• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,251
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Mearsheimer takes some positions that you find compatible with your own, since he makes a point of assigning more blame to the Western Alliance and NATO than Russia for the messes in Eastern Europe.
That's an excellent misrepresentation of his stance.
Prove it. This is a discussion group, not Twitter. And don't tell me to just go watch the video, which I already did. Tell us what he said that makes you think I misrepresented him. Not everyone who watches a video of a lecture is going to come away with the same impressions and conclusions that you did.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,611
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I've asked you many times whether you agreed with his position that Ukraine should have retained its nuclear weapons in order to deter Russia from exactly the kind of aggressive behavior we are seeing now. You have never once deigned to respond.
You have not asked me once. You merely dug out his very old opinions which you think prove that he can be spectacularly wrong. In doing so you effectively admitted he is right now, otherwise you would have addressed his lecture.

Yes, he was spectacularly wrong 30 years ago. And he knows it, he had 30 years to think about it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,611
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Prove it.
No, you prove it.
I made a list where we agreed and there is no list where we disagree. You completely ignored that list preferring making false claims that we (I and Mearsheimer ) disagree. We don't.
 
Last edited:

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,251
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
I've asked you many times whether you agreed with his position that Ukraine should have retained its nuclear weapons in order to deter Russia from exactly the kind of aggressive behavior we are seeing now. You have never once deigned to respond.
You have not asked me once. You merely dug out his very old opinions which you think prove that he can be spectacularly wrong. In doing so you effectively admitted he is right now, otherwise you would have addressed his lecture.

The quote above is from post #502. Here is an excerpt from post #262, which may have been the first time I asked you (see the red boldface text below):

I have actually done what you asked--i.e. watched the video. All you've said about it is that the video endorses ("everything"???) you've said. I don't think so, and it would be interesting to hear what you might have disagreed with. Professor Mearsheimer does endorse some of your claims and conclusions, so it is worth discussing, even though you have said almost nothing about its content. FTR, I really would like to know your opinions about some of the other things he said about Russia and Ukraine. For example, do you agree with him that Ukraine should never have handed its nuclear weapons over to Russia? Do you agree with his stance that Russia should not have invaded Ukraine? I would also be interested in your opinion of the opening remarks in the second video--about the conflict between liberalism and nationalism--but that would take us beyond the thread topic. Mearsheimer was talking primarily to a Romanian and East European audience, but many of the points he was making clearly resonated with some of his colleagues on the panel.

Now answer the question, because you have still avoided answering it. And, if you have evidence that he ever retracted that position, please cite that evidence. As I have said before, Mearsheimer's conclusions overlap with some of your positions, but he arrives at them for entirely different reasons that you seem not to have picked up on.

Yes, he was spectacularly wrong 30 years ago. And he knows it, he had 30 years to think about it.

You thinks so? Cite some evidence to suggest that he now believes Ukraine should have destroyed or transferred its nuclear arsenal to Russia. That is exactly what the Budapest Memo was for--a guarantee by Russia that it would give up any claim to Ukraine's territory in exchange for Ukraine denuclearizing. Mearsheimer believed back then that Ukraine never should have done that, and his prediction that Russia would subsequently get into conflict with Ukraine (despite its formal guarantee that it would not) would be the result of Ukraine no longer having a nuclear deterrent. AFAICT, he still thinks he was right, but I'm happy to consider any evidence you have to the contrary.

Some of Mearsheimer's critics have pointed out that Russia has historically asserted its power successfully by military aggression against neighboring powers. That is how the Russian Empire grew, and that is how the Soviet Union grew and expanded its influence. Their position is that this historical trend is what is really behind Russia's current expansionist policies in the region, and it is the principal reason that so many of its neighboring states have sought alliances with the West--as an insurance policy against Russia's tendency to invade its neighbors and assert its power.

Mearsheimer seems to feel that this kind of behavior is justified for a major regional power, even though he sees Russia as weaker now and fading as a regional power. It is still the largest power in its neighborhood, and Mearsheimer sees Ukraine as essentially a buffer state between the Western Alliance and Russia. However, a lot of other experts appear to think that Russia's historical method of asserting power and influence will not end with Ukraine. And Russia really isn't the weak, fading power that Mearsheimer seems to think it is. So throwing Ukraine under the bus is not going to solve anything for the US or the Western Alliance. It isn't going to invite Ukraine into NATO, but it also isn't going to send the message that Ukraine might as well let itself be absorbed into the new version of the Russian empire. Georgia and the Baltic republics would likely then be the next territories to be grabbed back into the empire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,611
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I just told you that I disagree with 30 year old opinion that Ukraine should have kept nukes.

