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.
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.
I didn't make that jump.
I did reference Sachs though as he explain the decades that lead up to this, and how you can only call it unprovoked if you ignore the history.
Unprovoked is an interesting word in this context. It kind of covers up the nuance of history when you ask "Did Ukraine strike Russia first?"
The "unprovoked" invasion.
Tricky.
Are you saying you don't believe what Sachs said and you quoted?
It was unprovoked. What was the provocation?
I didn't make that jump.
I did reference Sachs though as he explain the decades that lead up to this, and how you can only call it unprovoked if you ignore the history.
Unprovoked is an interesting word in this context. It kind of covers up the nuance of history when you ask "Did Ukraine strike Russia first?"
The "unprovoked" invasion.
Tricky.
Understanding why evil people act the way they act is very different from justifying their actions.
You might claim Putin felt provoked sure, that still has nothing to do with 1) claiming we shouldn't have expanded NATO including countries victims of communism 2) claiming Russian leadership has any moral justification for their actions.
It's not about nuance at all , because it doesn't matter how they feel like, morally for us to judge. Ofc some russians feel like they should have a say in world events because they used to be a relevant country and what not, and Putin represents that very well. Ofc many russians feel like a lot of the countries on their borders are they fiefdoms and feel "invaded" if they say hell no we actually prefer your historical enemies to you.
All this still doesn't in the slightest justify the invasion. If anything this is an indictment to the lack of a strong reaction when Putin took pieces of Georgia and Ukraine previously.
I hope the lesson is learnt now and next time at the first infraction we go allin against the perpetrator.
Strong argument there...
It's unprovoked.
This is not a proxy war.
Ur guarding the narrative of this thread.
It's a proxy war inasmuch as we refuse to fight it but we provide assistance to victims of aggression by a common enemy.
IE it's a win for us every time a Russian solder dies sure, and we only pay the treasure cost not the blood cost.
But it's not provoked and we would be better off with a weak Russia that accepts it's fate as a fading irrelevant polity with the GDP of Spain and stops pretending they have any right to influence world events
It's a proxy war inasmuch as we refuse to fight it but we provide assistance to victims of aggression by a common enemy.
IE it's a win for us every time a Russian solder dies sure, and we only pay the treasure cost not the blood cost.
But it's not provoked and we would be better off with a weak Russia that accepts it's fate as a fading irrelevant polity with the GDP of Spain and stops pretending they have any right to influence world events
Well if ur saying we need to keep russia weak then ur basically agreeing to provocation from the west and iirc thats part of the argument.
"Escobar: The West Is Hell-Bent On Provoking Russia Into Hot War"
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/e...
I'm curious how we label zerohedge in this regard. We want to just discredit them as a fanzine type site? But we can see that its widely held view if we aren't just parroting the narrative from us state controlled news.
Everyone thinks otherwise. They seem to think its a provoked proxy war.
Its just weird because every time someone says this, you seem like you have a neurotic habit of re-wrapping the truth with lies.
Ur a panda.
This is pure projection.
No, everyone does not think otherwise; very few think what you are claiming is at all correct, and even some of the ones who claim so are just shilling and know they are speaking lies. Follow some people who aren't Russian assets or useful idiots. There's a reason you're posting Tucker and not legit news.
It's a proxy war inasmuch as we refuse to fight it but we provide assistance to victims of aggression by a common enemy.
IE it's a win for us every time a Russian solder dies sure, and we only pay the treasure cost not the blood cost.
But it's not provoked and we would be better off with a weak Russia that accepts it's fate as a fading irrelevant polity with the GDP of Spain and stops pretending they have any right to influence world events
This would mean that pretty much every war is a proxy war, and Russia is a N. Korean proxy. It's such a loose definition that it loses all meaning.
Current arguments ITT that this is a proxy war:
Everyone knows it!
Something happened in last 30 years so Putin had to defensively invade Ukraine! (But I won't say what it was so you can refute it)
Of course it is!
You know it is!
You're gatekeeping (by engaging with all arguments put forth and explaining why they are not true)
You won't allow me to state my fake narrative with no evidence to back it up that I'm currently stating!
u know it bc they are in PUTINS BACKYARD!
Thank you for being honest, washoe. It would be nice if the other person arguing this would be as well. The "provocation" was that Ukraine was located nearby an aggressive, imperialist dictator who wanted to go down in history as the person who conquered Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia to help restore Russia to its former glory.
No- its more like the promise was to not let former russian states join nato and not to stretch nato further to the east.
well that was agreement was broken, and just like with georgia etc.
russia wont have it.
That was never promised. Even if it was promised, that's something one needs to get in writing.
Even if it was promised and broken, that does not give a country the right to invade another country...
"Russia won't have it" is not a valid reason for war.
While what you're saying is absolutely not valid or moral, it is at least more accurate for what Putin thinks. Putin did not invade because of NATO though. Ukraine was not going to join NATO anytime soon.
BGP what would the US response be if Russia put missiles close to our border… let’s say they put missiles in Cuba for example
What would our response be and why?
PW: why are you asking that question when USA did not put missiles in Ukraine? At what point was USA putting missiles in Ukraine and why?
This would mean that pretty much every war is a proxy war, and Russia is a N. Korean proxy. It's such a loose definition that it loses all meaning.
Well no Iran v Iraq wasnt proxy. Pakistan v India wasn't proxy. India v china wasn't proxy.
But UK v Nazi Germany until the Americans joined the effort was proxy
Pretty much every war where allies help*
No, only wars where allies help is fundamental to the war effort and without them the war would quickly end and allies actually want to join but for various reasons haven't yet, but keep the war ongoing against what would happen without intervention
That is not at all the definition provided earlier:
It's a proxy war inasmuch as we refuse to fight it but we provide assistance to victims of aggression by a common enemy.
IE it's a win for us every time a Russian solder dies sure, and we only pay the treasure cost not the blood cost.
But it's not provoked and we would be better off with a weak Russia that accepts it's fate as a fading irrelevant polity with the GDP of Spain and stops pretending they have any right to influence world events
