Merged Russian (genocidal) internal propaganda and goals about Ukraine

[Aridas]

"I'm impressed with how clean that skull looks, for something that was attached to a healthy torso just a couple months back. Makes me wonder how come the Russian troops apparently have carcass butchering and cleaning service deployed with them."

Was there something specific about the phrasing or the concepts presented that is confusing to you?

Might not have looked at the twitter link right before that so it looked like it was coming out of nowhere?

The link should have had at least some of the actual tweet, though, to be fair.

To quote it, albeit without the video -

Russian mercenary Igor Mangushev (Bereg) made a performance with the skull of a Ukrainian soldier killed near Azovstal.

In his speech, Mangushev said that Russia is at war with the Ukrainian idea, so all Ukrainians must be killed.

Still think trading with Russia is a good idea?

 

[Michel H]

Citation needed.

I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong about this bit, but maybe you could provide a relevant example? IMO our recent (and awful) PMs' have more of a tendency to hark back to the days of Empire, when three-quarters of the globe was pink, and all was well with the world, because Johnny Foreigner knew his place, damnit!

I believe there is a fairly obvious analogy between the UK trying to rescue Poland in 1939, and the UK trying to rescue Ukraine this year.

I also believe that, instead of providing a lot of weapons and money to Ukraine, which makes this country feel overconfident, and reject any reasonable compromise, the West should instead force Ukraine to renounce the parts of Ukraine which don't want to be Ukrainian.

This should lead to a quick peace, and alleviate economic suffering caused by high energy bills.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

First find the parts that don't want to be Ukrainian. Referendums carried out by an occupying force don't count.

 

[Michel H]

You missed the highlighted part. If Russia was genuinely concerned with the wellbeing of the citizens of the Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, they could have pressured for referendums, e.g. through the UN.
They didn't. They invaded, thus causing death and suffering for the very people they supposedly want to protect.
If, on the other hand, the invasions were more about imperialism and military prestige, then it makes more sense to invade first and set up post hoc justifications (i.e. rigged referendums) after.
So, Michel H: can you explain why Russia did not try to organise referendums first, rather than employing military means first?

I don't think that the referendums in Crimea and in the two people's republics were rigged (especially in Crimea). Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk were not part of Russia when the referendums took place in 2014.

However, if there is any doubt about the results, the referendums could be repeated under better international supervision.

 

[Michel H]

First find the parts that don't want to be Ukrainian. Referendums carried out by an occupying force don't count.

See this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum#Post-referendum_polls , and the first two minutes of this video by the BBC (which is not pro-Russian): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QOPpUQKDbQ.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I don't think that the referendums in Crimea and in the two people's republics were rigged (especially in Crimea). Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk were not part of Russia when the referendums took place in 2014.

However, if there is any doubt about the results, the referendums could be repeated under better international supervision.

A good start.

Of course, international supervision is only possible once Russia leaves those areas.

 

[Michel H]

A good start.

Of course, international supervision is only possible once Russia leaves those areas.

This doesn't seem necessary to me, as long as supervisors can do their job unimpeded.

For example, Rafael Grossi said on Twitter, one hour ago:

The day has come, @IAEAorg's Support and Assistance Mission to #Zaporizhzhya (ISAMZ) is now on its way. We must protect the safety and security of #Ukraine’s and Europe’s biggest nuclear facility. Proud to lead this mission which will be in #ZNPP later this week.

(https://twitter.com/rafaelmgrossi/status/1564096717397659649)

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is in territory occupied by Russia, but this shouldn't prevent international nuclear inspectors from doing their work.

 

[Aridas]

This doesn't seem necessary to me, as long as supervisors can do their job unimpeded.

For example, Rafael Grossi said on Twitter, one hour ago:

(https://twitter.com/rafaelmgrossi/status/1564096717397659649)

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is in territory occupied by Russia, but this shouldn't prevent international nuclear inspectors from doing their work.

So long as Russia is using it as a military base and thus keeping explosives in very dangerous areas, Russia is making it wildly unsafe.

Still, international supervision, if Russia actually cooperates, will hopefully make things at least marginally better.

 

[The Don]

A good start.

Of course, international supervision is only possible once Russia leaves those areas.

Of course those areas have been ethnically cleansed since 2014 so the results may be different to pre-2014

 

[Michel H]

Of course those areas have been ethnically cleansed since 2014 so the results may be different to pre-2014

People who can prove they have been forced to leave, and who want to come back, should probably be allowed to participate in the new poll.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I don't think that the referendums in Crimea and in the two people's republics were rigged (especially in Crimea).

Yes, I know. The fact that the international community does, doesn't bother you one bit, does it?

Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk were not part of Russia when the referendums took place in 2014.

Are you denying that the referendum in Crimea took place after the Russians had seized it?
You are still missing my point about Donetsk and Luhansk:
Why could Russia not have asked for referendums before invading? Why attack a place you claim to be trying to protect? Why do you not support the idea of peace over war?

However, if there is any doubt about the results, the referendums could be repeated under better international supervision.