And what nukes are these anyway? ICBM could not have been used for protection against Russia. Ordinary bombs? Well, good thing they were transferred to Russia
because otherwise they would have been "transferred" to New York or something.
Why all this crap about 30 year old opinion? Why are you fixated on this crap?
Are you trying to imply that Mearsheimer is dumb and his opinions are not valid?
Georgia and the Baltic republics would likely then be the next territories to be grabbed back into the empire.

That's bullshit and Mearsheimer explained why.
Now that I have your retarded question asnwered. Could you finally start addressing Mearsheimer points which I listed for you?
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,611
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
However, a lot of other experts appear to think that Russia's historical method of asserting power and influence will not end with Ukraine
other experts? You mean neocon cunts?
Well, yeah, I am aware of that. The whole damn lecture was about these fucking cunts.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,420
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
I know, US/NATO would leave Ukraine alone if Russia becomes "democracy"
You finally admitted that it's not about Ukraine.
Hitler / Poland
Putin / Ukraine

You get the connection.

Stalin / Putin
NATO / Freedom

Word association is fun and easy.

It's refreshing to hear you state that Putinstan is not a democracy. If Stalinist Putinstan would leave Democratic Ukraine alone, problem solved.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,611
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I know, US/NATO would leave Ukraine alone if Russia becomes "democracy"
You finally admitted that it's not about Ukraine.
Hitler / Poland
Putin / Ukraine

You get the connection.

Stalin / Putin
NATO / Freedom

Word association is fun and easy.

It's refreshing to hear you state that Putinstan is not a democracy. If Stalinist Putinstan would leave Democratic Ukraine alone, problem solved.
No, I don't get the connection.
I put "democracy" in quotes, in case you have not noticed.
And I blame the US for the state of democracy in Russia.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,420
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Again, you created Putin. You literally created him.
Tsarist Russia created Putin whether you know that or not. What created Tsarist Russia? That's more complicated. It seems that whenever there was western enlightenment thought in Russia it was stamped out by the tsars, the Putins and persons like yourself. Democracy was never able to flourish though it took root in Russia. Too bad for Russians today that so few there understand democratic freedoms.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,611
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Again, you created Putin. You literally created him.
Tsarist Russia created Putin whether you know that or not. What created Tsarist Russia? That's more complicated. It seems that whenever there was western enlightenment thought in Russia it was stamped out by the tsars, the Putins and persons like yourself. Democracy was never able to flourish though it took root in Russia. Too bad for Russians today that so few there understand democratic freedoms.
Educate yourself a little bit more. Scratch that, educate yourself a lot more.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,191
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,420
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
That's just silly.
Being able to delegate blame is important for some people. The fact that Russia is a dictatorship, though not as repressive as in the days of Stalin and the Czars, will eventually change. The planet is just becoming too small. I can remember being so naive at a time in my life as to believe that the Soviet system was superior to western democracy. So I can understand where barbos is coming from. He's like I was when I was thirty.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
22,020
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I blame the US for the state of democracy in Russia.

You may as well, since history will blame the current state of democracy in the US, on Russia.
And rightly so.
Putin has done an amazing job on it, in both Countries.
You installed Putin in Russia.
That's just silly.
It is more than silly, it is inane tinfoil material. It is right up there with Trump won the election.

It means rational discussion on this topic is not possible with that poster.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,472
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
That's just silly.
Being able to delegate blame is important for some people. The fact that Russia is a dictatorship, though not as repressive as in the days of Stalin and the Czars, will eventually change. The planet is just becoming too small. I can remember being so naive at a time in my life as to believe that the Soviet system was superior to western democracy. So I can understand where barbos is coming from. He's like I was when I was thirty.
The fantasy depiction of what the Soviet system leads to is definitely superior.

It's just sad that isn't what happens: instead of the proles getting access to the means of production, those who stand victorious and powerful at the head of their armies and as champions of their causes dive headfirst into the mouth of Mammon instead of standing on their principles for whatever reason.

Instead of killing the beast once they have knocked all it's teeth out... They are consumed so as to become it's new teeth.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,899
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
You installed Putin in Russia.

