Ukraine-Russia War Take 2
Here is what the preliminary take on the Ukraine thread disappearing is:
The site was hit with a massive spam attack where hundreds of spam threads were created. In the case where, for example, I see a single spam thread and delete it, that is called a soft delete, and mods can still see them but forum members cannot. Those deletion can be undone.
When a massive attack hits with hundreds of threads, an admin uses a different procedure where the hundreds of spam threads are merged and then hard deleted, where the threads are gone, and no note is left behind. As I have mentioned with my own experience of just soft deleting a large number of posts, sometimes a post or thread gets checked or merged accidentally and is deleted by mistake. Dealing with hundreds of spam threads takes a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.
It appears that our Ukraine thread may have gotten caught up in that recent net of spam threads. If so, it is likely gone for good. I cant say this for sure, and am awaiting comments from admins on this issue. Yes, this sucks. And hopefully there was some other software glitch that caused the disappearance, and we may recover it in the future.
But in the meantime, I have created this new Ukraine-Russia War thread to enable the conversation to continue. Obviously continuity with earlier discussions will be lost. There is no way around that. So as best as possible, let's pick up the conversation with recent events and go from there.
If you have any questions about this, please post them in the mod thread, not here. Let's keep this thread going with posts about the war, not the disappearance of the old thread.
Thanks.
Correct. We've been over this before. It ended up being that the definition of "proxy war" that was being used was so loose that only helping an ally out of pure altruism could not be considered a proxy war. Furthermore Russia is just as easily fighting a "proxy war" for N Korea and Iran, which is obviously ridiculous.
Is that your opinion or is it fact? Yes we put the definition up and eventually you had decided we aren't allowed to post the definition. So the war is not this right?
In political science, a proxy war is as an armed conflict fought between two belligerents, wherein one belligerent is a non-state actor supported by an external third-party power.
Because from my view and many other persons view thats exactly what it is. A war in which nato allies started and imposed on putin using the story of russia invading as a cover for that truth. If so, that would make it a proxy war is that right?
Im going to pull out the quotes and explanation from this video, it will take me a bit but its a VERY good talk: https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/17955...
Jeffrey Sachs explains that the situation is VERY much a proxy war for nato/CIA interests. I'm not sure bluegrassplayer admits that other high level people believes this is a proxy war.
The idea is that it wasn't unprovoked at all. It was only unprovoked if you don't follow history and the agreements over the last 20 to 30 years which include Putin asking to join Nato and being refused by clinton.
There is also some very related points to the war having cover up potential for covid in regard to bio weapon labs and also Sachs says he knows for a fact that it was ukrainians that were shelling the nuclear plant with russians inside not the other way around.
I'll pull quotes out but its x so they aren't automatics afaik.
Russia started the war by invading Odessa in 2014 time period
NATO exists to protect against Putin. He would use it as a way to invade other nato countries. Or he would kick the US out of it
I wish we didn’t arm Ukraine to attack Russia. That seems like poking the bear
Is that your opinion or is it fact? Yes we put the definition up and eventually you had decided we aren't allowed to post the definition. So the war is not this right?
I can tell you that the second part of this absolutely false. You kept spamming the definition, not realizing that in no way does this war fit the definition. Since you kept spamming it instead of trying to argue that the war fit the definition you were told to stop spamming the thread.
Because from my view and many other persons view thats exactly what it is. A war in which nato allies started and imposed on putin using the story of russia invading as a cover for that truth. If so, that would make it a proxy war is that right?
NATO did not start the war. Putin has his own agency, and he invaded Ukraine.
Russia started the war by invading Odessa in 2014 time period
NATO exists to protect against Putin. He would use it as a way to invade other nato countries. Or he would kick the US out of it
I wish we didn’t arm Ukraine to attack Russia. That seems like poking the bear
Do you also wish Iran/Qatar didn't arm the Palestinians to attack Israel, in essence poking the Israeli bear?
