What is really happening in the Ukraine Conflict?

[Scott777]

Ask yourself this. (as a thought experiment)

Let"s say the 2014 revolution was just as it is claimed by Ukraine and the West, a spontaneous protest at a leader reversing course that lead to a violent crackdown and the fall of the government with no significant outside provocation.

*if* that were true (and I'm not asking you commit that it was, only suppose for the purpose of this experiment) - would Russia's subsequent actions (2015 invasion and 2022 invasion) be justified?

First of all, let's say all of this is correct: would the government willingly start attacking / killing protesters, leading to a revolution in which the police ran away, leading to overthrow of that government that started the violence?  Was that a very clever decision?  Or, would it be a bit easier to ignore the 'peaceful' protesters and carry on regardless with closer ties with Russia?

To answer your hypothetical question, "justified" is not a relevant question.  What matters is whether Putin felt there was sufficient threat of NATO expansion.  It is not a question of justice for which neither of us are the arbiters.  If the population of Ukraine overthrew the government and then installed one which was clearly much more pro NATO and EU than before, I suspect Putin would still consider it a threat.  So now let me ask you, if Russia had invaded during the revolution, just as the government had been overthrown, would you say that is wrong?  Bearing mind that it was not a sovereign nation at that moment?

[Borg Refinery]

It's pretty sickening to wee Russia cosying up to Iran, as they are the biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the region and around the world.
They bankrolled Hamas and Hezbollah, supplying rockets, drones and bombs.
Who would want a terrorist state and the IRGC helping with an unjust war in Ukraine? It's sick.

Aren't Iran only really sponsors of Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis? Not sure they are the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the region or around the world compared to Saudi Arabia (who is a big Western ally) who, according to new evidence, had a bigger role in 9/11 than first thought - and who fund terrorist madrassas around the world which have created many murderous Islamic extremists, who have killed innumerably

I'm pretty sure the new Iranian leader is a "moderate" (ha), whatever that means, which means that the West will try to do a new deal with him - similarish to the "JCPOA", after Raisi's 'mysterious' helicopter crash in dense fog..

I don't think it's sickening to see Iran cosying up to Russia, they've helped each other out for a long time so it's nothing new.

The West seemed to see fit to cosy up to Qadafi and other terrorist regimes when it saw fit in the past, has done so more recently too, supporting the Saudi murdering in Yemen, or what Israel's doing in Palestine for example.

There's actually evidence that Russia had a hand in what happened with Hamas anyway -

Did Russia Prepare Hamas for the Attack on Israel?

They must be well-pleased to see Netanyahu hit the self-destruct button in Israel - as it helps successfully destabilize the entire world..

[Borg Refinery]

What are you smoking?

But he's right, Britain is indeed seen as a poodle to America. How can you now know this?

He's not right about all the other pro-Putin stuff he said, however

[Borg Refinery]

On this we can agree.

No, you said I'm supporting Russia, we agree on nothing.

You are one who sees fit to defend Nazism and terrorism - I don't, no matter who does it. The good thing is that Ukraine has actually prosecuted some of their war criminals and tried to clean up house because it realises it has a Nazi problem, that's the part that Putin leaves out while funding his own Nazis, but the problem actually still needs further addressing in Ukraine.

No amount of downplaying Nazi atrocities on your behalf (and calling it trolling on my behalf or "baiting") is going to make that go away. The ones who apologise for war crimes are the ones who's beliefs I fully oppose, plus the ones who make excuses for Western coups and endless foreign wars.

So no, we agree on nothing and we're not "allies", never will be either. I want Ukraine to win for entirely different reasons to you - you want to excuse war crimes and worse

[Borg Refinery]

Why thr F@@@ would the west want to. Invade Russia?

It's near empty. It's just a mass of open space.
Sure they have natural resoruces but we were doing perfectly well trading BMWS and London real estate for it and most of the actual extraction was done by western companies anyway. Russia.has relatively little expertise and equipment.

It was much less effort to pay the Russian government it's kickback for joint ventures and grease a few oligarchs palms than occupying a massive country.

True, they would just fund a coup and proxy govt takeover instead - a "bloodless coup" as they call it except for all the blood, other than for the nukes that is. Nonetheless, a lot of people said the West wouldn't touch Libya, oh how wrong they were

[Borg Refinery]

I think the phrasing "just as greedy and corrupt....." is bad.

