air1975
-
Posts
662 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by air1975
-
-
Yeah - its a v. frightening time.
-
3 minutes ago, CzarnaWisnia said:
There were no immediate plans, but these things don't happen overnight. Membership takes years and is prefaced by many gestures of solidarity that imply future membership. Trump even sent weapons to Ukraine. If the US was trying to influence Americans or pro-American citizens living in Mexico, wanting a part of their land as well, and France sent weapons to Mexico, it would be seen as absolutely hostile towards the US. I know the comparison is kind of bogus, but I'm trying to get the point across that it's not just a matter of membership but of the behavior and actions of various countries, which are understood to mean certain things (whether true or false).
1. Its an interesting point - you say that Russia saw Western's Europe and US's help to Ukraine as hostile acts - I am sure he did. (just like many in the US saw Russia's interference in US elections as a hostile act). But what of it? Just because he knew that US/Western Europe is more supportive of Ukraine (more so after the Crimea annexation); just because he knows that US/Western Europe do not want him to annex Ukraine - THAT cannot be a logical reason to actually move forward with an invasion.
2. Even with your hypothetical example - the US is not trying to annex anyone's lands. Russia had already annexed Crimea and wanted to swallow the rest of the Ukraine.
Personally, I fully believe Russia would have tried to annex Ukraine even if Ukraine made a declaration of not joining NATO for the next 15 years. I think that Putin saw that Ukraine was leaning more towards Western European philosophy in some ways - and Putin felt like the Russian sphere of influence was decreasing. If not the NATO situation, he would have found some other pretext to invade. I think the only way he would not have invaded was if he had been able to install a very pro-Russian puppet-like regime in Ukraine.
-
9 minutes ago, CzarnaWisnia said:
Just because a country chooses to join an international body doesn't give it any right to do so. The process for joining the EU for instance is long and complex, and the EU has a string of conditions that have to be met in order to accept a new member. Same for NATO I suppose. These bodies have to consider, among other things, what geopolitical consequences each new membership will have, in the immediate region especially. For instance, before Poland joined, the country made sure to cultivate cordial relations with its neighbours (especially Ukraine). After 1989 (fall of communism in Poland), the country was fucked up but they aimed at EU and NATO membership. The knew it would help their application if they cultivated stability with their neighbours. They also wanted to insure the safety of Poles living in those countries. Poland also confirmed its existing borders, telegraphing that it had no intention of claiming territories that had been Polish in the past, before the war for instance (Western Ukraine used to be Polish). Also, the country was rather stable when it was finally added to the EU in 2004. So no, it's not counter to international law for international bodies to negotiate the membership of any given country. Ukraine has been unstable for years and years, there's even been internal military conflict for years, and it has had bad relations to its immediate neighbour (Russia). I don't see how NATO or the EU would have effectively accepted it as a member in these circumstances.
Exactly. There was no immediate plan or path for Ukraine to join NATO. Thus, I agree with the following excerpt from another opinion piece (Alexander Motyl writing for The Hill):
"Most importantly, Russia’s repeated claims that it genuinely feared NATO membership for Ukraine were a canard, as Washington, Moscow and NATO — as well as Kyiv — knew full well that Ukraine’s chances of joining the alliance in the next 20 years were nil. Ukraine posed no imaginable security threat to Russia, the largest country in the world, possessing a huge army, thousands of nuclear weapons and enormous natural resources. "
-
In February 2000, I met my friend and mentor, the anthropologist Vladimir Arsenyev, for a beer in a musty St. Petersburg University cafeteria. We were talking politics, and we fell into a conversation about the upcoming presidential election, which Vladimir Putin was obviously bound to win. Putin had succeeded Boris Yeltsin after the latter’s resignation and was seeking his first full term in power.
Arsenyev, then in his early 50s, was a fiery postcolonial leftist who hated the Soviet Union, but considered the emerging Russian mix of imperialism and capitalism to be even worse. He was not popular among his colleagues and was also disliked by some of his students who saw him as a kind of anti-corporate maverick.My political orientation was rather different. I was decades younger than Arsenyev, and my whole childhood had been colored by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Because I had experienced chaos, I believed in a strong hand. I regretted that Russia was no longer a superpower and thought that my country deserved a bigger role in world politics. I suppose you could say I wanted to make Russia great again.