Did Pootey tell you that himself?
Just to inform those you are trying to mislead...

On 9 August 1999, Putin was appointed one of three First Deputy Prime Ministers, and later on that day, was appointed acting Prime Minister of the Government of the Russian Federation by President Yeltsin. Yeltsin also announced that he wanted to see Putin as his successor.
America had nothing - zero, zip, nada to do with it.
Once in power, Pootey began nationalizing and appropriating property and doling it out to those who swore allegiance to him.
Now he's the "richest" man in the world.
Because ... America? Ya sure ya betcha. :hysterical:
To hear barbos talk about it you'd think Trump - or maybe Obama - was running Russia and amassing troops on its neighbors' borders just to make Pootey uncomfortable. .
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,272
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
However, a lot of other experts appear to think that Russia's historical method of asserting power and influence will not end with Ukraine
other experts? You mean neocon cunts?
Well, yeah, I am aware of that. The whole damn lecture was about these fucking cunts.
So, are you prepared to state now that your moral support for Putin and Russia would end if Russia invaded any sovereign countries west of East Ukraine? Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland should all be safe from Russian Imperialism?
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,899
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
However, a lot of other experts appear to think that Russia's historical method of asserting power and influence will not end with Ukraine
other experts? You mean neocon cunts?
Well, yeah, I am aware of that. The whole damn lecture was about these fucking cunts.
So, are you prepared to state now that your moral support for Putin and Russia would end if Russia invaded any sovereign countries west of East Ukraine? Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland should all be safe from Russian Imperialism?

FUCK NO!
All of it rightfully belongs to Russia, and America stole it from them!
Seriously... you're trying to get barbos to say something that could cost him his job. Not gonna happen.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,420
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
The fantasy depiction of what the Soviet system leads to is definitely superior.
That's the problem for barbos, he's living the fantasy, and with a healthy helping of bogeymanism.

Russia is a gangster state. If it was a democratic gangster state that would be an improvement but the gangsters only maintain control by terror, murder, fear, etc. Empowering people is dangerous when you're the person in control, even empowering other gangsters. I think barbos wants to live actual democracy but clinging to an abusive guardian is presently easier and a more convenient survival strategy. Same goes for millions in Russia. Even the Putin is guilty. Without the NATO bogeyman he'd be driving a taxi.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,899
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Even the Putin is guilty. Without the NATO bogeyman he'd be driving a taxi.

At least Vladimir Putin had the wherewithal to select an external (to his country) boogeyman. That helps, if you want unified support.
Trump elected to declare war on and vilify most Americans - most of the electorate in his own country, ensuring that he could only stay in power by division and coup.
The desperate violent, time limited coup attempt fizzled, so now the Trump Party is back on the less overtly violent, slightly slower track to autocracy; rigging elections at the state level and providing means to overturn results they don't like. That should keep things going their way in '22 and '24, as long as they can keep their morons convinced that Biden is now running Hillary's pizza parlor etc.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,251
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
I just told you that I disagree with 30 year old opinion that Ukraine should have kept nukes.

As I knew you would. I pointed this out, because you were oversimplifying by claiming that he agreed with your positions. In fact, this is one of the things he is best known for, because he was rather alone in opposing the denuclearization of Ukraine. His prediction did come true, but it was a whacky idea, because leaving those nukes in Ukraine was a lot more dangerous to world security than risking that Russia would go back on its word. The fact is, that he arrives at his position from a very different place than you do. He does not approve of Russia's aggressive behavior, but he blames the US and NATO for allowing it to happen. Unlike Mearsheimer, you advocate for Russia's aggression.

And what nukes are these anyway? ICBM could not have been used for protection against Russia. Ordinary bombs? Well, good thing they were transferred to Russia
because otherwise they would have been "transferred" to New York or something.
Why all this crap about 30 year old opinion? Why are you fixated on this crap?
Are you trying to imply that Mearsheimer is dumb and his opinions are not valid?

You start out by saying that it was a dumb idea for Ukraine to keep the nukes, but then you accuse me of calling him dumb. Mearsheimer is well-known for his iconoclastic ideas, but he is a minority opinion in his policy recommendations because of the kinds of extreme positions that he takes. He also thinks of Russia as a one-trick pony with a weak economy based on one main export--oil and gas--which has no real future. So he expects Russia to sort of fade away as a major threat to the US. Nobody really takes that seriously. Russia has managed to rebuild and modernize its military to the point where it really does threaten not just its immediate neighbors, but also all of Eastern Europe. That is the main reason that Germany has finally put Nordstream 2 on hold. They need the energy, but they realize that Russia will use its energy supplies to blackmail them in the future. Russia is doing that now, as it cuts back on supplies to Eastern Europe, causing a large drop in fuel supplies and even reversing the flow of gas back into Eastern Europe in one of the pipelines.