Can you name a Western leader who has ordered as many killings and disappearing of opposition?

One who has dipped their beak in the pot as much? Any other world leader own a £500m super yacht?

Has any western president bypassed the term limit? Or even remained in power for over 2 decades?

Whilst you may take issue with the wests involvement in thr ME over the last 2 decades, it pales in comparison to Georgia, Checnya and Ukraine. Or. It's involvement with Syria.

Our leaders may not be spotless but Putin is another level.

Well Trump is perfectly happy to try all those things, whether he succeeds is another matter. Maybe that's not what you had in mind but he's very much a "Western president".

The West's involvement in coups around the world does pale in comparison to Georgia, Chechnya and Ukraine - it trumps it and is incomparable, look at the amount of coups, intelligence service involvement and attempts to change election results around the world as well as foreign invasions.

You appear to be trying to dishonestly insinuate that I'm pro-Putin, but that's untrue, my point is that Western leaders like Tony Blair and George W Bush were pro-Putin and helped him for many years - they were wrong to help terrorists - just like they were wrong to help other terrorists; like Blair was wrong to prop up Muamar Qadafi with his "deal in the desert".

I hope that makes my position clear on Western hypocrisy and utter corruption

Patriots are very often arseholes.

SB and his band were as bad and culpable as anyone wearing a swastika and killing jews/poles/roma etc.

None the less he is viewed (by some Ukrainians) as a man who fought for Ukrainian identity against the Soviets.

And the Soviets were no better than the NAZIs - they were equally brutal, killed huge numbers of people and they were literal allies of the NAZIs at one point.

Stalin collaborated with the NAZIs and was amonsrorus dictator who consigned millions to their deaths. Yet would you deny that some Russians see him as a national hero?

Where did you get this blatant lie from? Where in any of my posts did I even come close to insinuating that?

Someone can be an absolute shit and still be regarded (wrongly in my opinion) as a national hero.

So. Again (and for the last time) I am not and have not apologised or minimised the crimes of the Nazis or their allies. They all deserve to burn for eternity.

I'll not respond to any more of your baiting on this subject as it is just a diversionary tactic at this point away from your unwittingly support of Russia.

This is just blatant lying of the worst kind - pro-Russian support/unwitting support and shilling for Russia.

This is what you get from liberals towards anyone who even slightly criticises Ukraine or the West in any fashion these days, you dare criticise Keir Starmer/Labour/Ukraine/etc and you must be a Russian agent.

We all know your argument is that nationalists and Nazis must be excused - your latest tactic is to call it "baiting" and "trolling", another filthy lie along with the other one that I support Russia, that I said no Russians see Stalin as a national hero plus the lies you've posted that we can't translate the Ukrainian - that Zelenskyy called Stepan Bandera a hero. Well he did, get used to it

I understand your only recourse is to name calling in the face of the facts, but your opinion isn't highly valued here - so I don't think anyone really cares what you've got to say

[BeElBeeBub]

No it has not.  Only if protesters are violent or threatening a revolt.

"threatening revolt" is a catch all and has been used by authoritarian governments to crush dissent throughout history.

You are twisting yourself i to a pretzel to justify Russia's stance. 

Ask yourself this. (as a thought experiment) 

Let"s say the 2014 revolution was just as it is claimed by Ukraine and the West, a spontaneous protest at a leader reversing course that lead to a violent crackdown and the fall of the government with no significant outside provocation.

*if* that were true (and I'm not asking you commit that it was, only suppose for the purpose of this experiment) - would Russia's subsequent actions (2015 invasion and 2022 invasion) be justified? 

[Scott777]

The fact Berkut rifles and ammunition were used is a big clue who they are likely to be.

Not really, and certainly not evidence that it was down to Yanukovich.  It could just be other Ukrainians who wanted a revolution to remove Yanukovich.

Shooting protesters has been a tactic to break them up for as long as firearms have existed.

No it has not.  Only if protesters are violent or threatening a revolt.

The reason for the protests was very directly and obviously his Uturn on signing the accession agreement.

But not the reason for violence and a revolution, because the Association Agreement was not what he was elected on.

how well prepared was the CIA that it had several thousand agents adross the country ready to protest or do whatever at hours notice?

Mostly genuine protesters, but provocation by agent provocateurs could be done without thousands of CIA agents, as well as whoever shot protesters.

[BeElBeeBub]

Ok, so we don't know who the snipers were.  And you don't know why VY would need snipers, if the protesters did not start any violence.  I'm still trying to understand what you or UnluckyFoursome think caused the revolution, after VY was voted in on a neutral position with better relations with Russia and the EU.

The fact Berkut rifles and ammunition were used is a big clue who they are likely to be. 

You have no idea why a leader, under pressure from a long running "sit in" protest might use snipers to break up the protest? 🤔. Shooting protesters has been a tactic to break them up for as long as firearms have existed.

The reason for the protests was very directly and obviously his Uturn on signing the accession agreement.

He said he would work towards better EU relations before election. He worked towards them (with no significant popular complaint)

Then he U turned unexpectedly citing pressure from Russia.

Within hours a protest of several thousand had formed in the square (and elsewhere)

Given his backing out was unexpected - how well prepared was the CIA that it had several thousand agents adross the country ready to protest or do whatever at hours notice?

[Scott777]

The bullets did match a load of cut up rifles found in a nearby lake that were traced to the Berkut.
But of course that could always be a CIA misdirect.

Ok, so we don't know who the snipers were.  And you don't know why VY would need snipers, if the protesters did not start any violence.  I'm still trying to understand what you or UnluckyFoursome think caused the revolution, after VY was voted in on a neutral position with better relations with Russia and the EU.

[Nick]

Who? Under what treaties?  Unless you are counting the republics in the Russian federation - but they are supplying the bulk of the manpower already.

Russia has put red lines up before and they have been crossed to deafening silence.  Russia is already all in, they have nowhere to escalate to.

For exampke

Sept 2022 Red line was supply of long range (80km+) weapons

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-longer-range-us-missiles-kyiv-would-cross-red-line-2022-09-15/

FM. Spokeswoman said "If Washington decides to supply longer-range missiles to Kyiv, then it will be crossing a red line, and will become a direct party to the conflict,"

Atacms were used in April 2024, Storm Shadow (not US but NATO weapon) was May 2023.

So we have already crossed a red line and become a "direct party"

What do you think Russia. Would do? Airborne forces attack on London? Tank charge to Berlin?

Maybe they would bomb Ukrainian civilians? Or destroy critical infrastructure?

As you say Beeb, Russia is already at max and has lost 75% of its capabilities already, hence Iran trying to supply arms. Russia will not engage with NATO directly, they know they haven't a prayer. 

[BeElBeeBub]

False claim again.  No mention that any 'snipers' were Yanukovich's.  How do you know they were not CIA?  Evidence, please.

The bullets did match a load of cut up rifles found in a nearby lake that were traced to the Berkut. 
But of course that could always be a CIA misdirect.

[BeElBeeBub]

If Russia is attacked by NATO, Russia would not be alone as it has allies of its own that will be under treaty obligation, to join the fight directly with Russia.

Who? Under what treaties?  Unless you are counting the republics in the Russian federation - but they are supplying the bulk of the manpower already.

Russia has put red lines up before and they have been crossed to deafening silence.  Russia is already all in, they have nowhere to escalate to. 

For exampke

Sept 2022 Red line was supply of long range (80km+) weapons 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-longer-range-us-missiles-kyiv-would-cross-red-line-2022-09-15/

FM. Spokeswoman said "If Washington decides to supply longer-range missiles to Kyiv, then it will be crossing a red line, and will become a direct party to the conflict,"

Atacms were used in April 2024, Storm Shadow (not US but NATO weapon) was May 2023.

So we have already crossed a red line and become a "direct party"

What do you think Russia. Would do? Airborne forces attack on London? Tank charge to Berlin?

Maybe they would bomb Ukrainian civilians? Or destroy critical infrastructure? 

[Scott777]

What a nasty piece of work you try to be - but fail spectacularly with your risible posting.

Had you looked you would have seen multiple references to demonstrators shot by Yanukovich's snipers.  I've seen some of the video of it and it's disturbing stuff.

False claim again.  No mention that any 'snipers' were Yanukovich's.  How do you know they were not CIA?  Evidence, please.

[Scott777]

It's looking like Putin has a lot of trouble coming his way in the form of long range missiles. Moscow better batten down the hatches cause this is sure to be the target.

Hopefully London doesn't get nuked.  I've just tidied my home.