Ukraine: As it happens.

semionova

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

You'd nearly think there was some sort of programming behind it.

Have bots evolved to the point of being able to converse or is he just being paid?

Gringo180

semionova wrote: »

You have got to be kidding. The Iraq and Afghan wars got HUGE protests in the media and on the streets.

The BBC and Sky News spouted so much pro war propaganda leading up to the Iraqi invasion, sickening it was.

The Lancet journal has deaths in the first 18 months of the invasion as 100,000. That war has set the whole region on fire and has spawned the likes of Isis.

Gringo180

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/search?q=anti%20iraq%20war%20protests&client=ms-android-google&espv=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sboxchip=Images&sa=X&ei=F2iEVc77PIL-7Abi2IOABA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=360&bih=519&dpr=3

Cmon buddy, raise your game.

Im talking about the establishment and media.

Irish Praetorian

Gringo180 wrote: »

The BBC and Sky News spouted so much pro war propaganda leading up to the Iraqi invasion, sickening it was.

The Lancet journal has deaths in the first 18 months of the invasion as 100,000. That war has set the whole region on fire and has spawned the likes of Isis.

Such as what? Reporting the B&B were claiming WMD were in Iraq?

The Lancet also reported that vaccines cause autism, a little source criticism goes a long way.

BoJack Horseman

Gringo180 wrote: »

Im talking about the establishment and media.

Worthy of a thread all of its own.
You should do that guy.

Gringo180

semionova wrote: »

Again though you are distracting the attention of the debate onto other cases. Your only argument seems to be digression.

I have already stated I am no fan of Putin. But he is nowhere near as bad as George Bush or Tony Blair, the former going on to be a peace envoy for the middle east after committing war crimes in the very same region. He should be in the Hague alongside the likes of Bush, Putin and Neytanyahu.

Irish Praetorian

Gringo180 wrote: »

I have already stated I am no fan of Putin. But he is nowhere near as bad as George Bush or Tony Blair, the former going on to be a peace envoy for the middle east after committing war crimes in the very same region. He should be in the Hague alongside the likes of Bush, Putin and Neytanyahu.

Bush and Blair both have a redeeming feature - they're gone from the political scene.

As for the Bush, Blair, Netanyahu point in general - are you trying to paint yourself as some kind of ill-informed hard-left go with the flow stereotype?

Public_Enema

semionova wrote: »

Don't bring in other cases into this individual case.

gandalf wrote: »

Again the old someone else did something bad, sure why can't Russia do the same arguement

If being reminded of historical reality is a sensitive subject for you then that's tough. You know the truth doesn't stop being the truth, due to the passage of time. It's like the little wolf pack mentality tries to suppress posters from stating facts, facts that expose hypocritical apologists.

But if one wants to get on their soap box and accuse Russia. You can't really do that and yet be an apologist for American & NATO warmongers. Or the multiplying fascist groups in Ukraine who are driving their dangerous agenda.

Browsing across the site the last couple of day and I can already see the same rubbish 'bot' rhetoric from repeated sources. If you don't subscribe to the opinion the America & NATO are always right, always the goods guys then the you must be a 'bot'.

This is the view of those who try to force one to submit to their collective. They don't seem to understand democracy, or that people may not agree with them. Yes let's throw out the oul 'Bot' nonsense/ spam the thread and hide behind it.

Yet one could wonder, are the blind apologists who always seem to back the western expansionist/interference line. It is they who are the only genuine 'bots'? Because from what I've read, they certainly never seem to deviate from the party line.

I couldn't give a crap about Putin or Russian. But when I look at the most destabilising influence on this planet since the end of the Cold War. America is leading the pack, closely followed by NATO. It is just laughable to scaremonger about Russia and ignore the wake of destabilising destruction America has left in its wake.

Russia might wrongly want to dominate its borders or sphere of influence. But the American and its almost Reich-like tendencies, appears to want to dominate the world.

Gringo180

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Bush and Blair both have a redeeming feature - they're gone from the political scene.

So they shouldn't be held to task for committing war crimes just because there out of office? What a great deterrent for future warmongors that hold office in the U.S and Britain.

semionova

Public_Enema wrote: »

If being reminded of historical reality is a sensitive subject for you then that's tough. You know the truth doesn't stop being the truth, due to the passage of time. It's like the little wolf pack mentality tries to suppress posters from stating facts, facts that expose hypocritical apologists.

They are facts but they have no bearing on this conflict. Russia is not invading Ukraine because of the US invading Iraq.

gandalf

Public_Enema wrote: »

If being reminded of historical reality is a sensitive subject for you then that's tough. You know the truth doesn't stop being the truth, due to the passage of time. It's like the little wolf pack mentality tries to suppress posters from stating facts, facts that expose hypocritical apologists.