Georgia and the Baltic republics would likely then be the next territories to be grabbed back into the empire.

That's bullshit and Mearsheimer explained why.
Now that I have your retarded question asnwered. Could you finally start addressing Mearsheimer points which I listed for you?

Russia has already begun making demands on the Baltic republics and has even made threats towards Finland and Sweden for considering NATO membership. Those threats are actually driving both countries closer to the NATO alliance. Mearsheimer (or any political scientist) could explain why to you. It's called the "security dilemma", which is one of the main reasons that Mearsheimer uses to bash the US for. He thinks that the US and NATO have kicked a hornet's nest by expanding into former Soviet-dominated nations. Those nations invited the expansion precisely because they have had decades of experience in how Russia expands its power and influence. So it isn't just about Russia. It is also about our allies in Europe. Again, Mearsheimer thinks we should just forget Europe as much less important in our coming struggle to contain China, which is his major concern.

As for the points you listed, all you did was list them as positions that Mearsheimer took that you happen to agree with. I have already conceded the overlap between some of your positions and his, so I'm not sure what you want me to discuss. It would help if you were more specific about what we need to discuss about the list. I've made the point that Mearsheimer arrives at his criticisms of the US and NATO from a very different direction than you do. He does not advocate for Russian aggression in Ukraine.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,611
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
You installed Putin in Russia.

Did Pootey tell you that himself?
Just to inform those you are trying to mislead...

On 9 August 1999, Putin was appointed one of three First Deputy Prime Ministers, and later on that day, was appointed acting Prime Minister of the Government of the Russian Federation by President Yeltsin. Yeltsin also announced that he wanted to see Putin as his successor.
America had nothing - zero, zip, nada to do with it.
Once in power, Pootey began nationalizing and appropriating property and doling it out to those who swore allegiance to him.
Now he's the "richest" man in the world.
Because ... America? Ya sure ya betcha. :hysterical:
To hear barbos talk about it you'd think Trump - or maybe Obama - was running Russia and amassing troops on its neighbors' borders just to make Pootey uncomfortable. .
And who do you think "reelected" Yeltsin?
And role of US in direct approving Putin at the time is not that clear.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,611
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
You start out by saying that it was a dumb idea for Ukraine to keep the nukes, but then you accuse me of calling him dumb
Dude, stop talking about nukes and start addressing my actual points which I listed in this thread.
As for the points you listed, all you did was list them as positions that Mearsheimer took that you happen to agree with. I have already conceded the overlap between some of your positions and his, so I'm not sure what you want me to discuss.
Not fucking good enough!
Go through the list and explicitly admit what we (I Mearsheimer) agreed.
Overlap my ass!
The guy fucking repeated all my points, all you have to say for yoursef is " some overlap"

You lost when you decided to attack credibility of Mearsheimer by searching dirt on him.
 
Last edited:

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,611
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Russia has already begun making demands on the Baltic republics and has even made threats towards Finland and Sweden for considering NATO membership. Those threats are actually driving both countries closer to the NATO alliance
No threats were made. Finland warned Russia, Russia warned Finland back with standard russian warning that NATO membership would make them a target, that's just a fact.
And Finland in their desire to placate US neocon cunts and their media started the whole exchange, needlessly so I must say. And no, Finland is not going to join NATO.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,251
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
No threats were made. Finland warned Russia, Russia warned Finland back with standard russian warning that NATO membership would make them a target, that's just a fact.
And Finland in their desire to placate US neocon cunts and their media started the whole exchange, needlessly so I must say. And no, Finland is not going to join NATO.

I think that the Finns see it a little bit differently: Finland insists on its right to join Nato in defiance of Russia

Just like any other sovereign nation, Finland has a right to apply for membership in NATO, as does Sweden. Russian threats only lend ammunition to those Finns and Swedes who advocate for NATO membership. Meanwhile, Biden has dug his heels in and assured Ukraine that the US will respond strongly, if Putin unleashes another unprovoked invasion of their territory. Putin has made a serious blunder, if he thinks that he can bully and blackmail other countries into getting his way. If he is just conducting a "wag the dog" exercise in order to distract Russians, he could find himself in a serious miscalculation. He might at some point think that he has no choice but to invade, and that is going to result in very serious consequences for everyone.

