgescu emerged as the frontrunner after gaining popularity on TikTok and Telegram.

What's next?
Romania's president said that once a new government was formed, new dates would be set to re-run the vote from scratch.