What is really happening in the Ukraine Conflict?

[Nick]

Ukraine did not voluntarily have a coup in which the government was replaced with a pro-NATO one.  And then there's the EU.  Tell me, Nick, did we voluntarily join the EU?  That is also a threat to Russia.

That is just Russian propaganda, like everything that comes out of Russia, it's BS. 

As for the EU, that's just whataboutery, just cause we were taken into a political union without a say doesn't mean others were. 

[Unlucky4Sum]

I agree that Maidan was a US-EU backed coup  . .

Nope.  Just because thousands of Russian bot accounts say something does not make it true.

Yanukovich was voted out of office by a parliament his own party had a majority in.  Just because just about every right thinking person incl the USA, EU and UK leaderships wanted the deceitful, embezzling and eventually murdering Putin puppet gone does not make it an externally organised coup.

[Scott777]

NATO has expanded because countries joined voluntarily

Ukraine did not voluntarily have a coup in which the government was replaced with a pro-NATO one.  And then there's the EU.  Tell me, Nick, did we voluntarily join the EU?  That is also a threat to Russia.

[Scott777]

I disagree that it was political, he was subject to extradition due to legal reasons, IE risking the lives of American citizens by posting top secret documents. Just because I government is after you doesn't make it political.

It was political because what he revealed was politically very problematic for politicians.

[Nick]

I don't think Dugin means Putin is imperialist.  It's not evidence he is, just because Putin likes him.  It's possible to like some things and not others.  All things considered, NATO had expanded far more than Russia has with Crimea and territory from Georgia. Ukraine remains to be seen whether it will be part of Russia or just a neutral country.

NATO has expanded because countries joined voluntarily: due to Russia. NATO didn't invade Sweden or Norway. And the second the war is over Ukraine WILL join NATO, then Russia has totally failed in it's objective of keeping NATO away from its border, it will have achieved the exact opposite. 

[Nick]

No, you derailed it.  I pointed out Assange is an activist in political opposition who was imprisoned, because Nick said:

"Also, not heard of any political opposition in the U.K. disappearing or getting necked."

YOU decided to argue about it.  The fact remains, he is political opposition, and he was imprisoned.

I disagree that it was political, he was subject to extradition due to legal reasons, IE risking the lives of American citizens by posting top secret documents. Just because I government is after you doesn't make it political. 

[Scott777]

And talk of how Ukraine today shouldn't even be a sovereign country?

I just have to point out, Ukraine was sovereign until the Maidan coup.  Did Putin have a problem with that sovereignty?

[Scott777]

It was wrong to invade and take their territory full stop, just as it was to annex Crimea in 2014. They took territory from Georgia as well back in 2008 and have had designs on Ukraine since the breakup of the USSR, they've never even considered them a distinct nationality, so yes imperialist is the correct fit. You have to understand that Putin's mastermind wants an empire "from Dublin to Vladivostok" and that's in his own words (Alexander Dugin)

I don't think Dugin means Putin is imperialist.  It's not evidence he is, just because Putin likes him.  It's possible to like some things and not others.  All things considered, NATO had expanded far more than Russia has with Crimea and territory from Georgia. Ukraine remains to be seen whether it will be part of Russia or just a neutral country.

[Scott777]

Anyway, to swerve Scots derailing,

No, you derailed it.  I pointed out Assange is an activist in political opposition who was imprisoned, because Nick said:

"Also, not heard of any political opposition in the U.K. disappearing or getting necked."

YOU decided to argue about it.  The fact remains, he is political opposition, and he was imprisoned.

[Scott777]

It's not up to the defendant to make those requests.

"m'lud you cannot extradite.me.as.sweden has not responded to my request for a helicopter and a pony"

Strawman!

He wasn't trying to justify staying in the Ecuadorian Embassy by saying he was threatened with extradition.  It was his reason, not a legal justification.  A defendant can make any request he wants.  It's not up to you to decide he can't.

[Scott777]

"the extraditiring country won't agree to my demands" isn't a defence.

The defendant doesn't get to make demands or impose conditions.

An explicit blanket guarentee somebody won't be extradited onwards is not the defendants to request.

I never said it was a defence.  The offer was made, which proves that he was prepared to go to Sweden, and not afraid of the allegations, and ONLY refused because of the extradition threat.

