What is really happening in the Ukraine Conflict?

[Scott777]

For some reason, you have dodged this completely, despite lying about not trying to dodge it.  Just like you dodged our discussion about climate change.  Just admit, whenever you realise you are wrong, you cowardly slither away.

[Scott777]

So the Ukrainian army in 2022:
- around 200k servicemen (including reserves)
- less than 2kntanks (1k active, 1k reserves)
- less than 100 combat jets
- no navy to speak of
- no nuclear weapons (having given them up in exchange for a Russian guarentee of territorial integrity)

Was a threat to a country with:
- 1m active servicemen + 2m reserves
- more then 3k active tanks + vastly more in storage
- over 1000 active combat jets
- the back sea fleet
- world's largest nuclear arsenal

It is not civilised, respectable or honest when you debate.  No further discussion with the serpent until it admits when it is wrong.

[Scott777]

No I'm not, you're avoiding the point. I asked if you had proof an external country was
responsible for the revolution as you said? You called it a coup driven by NATO, prove it.

No, Nick, that was never the point of our discussion.  You said "NATO has expanded because countries joined voluntarily", so we began debating whether Ukraine was voluntary in moving towards joining NATO, and whether other countries did so voluntarily.  We were not debating whether NATO forced them.  That's a separate point.  So, given that the revolution changed the state of Ukraine from being neutral to pro-EU and pro-NATO, then it was forced by revolutionaries.

We can also discuss who was behind the revolution, but stop changing the debate.

[Scott777]

Yes, but installing pro Russian or Western puppets is interfering but going one step further isn't it?

The invasion of Ukraine when one is obsessed with Russian imperialism, as Putin is, is proof of imperialism when they say Ukraine doesn't "even exist"

Agreed, to the first.  I've seen no evidence of Russian imperialism.  Did Russia install any pro Russian puppet?  I don't know, but I've seen no evidence.  Yanukovich, for example, was not pro Russian, he was neutral.

[Scott777]

perhaps you forget that Yanukovich was pro getting close to the EU until December 2013 having been elected on such a platform.  But the EU rightly refused to do any deal until Ukraine ended its legendary corruption.  Well serial embezzler and imprisoner of political rivals Yanukovich couldn't agree to that so he did that deal with Putin.  And that's when the protests broke out - all of Yanukovich's initiation. 

But he wasn't elected on a pro-EU platform.  Trade negotiations are not the same as being pro-EU.  He pledged to remain non-aligned in defence policy.  Then after the revolution, the new government and president were pro EU.

[BeElBeeBub]

The invasion of Ukraine is not evidence of imperialism.  As I have said, he invaded because Ukraine was a threat, and it remains to be seen what will happen to it.  

So the Ukrainian army in 2022:
- around 200k servicemen (including reserves)
- less than 2kntanks (1k active, 1k reserves) 
- less than 100 combat jets
- no navy to speak of
- no nuclear weapons (having given them up in exchange for a Russian guarentee of territorial integrity) 

Was a threat to a country with:
- 1m active servicemen + 2m reserves
- more then 3k active tanks + vastly more in storage 
- over 1000 active combat jets
- the back sea fleet 
- world's largest nuclear arsenal

[Nick]

You're changing the point of the subject.  We were discussing if the state of Ukraine was anti-EU before the revolution and pro-EU after.  You denied it, but provided no evidence, let alone proof.  The facts are the government AND president were influenced by a revolution, becoming pro-EU BEFORE a vote to remove the president.  It's a separate point whether the revolution was CIA or not.

No I'm not, you're avoiding the point. I asked if you had proof an external country was
responsible for the revolution as you said? You called it a coup driven by NATO, prove it. 

[Borg Refinery]

Russians shooting prisoners.  https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/06/europe/video-russia-surrendering-ukrainian-soldiers-killed-intl-cmd/index.html

Nothing new about that but this time it's been captured on film.  This is just another facet of the gross immorality that Ukraine is resisting and we should be helping them in that.

Both sides have killed and even tortured POWs in this war

[Borg Refinery]

The invasion of Ukraine is not evidence of imperialism.  As I have said, he invaded because Ukraine was a threat, and it remains to be seen what will happen to it.  And as I already said, subscribing to some beliefs does not imply subscribing to all of them.  You are simply using the "guilty by association" false logic.

I didn't give a definition of 'sovereign'.  "Trying to interfere in its affairs" is certainly not the definition.

Yes, but installing pro Russian or Western puppets is interfering but going one step further isn't it?

The invasion of Ukraine when one is obsessed with Russian imperialism, as Putin is, is proof of imperialism when they say Ukraine doesn't "even exist"

[Unlucky4Sum]

Russians shooting prisoners.   https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/06/europe/video-russia-surrendering-ukrainian-soldiers-killed-intl-cmd/index.html

Nothing new about that but this time it's been captured on film.  This is just another facet of the gross immorality that Ukraine is resisting and we should be helping them in that. 

[Scott777]

Evidence that Putin is imperialist includes things such as him invading Georgia and Ukraine and the fact Dugin is in his inner circle and he subscribes to Dugin's beliefs.

The invasion of Ukraine is not evidence of imperialism.  As I have said, he invaded because Ukraine was a threat, and it remains to be seen what will happen to it.  And as I already said, subscribing to some beliefs does not imply subscribing to all of them.  You are simply using the "guilty by association" false logic.

No Ukraine wasn't "sovereign" until the Maidan coup (using your definition of sovereign), both the West and Russia have been trying to interfere in its affairs for years prior to that just as they have done after that, many of their presidents have either been puppets for one or the other

I didn't give a definition of 'sovereign'.  "Trying to interfere in its affairs" is certainly not the definition.

[Unlucky4Sum]

You're changing the point of the subject.  We were discussing if the state of Ukraine was anti-EU before the revolution and pro-EU after.  You denied it, but provided no evidence, let alone proof.  The facts are the government AND president were influenced by a revolution, becoming pro-EU BEFORE a vote to remove the president.  It's a separate point whether the revolution was CIA or not.

perhaps you forget that Yanukovich was pro getting close to the EU until December 2013 having been elected on such a platform.  But the EU rightly refused to do any deal until Ukraine ended its legendary corruption.   Well serial embezzler and imprisoner of political rivals Yanukovich couldn't agree to that so he did that deal with Putin.  And that's when the protests broke out - all of Yanukovich's initiation.  

[Scott777]

Parliament had voted for the EU association agreement before the protests. Viktor Yanukovich had said he would sign the agreement before the protests.

The protests erupted because VY suddenly reversed course. The Lithuanian foreign minister claims VY told her it was directly because of pressure from Russia (who had taken economic steps and and made threats about Ukraine moving towards the EU)

So to say that Ukraine was anti EU before the revolution is bollocks. The revolution happened because Ukraine wanted closer ties with the EU and they were thwarted

I'm ignoring this comment completely, because this is between Nick and I, and if you slither your way out whenever you know you're wrong, then don't slither your way into someone else's discussions.

[Scott777]

And are you disputing that the US being neutral for the first year of WWII allowed for a Nazi victory to be more likely?  And did that make them on the side of Nazis?  You are trying to dodge it.  Fess up.

I'm not trying to doge it, I'm standing by it. 

For some reason, you have dodged this completely, despite lying about not trying to dodge it.  Just like you dodged our discussion about climate change.  Just admit, whenever you realise you are wrong, you cowardly slither your way out it.

[Scott777]

They have an obligation against extradition if JA can demonstrate a substantial risk of torture. There would also be the onward request from the UK as well. But the point is his protection was no worse (and probably better) in Sweden vs the UK.

If Sweden had a policy of extraditing anyone at the slightest hint of a US request, no questions asked, whikst the UK had a history of being extremely tough on requests then he would have a point. But the two jurisdictions were similar in their treatment of requests. So there was no additional risk.

And once again, you behave like a slippery snake, slithering out of your previous claim that there is an obligation against extradition.  Now you admit it's a conditional obligation, which is not the same thing.  The rest is all in your opinion, but you're not a legal expert, so none of this shows why Assange refused to go to Sweden.

You're right, I forgot he decided to stop fighting extradition and took a plea deal. Interestingly his deal included him going to a US territory to appear in US court - surrendering to US jurisdiction (which he was so afraid of). Now the only way he would do that is because the details had been worked out before hand and the US had promised the UK and Australia they would follow the script and allow him onwards home after he appeared in court. So.afger all his "oh noes I can't go to Sweden because they might ha d me over to the big bad USA" he happily took assurances and went to the USA. It's almost as if it was Sweden he didn't want to go to....

Another false claim.  They really are mounting up.  Not true he: "took assurances and went to the USA."  And the flaw in your argument is that he successfully avoided going there.  Just because he "happily took assurances" to go, does not mean he intended to go, if he knew it would be avoided.

No, his lawyer said he was prepared to go under specific conditions. That's not the same as being prepared to go.

But he agreed based on those conditions, and if they had accepted the conditions, then he would have had to go to Sweden, so yes, he was prepared to go.  Please stop wasting my time with your bullshite analogies.