The fact here is that Russia has interfered with their direct neighbour. No amount of verbal gymnastics from you or the people who "think" like you will change this.

For the record I have criticised the US when they have deserved it. Check back on the Politics forum threads to when the Iraq war was threatening and occurred and you will see plenty of evidence of this.

What Russia has done to another European Country is wrong, it is a danger to the stability of that country and to the stability of Europe. They are rightly being sanctioned and ostracised because of this.

Connemara Farmer

I'm happy to see US troops and equipment in Europe. States in the former USSR's former sphere of influence have every right to feel threatened given their experiences in the last century. Recent history in Ukraine and other areas that Russia is interfering with can only copper fasten those concerns.

The one thing that does worry me is the amount of heavy equipment, ammunition, and other supplies the Americans may bring. In the case of an outbreak of wide scale unpleasantness - which I don't believe will happen, as even during the Cold War it wasn't in anyone's interests for that to happen within Europe - a large stock of propositioned equipment and relevant supplies would be critical.

It is easy to move the manpower who know how to operate tanks, artillery, attack helicopters, other armored vehicles and such across the globe. But that type of equipment is not itself easy to move in a hurry.

It's a reflection also on how toothless the EU really is, when members request US boots on the ground. We are incapable of defending our own territory.

As for economics I believe it's critical that "Western" countries develop practical alternatives to fossil fuels, due to where the reserves are mostly located in unstable, unreliable, and sometimes downright unfriendly countries.

Irish Praetorian

Gringo180 wrote: »

So they shouldn't be held to task for committing war crimes just because there out of office? What a great deterrent for future warmongors that hold office in the U.S and Britain.

It merely puts them a level above Putin, who appears to be headed for Tsardom...

Irish Praetorian

Public_Enema wrote: »

If being reminded of historical reality is a sensitive subject for you then that's tough. You know the truth doesn't stop being the truth, due to the passage of time. It's like the little wolf pack mentality tries to suppress posters from stating facts, facts that expose hypocritical apologists.

But its not a 'sensitive subject' it's an irrelevant one and is used to underpin a faulty argument, namely that US did X so Russia should also be allowed to do Y'. You almost seem to be disappointed that there is anything even remotely resembling the kind of opposition the US attracted during the earlier years of the last decade'

But if one wants to get on their soap box and accuse Russia. You can't really do that and yet be an apologist for American & NATO warmongers. Or the multiplying fascist groups in Ukraine who are driving their dangerous agenda.

Who's apologizing here? I've not said that I supported the Iraq War, nor that I thought it was especially legal, nor that B&B oughtn't be prosecuted - you've simply inferred that because it makes your own indefensible position look more tolerable. Oh and if we're going to talk about Fascist groups, I'm going to want to hear some more about Russian Biker Gangs...

Browsing across the site the last couple of day and I can already see the same rubbish 'bot' rhetoric from repeated sources. If you don't subscribe to the opinion the America & NATO are always right, always the goods guys then the you must be a 'bot'.

No I'm thinking if you fit a pattern of recent registration, spamming of inane comments and then entry to this highly specialized topic, you might well be a bot. But then we do have some people here who are clearly not bots making some pro-Russia arguments. I think what has you disappointed is that we haven't been fawning and impressed by these second rate cliches of 'US bad too' or 'Iraq War was wrong'.

This is the view of those who try to force one to submit to their collective. They don't seem to understand democracy, or that people may not agree with them. Yes let's throw out the oul 'Bot' nonsense/ spam the thread and hide behind it.

It's a funny sort of compulsion, being able to freely debate a topic and hear different views, occasionally getting challenged on a topic as opposed to simply depositing some received wisdom and expecting to get praised for it. Perhaps you might want to try;

I'd be happy with higher taxes if I thought they were going to people who genuinely needed it.
Politicians are all corrupt and terrible swine.
The Children are our future.
Or I think the economy is a very important issue.

Yet one could wonder, are the blind apologists who always seem to back the western expansionist/interference line. It is they who are the only genuine 'bots'? Because from what I've read, they certainly never seem to deviate from the party line.

Is that something you've deduced from your three days on this forum? Out of interest, what is the party line, I forgot my copy.

I couldn't give a crap about Putin or Russian. But when I look at the most destabilising influence on this planet since the end of the Cold War. America is leading the pack, closely followed by NATO. It is just laughable to scaremonger about Russia and ignore the wake of destabilising destruction America has left in its wake.

Presumably that's because you're looking through blinders set out for you by the professionally outraged? It's funny, I don't remember the US exterminating half a million South Sudanese nor do I recall NATO operating hellish prison camps for one hundred thousand people. But then if its not splashed across our screens with some witty captions and a few jibes about how bad the West is, it doesn't really happen does it?

