david starling
Well-known member
The Putinization of America, which has affected so many right-wingers, was well-planned and executed.
Ukraine.
- Thread starter Monk
- Start date
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Oddity
Well-known member
Trying to figure this out. Russia is corrupt. Ukraine is corrupt. Stating that Putin has some rights under international law to invade makes me a right-winger Putin fanboy? Cos I don't like dictatorships at all. I already live in one, remember?
Interesting discussion on stats. Won't ask you to look at the whole vid, but start at about 11 minutes 20 seconds. Everyone has wildly different figures.
david starling
Well-known member
Are there rules that actually allow invasions of non-attacking nations according to international law?
For example, was the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq which over-threw Saddam, in accordance with those rules from what you know about them?
Oddity
Well-known member
I don't think Saddam posed any threat to US sovereignty (weapons of mass destruction!)
But...Ukraine was bound to not mess around with joining NATO (and they definitely played with that one), having nukes, and not killing the residents of the Donbas.
Joining NATO would have definitely been a threat to Russia, and that was a possibility - in reality it wasn't, but none of us, including Russia, actually knew that. Maybe nukes as well. Ukrainian nazis are just plain evil, but that probably wouldn't have been enough to trigger it. NATO would've been.
ETA: You might want to look up anything Robert Barnes has written about it - he's still practising, and is far more up on this issue than I am.
Last edited:
waybread
Well-known member
Oddity, I supported neither the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But nothing about them justifies Putin's bloodthirsty invasion of Ukraine.
Minsk, schminsk. Nothing about that justifies Putin's bloodthirsty invasion of Ukraine. Let's talk about Russia's violation of international law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
NATO, schmato. NATO had no plans to harm Russia, as you well know. NATO was originally established as a peacetime bulwark against Stalin's gobbling up countries of eastern Europe and placing them under his boot after WW2. At the break-up of the USSR in 1991, these countries had every opportunity to align with the Kremlin, but chose, instead, to join NATO. They knew Russian oppression all too well. Nothing about that justifies Putin's bloodthirsty invasion of Ukraine.
Why are you a Putin apologist?
Minsk, schminsk. Nothing about that justifies Putin's bloodthirsty invasion of Ukraine. Let's talk about Russia's violation of international law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
NATO, schmato. NATO had no plans to harm Russia, as you well know. NATO was originally established as a peacetime bulwark against Stalin's gobbling up countries of eastern Europe and placing them under his boot after WW2. At the break-up of the USSR in 1991, these countries had every opportunity to align with the Kremlin, but chose, instead, to join NATO. They knew Russian oppression all too well. Nothing about that justifies Putin's bloodthirsty invasion of Ukraine.
Why are you a Putin apologist?
david starling
Well-known member
Excuseigist! A "devil's advocate", for purposes of discussion.
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
Excuseigistically speaking, Putin may well be suffering from a severe case of paranoid schizophrenia. Which would mean that he's "not guilty by reason of insanity".
Last edited:
Oddity
Well-known member
Sure. Prove that before a neutral jury, would you? And dear God, don't use wiki for this.
david starling
Well-known member
Was NATO really on the verge of accepting the Ukraine as a member, in preparation for an imminent invasion of Russia? What would a neutral jury say about that?
Or, what about the Ukraine literally assaulting Russia's moral fabric by allowing gay pride parades? That was the reason Bishop Kirill, the spiritual leader of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia, gave for his own support of Putin's invasion. Would a neutral jury consider that a legal justificaton for it?
And, what about Putin being declared not guilty by reason of insanity, if the neutral jury determined that there was no rational justification for the extremely deadly, greatly destructive invasion?
Last edited:
waybread
Well-known member
Oddity, I can't believe you're using Kremlin apparatchik Sergei Lavrov as an authority. If you believe those quotations, you're beyond being a Putin apologist now.
The Russian language was never banned in Ukraine. The Ukrainian government never "promoted neo-Nazi theories." Ironically, Vladimir Putin is the one who has installed a fascist totalitarian state in Russia, and hopes to extend his dictatorship into neighboring sovereign nations.
I'll quote Wikipedia any day over your hallucinating YouTube broadcaster wannabes.
Oddly, Oddity, Lavrov was just fine with Russia's own military buildup along the Ukraine border prior to February, and fomenting regime change in Transnitsia, parts of Georgia, and portions of Ukrainian territory.
But maybe I misread you! You're being satirical/tongue in cheek here, right? Right??
The idea that NATO was planning any kind of invasion of Russia is ludicrous. What Lavrov appears to be saying is that Russia wanted Ukraine to be militarily weak enough for an easy Russian invasion.
The Russian language was never banned in Ukraine. The Ukrainian government never "promoted neo-Nazi theories." Ironically, Vladimir Putin is the one who has installed a fascist totalitarian state in Russia, and hopes to extend his dictatorship into neighboring sovereign nations.
I'll quote Wikipedia any day over your hallucinating YouTube broadcaster wannabes.
Oddly, Oddity, Lavrov was just fine with Russia's own military buildup along the Ukraine border prior to February, and fomenting regime change in Transnitsia, parts of Georgia, and portions of Ukrainian territory.