As for your list of agreements with Mearsheimer, I have already agreed with you that there are points of agreement between you and him. I really don't care if there are, but I will address any specific issues that you want to discuss. Meanwhile, I think I've explained clearly why I don't think that your list is very consequential. Mearsheimer reached his position from a very different perspective than the one that you take. In particular, he does not endorse a Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory. You, apparently, do. I hope it can be avoided, but that is entirely up to Putin and Russian strategists. I think they've done their best to paint themselves into a corner.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,611
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Just like any other sovereign nation, Finland has a right to apply for membership in NATO, as does Sweden.
Russia did not deny that. Russia simply reminded what it means.
As for Ukraine, they are not sovereign now and were not sovereign before 2014.
Before 2014 they were Russian client state with ridiculous amount of monetary help, which they have not yet repaid back in any shape or form. Same story with Belarus. You can't have them without paying back all that money Russia gave them over the years. So claims of sovereignty does not work for these two. And even if they were, it does not mean that you can decide security problems in Europe without Russia, or even against Russia in this case without Russia reacting.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,611
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
As for your list of agreements with Mearsheimer, I have already agreed with you that there are points of agreement between you and him
I am giving you last chance before permanent ignore.
The guy says that 2014 was US organized fascist coup and you give me this?
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,251
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Just like any other sovereign nation, Finland has a right to apply for membership in NATO, as does Sweden.
Russia did not deny that. Russia simply reminded what it means.

Yes, it means that Russia threatens "serious military and political consequences that would require an adequate response from the Russian side". The intention was clearly to intimidate Finland not to exercise its sovereign right.

As for Ukraine, they are not sovereign now and were not sovereign before 2014.
Before 2014 they were Russian client state with ridiculous amount of monetary help, which they have not yet repaid back in any shape or form. Same story with Belarus. You can't have them without paying back all that money Russia gave them over the years. So claims of sovereignty does not work for these two. And even if they were, it does not mean that you can decide security problems in Europe without Russia, or even against Russia in this case without Russia reacting.

Ukraine was an independent sovereign state after 1991, when the Soviet Union disappeared and all the 15 republics, including Russia, went their separate ways. Russia even acknowledged as much in the Budapest Memo, which it signed as a separate sovereign state. The Russian Federation did not give any money to Ukraine, so I don't know what you are talking about. The Soviet Union was not Russia, although the Soviet government obviously saw itself as a continuation of the Russian Empire that was superseded by a revolutionary socialist government. Nobody is trying to exclude Russia from any negotiations, but Russia cannot dictate to other sovereign nations how they run their affairs any more than the US can. It is no longer the big cheese in a Soviet empire, and Putin is not going to turn the clock back no matter how belligerent he gets. If Putin orders an invasion and seizes Ukraine by military force, then other nations will react strongly. They have "reminded what it means" to engage in an unprovoked attack on Ukraine. Nobody is forcing Russia to invade anyone else, and Russia alone has to be responsible for its actions.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,611
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
However, a lot of other experts appear to think that Russia's historical method of asserting power and influence will not end with Ukraine
other experts? You mean neocon cunts?
Well, yeah, I am aware of that. The whole damn lecture was about these fucking cunts.
So, are you prepared to state now that your moral support for Putin and Russia would end if Russia invaded any sovereign countries west of East Ukraine? Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland should all be safe from Russian Imperialism?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,251
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Note that the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was always a full voting member of the UN and separate from the Russian Federation in that body since 1945. Moreover, it always possessed a legal right on paper to secede from the Soviet Union (see  Ukraine and the United Nations):

Another right that was granted but never used until 1991 was the right of the Soviet republics to secede from the union, which was codified in each of the Soviet constitutions. Accordingly, Article 69 of the Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR stated: "The Ukrainian SSR retains the right to willfully secede from the USSR." However, a republic's theoretical secession from the union was virtually impossible and unrealistic in many ways prior to Gorbachev's perestroika reforms.

Ukraine exercised its option to secede in 1991. It was never part of the Russian Federation or Russian territory after the overthrow of the Tsarist imperial government, which had seized the country more than a century earlier when it absorbed most of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and part of Poland.
 