Have there been referendums in the occupied parts of Ukraine yet?
If those areas vote to remain in Ukraine, and Russia disputes that- as it inevitably will- will you reject the results of those referendums? The international community has, after all, disputed the result of the Crimean referendum, but you insist it was fine. Looks to me like you will only accept a pro-Russian result.

 

[Wildy]

I don't think that the referendums in Crimea and in the two people's republics were rigged (especially in Crimea). Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk were not part of Russia when the referendums took place in 2014.

However, if there is any doubt about the results, the referendums could be repeated under better international supervision.

Yes. They were legally part of Ukraine and for those referendums to be legitimate means that they have to be legal under Ukrainian law. Were they legal under Ukrainian law?

 

[Michel H]

Yes, I know. The fact that the international community does, doesn't bother you one bit, does it?

I think that the international community has a tendency to be biased and unfair to Russia.

Are you denying that the referendum in Crimea took place after the Russians had seized it?
You are still missing my point about Donetsk and Luhansk:
Why could Russia not have asked for referendums before invading? Why attack a place you claim to be trying to protect? Why do you not support the idea of peace over war?

There were Russian troops without their military uniforms in Crimea and (probably) also in both Donbass republics when the referendums took place. But these "friendly" soldiers did not prevent citizens to vote freely.

Have there been referendums in the occupied parts of Ukraine yet?
If those areas vote to remain in Ukraine, and Russia disputes that- as it inevitably will- will you reject the results of those referendums? The international community has, after all, disputed the result of the Crimean referendum, but you insist it was fine. Looks to me like you will only accept a pro-Russian result.

When you write "occupied parts of Ukraine", do you mean "recently occupied parts of Ukraine"? (like Kherson for example, I suppose this is what you mean).
I didn't think about holding referendums there, but this is perhaps something Russia would like and demand to do. In a sense, your ideas seem to be more lenient towards Russia than mine.
Obviously, results of referendums should be respected. In my opinion, Ukraine should regain control of Kherson, but not of Donetsk and Crimea. I cannot, however, say with certainty what the results of new referendums would be.

 

[Michel H]

Yes. They were legally part of Ukraine and for those referendums to be legitimate means that they have to be legal under Ukrainian law. Were they legal under Ukrainian law?

What is more important, in my opinion, is that the referendums were honest and fair, and that the results faithfully reflected the views of the people.

 

[Wildy]

What is more important, in my opinion, is that the referendums were honest and fair, and the the results faithfully reflected the views of the people.

Unfortunately, in the real world in which we live in, that's not how that works at all. If your ideal was indeed reality then we'd could look at the international relations between the world and the independent countries of Catalonia and Kurdistan.

 

[Michel H]

Unfortunately, in the real world in which we live in, that's not how that works at all. If your ideal was indeed reality then we'd could look at the international relations between the world and the independent countries of Catalonia and Kurdistan.

Not quite, this would be a simplistic analysis.

In Spain for example, there is no civil war, and I believe relations between Catalonia and the central government have improved with the "new" (actually, since 2018) socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.

 

[Wildy]

Not quite, this would be a simplistic analysis.

In Spain for example, there is no civil war, and I believe relations between Catalonia and the central government have improved with the "new" (actually, since 2018) socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.

Oh, so the most important thing in your opinion is that the referendums were honest and fair, the results faithfully reflected the views of the people, and there's a civil war going on?

Is that why you ignored the Kurdistan vote? Because it's too much like a civil war, or is it that it's not enough like a civil war for it to be legitimate in your mind?

 

[Craig4]

See this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum#Post-referendum_polls , and the first two minutes of this video by the BBC (which is not pro-Russian): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QOPpUQKDbQ.

Doesn't matter. There was no referendum. The only authority that can hold an election in Ukraine is the Ukrainian government. Also, the polls are post Russian unlawful occupation so they are meaningless. We know the depravity and barbarity Russians are capable of. We've seen it demonstrated. No poll under the occupation of their kind can have any meaning whatsoever.

 

[Michel H]

Oh, so the most important thing in your opinion is that the referendums were honest and fair, the results faithfully reflected the views of the people, and there's a civil war going on?

Is that why you ignored the Kurdistan vote? Because it's too much like a civil war, or is it that it's not enough like a civil war for it to be legitimate in your mind?

It seems to me that it would be good that Erdoğan grants some autonomy to Turkish Kurdistan, like this has been done in Iraq, for example. This would be good for peace, and also for the Turkish economy.

Erdoğan is a fairly authoritarian leader, but I believe he plays a useful role in the current Ukraine-Russia conflict, where is appears as a moderate, trying to be on good terms with both Ukraine and Russia.

 

[Wildy]

It seems to me that it would be good that Erdoğan grants some autonomy to Turkish Kurdistan, like this has been done in Iraq, for example. This would be good for peace, and also for the Turkish economy.

What does any of this have to do with Iraqi Kurdistan holding a referendum that voted in favour of independence from Iraq? Why is it that you don't accept Kurdish independence but will accept the "independence" of obvious puppet states?

But if you're going to take this route, why didn't the Autonomous Republic of Crimea ask for greater autonomy within Ukraine instead of holding a referendum that was deemed illegal by the Ukrainian courts? Wouldn't that have been good for peace and the Ukrainian economy as a whole?