What is really happening in the Ukraine Conflict?

[Unlucky4Sum]

I don't have to qualify my claims if they have not been disputed.  So what are you disputing?  That there was a revolution?

Your corrupt, embezzling, Putin aligning man was voted out of office after members of his own party discovered he had ordered snipers to shoot unarmed protesters.  No revolution.

Here have the contemporaneous account of events of that day  https://archive.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/euromaidan-rallies-in-ukraine-feb-21-live-updates-337287.html

'Parliament votes 328-0 to impeach Yanukovych'

[Nick]

Well, thank god Putin is no longer a WEF young leader.  I don't like Putin, would never want to help him in any way, but he is preventing the one world government to an extent.  As I pointed out before, they provide us with alternative media, such as during the lockdowns.

They provide you with official Kremlin lies is what they do. 

[Borg Refinery]

Well, thank god Putin is no longer a WEF young leader.  I don't like Putin, would never want to help him in any way, but he is preventing the one world government to an extent.  As I pointed out before, they provide us with alternative media, such as during the lockdowns.

The stuff on RT.com is often as counter-factual as Western media, if not more so, not that I am in favour of censoring it.

And Putin himself is just as greedy and corrupt as any Western leader, they really are no better the govt over there, they just decided to invade another country and that's the main difference, ours are just better at hiding it

[Scott777]

I understand what you're saying, but you should understand that he was a WEF young leader once upon a time, Putin, he had good friendships with Blair and Bush etc and was very much integrated into the "world order". The fact is he just got as greedy as Western leaders, but they didn't want Russia to be as powerful as they were so pushed back against them, leading to Putin's attempts to bully his neighbours and increase both power and territory

That's why I feel such little sympathy for him. The Russian people are a different matter.

Well, thank god Putin is no longer a WEF young leader.  I don't like Putin, would never want to help him in any way, but he is preventing the one world government to an extent.  As I pointed out before, they provide us with alternative media, such as during the lockdowns.

[Scott777]

That the CIA was behind it. That they planned it

No, that's not what Nick was disputing.  Our conversation went like this:

There are 2 separate points.

The state of Ukraine was forced into being pro EU & NATO against their will.  That's a fact.

Hang on, you can't just say something, call it fact and give no evidence.

So the "fact" that Nick called into question was not WHO forced Ukraine to change.

[Scott777]

An association agreement is one of the way you interface with thr EU to raise your living standards.

But not the only way.

You get easier trade, your citizens can travel  live and work in Europe more easily. You can attract investment from Europe more easily. You have access to development funds to improve your infrastructure etc.

So of you want to improve the living standards of your people it"s the obvious first step.

But not the only step, and not a specific step he was elected on.

He then spent 3 years openly negotiating such an agreement only to U turn at the last minute.
The people (notably young ones) who had the prospect of easier travel and work in the much richer EU (it won't have escaped the Ukrainian people how the living standards of the other ex-Soviet eastern European countries increased over the last 2 decades) suddenly snatched away.

All AFTER he was elected, so not snatched away from what people voted for.

You tell some kids you're all going to euro Disney, then just before say "nah, we're going to Uncle Vlads place" - they'll be pissed off.

So pissed off about not going to euro Disney they started a violent revolution?  Going to uncle Vlad's place was actually part of his campaign (promise of better relations with Russia).

[Borg Refinery]

I said they were NAZI collaborators - dunno how much clearer I can be.

It's entirely possible to collaborate with a foreign power and and be a nationalist. It doesn't excuse your actions. If you collaborate with Nazis you are as bad as them regardless of any other ideals you had.

And the Soviets were arseholes. Not only did they do a bunch of killing themselves but also allied with thr NAZIs directly.

In 1928, Churchill said very favourable things about Fascism, FDR thought Fascism was excellent as late as 1933 and Keynes too, many other Western leaders thought similarly and that Fascism was a useful bulwark against Communism.

The fact they latter turned on us didn't seem like it would ever become an issue, they were our friends. The same problems were had with Islamic terrorists in the 1980s when Western governments saw them as useful to kill Commies, but later turned on the West.

Are you noticing a repeating pattern here?

[BeElBeeBub]

Well no worries, we all saw what you wrote before

They weren't nationalists who were Nazi collaborators, they were Nazis, They killed Jews and Poles and wore National Socialist symbols.