As for him not being charged -
Swedish law differs from UK (and quite a lot of other) jurisdictions. In the UK the charge comes at a very eaelymstage, when there is suspicion. The investigation then takes place whilst the person is either free on bail or remanded to custody depending on circumstance. At the end of the investigation the decision to prosecute (or not) is made. So we often charge people and then decide not to prosecute when the evidence has been gathered.

In Sweden the charge takes place at the end of the investigation when the evidence has been weighed and the decision to prosecute has been made. In essence the Swedish charge is similar to the UK decision to prosecute. The defendant is bright to court to be formally charged, the judge then (unless they decide to refuse the charge) sets the various trial.procedures going.

It was this process that JA was wanted for. They needed him to stand in a Swedish court to be formally charged and then moved onto trail.

He wasn't charged, as you claimed.

There were no extradition requess to the US and should one have been made once he was in Sweden JA would have the protection of both the UK, Swedish and the Echr courts against extradition to face torture.

You don't know he would have had protection of both the Swedish and the Echr courts.  You're not a legal expert.

[Nick]

Given that the Russian banking system is suspended from the US banking system, I fail to see how any actual exchange rate can exist. Given the further restrictions and likelihood of having your dollars frozen and even stolen, I would not be surprised to see the dollar achieve little than junk status on the black market,

This just goes to show how little you ACTUALLY know about the economy of Russia. 
When I entered Russia I had $3000 in cash, I was asked how much I had and told them. The money was neither confiscated nor stolen, why would they do that as the USD is the life blood of their economy ATM? When I was there the RUB was about 38 to the Dollar, I was getting 90+ sometimes. The thing that you are missing in your analysis is that without the USD nobody can leave Russia, they cannot spend Rubbles or use credit cards abroad so the USD is vital, hence the reason I got 3 times the rate. 
There are only really two ways to exit Russia, one with Emirates and the other Turkish Airlines, that gives Russians only two viable holiday destinations: Dubai or Turkey, Russians get their pants pulled down twice, once when they buy my dollars and once when they exchange it abroad. 

So your analysis that the dollar is junk just shows your total lack of understanding of the Russian situation. 

[BeElBeeBub]

I don't think Russia counted on any major resistance. They assumed it would go similar to 2014. They would roll in, capture Hostmel airport, have troops in Kyiv day 1. The government would flee and by the time the West realises what had happened Ukraine would have an interim government and there would be little the west coukd do.

Their tactics speak to an assumption of little to no resistance. Fast "thunder rus" out pacing logistics and antinair cover. That is not the way you advance if you expect resistance. 

[Borg Refinery]

None of which are members of the Russian Government. No one there ever said it, evena  real Firebrand like Mebvedev. Most people at the time were saying that without NATO support the Russians would have steam rolled the country in a few weeks, which was a view based on what happened when the Russians did intervene directly for a short time in both 2014 and 2015.

I still read in other posts from various members the tabloid view of Putin wanting to invade the world etc etc. I do agree with Scott on the backgroud to the crisis and have no doubt that the Maidan was a US/EU backed coup. Simply the sight of the senior EU and US officials handing out tea and cookies to the crowd make that very clear and then of course there is the Nueland phone call intercept.

I agree that Maidan was a US-EU backed coup and the West have done many similar things re interference in both Ukraine and other nearby countries, the Maidan coup was just one in a long running saga as I'm sure you full well know. They also interfered in Russia's presidential election in 1996 to stop the Communists from winning - Clinton himself did so. It's hypocritical of the West to complain about a lot of stuff, nonetheless, that still can't justify imperialism and invading a sovereign country and that's that - full stop, it's not acceptable when any country does it - Western or otherwise - so you can't accuse me of being a hypocrite about it

If they're not imperialist, why does Putin refer to the ancient Kyivan Rus and the great Empire they built up then? And talk of how Ukraine today shouldn't even be a sovereign country?

I find it hilarious that the nominally Russian Orthodox United Russia party and their preferred candidate, Putin, does anything but actually follow their religion while priests bless nuclear missiles with holy water, a practice they stopped after the outcry.

I suggest they knew Ukraine was going to get full NATO support, so saying they'd invade it successfully in a few weeks is basically a lie

[Borg Refinery]

Without understanding the orginal language, it is hard to get the precise meaning. Maybe he was saying SB being a hero to some Ukrainians is a good thing. .. Or maybe the construction is more "SB is viewed as a hero by some Ukrainians and that's their right"

This is a lie. The meaning has been explained more than once ^