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
4,806
Location
muh-dahy-nuh
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Ruble watch.
Let’s see if Putin can manage to tank the ruble again. Go ahead Vlad, your move. Do something foolish, suffer the economic repercussions, then blame the US for not looking the other way.
Can he get away with just taking a nibble? Say perhaps the Dnepr-Crimea canal. I think an overt occupation of Donbas would be too much. Can’t walk away empty-handed. Can’t trigger meaningful sanctions. What’s a crime boss to do?


I read barbos comments and think about his inability to confront the facts and can’t help but draw a parallel to the comments of Trump supporters. Is this the road to perdition?
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,899
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
@barbos who do YOU think re-elected Yeltsin? Not the Russian people?
Evidence, please. And be sure to show how the US did it to get Putin in power (because that’s what we wanted all along).
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,600
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Russia has already begun making demands on the Baltic republics and has even made threats towards Finland and Sweden for considering NATO membership. Those threats are actually driving both countries closer to the NATO alliance
No threats were made. Finland warned Russia, Russia warned Finland back with standard russian warning that NATO membership would make them a target, that's just a fact.
And Finland in their desire to placate US neocon cunts and their media started the whole exchange, needlessly so I must say. And no, Finland is not going to join NATO.

How do you say this is no threats???
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,251
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Russia has already begun making demands on the Baltic republics and has even made threats towards Finland and Sweden for considering NATO membership. Those threats are actually driving both countries closer to the NATO alliance
No threats were made. Finland warned Russia, Russia warned Finland back with standard russian warning that NATO membership would make them a target, that's just a fact.
And Finland in their desire to placate US neocon cunts and their media started the whole exchange, needlessly so I must say. And no, Finland is not going to join NATO.

How do you say this is no threats???
I'm imagining that when barbos was a child, he was accosted by a bigger kid who demanded his lunch money. The bigger kid explained that there would be consequences if barbos didn't hand over the money, so he handed it over. Nobody was threatened in this imaginary scenario, but the lesson was that the bigger kid had every right to satisfy his hungry appetite. That's just the way things were. Besides, one can roast crickets and eat them for lunch, and that tends to cut down on all the annoying chirping sounds. :LOL:
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,611
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
@barbos who do YOU think re-elected Yeltsin? Not the Russian people?
Evidence, please. And be sure to show how the US did it to get Putin in power (because that’s what we wanted all along).
You don't know anything about recent russian history. And whatever you do "know" comes from Hollywood movies.
Russian people my ass.
 
Last edited:

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,251
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
@barbos who do YOU think re-elected Yeltsin? Not the Russian people?
Evidence, please. And be sure to show how the US did it to get Putin in power (because that’s what we wanted all along).
You don't know anything about recent russian history. And whatever you do "know" comes from Hollywood movies.
Russian people my ass.
I'm not sure what barbos meant, either. Putin was facing opposition in 2011 and claimed that Hillary Clinton was a kind of outside agitator who supported the opposition against him. He got payback in 2016, when Russia helped Trump get elected by dumping hacked emails at strategic times during her election campaign. So, if Putin's claim had an ounce of truth to it, she was a "help" to his re-election by actually trying to be a hindrance. Generally speaking, most of the world took Putin's criticism of Clinton as a gratuitous attempt to blame his troubles on foreign influence, and that may have helped his campaign within Russia. If one really believed that the US really did stoke up his opposition, then one could see her alleged meddling would be seen as helping him. Maybe that is what barbos is trying to claim? Anyway, Putin pretty much engineered his own takeover of the Russian Federation, beginning with his successful effort to get Yeltsin to resign abruptly on New Year's Eve in 1999. Years later he changed their constitution to make himself essentially President for Life, assuming that he can control the election machinery.

See: Vladimir Putin's Bad Blood With Hillary Clinton
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,899
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
@barbos who do YOU think re-elected Yeltsin? Not the Russian people?
Evidence, please. And be sure to show how the US did it to get Putin in power (because that’s what we wanted all along).
You don't know anything about recent russian history. And whatever you do "know" comes from Hollywood movies.
Russian people my ass.

Unresponsive. I guess you don't know jack about your own country either.
FYI, the Russian people re-elected Yeltsin.
If you disagree, you should explain why, and how someone else ("Murka"?) put him in office, and how their interference is responsible for your current leader. Otherwise there is no discussion here and you're wasting everyone's time.
If you can't explain how Americans elected Yeltsin, by all means go ahead and pretend America is all that is wrong with Russia.
You might start by blaming George Washington for Catherine the Great.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,899
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Putin was facing opposition in 2011 and claimed that Hillary Clinton was a kind of outside agitator who supported the opposition against him.

