Jump to content

Russian invasion of Ukraine


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

The window of opportunity for calming it down was back in February / March. The West chose aggression instead.

Still can't find it within yourself to condemn Russia for invading a sovereign nation, mass murder of civilians, mass rape, torture, and forcing people to vote for them in rigged referenda in occupied territories eh?

What would Russia have to do to receive your criticism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

Absolutely everything. I wonder how you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning tbh.  

Care to explain how the window of opportunity for, and I quote, "calming this down" was not immediately before / after it started but rather 7 months down the line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

Care to explain how the window of opportunity for, and I quote, "calming this down" was not immediately before / after it started but rather 7 months down the line?

Sorry Vlad.  It was your “the West chose aggression instead” quote that i was talking about.

Absolute minter for you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oaksoft said:

Still can't find it within yourself to condemn Russia for invading a sovereign nation, mass murder of civilians, mass rape, torture, and forcing people to vote for them in rigged referenda in occupied territories eh?

What would Russia have to do to receive your criticism?

Stating that the window of opportunity for calming aggression in a war is immediately before / after it starts is an objective statement. It's not taking either side.

I don't pretend to know enough about the political intricacies of the countries of the formier Soviet Union to take a side, which is why I've not done so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

Stating that the window of opportunity for calming aggression in a war is immediately before / after it starts is an objective statement. It's not taking either side.

"The West chose aggression" is very much taking sides. No need to treat me or anyone else like an idiot my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

Sorry Vlad.  It was your “the West chose aggression instead” quote that i was talking about.

Absolute minter for you.  

But they did, though. They chose to sanction one side whilst supplying weapons to the other.

They then actively discouraged peace talks.

That is choosing aggression. Whether or not you agree with the motivations for doing so doesn't change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

But they did, though. They chose to sanction one side whilst supplying weapons to the other.

They then actively discouraged peace talks.

That is choosing aggression. Whether or not you agree with the motivations for doing so doesn't change that.

Ok mate.  Enjoy your night. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Around Lyman the word appears to be that the northern road in to Drobysheve is now cut off at Stavky, while to the south Yampil may or may not have been liberated with the road in now mined.

 

...but Vlad is about to annex Donetsk oblast so the Russians obviously have nothing to worry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all very well saying "the time for Peace Talks was in February" but at the time Putin had already broken several of the promises he'd already made in the Minsk Agreement. Russia had build up a massive force on Ukraine's borders (and not just on the borders of the Donbass). Russia had decided to recognise the two breakaway Republics without any arbitration or negotiations with Ukraine (and of course during that bizarre council of ministers meeting that was televised, one of the ministers let the cat out the bag, not that it was well hidden, when he said he supported absorbing them into the Russian Federation). Russia then, rather than supporting these breakaway "Republics" attacked Kyiv and overthrow the government. At which point during all this does anyone think would have been a sensible time to hold peace talks, given that one side in particular was not interested in peace in any way shape or form that didn't involve a land grab and regime change to a puppet government at the very least, and the complete annihilation and absorption of Ukraine (and Transnistria) into Russia at the most?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of what you state there is correct, but

1) The 'promises' of the Minsk Agreement were being broken on both sides. The failure of both parties to find a reasonable co-existence was an important background cause of - but not a justification for - the military conflict.

2) The best time to secure peace is always before the guns start firing and blood is spilled - so it remains the case that February was the best opportunity to do that. There has been no serious effort to deescalate so far from any interested party - which is why we're hurtling into a very risky situation with probable annexations being declared. The chances of a peaceful settlement might have been low then - they're practically zero in the short-term from here. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Still can't find it within yourself to condemn Russia for invading a sovereign nation, mass murder of civilians, mass rape, torture, and forcing people to vote for them in rigged referenda in occupied territories eh?

 

10 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

I don't pretend to know enough about the political intricacies of the countries of the formier Soviet Union to take a side, which is why I've not done so.

Drake Reaction GIF by DJ Khaled

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

I don't pretend to know enough about the political intricacies of the countries of the formier Soviet Union to take a side, which is why I've not done so.

You pretend to know loads of stuff about topics you patently know f**k all about, so why are you drawing the line here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some talk that the direct placement of conscripts came direct from Putin overriding the military top brass and Russian law.

Apparently was in direct line with front line command structures rather than going through proper channels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Nichols an expert on Russia and nuclear policies has 10 minutes covering those topics.

https://youtu.be/OVvapGIrym8?t=2089

Short take away. The silly election results were a demonstration of power not legitimacy.

The nuclear option is unlikely but needs to be discussed seriously. He cites a possible use case that is known as "escalate to deescalate". Simply raising the stakes so much people have to deal with him. The strongest argument against it is his few friends in the world would drop him like a hot rock.

He also talks about a possible reason for the mobilisation as to put so much Russian blood into the Ukrainian soil that Russians feel compelled to honour that sacrifice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...