What is really happening in the Ukraine Conflict?

[BeElBeeBub]

.

Ukraine was forced to accept a new government in 2014.  This was NOT democratic process, and so not only was the government forced to change, but the population gave no democratic consent, and the removed president had been voted in on a "neutral military" policy.  The new government were pro NATO and pro EU, and as you well know, they now want to be in both.

I feel as if you might have galled through a wormhole from some parallel reality.... 

2010 Yanukovich elected president saying Ukraine integration with EU is a stratigic aim.
2012 negotions with EU over association agreement begin in earnest
2013 Ukraine Parliament voted to finlize agreement. VY urges them to sign the laws necessary to meet the criteria.
Mid 2013 - Russia starts restricting trade with Ukraine and healing in pressure
Nov 2013 just before agreement is to be signed VY about faces - due to Russian pressure according to Lithuanian FM. Protest start.
Feb 2014 VY signed agreement for interim government then flees next day. Day later UKR Parliament votes to remove him 
March 2014 - Russia invades crimea.
May 2014 - snap election to elect new prez are held
October 2014 - snap parliament elections held. 


So yoh can see Ukraine and VY were pro EU in the sense of wanting to sign the agreement. 

He was removed by his own parliament 

New presidential and parliamentary elections were held within the year. 

How did the population not give democratic consent? 

[Nick]

No I don't.  NATO and the EU are both military alliances, so they go together in this point.

Ukraine was forced to accept a new government in 2014.  This was NOT democratic process, and so not only was the government forced to change, but the population gave no democratic consent, and the removed president had been voted in on a "neutral military" policy.  The new government were pro NATO and pro EU, and as you well know, they now want to be in both.

The UK was brought into the EU, and subsequently a military alliance (PESCO), as a result of changes in the EEC / EU.  It was not a result of the UK's democratic choice.  Indeed, we chose to leave the EU in 2016, PESCO was first initiated in 2017, before we actually left, and therefore it was against the UK's democratic will to be initiated into PESCO.

He was neither neutral nor forced out. He was pro-Russia and was democratically voted out. 

[Scott777]

ALL NATO countries joined voluntarily, have you proof that some were forced?

No I don't.  NATO and the EU are both military alliances, so they go together in this point.

Ukraine was forced to accept a new government in 2014.  This was NOT democratic process, and so not only was the government forced to change, but the population gave no democratic consent, and the removed president had been voted in on a "neutral military" policy.  The new government were pro NATO and pro EU, and as you well know, they now want to be in both.

The UK was brought into the EU, and subsequently a military alliance (PESCO), as a result of changes in the EEC / EU.  It was not a result of the UK's democratic choice.  Indeed, we chose to leave the EU in 2016, PESCO was first initiated in 2017, before we actually left, and therefore it was against the UK's democratic will to be initiated into PESCO.

[Unlucky4Sum]

You are talking rubbish.  He clearly acknowledged both sides are doing terrible things.  That's has no relation to saying Russia is behaving fine, and is a considerable leap of logic  This divisive mentality is so disingenuous.

No he did not

He just posted that that 'Both sides have killed and even tortured POWs in this war'

Not a word of condemnation and and inference that it's OK for Russia to do it because according to him Ukraine may have

[Nick]

I certainly stated it was done by the CIA.  I may have also said NATO, at some point, but not within our conversation, so that's where you have changed what we were discussing.  If you want to change the subject, you should finish discussing whether Ukraine was voluntary in moving towards joining NATO, and whether other countries did so voluntarily.  That's what YOU disputed, before you jumped to "forced by NATO".

ALL NATO countries joined voluntarily, have you proof that some were forced? 

[Scott777]

But given you are hard of thinking I will make it really clear.

But you just swerve and go off on name calling. You are a terrible debate,

How did you master the art of hypocrisy so well?

[Scott777]

OK, here is what I find so utterly boneheaded about the whole "forced to join NATO" argument.

But you just swerve and go off on name calling. You are a terrible debate,

Hisssssss.  (I think that's your language, right?)

[BeElBeeBub]

I certainly stated it was done by the CIA.  I may have also said NATO, at some point, but not within our conversation, so that's where you have changed what we were discussing.  If you want to change the subject, you should finish discussing whether Ukraine was voluntary in moving towards joining NATO, and whether other countries did so voluntarily.  That's what YOU disputed, before you jumped to "forced by NATO".

OK, here is what I find so utterly boneheaded about the whole "forced to join NATO" argument.

NATO.is a military alliance. It's whole reason for being is to allow separate national militaries to interoperate with each other. 

The benefit of extra members is that they can back you up in a time of war.

What is the benefit to the existing members of forcing a country to join?

How do you force another military power to come to your aid if it doesn't want to? Use you troops to invade them so you can force them to send troops to help you?

The last thing any NATO member wants are reluctant members.

It would be like forcing someone to hold your safety rope when you go climbing. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Well I'm sure you will defend it if Ukraine does it, just like you defended Stepan Bandera and Nazi war criminals over there.

I'm not sure how you have any right to criticise him. Anyone who defends Nazi war criminal terrorists and infers they are heroes and concludes they are just nationalist/patriots can, in my book, have their opinions on the entire conflict discounted

You seem to have a big problem with reading comprehension. Did you have lead pipes in your childhood home?

How did you get "defended Stepan Bandera and Nazi war criminals" 

From

Quote from: BeElBeeBub 02/09/2024, 20:49

.... And, for the avoidance of doubt, I was not in anyway apologising for anything SB did. Merely pointing out that a major motivation of his was getting rid of the Soviets. A solid dash of anti-semitism probably helped him align with the NAZIs and helped him commit atrocities. It is not unusual for historical figures to be revered in one country and vilified in another. 

But given you are hard of thinking I will make it really clear. 

I condemn Bandera, he collaborated with the NAZI occupiers and committed war crimes.

Is that clear enough for you.?

Now we have both laid out our dislike of the NAZI regime, do you care to comment on Russia's Nazi problem? For example the use of the Rusich PMC or these men being in the Russian forces? 







The laa

The last guy is an MMA fighter in Russia. He is allowed to fight with those markings - no public outry, no bans. Now he is a prominent member of a PMC composed of far right football "ultras" that has fought IN Ukraine. I believe he even earned a medal. 

[Scott777]

Maybe you forget what you posted in response to a link about Russians shooting prisoners.  Lets remind you:

You are talking rubbish.  He clearly acknowledged both sides are doing terrible things.  That's has no relation to saying Russia is behaving fine, and is a considerable leap of logic  This divisive mentality is so disingenuous.

[Scott777]

This is why people find debating you so tedious, as you are so dishonest

Even though we have our disagreements, at least you don't behave like some people on here, twisting and slithering at every opportunity.  I have to give that to you.  😉

[Scott777]

You categorically stated that the incumbent Ukraine government was installed by third party NATO interference, you need to qualify that statement.

I certainly stated it was done by the CIA.  I may have also said NATO, at some point, but not within our conversation, so that's where you have changed what we were discussing.  If you want to change the subject, you should finish discussing whether Ukraine was voluntary in moving towards joining NATO, and whether other countries did so voluntarily.  That's what YOU disputed, before you jumped to "forced by NATO".

[Scott777]

Yanukovich was not "neutral" at all, he was initially leaning towards the EU then turned towards Russia because of t. Your idea of neutral is starting to look very questionable which makes me ask more questions of your own 'neutrality'.

They tried in 2014:

Your one-sided view that West = bad, Russia = good (or "neutral") is starting to look suspiciously like the reverse image of the liberals on here - West = Good, Russia = Bad. It's no different.

What does "turned towards Russia" even mean?  You need to be a bit more precise than that.  Was there going to be a military alliance with Russia?  Joining the EU or NATO would mean a military alliance.

So where is the evidence Yanukovich was not neutral?  Just some Russian interference?  Is that it?

You have misrepresented me.  When did I say Russia is good or neutral?  I said Yanukovich was neutral, not Russia, although I'm open to evidence he was not.

[BeElBeeBub]

Um, Ukraine is using thermite right now, despite widespread calls not to

Ukraine has been using drones to depot thermite over fortified positions like trenches and treelines. 

By their nature's, drones are fairly precision weapons. 

Here is footage of a strike

https://youtube.com/shorts/dTIHDHD2w6Y?si=1Y0SYQ2O0oBtLXYC

And the aftermath of a strike (not necessarily the same one).
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1fajigj/footage_of_a_russian_military_showing_the/


You can clearly see burned out machine guns and other military equipment 


Now. Here is a. Russian strike on a town. 

https://youtu.be/ZISFFQLoPMY

Do you see the difference? . One is a precise strike on a remote military position. The other one is showering thermite over several square km of a town.

Or are. You going to claim they are the same?

Likewise,.whilst Ukraine has employed cluster munitions the majority have been as individual bomblet's from drones.

All the HIMARS strikes have used thr improved cluster munitions *which don't have bomblets* they are essentially a giant shotgun that spreads tens of thousands of tungsten balls over an area. There is no residual risk to civilians.

Russia deployed cluster bombs in civilian areas from early on. 

[Borg Refinery]

And how does that equate, in your mind, to saying Russian war crimes are "nothing to be concerned about"?

Seriously, this is why people don't want to debate you. You make inferences that simply aren't there.