Seems the way you view the I/P conflict, this would be an almost exact analogy.
I can tell you that the second part of this absolutely false. You kept spamming the definition, not realizing that in no way does this war fit the definition. Since you kept spamming it instead of trying to argue that the war fit the definition you were told to stop spamming the thread.
Is this your way of preemptively banning the definition? How does one show an incongruency with a definition one can't reference? How are you allowed to reference a thread that no longer exists are your source of your opinion?
Thats a narrative. We want to have a dialogue and a discussion. Will you allow it?
I have never heard of this person before but this is all I need to know. He is a conspiracy theorist who doesn't know what he's talking about.
No he's not a conspiracy theorist. And his statements are well sourced and part of the early discussion around covid which we ONLY know and have because of the freedom of information act and whistleblowers.
Hes a very trusted american
Whats going on here?
Once again, as I've stated many times... you can post whatever you want as long as the mods in this forum don't ban you. I'm not stopping you from doing a damn thing.
Yes lets go over how its false that this is a proxy war between the west and russia where the west is pushing on putin using ukraine as its proxy.
Of course its a proxy war, as it should be. Pushing back against Putin to avoid him getting into it with a NATO country makes total sense. What's your point?
Of course its a proxy war, as it should be. Pushing back against Putin to avoid him getting into it with a NATO country makes total sense. What's your point?
Agreed.
Its been EMPHATICALLY wrapped in this thread that its (quote) 'ridiculous' to call it a proxy war. And all of that rubbish has now been nuked from this forum.
Its nearly IMPOSSIBLE to argue otherwise now given the facts. It will take me a bit to get Sachs quotes. BGP keeps wrapping things in false narratives.
So in this thread words can't have proper definitions.
Sachs saying that it was Russia that was protecting the plant. that make sense because we were CONSTANTLY being bombarded with deadlines that kept passing where rumors falsely suggested the Russians were going to blow it up
on the brink of nuclear war we can have Ukraine shelling the Zaria nuclear power plant do you know our newspapers won't
say that it's Ukraine shelling the power plant all they will and Ukraine is
shelling the nuclear power plant I can reveal uh as if it's a as as if it's a
surprise because the Russians are inside the power plant and the ukrainians are trying to take back the power plant and
so these shells come to the nuclear power plant and then our lovely our
lovely newspapers say each side accuses the other of shelling the nuclear power
plant and I happen to know for you know the reasons that I know some of these
things that the of course it's Ukraine shelling a plant that the Russians are inside of
not Russians shelling the plant that they but you can't get officialdom to
say this you can't get the newspapers to say this that's pretty serious to be
shelling a nuclear power plant I mean are you out of your I put that on the list that we've been adding to are you
out of your mind right don't do that but they're doing it
This corroborates what putin said in his interview which is VERY important corroboration, and its telling when people won't accept the bigger perspective:
"The idea was well Russia's weak it's down it's we're the sole superpower they're on on their back or on their knees whatever it is and now we can move NATO where we want and we can surround them and the Russians said please don't do that don't don't bring your troops your weapons your missiles right up to our border it's not a good idea and the US I was around in those years involved in in Russia and in Central Europe the US was we don't hear you we don't hear you we do what we want they kept pushing inside the US government in the 1990s when this debate was going should NATO expand some people said yeah but we told gorbachov and we told yelson we weren't going to expand at all now come on Soviet Union's done we can do what we want we're the sole superpower Clinton bought into that that was mateline Albright's line NATO enlargement started and our most sophisticated diplomats we used to have diplomats at the time we don't have them anymore but we used to have diplomats like George Kennan said this is the greatest mistake we could possibly make."