There's nothing patriotic about what they did.

Sorry, but it doesn't make us ones who "struggle" for reading your words as they were clearly intended before, you downplayed Nazi atrocities and presented the Soviets as the worse option. That's Western propaganda of the worst kind

I said they were NAZI collaborators - dunno how much clearer I can be.

It's entirely possible to collaborate with a foreign power and and be a nationalist. It doesn't excuse your actions. If you collaborate with Nazis you are as bad as them regardless of any other ideals you had.

And the Soviets were arseholes. Not only did they do a bunch of killing themselves but also allied with thr NAZIs directly. 

[Borg Refinery]

It only seems strange if you expect a simplistic answer.  It's all about power.  NATO does not have all the power.  The richest people have the power.  Bill Gates, George Soros, Jeff Bezos, families like Getty, Rockefeller.  They all benefit from globalisation, and Russia is a thorn in the side of that agenda.  NATO serves that agenda, as does Zelensky.

The question for them is, how to remove Russia without starting WWIII and while not alienating the Western population.  So it has to be done strategically, and while appearing to be moral.  They can't just bulldoze their way through Russia.

If Russia didn't have nukes (just like NK and Iran), it's probable the West would just bulldoze their way through Russia

[Borg Refinery]

No worries.  Then just for clarification, I don't view the invasion in terms of right and wrong, because it makes no sense to me.  If we had a one world government (thank god we don't), they could decide what is right and wrong in a global sense.  But because Russia is its own thing, independent of any global sense of right and wrong, we should view it in terms of the Russian Bear.  What matters is how to avoid a fight with a bear, not whether the bear is right or wrong, because we cannot impose that on a bear.  We can try, but it does not have to accept it.  And the way to avoid such a conflict is not to poke the bear.  Calling Russia "the bad guys" or "the good guys" does nothing to help the situation.  Certainly I would not like to be on the wrong side of Putin, for fear of being disappeared.

I understand what you're saying, but you should understand that he was a WEF young leader once upon a time, Putin, he had good friendships with Blair and Bush etc and was very much integrated into the "world order". The fact is he just got as greedy as Western leaders, but they didn't want Russia to be as powerful as they were so pushed back against them, leading to Putin's attempts to bully his neighbours and increase both power and territory

That's why I feel such little sympathy for him. The Russian people are a different matter.

[Borg Refinery]

I click on links.

Let vs lit some context around your extract.
Here is the direct quote fro. HRW

Ukrainian forces have used cluster munitions that caused deaths and serious injuries to civilians. Russian forces have extensively used cluster munitions, causing many civilian deaths and serious injuries.

The HRW report confirmed 8 deaths and 15 injuries with likely more unreported.

There is a difference in scale and use of cluster munitions between the sides.

Cluster bombs are militariliy useful weapons but there are. 2 objections.

1. They have a wide area of effect. This is. What. Makes them useful, but does make using them near civilians dangerous
2. They often leave unexploded bomb let's that pose a threat to civians for years afterwards.

Issue 1 solved by restrained use - Ukraine has used fewer and against military targets with less chance of civilians nearby (doesn't mean zero chance). Russia has used far.more and over heavily civilian areas.

Issue 2 is more a philosophical point. Ukraine is using the munitions on itvs own territory in an existential war. That is itvs choice. Russia is using them on foreign soil in an expansion war. Itvs the.dofference between letting my.dog shit on my lawn or sending it next door to shit on my neighbours lawn.

.

"Issue 1 solved by restrained use - Ukraine has used fewer and against military targets with less chance of civilians nearby (doesn't mean zero chance). Russia has used far.more and over heavily civilian areas."

"solved"

Yeah, solved for all the civilians killed and HRW think it's "solved" despite calling them out for using it?

I have no idea what you tried to write with all the typos and random full stops and all kinds of gibberish you were putting into that post, maybe your comp is malfunctioning, but I can't read it and don't intend to try and read the rest, it appears not to be me who's struggling ..

[Borg Refinery]

Again, to be clear for those who struggle.

SB was a NAZI collaborator who committed war crimes and atrocities. The distinction between a full NAZI and collaborator is the motivation. Not everyone committing war crimes was doing so with the aim of furthering the third reich and Hitler. Some were working with them for their own ends. SB allied with Hitler for his own nationalist reasons. Stalin allied with Hitler to invade Poland. To be clear, that in no way absolves them of any guilt, but it does explain why SOME Ukrainians view SB as nationalist hero and why some Russian view Stalin as great figure of the. Soviet Union despite both having allied with the NAZIs

Again to be clear, I condemn all of them and hope they are all toasting away in hell.

Well no worries, we all saw what you wrote before

Yeah, there were NAZI collaborators in Ukraine during WW2. They were nationalists who wanted to be free from Soviet control. 

Think about how shit you habe to be that the NAZIs seem like a better option. 

They weren't nationalists who were Nazi collaborators, they were Nazis, They killed Jews and Poles and wore National Socialist symbols. 

There's nothing patriotic about what they did.

Sorry, but it doesn't make us ones who "struggle" for reading your words as they were clearly intended before, you downplayed Nazi atrocities and presented the Soviets as the worse option. That's Western propaganda of the worst kind

[BeElBeeBub]

No worries.  Then just for clarification, I don't view the invasion in terms of right and wrong, because it makes no sense to me.  If we had a one world government (thank god we don't), they could decide what is right and wrong in a global sense.  But because Russia is its own thing, independent of any global sense of right and wrong, we should view it in terms of the Russian Bear.  What matters is how to avoid a fight with a bear, not whether the bear is right or wrong, because we cannot impose that on a bear.  We can try, but it does not have to accept it.  And the way to avoid such a conflict is not to poke the bear.  Calling Russia "the bad guys" or "the good guys" does nothing to help the situation.  Certainly I would not like to be on the wrong side of Putin, for fear of being disappeared.

Even taking that view, there is still an excellent argument for supporting Ukraine. 

The bear has shown an appetite for gobbling up it's neighbours. So far it has been successful because nobody wanted to confront the bear. So the bear, unopoosed gobbles up more neighbours. 

No doubt if Ukraine had crumbled in days (as expected) and had Zelensky run (as expected) we would all be sitting here looking at thr Russian puppet government of Ukraine enthusiastically bending over for Russia. Meanwhile in Romania, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland etc Russian minorities would start agitating for protection from discrimination  etc. And then the next thing we know Lithuania or Estonia is having a revolt of concerned citizens (all wearing identical badgeless uniforms and carrying the latest Russian military issue kit). 

As it happened Zelensky didn't run, Ukraine fought back hard and bear was given a bloody nose. Now we have a chance to discourage the bear form taking bites out of itvs neighbours, and even remove itvs ability to do so.

Regardless of any moral decisions, Russia is a problem for the UK and other western powers. It has acted in bad faith or do you have another explanation for how radioactive and nerve poisons needed up being used on British soil? The fsct the Ukraine is prepared to fight Russia os great for us. We get to reduce a threat to us for the price of some of our about to expire weapons (itvs cheaper to get rid of a Brimstone or Stormshadow missile by giving to Ukraine to fire at Russian tanks than it is to decommission it in the UK)

So even in your "I make no judgements about good or bad" view opposing Russia by assisting Ukraine is still a logical thing to do. 

[BeElBeeBub]

I don't have to qualify my claims if they have not been disputed.  So what are you disputing?  That there was a revolution?

That the CIA was behind it. That they planned it

[BeElBeeBub]

So, "joining mainstream Europe one day."  "raising living standards and reforming its economy."  But not the Association Agreement.  So if that's what he was elected on, we then have to ask why there was a violent revolution, in which police and protesters were killed.  Was it really because he broke promises which were NOT part of his election campaign, or because he wasn't joining mainstream Europe "one day", or not "raising living standards and reforming its economy."  Or was it because the CIA were behind it?  Which seems more likely to you?

An association agreement is one of the way you interface with thr EU to raise your living standards. 
You get easier trade, your citizens can travel  live and work in Europe more easily. You can attract investment from Europe more easily. You have access to development funds to improve your infrastructure etc.

So of you want to improve the living standards of your people it"s the obvious first step.

He then spent 3 years openly negotiating such an agreement only to U turn at the last minute. 
The people (notably young ones) who had the prospect of easier travel and work in the much richer EU (it won't have escaped the Ukrainian people how the living standards of the other ex-Soviet eastern European countries increased over the last 2 decades) suddenly snatched away.
 
You tell some kids you're all going to euro Disney, then just before say "nah, we're going to Uncle Vlads place" - they'll be pissed off.