Russia might wrongly want to dominate its borders or sphere of influence. But the American and its almost Reich-like tendencies, appears to want to dominate the world.

A USA - Nazi comparison, straight out of the Putin-bot repertoire, come on you're masking this too easy.

robindch

TomBtheGoat wrote: »

And yet, it's still a breach of a promise that the United States made to the Russians when the Cold War ended.

That "promise" is Russian propaganda.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm

NATO wrote:

Claim: NATO leaders promised at the time of German reunification that the Alliance would not expand to the East.

Fact: No such promise was ever made, and Russia has never produced any evidence to back up its claim. Every formal decision which NATO takes is adopted by consensus and recorded in writing. There is no written record of any such decision having been taken by the Alliance: therefore, no such promise can have been made. Moreover, at the time of the alleged promise, the Warsaw Pact still existed. Its members did not agree on its dissolution until 1991. Therefore, it is not plausible to suggest that the idea of their accession to NATO was on the agenda in 1989.

This was confirmed by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev himself. This is what Mr Gorbachev said on 15 October 2014 in an interview with Rossiiskaya Gazeta and Russia Beyond The Headlines: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either."

I hope this clarifies your false understanding.

robindch

Gringo180 wrote: »

Not to mention the coup the U.S funded in Kiev to get rid of the democratically elected government just because he was pro Russian. Putin and Russia are no angels but I am sick to death of people painting them the bad guys and the Americans as the good guys.

Your understanding here is similarly false.

The US did not fund a coup in Kiev because there was no coup in Kiev.

And the USA misbehaving does not excuse Putin's invasion of Crimea and East Ukraine and murdering thousands there.

I hope this clarifies your false understanding.

robindch

Gringo180 wrote: »

I have already stated I am no fan of Putin.

The content of your posts suggests that you follow the Putin-controlled media playbook so closely that you may as well be working for him.

bilston

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

It's a reflection also on how toothless the EU really is, when members request US boots on the ground. We are incapable of defending our own territory.
.

Am I not right in thinking that the combined conventional military strength of the EU is significantly bigger than Russia's?

Nuclear capability is another thing altogether.

robindch

bilston wrote: »

Am I not right in thinking that the combined conventional military strength of the EU is significantly bigger than Russia's?

Yes, because the EU is much larger than Russia and is much richer. Russia is spending a higher proportion of its national incoming on tanks, guns and other war-related gear, but - tanks aside - it's years behind the EU countries on multiple fronts.

bilston wrote: »

Nuclear capability is another thing altogether.

Unlike Russia, the two EU members with nuclear capability (France + the UK) have not indicated they're considering nuclear weapons:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31899680

Gatling

Gringo180 wrote: »

Yet the illegal American invasions dont get the same level of criticism that the Russians get, I wonder why that is? Over a million dead in Iraq? How many have died in the invasion of Crimea? Neither are right but at least the Russians don't go in and massacre thousands of civialians in the process.

Afghanistan war Russian's massacred hundreds of thousands directly .
The Americans certainly didn't massacre 1million Iraqis .
Decisions made by some lead indirectly to deaths mainly caused by sectarian violence but they didn't do what the Russians did in the afghan war

obplayer

robindch wrote: »

Yes, because the EU is much larger than Russia and is much richer. Russia is spending a higher proportion of its national incoming on tanks, guns and other war-related gear, but - tanks aside - it's years behind the EU countries on multiple fronts.Unlike Russia, the two EU members with nuclear capability (France + the UK) have not indicated they're considering nuclear weapons:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31899680

The only reason Russia is a worry militarily is because of it's nuclear weapons. Admittedly that is a big reason but the fact remains that their conventional weaponry is sh1te. Just like their economy. And this is what you get from an utterly corrupt and dysfunctional society.

Egginacup

McCain is now bitching that Europe hasn't done "enough" to help fcuking with Russia:

http://dailystar.com.lb/News/World/2015/Jun-20/undefined

And this is the clown who not only doesn't know how many houses he owns but reckons we should all follow him. Sarah Palin was his would-be VP after all.

But what makes me laugh most of all is Poroshenko's admission now that the coup was illegal. CYA anybody? :pac:

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150620/1023639521.html#ixzz3dct6bE9G

dubscottie

Egginacup wrote: »

McCain is now bitching that Europe hasn't done "enough" to help fcuking with Russia:

http://dailystar.com.lb/News/World/2015/Jun-20/undefined]

Not working.. Had a look at your employers website (RT) and what a laugh.

Should rename it russian propaganda today.

IrishTrajan

[QUOTE=WakeUp;95935038yeah but FDR still went down that road with the Japanese. got them pearl harboured. and then some.[/QUOTE]

Are you seriously implying that Russia is going to attack the US or EU? To do so would be complete and utter suicide, and it is delusional to think Russia wants to be destroyed.

steddyeddy

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Are you seriously implying that Russia is going to attack the US or EU? To do so would be complete and utter suicide, and it is delusional to think Russia wants to be destroyed.

During the worst excesses of Stalin's executions of the Russian people support for him actually went up. The power of the personality cult in Russia and state nationalism has bordered on delusion at the best of times.

IrishTrajan

robindch wrote: »

Russia is no longer capable of rational negotiation. Its invasion of Ukraine notwithstanding, the country has become the diplomatic equivalent of some randomer who enjoys ringing his neighbours' doorbells, then running away. So long as that's all Putin is doing, the EU isn't going to do much more than continue fiddling, so to speak.

On this we disagree, I'm afraid. I think Russia was genuinely concerned more with China's rise (to the fact China historically owned eastern-parts of Russia), but since the failed diplomatic reset, Russia has decided that strong relations with China (even if it is an inevitable strategic obstacle in the future) is better than nothing.

Putin's calculations have been (largely) quite accurate. He is placing immense pressure on alienated EU members, like Greece (and to a lesser extent; Hungary). He is trying to cut Europe's plans to wean of Russian gas/oil with the Turkish stream project. He is trying to keep the US tied up in the Middle East (by flooding Iraq/Syria with Russian small arms; by offering to sell Iran the S400 system to slow down nuclear negotiations). He's also countering China's rise by strengthening ties with North Korea and Vietnam, and he's fighting tooth and nail to keep the Indians (though I don't think he can compete with the US on these offers) on his side.

That said, Ukraine was an absolute blunder which has backfired tremendously and left the Russian economy in rubble. It is of a smaller economic size than Spain at this point, I believe. His actions in Belarus (threatening to annex parts of Belarus if they go ahead with their EU-trade agreements) are also making even his allies a little jittery.

So, while I don't believe Russia is without a strategy, I don't believe they know exactly what they strategy is. China is going to look at Russian hegemony in Central Asia (they're already fighting over it with investment deals) sooner or later, the only question is whether Russia will let the Chinese take over, and sit in the passenger seat, or if they will try to split their reliance on China (which necessitates deepening ties with the EU or US; the EU looking more likely as Russia is painting the EU as a US-pawn for sanctioning them, and not a rival itself).

IrishTrajan

steddyeddy wrote: »

During the worst excesses of Stalin's executions of the Russian people support for him actually went up. The power of the personality cult in Russia and state nationalism has bordered on delusion at the best of times.

Yes, but the State and the Oligarchs themselves know fighting a war would be suicide (so much so Putin said that anyone who believes Russia would attack the West is living in a dream). It's much easier to steal billions from the people and amass enormous wealth, than to seriously contemplate fighting the West.

Grayson

Egginacup wrote: »

McCain is now bitching that Europe hasn't done "enough" to help fcuking with Russia:

http://dailystar.com.lb/News/World/2015/Jun-20/undefined

And this is the clown who not only doesn't know how many houses he owns but reckons we should all follow him. Sarah Palin was his would-be VP after all.

But what makes me laugh most of all is Poroshenko's admission now that the coup was illegal. CYA anybody? :pac:

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150620/1023639521.html#ixzz3dct6bE9G

I tied and couldn't find any non Russian state sources for that except the Kiev post. They had 4 lines about it. I'm trying to put it into context. One of the few references I found mentioned that the law stripped him of his title for life and that was wrong because all past presidents retain the name "President" as a title for life. This seems to be about that. It doesn't clearly say that his removal from power was illegal, just the removal of the title.

As for McCain, I think most people give him as much lip-service as they do for Palin. He turned very far right during his campaign and he's still pandering to that crowd.

IrishTrajan

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Now disconnecting SWIFT is of course an option, but its a drum that can only be beaten once, and with other less savoury actors like China perfectly willing to set up an alternative to SWIFT should their interests demand it, cutting Russia off from the system is at this stage, a last resort. .

Absolutely, but to take a thought from Ian Bremmer: If China breaks our sanctions, we sanction China.

As much as the Chinese like Russian oil, they like Western markets more.

IrishTrajan

TomBtheGoat wrote: »

And yet, it's still a breach of a promise that the United States made to the Russians when the Cold War ended.

What agreement?

The agreement was regarding East Germany. That NATO troops would not be stationed in Eastern Germany until Soviet forces had gone (it was to be manned by local militias and such in the meantime).

It made absolutely no mention of NATO expansion into the Baltics.