But maybe I misread you! You're being satirical/tongue in cheek here, right? Right??
The idea that NATO was planning any kind of invasion of Russia is ludicrous. What Lavrov appears to be saying is that Russia wanted Ukraine to be militarily weak enough for an easy Russian invasion.
Zelensky's elite battalion destroyed
Dozens of neo-Nazis have been eliminated over the last two days, including fighters from the Kraken formation, the military said
Providing an update on the progress of Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine, Konashenkov said that on July 28, at the Krasnoarmeysk railway station in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), the Russian military conducted a direct strike “with a high-precision air-based weapon” on a train transporting “an elite assault battalion of the 1st Separate Brigade of the President of Ukraine.”
The next day, in the area of Bogodukhov in Kharkov Region, Iskander missiles hit the hangars of a meat processing plant where the Kraken nationalist formation had set up a temporary base, according to the military spokesman. “More than 30 Nazis and 10 units of military equipment were destroyed.”
“More than 140 nationalists were killed on the spot. About 250 more militants received injuries of varying severity. All military equipment that was in the echelon was disabled,” Konashenkov stated.
Also on July 29, Russian forces destroyed 30 Ukrainian servicemen, a warehouse with rockets for Grad combat vehicles, and military equipment in the settlement of Yasnobrodovka in the DPR. In the area of Artemovsk, according to Konashenkov, Ukrainian losses amounted to 50 servicemen and eight units of military equipment.
militarynews.com
Public opinion seems to be turning against the military draft in Ukraine, how will the Zelensky regime respond?
The Kiev regime has been ignoring discontent among soldiers and civilians and refuses to disclose casualty numbersFive months into Russia's military offensive in Ukraine many in the latter state are starting to vocalise their objection to the draft imposed by the regime in Kiev. Especially as the propaganda about victory, any day now, starts to lose its power.
Ukraine is a country largely populated by one or two-child families. How many of its citizens would voluntarily go to war to be killed or crippled? It should come as no surprise, therefore, that Ukrainians do not want to go to war. Yes, if you listen to what they say, the majority of Ukrainians are patriots. But when it comes to getting up from the couch and actually going to the front, very few are willing to ‘walk the talk’.
And I don’t imagine that, after 30,000 more Ukrainian soldiers have perished on the battlefield, anyone would feel more motivated to join the cause. In fact, it would likely produce the opposite effect: ‘I don’t want to die like all the others’. It is much safer to engage in fiery debates on social media from home, or to follow the fighting on YouTube.
Very easy for the Putin-bad crowd to scream victory & demand that Ukraine keep fighting to the last man standing....
all while sitting in their nice comfy couch in another country!☹️☹️☹️
Very easy for Zelensky to keep dictating (a draft is a demand) that Ukranian men die to keep the NWO
in control in Ukraine....all while he fled to Poland & now travels 1st class around the world & keeps his
entire family safe in his mansions in the USA.😏😏
Oddity
Well-known member
The west has more than meddled with Ukrainian politics from 2014 and even before. We have the receipts.
You sound hysterical, Waybread, Perhaps a nice nap would help?
david starling
Well-known member
What would be a neutral, reliable source for what international law has to say about what constitutes a legally sanctioned violent attack on a sovereign nation? 
I checked out Barnes on Viva's Twitter account. His position is, that the Russian invasion is immoral, but not illegal, when we apply the U.S. standards regarding the definition of "national defense", which doesn't require a threat to U.S. national sovereignty to justify an assault on another sovereign nation.
So, morally speaking, it comes down to a balance between a government waging a relatively small regional war to prevent secession from its own country being immoral, versus the deaths of thousands and the destruction of entire cities causing millions of refugees due to a blatant violation of the Ukraine's sovereign border by a foreign power, also being immoral, depending on one's own moral perspective.
Incidentally, by saying the Ukrainian government has no moral right to attack the separatists in the Donbass region, then, by implication, Abraham Lincoln had no moral right to fight against the Southern States to prevent their secession. There are many in the South who feel that way.
I checked out Barnes on Viva's Twitter account. His position is, that the Russian invasion is immoral, but not illegal, when we apply the U.S. standards regarding the definition of "national defense", which doesn't require a threat to U.S. national sovereignty to justify an assault on another sovereign nation.
So, morally speaking, it comes down to a balance between a government waging a relatively small regional war to prevent secession from its own country being immoral, versus the deaths of thousands and the destruction of entire cities causing millions of refugees due to a blatant violation of the Ukraine's sovereign border by a foreign power, also being immoral, depending on one's own moral perspective.
Incidentally, by saying the Ukrainian government has no moral right to attack the separatists in the Donbass region, then, by implication, Abraham Lincoln had no moral right to fight against the Southern States to prevent their secession. There are many in the South who feel that way.
david starling
Well-known member
You don't consider emotion appropriate, when it comes to the unnecessary deaths of so many thousands of Ukrainian and Russian citizens?
Oddity
Well-known member
You mean how she spent the whole post calling me an idiot? I'm used to it, it's Waybread.
david starling
Well-known member
The U.S. has considered it legal for so long to invade countries that threaten our national interests, but not our own national sovereignty, that it's not legally consistent to blame other countries for doing it.
Last edited: