• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michel H said:
When I read your posts, I get the impression that most of you are convinced that that it is the Russians (and Putin especially) who created most of the trouble (uprising, civil war ...) in Ukraine, with a goal of territorial expansion.
Click to expand...

Because he and those he led did. Irrefutably. Certainly, there's more to the story, but all the trouble of relevance pretty much leads back to Russia's crimes.

Michel H said:
However, we know that Russia does already have a very large territory, even after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

This is a Red Herring. It's thoroughly irrelevant, rather than being some counter.

As an aside, why do you think that Russia has such a very large territory? Lots and lots and lots of territorial expansion. It's no stretch to accept that a group that's done something over and over and over might be trying to do it yet again.

Michel H said:
Morover, the wikipedia article on the Donetsk People's Republic explains:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_People's_Republic).

Here we see that, contrary to the usual Western narrative, the current president of Russia played a moderating role in 2014.
Click to expand...

That's the thing about cherry picking and spin. In reality, there's frequently something that one can take out of context and twist to try to suit some fanciful interpretation that's got little to do with reality.
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
When I read your posts, I get the impression that most of you are convinced that that it is the Russians (and Putin especially) who created most of the trouble (uprising, civil war ...) in Ukraine, with a goal of territorial expansion.

However, we know that Russia does already have a very large territory, even after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Morover, the wikipedia article on the Donetsk People's Republic explains:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_People's_Republic).

Here we see that, contrary to the usual Western narrative, the current president of Russia played a moderating role in 2014.
Click to expand...

It's not moderating if you do it after an invasion. It's also not moderating for the **** to stage a fake election and pretend to annex another country's territory. All the **** and his orcs have to do to end this is go home.
 
Last edited:
Michel H said:
When I read your posts, I get the impression that most of you are convinced that that it is the Russians (and Putin especially) who created most of the trouble (uprising, civil war ...) in Ukraine, with a goal of territorial expansion.

However, we know that Russia does already have a very large territory, even after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Morover, the wikipedia article on the Donetsk People's Republic explains:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_People's_Republic).

Here we see that, contrary to the usual Western narrative, the current president of Russia played a moderating role in 2014.
Click to expand...

Ok you can't possibly be serious. There's no way that you're that deluded.
 
Craig4 said:
It's not moderating if you do it after an invasion. It's also not moderating for the **** to stage a fake election and pretend to annex another country's territory. All the **** and his orcs have to do to end this is go home.
Click to expand...
Yes, good idea. Then the civil war starts over again, and on a much larger scale because now Crimea is occupied by Ukraine.

Russian president Vladimir Putin "asked the separatists to postpone the proposed referendum to create the necessary conditions for dialogue" on May 7, 2014.

On the other hand, Russia's first invasion of Ukraine (its "stealth invasion" of 2014) began only in August of that year, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014–2022) for details.
 
Michel H said:
Yes, good idea. Then the civil war starts over again, and on a much larger scale because now Crimea is occupied by Ukraine.

Russian president Vladimir Putin "asked the separatists to postpone the proposed referendum to create the necessary conditions for dialogue" on May 7, 2014.

On the other hand, Russia's first invasion of Ukraine (its "stealth invasion" of 2014) began only in August of that year, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014–2022) for details.
Click to expand...

There is no civil war. There was a proxy war sponsored by the orcs. Once the orcs are gone, there is no civil war. There would be no war in Ukraine without the orcs.
 
Crimea wouldn't be "occupied" by Ukraine. Crimea would be part of Ukraine, which is what it is. The Russian funded and supplied terrorists fighting there would probably be mopped up pretty quickly.
 
The French newspaper Le Monde has just published an interesting paper (in French) explaining that the old people in Kherson are disappointed the Russians left (they paid good retirement benefits): https://www.lemonde.fr/internationa...-russes-nous-ont-abandonnes_6154824_3210.html.

One Ukrainian lady (her name is Svitlana) called the Ukrainian soldiers "good-for-nothings". She said that, unlike Russian soldiers who were bringing aid, they were not helping.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Crimea wouldn't be "occupied" by Ukraine. Crimea would be part of Ukraine, which is what it is. The Russian funded and supplied terrorists fighting there would probably be mopped up pretty quickly.
Click to expand...
An occupation of Crimea by Ukraine would probably not be legitimate, since we know from reliable sources that Russian-speaking Crimea is pro-Russian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum#Post-referendum_polls , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QOPpUQKDbQ&ab_channel=BBCNews).
 