Yeah, that was all I could come up with too. Kinda like the faux Democrats who say AOC is a great asset for Republicans.
I guess the takeaway is that Democrats should only nominate people of whom Putin and his Republicans approve.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,251
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Speaking of not burying history, we are coming up on the 8th anniversary of Yanukovych fleeing Kyiv to go into exile in Russia (February 22, 2014). Russian soldiers without insignias took control of Crimea on March 1, 2014, triggering the Russo-Ukraine war that has become the topic of this thread.

The Euromaidan revolution (aka  Revolution of Victory) had lasted three months--from November 2013 thru February 2014. It became extremely violent. Over 125 people were confirmed killed, 18 of whom were police. Yanukovych employed special police forces  Berkut and undercover agents provocateurs known in Ukraine as  Titushky to brutalize the protesters.

For those who have a Netflix subscription, you can watch a brilliant documentary on the Euromaidan called Winter on Fire: Ukraine's Fight for Freedom. It was nominated for an Academy Award and Emmy but lost to competing documentaries. Nevertheless, it has stunning footage and interviews with protesters from all walks of life. The courage of the citizens is absolutely stunning in the face of brutal attacks by Yanukovych's Berkut and the Titushky. The protests grew primarily because of the brutal violence that killed and wounded so many (almost 2000). One of the protest leaders was even stripped naked and displayed to the crowd in an attempt to humiliate him and frighten resisters. It only emboldened them. So did the fact that the Berkut attacked medics and destroyed medical facilities. Nothing would convince the protesters to leave.

Anyway, this documentary is obviously banned in Russia and shown everywhere in Ukraine, not to mention around the world (e.g. Hong Kong and anti-Maduro protests in Venezuela). It shows how Russian occupiers are likely to be met, if they do attempt to take over the country with a blitzkrieg. The Euromaidan happened in the dead of winter, and most of what evolved was completely spontaneous self-organization from all over Kyiv. The protesters spoke mostly Russian, but there was also a lot of Ukrainian. There were pro-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists trying to take advantage of the protest, but they were marginal. Such groups always show up at any protest they think they can gain recruits from. The documentary itself does not comment on their presence, although their symbols were on display in a few scenes. Russian propaganda has tried to exaggerate their role in overthrowing Yanukovych.
 
Last edited:

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,611
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
If you can't explain how Americans elected Yeltsin, by all means go ahead and pretend America is all that is wrong with Russia.
This isn't really a secret. Actual collusion. I liked Yeltsin, glad he won, but no need to bury history.

RESCUING BORIS
Yes, plus all future oligarchs were promised rights on privatization (also known as theft) if they donate money and efforts for his campaign.
Imagine if that happened in US. looser would cry bloody murder. And even then, it's not all that clear that Eltsin won, some say Zyuganov actually won but results were falsified. There was no way to verify.

US media always support US foreign shenanigans - Iraq War, Libya, Bombing of Yugoslavia, Cuba, Central America, Pinochet for fuck's sake. All that shit, and somehow what US does with Russia is right and everyone supports it unconditionally.
Free press is not worth a shit when it comes to foreign affairs. They all lie, literally lie.
And why would not they? what benefits telling the truth has? none.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,251
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
The US and EU played a minor role in the Euromaidan, which caught them by surprise, as well. They did try to engineer a diplomatic solution with the Yanukovych regime. The Verkhovna Rada had essentially given him dictatorial powers and passed laws trying to justify suppression of the protests. However, the revolution itself was entirely spontaneous and self-organized. The suppression tactics were so brutal that no diplomacy was going to be accepted by the crowd. Yanukovych even negotiated with the protesters and promised to hold another election in the following December. When that was presented to the crowd in exchange for going home, they immediately rejected it.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,272
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The situation in Ukraine seems to be cooling down. Not sure why. I think that Biden must have said something to Putin to cool it a little. Secondly, could be that Putin is prioritizing the gas pipeline over Ukraine. Perhaps the thrill of taking Kazakhstan will satisfy Russian imperialistic feelings for a while. Either way, I fully expect Kazakhstan to be a relic of the past very shortly...

 
Top Bottom