This runs counter to the narrative that russia invaded unprovoked:
"All that diplomacy was blown off the war continued the US pumped in arms built up armaments was building up what would be the biggest army of Europe actually a huge Army that Russia was watching what are you doing you know you're not honoring Minsk you're building up this huge Ukrainian Army paid for by NATO paid for by the United States basically yes and in 2021 Putin met with Biden and then after the meeting he put on the table a draft Russia US security agreement put it on the table on December 15th 2021 it's worth reading very plausible document I don't agree with some of it it's it's a negotiable document something you would negotiate I thought the core of it was stop stop the NATO enlargement."
a country defending itself isn't provocation in any sense or rational use of the word, including joining a defensive alliance with anyone else.
NATO could have put a military base with nuclear bombs at 3 miles from the Russian border every 100 miles of the Ukrainian border and that would have justified any kind of invasion anyway.
a country defending itself isn't provocation in any sense or rational use of the word, including joining a defensive alliance with anyone else.
NATO could have put a military base with nuclear bombs at 3 miles from the Russian border every 100 miles of the Ukrainian border and that would have justified any kind of invasion anyway.
I think what you said is that no matter how much encroachment there is/was its not provocation is that right?
Did you know putin asked to join nato and was refused by clinton?
There was 0 encroachment because one cannot encroachment in the manner you are suggesting.
Why do you keep mentioning Putin asking to join NATO? You need to qualify these things.
There was 0 encroachment because one cannot encroachment in the manner you are suggesting.
Why do you keep mentioning Putin asking to join NATO? You need to qualify these things.
Its quite important that putin was refused entry to nato, because it counters the narrative that the war is a consequence of Russia invading unprovoked. It's a narrative that doesn't fit reality and facts.
Why are you narrating everything and changing the definitions of words?
Expanding and encroaching are not the same. Trying to equate them as the same is doing what you are accusing me of doing.
You have no explained how Putin asking to join NATO counters any narrative.
I think what you said is that no matter how much encroachment there is/was its not provocation is that right?
Did you know putin asked to join nato and was refused by clinton?
It's not encroachment toward mexico if the USA put as many militaries as they want on their side of the border, is it?
It's not encroachment if after one of the most evil empires in human history (the USSR) collapses, and fragments into a myriad satellites + the original core source of the evil empire, some satellites try to join the free world and are ****ing scared of their previous torturer and want protection from it.
Ofc russia was rejected into NATO, NATO exists to keep Russia on its knees where it belongs as long as it doesn't become a normal country.
Russia should thanks us everyday we didn't actually occupy it as we did with germany and japan after their evil empires collapsed. Tbhey should stay within their borders at all time no exception and we should treat any attempt by Russia to influence any event outside it's borders everywhere in the world as an act of war toward NATO.
They have no right to any hegemonic power, they barely have a right to exist as a country
Expanding and encroaching are not the same. Trying to equate them as the same is doing what you are accusing me of doing.
You have no explained how Putin asking to join NATO counters any narrative.
Well it depends if you are defining words for the thread or not right.
Its decades of bargaining against the sprit of peace cooperation. And I don't have to explain how Putin trying to join nato and being refused counters the idea that this is an unprovoked invasion. It makes no sense to suggest I need to explain it.
Its the ultimate peace agreement ldo.
NATO is not a peace agreement at all so it is definitely not the ultimate peace agreement.
It is a defensive alliance which requires consensus. If Russia were to join NATO (designed to contain aggression) then Russia could invade a country and veto article 5 against themselves.
So no, refusing Russia from joining NATO does not mean they were provoked into joining Ukraine. Honestly I still don't know how you made that jump, but it's definitely incorrect.
NATO is not a peace agreement at all so it is definitely not the ultimate peace agreement.
It is a defensive alliance which requires consensus. If Russia were to join NATO (designed to contain aggression) then Russia could invade a country and veto article 5 against themselves.
So no, refusing Russia from joining NATO does not mean they were provoked into joining Ukraine. Honestly I still don't know how you made that jump, but it's definitel
This as well.
+ Russia could veto further extensions, invade non NATO countries, and claim NATO protection if the invaded country tries to fight back lol