Arsenyev put down his beer and said (in Russian, of course): “This man, Putin, will bring this country to hell. I know this for sure. It is the worst thing that could ever happen to us.”
“Why?” I asked.
“He is a Chekist,” he said, meaning an agent of the secret police. “Once a Chekist, always a Chekist. He is pure evil.”
I didn’t argue; I just changed the topic. The secret service meant Lavrentiy Beria and Nikolai Yezhov for Arsenyev, and James Bond for me. I respected Arsenyev immensely, but I saw him as a relic. And I was bewitched by Putin’s cold, metallic charisma, that way he had of suggesting that he knew more than he said. I was definitely not alone in my admiration: Putin won the election—one of the very few fair elections we’ve ever had in Russia—with 53.4 percent of the vote.
Despite my patriotism, like many Russians of my generation I was encouraged by my parents to go West. I spent the next few years in the Netherlands, studying for a Ph.D. in math. But after a while I grew bored with abstract theorems and Dutch Calvinist orderliness, and I returned home. Russia was already a different country from the one I had left. In Putin’s hands it seemed much more stable, both economically and politically. I told myself that Arsenyev had been wrong about Putin, and that I had been right.
“Stability” (stabilnost) was, in fact, something of a slogan for Putin, one he adopted early in his presidency. He used the goal of stability to justify ruthless military operations in Chechnya. Another price of stability was having the same people in government from one election cycle to the next. In 2008, Putin’s ally Dmitry Medvedev took over the presidency, but everyone understood that Putin was still running the country as prime minister. I can’t say I cared much. Medvedev was promising to build a Russian Silicon Valley. People from all over the world wanted to move to Moscow. Life was good, and everything that wasn’tgood I considered an anomaly, like the disgraceful war in Georgia. That was just a deviation from the norm, wasn’t it? Besides, our government insisted that it had to come to the assistance of the South Ossetians. I tried, moreover, to simply ignore politics. I became a journalist, but I focused on science and technology.
And so for many years I told myself that all was well. In 2011, Medvedev declared that he would not run for a second term and suggested that he would pass the presidency back to Putin, like a tennis ball. That was uncomfortable, but I tried to focus on the stability I still enjoyed. The parliamentary elections a few months later finally woke me up a bit: They were not just uncomfortable; they were a disaster. The results, which solidified Putin’s power, were obviously, shockingly, impudently fake. I took the metro to one of the first big protests of that winter with a friend. I asked him with sincere naivete, “Are the protests going to change anything?” My friend, who understood Putin much, much better than I, said, “Let’s just do what we can.”
Little by little, over a decade, I came to see that my country’s political deterioration was real and severe, and compromising everything else—very much including our scientific progress. I abandoned technology reporting for investigative journalism. I no longer strained to call frightening political developments, such as the ban on foreign adoption of Russian children, a mere deviation from the norm. I understood that these were signs of the new normal, and that the new normal was getting worse with every year.
As a journalist, I took part in investigating the infamous Unit 29155, tasked with destabilizing Europe; modern Russian Nazis; the production of Novichok, the nerve agent used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Alexei Navalny; corruption in the Federal Security Service; Russian hackers; the obnoxious wealth of Putin’s close circle of friends; paramilitary groups. I learned a lot about how Putin’s Russia works.
Most Russians, however, simply adapted. The degradation of our society was slow enough that many could choose not to notice it. This was Putin’s way: sticking the knife in gradually. Less drama, same result.
And I admit that even I continued to make excuses for Putin long after doing so was reasonable. For instance, I condemned the 2014 annexation of Crimea even as I indulged in whataboutism, pointing out that Putin was hardly the only leader on the world stage to disrespect national boundaries. Perhaps because of my math-and-science background, I had a tendency to coldheartedly look for rational explanations for outrageous behavior.
In fact, my last illusion about Putin was that he was a rational actor. Navalny often described the Russian president and his people as “crooks and thieves.” This was his way of mocking Putin, of depriving him of his superpower aura. I myself was torn, until recently, between seeing the man as a chess player and a petty criminal. If these two images were in conflict, they were not entirely so. Both chess players and petty criminals know how to calculate their advantage.