Michel H said:
I am not saying that being a Russian speaker in Ukraine automatically means that you are a supporter of Russia, but this is nevertheless a factor which must be taken into account, and probabley partially explains some people's opinions.
Click to expand...
(error correction, sorry)
 
Michel H said:
An occupation of Crimea by Ukraine would probably not be legitimate, since we know from reliable sources that Russian-speaking Crimea is pro-Russian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum#Post-referendum_polls , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QOPpUQKDbQ&ab_channel=BBCNews).
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

If you just ignore everything that demonstrates that your position is nonsense, this might make sense to you. That's not a particularly honest way to do things, of course.
 
Michel H said:
An occupation of Crimea by Ukraine would probably not be legitimate, since we know from reliable sources that Russian-speaking Crimea is pro-Russian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum#Post-referendum_polls , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QOPpUQKDbQ&ab_channel=BBCNews).
Click to expand...

Again, those "referendums" are not legitimate. No one except Russia considers them legitimate. They were fraudulent. This has been explained to you repeatedly. This level of ignorance must be deliberate.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Again, those "referendums" are not legitimate. No one except Russia considers them legitimate. They were fraudulent. This has been explained to you repeatedly. This level of ignorance must be deliberate.
Click to expand...
Did you even read the section of wikipedia I have linked in post #1491, and did you watch the video?
 
Last edited:
No. Why on earth would I? I know what happened, I followed the news at the time. Russia performed pantomime "referendums" enforced with voter suppression and threats of violence to get the result they wanted in order to provide a thin veneer of "credibility" to their invasion of Ukraine. No one bought it. The sham was obvious.

Did you know that the Nazis shot a bunch of prisoners, dressed them up in Polish military uniforms and put them across the Polish border with Germany so they could claim that their invasion of Poland was in response to a Polish invasion? Russia basically did the equivalent of that.

You must understand this. People have explained it to you ad nauseum. At this point, as I say, your ignorance must be deliberate.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
No. Why on earth would I? I know what happened, I followed the news at the time. Russia performed pantomime "referendums" enforced with voter suppression and threats of violence to get the result they wanted in order to provide a thin veneer of "credibility" to their invasion of Ukraine. No one bought it. The sham was obvious.

Did you know that the Nazis shot a bunch of prisoners, dressed them up in Polish military uniforms and put them across the Polish border with Germany so they could claim that their invasion of Poland was in response to a Polish invasion? Russia basically did the equivalent of that.

You must understand this. People have explained it to you ad nauseum. At this point, as I say, your ignorance must be deliberate.
Click to expand...
Did you know that the Nazis shot a bunch of prisoners, dressed them up in Polish military uniforms and put them across the Polish border with Germany so they could claim that their invasion of Poland was in response to a Polish invasion?
Click to expand...
Yes, I am very well aware of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler#Implementation.

If you have been intoxicated by simplistic BBC propaganda for many months, when some forum members make the effort and take the time to present a different kind of evidence to you, I believe you should take some time to study it, especially if this doesn't take very long.

This is part of normal forum etiquette, and is necessary for constructive dialogue and discussion. Otherwise, you might eternally remain at exactly the same point, intellectually speaking, while using some very strong words.
 
"BBC propaganda"? Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious.

Firstly because you appear to be swallowing Russian propaganda hook line and sinker, and second because the second link you supplied was from the BBC.

There is no such thing as different kinds of evidence. There is evidence or there is propaganda. Everything that comes out of Russia is propaganda.

Please explain what has led you to believe that the referendum was legitimate when absolutely no other country accepts it? Why do you know better than the governments of literally every country on earth?
 
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-december-12

ISW is assessing Ukraine will launch counter offensives in February when the ground is frozen enough for tanks and maneuver warfare. I'd love to see Ukraine do another hard push north of Lyman and maybe drive to Melitopol.

Breaking the land bridge and getting to the Sea of Azov makes retaking Crimea a matter of time. If Ukraine can hold the Black Sea Fleet and the bridge at risk with their drones Crimea will cease to be viable for the orcs.
 
Michel H said:
Do you enthusiastically agree that the Ukrainian soldiers are "good-for-nothings"? (see post #1490 above).
Click to expand...

I'm not saying there aren't a few pro-orc cranks. I'm sure the orcs took care of the pro-orc Ukrainians. That hardly makes Crimea or Kherson Russian.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom