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.
This is crazy. How could even a firm supporter of Russia think that is it Ukraine who has decided to "continue this senseless war"? Does anyone think that Ukraine would continue attacking Russia if they were no longer under attack? The Kremlin is admitting that its own war is "senseless".
Yeah, when I hear unprovoked invasion I don't think of the legal definition you provided. Could just be me...
What I'm trying not to allow is stating that Russia was provoked in the sense that the West did something that forced Russia to invade when it did. Obviously Russia had a reason to invade, but it was still Russia's choice. If you use "provoke" with a somewhat different meaning, then as BGP says you should clarify that meaning, otherwise terms will get conflated and the discussion going in circles of everyone talking past each other.
Regardless that is how the phrase is meant.
The reason Russia argues against this phrase in order to justify their invasion.
The reason their useful idiots argue against the phrase is to justify the invasion (as we have seen multiple times itt).
If you want to argue that they were provoked in a different way than the phrase implies then that is an important distinction that you should make, because the Russian propaganda narrative (which is th
Even if the US was behind the 2014 overthrow of the government I'm not that sure it gives Russia any legal right to invade Ukraine. And waiting 8 years even weakens it more especially after there had been elections.
Don't really recall anyone trying to strongly make a legal case in the thread for the invasion using Russian sources or any other.
Anyways, I'm clear on the basis of the rule now
It is not necessary that someone make a legal case even if the phrase uses the legal definitions. The legal definitions are used to be exact about what is being talked about not because this is a court of law.
People arguing against the phrase are arguing that (at the very least) Russia was partly justified in their attack on Ukraine. The argument that this is a proxy war is an argument used to suggest that USA maneuvered things so Russia was forced to invade Ukraine.
This is why I so often ask what point people are trying to make when they state things like NATO encroachment forced Russia to act or Ukrainians are Nazis. Russia absolutely uses these narratives to justify their invasion. If someone is arguing those things for another reason then that is an extremely important thing to state. They're still wrong, but it's important to state.
This thread got pretty special. This is like "Poland provoked Germany, who is just defending itself" kinda vibe.
Russia has a massive demographics issue, and has traditionally always had a territorial configuration it preferred for long term defensive success (one that includes Ukraine). Putin took a big swing at fixing both, for practical and legacy issues. It's proving to be a challenge, because frankly most of the rest of the world sees that he's simply a war monger. The world is a much safer place without him, and Ukraine is putting it all on the line to stop him. The world is doing the bare minimum at this point to help them in that cause.
What I'm trying not to allow is stating that Russia was provoked in the sense that the West did something that forced Russia to invade when it did. Obviously Russia had a reason to invade, but it was still Russia's choice. If you use "provoke" with a somewhat different meaning, then as BGP says you should clarify that meaning, otherwise terms will get conflated and the discussion going in circles of everyone talking past each other.
I gave context with my claim. Jeffrey sachs explains.
You are moderating me without my context. What else am I trying to point out but that Russia felt it was an existential time to act based on the coming US advance.
I'm using the word provoke wrong?
The media has constantly used the word 'unprovoked'. I disagree it was unprovoked because there seems to be great cause, great reason, which is the opposite of unprovoked. So I can't say then that its provoked?
What a strange world.
This thread got pretty special. This is like "Poland provoked Germany, who is just defending itself" kinda vibe.
Russia has a massive demographics issue, and has traditionally always had a territorial configuration it preferred for long term defensive success (one that includes Ukraine). Putin took a big swing at fixing both, for practical and legacy issues. It's proving to be a challenge, because frankly most of the rest of the world sees
This goes against the historical account I had posted. But you haven't spoken to the decades of history. Are you speaking only in the last few years because his point was about the decades leading up to this.
Is Russia provoking a US response by building a navy base in Cuba?
Let's be very very clear as to why this war has to look like a proxy war: Putin has threatened in very public addresses, to use his nuclear arsenal if anyone intervened in this war between Russia and Ukraine. He didn't mince his words, he made the threats. He moved the nukes.
Had he NOT made the threats? There would be very public boots on the ground from a coalition of at least half a dozen countries if not more, side to side with the Ukrainians. And we would call those "the Allies" just as did we in WW2. Defending against an invading force in Europe, just as in WW2.
And Russia has allies too right now. Iranian made drones, Belarus, North Korea, non-lethal gear from China. Not surprising it's largely again the Axis of scumbags, err Disruption, whatever you want to call it. Countries with failed economies and tyrant leaders, banding with the world's greatest tyrant. Isn't it odd how it's always tyrannical oppressive regimes in the Axis? What a massive coincidence.
Don't get me wrong, Western ideas clearly have faults. I live in a country where housing in a business, food is so expensive it's hard to argue we're being human to each other, and we botched immigration maybe beyond repair. But I'll take these failed ideas over those failed ideas, still.
North Korea and China were allied powers. So was Russia. Maybe even Belarus
Let's be very very clear as to why this war has to look like a proxy war: Putin has threatened in very public addresses, to use his nuclear arsenal if anyone intervened in this war between Russia and Ukraine. He didn't mince his words, he made the threats. He moved the nukes.
Had he NOT made the threats? There would be very public boots on the ground from a coalition of at least half a dozen countries if not more, side to side with the Ukra
I highly doubt that if nuclear war was not threatened if the west interfered there would be a lot of boots on the ground from other countries and US pilots in the sky going head to head with the Russian because nuclear war doesn't need to be implied in that scenario, it's a realistic consequence. Nobody wants that, including Russia but things can get out of hand once a war kicks off like that.
I'm always curious what these UN security counsel votes are like with everyone in the same room. Talk about awkward...
Most of this thread has been BGP asserting and narrating that the proxy war accusation is quote "ridiculous" and mods coming behind BGP to say that I'm creating a QUOTE circular argument by suggesting it. My suggestion its a proxy war has been deleted an mod'd about 10 times now.
Putin has threatened in very public addresses, to use his nuclear arsenal if anyone intervened in this war between Russia and Ukraine. He didn't mince his words, he made the threats.
I seem to be the sole person that is being told and enforced that I have to provide evidence for my claims. I didn't hear putin make these nuclear threats in the way you seem to imply. I'd like to speak to them. I hear a lot of propaganda in this regard. Is it true? Source please, I don't believe it.
Most of this thread has been BGP asserting and narrating that the proxy war accusation is quote "ridiculous" and mods coming behind BGP to say that I'm creating a QUOTE circular argument by suggesting it. My suggestion its a proxy war has been deleted an mod'd about 10 times now.
I seem to be the sole person that is being told and enforced that I have to provide evidence for my claims.
"President Vladimir Putin told the West on Wednesday that Russia was technically ready for nuclear war and that if the U.S. sent troops to Ukraine, it would be considered a significant escalation of the conflict."
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/rus...
Doesn't seem ambiguous
We have a moral right to guarantee dictators can't do **** in general, that includes force projection.
We would have a moral right to invade them and kill them and their allies. Just because they are dictators.
It's not symmetrical: we are the good guys they aren't.
I highly doubt that if nuclear war was not threatened if the west interfered there would be a lot of boots on the ground from other countries and US pilots in the sky going head to head with the Russian because nuclear war doesn't need to be implied in that scenario, it's a realistic consequence. Nobody wants that, including Russia but things can get out of hand once a war kicks off like that.
I'm always curious what these UN security couns
This is correct
"President Vladimir Putin told the West on Wednesday that Russia was technically ready for nuclear war and that if the U.S. sent troops to Ukraine, it would be considered a significant escalation of the conflict."
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/rus...
Doesn't seem ambiguous
It seems like you are lying. Why are you lying whats your interest in all this? This is your article when YOU ACTUALLY CITE.
"From a military-technical point of view, we are, of course, ready," Putin, said in response to a question on whether Russia was ready for a nuclear war.
"Why do we need to use weapons of mass destruction? There has never been such a need."
But if the United States conducted nuclear tests, Russia might do the same, he said.
"It's not necessary ... we still need to think about it, but I don't rule out that we can do the same."
"(In the United States) there are enough specialists in the field of Russian-American relations and in the field of strategic restraint," Putin said. "Therefore, I don't think that here everything is rushing to it (nuclear confrontation), but we are ready for this."
"Weapons exist in order to use them," Putin said. "We have our own principles."
However, Putin said Russia had never faced the need to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, where the conflict has raged since February 2022.
"Why do we need to use weapons of mass destruction? There has never been such a need."
But if the United States conducted nuclear tests, Russia might do the same, he said.
"It's not necessary ... we still need to think about it, but I don't rule out that we can do the same."
Again thats not what you implied. Why are we creating false unsourced uncited narratives and not allowing the presentation of a different view?
Russia wasn't threatening nuclear war at all. The barrage of posts from BGP on the subject over the last year+ have been all propagranda. They aren't sources. They don't hold water.
Every day for a period there BGP was posting "special" reports from twitter randoms of the exact time russia was going to strike the nuclear plants. BGP kept saying 'wait till the morning this one is real'. How is it real I would ask? Its just daily reports from random twitter accounts claiming things that don't happen.
Jeff Sachs said that he KNOWS that it was Ukraine shelling the plant...
You could have a pandemic that kills an estimated 20 million people and not really care to find out where it came from you can be 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 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.
Whats going on here kids?
Jbouton what's your point behind arguments about this specific war?
Do you consider Russia an enemy or not, in general, ex-ukraine?
Jbouton what's your point behind arguments about this specific war?
Do you consider Russia an enemy or not, in general, ex-ukraine?
This specific war?
My point has been clear, or a main issue, that this is a proxy war setting the battleground between the west and Russia. I don't know what ex ukraine is.
The story is more complex and nuance than the narrative the mainstream and this thread are being held to.
Putin explained of the area and history there is an element to civil war. That nuance makes far more sense to me.
It seems pretty clear, who Sachs calls the neo-cons, they are going to try to cripple Russia but Russia is obviously just the shores of china in this regard.
This specific war?
My point has been clear, or a main issue, that this is a proxy war setting the battleground between the west and Russia. I don't know what ex ukraine is.
The story is more complex and nuance than the narrative the mainstream and this thread are being held to.
Putin explained of the area and history there is an element to civil war. That nuance makes far more sense to me.
It seems pretty clear, who Sachs calls the neo-c
Ex Ukraine means, aside from Ukraine, do you consider Putin Russia an enemy or not.
Do you consider China an enemy?
My broad question is , do you disagree with Russia, China, and in general everyone not bending the knee to us being the enemy, or you disagree with how we deal with them (agreeing they are enemies), or what is your point, what would you want to see happening in a different way?
"Putin said the U.S. understood that if it deployed American troops on Russian territory - or to Ukraine - Russia would treat the move as an intervention. Moscow claims to have annexed four regions of Ukraine and says they are now fully part of Russia.
I mean it's a direct quote
"Putin said the U.S. understood that if it deployed American troops on Russian territory - or to Ukraine - Russia would treat the move as an intervention. Moscow claims to have annexed four regions of Ukraine and says they are now fully part of Russia.
I mean it's a direct quote
It's a normal thing to say tbh. Every nuclear power reminds others that they are willing to use nuclear weapons in case they get attacked.
Ofc it might be a bluff, for the annexed territory.
Not sure why we would need to call the bluff given we can supply weapons
"Putin said the U.S. understood that if it deployed American troops on Russian territory - or to Ukraine - Russia would treat the move as an intervention. Moscow claims to have annexed four regions of Ukraine and says they are now fully part of Russia.
I mean it's a direct quote
It is a direct quote, but your narrative of it is now missing from your post here. You have to put these two things together. The quote. And your characterization of it.
Putin was speaking in defense and this is a clear. Is that your point?
It is a direct quote, but your narrative of it is now missing from your post here. You have to put these two things together. The quote. And your characterization of it.
Putin was speaking in defense and this is a clear. Is that your point?
Putin is speaking in defense clearly BUT he is claiming the illegally annexed territory as it's own