Sure, Putin was evil, as Arsenyev had said. Arsenyev had also called him a Chekist, and Chekists are cunning. I thought Putin’s cunning was undeniable. And that is why, when U.S. intelligence started saying that Putin would invade Ukraine, I didn’t believe it. Despite all my reporting experience, everything I had seen, I thought it was nonsense. I was almost angry. I couldn’t see any logical reason, any advantage, any positive outcome of the invasion. It was painfully obvious that a war would be catastrophic. I told myself, Putin is evil. But he is not an idiot.
That’s what I kept telling myself right up until the night of February 24. At about 4 a.m., I switched on my smartphone and immediately saw dozens of videos of Russian rocket blasts all over Ukraine. These blasts were proof of Putin’s evil and his irrationality. Putin had brought our country to hell, just as Arsenyev had foretold, and he was bringing Ukraine to hell too.
Arsenyev died in 2010. I’m almost glad he didn’t live to see how right he was.
-
Russian Orthodox Church alleges gay pride parades were part of the reason for Ukraine war
From CNNs Delia Gallagher in Rome
Russian Patriarch Kirill celebrates a Christmas service at the Christ the Savior cathedral in Moscow, Russia, on January 6. (Kirill Kudryavtsey/AFP/Getty Images) The leader of the Russian Orthodox Church said gay pride parades were part of the reason for the war in Ukraine.
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, a long-time ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, said on Sunday that the conflict in Donbas is about “a fundamental rejection of the so-called values that are offered today by those who claim world power.”
The “test” of which side you are on, said Kirill, is whether your country is willing to hold gay pride parades.
“In order to enter the club of those countries, it is necessary to hold a gay pride parade. Not to make a political statement, ‘we are with you,’ not to sign any agreements, but to hold a gay parade. And we know how people resist these demands and how this resistance is suppressed by force,” Kirill said during a sermon in Moscow.
Kirill categorized the war as a struggle of “metaphysical significance,” for humanity to follow God’s laws.
“What is happening today in the sphere of international relations has not only political significance. We are talking about something different and much more important than politics. We are talking about human salvation,” he said.
“If we see violations of [God’s] law, we will never put up with those who destroy this law, blurring the line between holiness and sin, and even more so with those who promote sin as an example or as one of the models of human behavior,” Kirill said.
“Around this topic today there is a real war,” he said.
Patriarch Kirill is a major religious figure in Russia, where the Russian Orthodox religion is considered an integral part of Russian identity. He has come under pressure from within his own church since the beginning of the war to denounce Putin’s aggression, but his public statements so far have failed to do that. On the contrary, Kirill’s language has lent support to Putin’s vision of a spiritual and temporal Russian empire.
-
6 hours ago, CzarnaWisnia said:
It's perfectly legitimate for any country to apply for that membership. But one has to take into account the complexities of reaching that point. Any country is a huge collection of conflicting points of views. Just look at the US right now. Is it "united" other than in name only? If the USA right now (the government) decided to join a divisive international military organization, I bet there would be a lot of noise, and even protest from let's say half the country. Then, as history has shown, the CIA and US intelligence agencies have many times over influenced the course of other countries' political destinies through various identifiable means (regime change activities). Ukraine has been in such a way influenced (in 2013 and 2014). I think there's more to know about this situation.
Of course I'm a fucking asshole, etc.
No one said you're an asshole. I may disagree with some of what you say, and even how you say it - doesn't make you an asshole.
"Any country is a huge collection of conflicting points of views". Totally agree. I agree that big issues like joining NATO or not, joining EU or not, building a border wall etc bring out different reactions in different citizens. I also understand your point that there are a variety of factors that lead to certain parties to come into power. There are many factors that lead to a country leaning one way or the other. It still does not negate an independent country's decision to apply to join an organization.
"Then, as history has shown, the CIA and US intelligence agencies have many times over influenced the course of other countries' political destinies through various identifiable means (regime change activities). Ukraine has been in such a way influenced (in 2013 and 2014). I think there's more to know about this situation." I agree with you there as well. Sadly, this is the way countries play with each other. The US/CIA has definitely done their share of shit. As have other countries including Russia (eg. interfering with 2016 US elections; attempting to interfere in Ukrainian politics, just as the west has done). I am not condoning the US or China or Russia doing this sort of underhanded crap. But what is disgusting about the current situation is that Putin fucking INVADED an independent country - its really upping the ante and I feel just so sad for the Ukrainian people displaced and traumatized, and also for the Russian soldiers who are following orders. It just seems like so much unnecessary human SUFFERING - and this type of trauma will be passed down for decades. It just seems so unnecessary.
-
The argument about NATO expansion does not seem to take into account that those independent countries CHOOSE to apply for NATO membership.
-
So much for Putin's 'peacekeeping' mission. Asshole.
-
2 hours ago, Django said:
Sorry Puta but no Crimea for you, Ukraine will be part of the EU and you need to go down.
lol @ Sorry, Puta.
-
1 minute ago, karbatal said:
I don’t think this is relevant right now. To be honest there are more pressure matters than this. Maybe when the targeting of civilians to occupy a country is over we can discuss this woke things.
agree.
-
14 hours ago, karbatal said:
The situation is so incredibly dramatic. My husband has a friend in Bulgaria who is Ukrainian and her cousin turned 18 three weeks ago. He is enlisted and was given an arm to go defend the country. Just imagine the poor scared kid. It’s really heartbreaking.
It really really is heartbreaking. I feel so bad for the Ukranian families, kids who are probably scared out of their freaking minds, having relatives die, homes destroyed, having to flee. I feel bad for the Russian soldiers, who must obey a fucked up leader (who knows what all they will see and be traumatized by too). So much unnecessary destruction, death, and a legacy of pain to be felt for decades.
-
1 hour ago, CzarnaWisnia said:
Negotiation for an immediate ceasefire.
And what would that entail?
As far as I recall, various world leaders had been begging, threatening, cajoling Putin not to attack Ukraine. The lying motherfucker said "I have no plans to attack.. just military exercises.... we have started to withdraw troops etc etc"
So now, what would new negotiations entail? Putin will only stop if Ukraine agrees to his demands. I guess they may not have a choice but to bow down to his dictums. It is really sad that a sovereign country was invaded and now they would be forced into 'negotiations' - where they pretty much have to do what the invader wants, or else. Is this really dipolmacy? Its more like 'suck my dick while I have a gun to your head, or I will kill you'.
-
4 hours ago, Gaudet said:
Think again if you believe this is just about Ukraine only.
Russia threatens 'serious military repercussions' if Finland joins NATO
So true. Not about just Ukraine.
What a fucking tragedy. And seems so avoidable and unnecessary as well.
-
5 hours ago, Jazzy Jan said:
I watched an interesting interview yesterday with our former foreign affairs minister Julie Bishop. She met Putin at a conference and discussed the shooting down of the passenger plane by Russia that killed all civilian passengers. She said Putin was steely, hard, unapologetic, determined and spoke perfect English in person. Also said he was passionate about wanting the USSR to return to it’s glory and thought it’s dismantling was the biggest travesty of the last century. Extremely dangerous times ahead in Europe.
That is very frightening.
-
1 hour ago, lex92 said:
At the very moment there is people fighting for their human rights.
So what they need is our emphathy and moral support as all that is happening right now.
This is so so true.
-
6 minutes ago, Nessie said:
The holocaust was a genocide policy of entire segments of the enslaved population, it was rooted in the nazi ideology from the very beggining. It is not in itself motivated by the war, it was officialy conducted by the Nazi state precisely as Hitler intended it to be on Mein Kampf.
This agression from Putin is what it is: a military invasion of a country with the clear goal to dominate its policital course. We can only talk about genocide if a policy of genocide is officialy commited on behalf of the agressor, which is not the case.
I repeat : the holocaust was used in an example re: justifying horrible actions without condemning them. I am not at all saying that what Putin is doing is the Holocaust. If you think I am, you are mistaken.
I repeat: Lets say a man kills all the people in the neighboring house. If you say "Well, I can understand his reasons. The neighbors were gossiping about him. One of the neighbors was flirting with his wife etc etc", and you do not condemn the murder - then you are in a way, justifying it and condoning it.
-
20 minutes ago, Nessie said:
The attempts to associate this Putin adventurism to Hitler blitz is everywhere in the western media, a farcry from the factual reality, ignoring that Ukraine itself has a whole battalion bearing nazi insigneas (Azov battalion) which yearly hosts a military parade of torch marchs in the center of Kiev to celebrate the memory of a very well know WW2 nazi colaborator.
Sigh. Again this flawed logic.
You can dig up whatever you want about fucked up things in Ukraine (I find the Nazi battalion absolutely disgusting). You can also dig up whatever you want about how EU or US may have acted in the past. The fact remains that Putin has now invaded a sovereign country, unleashing death and misery. That is abhorrent on a much much larger scale.
-
57 minutes ago, air1975 said:
Actually, yes - sort of.
I get that you are trying to examine the complex underpinnings and history begin Putin's move. However, consider this scenario:
Lets say the Holocaust is being discussed, and you say - "well Hitler had his reasons; Hitler made concentration camps because of this reason; this was why Hitler felt he had to choose this path" And you do not condemn it - then it comes off as being an apologist, and it comes off as justifying and agreeing with his actions.
One can certainly examine Hitler's actions and reasons behind them - but it would be important to acknowledge that you disagree with them.
26 minutes ago, sotos8 said:you can't compare a holocaust to a war and to who it would be important?
The holocaust was used as an example. Let me rephrase:
Lets say a man kills all the people in the neighboring house. If you say "Well, I can understand his reasons. The neighbors were gossiping about him. One of the neighbors was flirting with his wife etc etc", and you do not condemn the murder - then you are in a way, justifying it and condoning it.
We are talking about Putin INVADING a sovereign country in 2022, leading to unfathomable death, destruction, displacement and misery. You can certainly examine his rationale but yes, you SHOULD denounce it. Otherwise, as I said before - it does appear you are justifying his invasion and you are agreeing with it. -
3 minutes ago, CzarnaWisnia said:
I think we can all agree the following take is "nope"
lol - yes I think even all of us can agree to a NO on this.
-
2 hours ago, sotos8 said:
do we need to sign a form or something that we do not approve Putin's imperealism and invade of Ukraine?
Actually, yes - sort of.
I get that you are trying to examine the complex underpinnings and history begin Putin's move. However, consider this scenario:
Lets say the Holocaust is being discussed, and you say - "well Hitler had his reasons; Hitler made concentration camps because of this reason; this was why Hitler felt he had to choose this path" And you do not condemn it - then it comes off as being an apologist, and it comes off as justifying and agreeing with his actions.
One can certainly examine Hitler's actions and reasons behind them - but it would be important to acknowledge that you disagree with them.
-
50 minutes ago, sotos8 said:
I'm not trying to be snarky but coming from a place of genuine curiosity. So please bear any silly questions.. Here are my thoughts about Ukraine possibly joining Nato:
1. Isn't it natural that a weaker, smaller country such as Ukraine would want a stronger umbrella of protection (NATO) against a mammoth, unfriendly neighbor such as Russia? (In the end, Nato membership is probably now protecting Lithuania, Estonia etc. from Russia)
2. I can understand Russia's concern about more and more countries joining Nato, with military bases near its borders. However, what was Russia specifically concerned about? That NATO would invade it? Does NATO have a history of invading countries/annexing land etc?
-
2 hours ago, CzarnaWisnia said:
You really think anyone here think's the invasion of Ukraine is a good thing?
I would certainly hope not. But some of the posts on here appeared to be rationalizing Putin's invasion. It read like approval and justification. Therefore, I wanted clarity about individual posters' thoughts re: the invasion without getting into the: well, US did this in the past... Putin is doing this because... I can understand it from X perspective. etc.
The post was simply to clarify people's stances about the here and now.
-
1 hour ago, ULIZOS said:
Where in the world did I ever say I support this monster? I think he's bullshit. I think the US is bullshit. I think every imperialistic power that uses other defenseless countries as a proxy to show off who has the biggest dick and grow their influence on the world's resources / riches is bullshit.
My heart goes out to the people of the Ukraine and I'm sorry if I came off as insensitive. Maybe I have to wait to give my opinions because people like you twist my words to make it seem like I somehow support fucking Russia.
I have been on this forum for over TWO decades and I have seen so many people on this very forum either sit back and defend the US or flat out not give a flying fuck when the US has done EXACTLY THE SAME AS RUSSIA over and over and over and over again.
Can you please point out where I have twisted your words? (I haven't).
All I did was ask you for clarification about your thoughts on Putin's invasion, specifically.
-
1 hour ago, ULIZOS said:
How is it not relevant? It’s clearly the never ending US vs Russia proxy war nonsense that’s been going on since forever.
What are YOUR thoughts about Putin's decision to invade Ukraine? Do you agree with it? Do you think its wrong?
New war in Europe, courtesy of Putin
in Politics and World Events
Posted