O/T:- Ukraine [Incorporating 'Congrats to Russia' thread]

[Old_pie]

I think Russia, far from being provoked, has been treated with kid gloves for a long time. The idea being that if you let them get away with everything, keep buying more and more natural resources from them, eventually they will come round.

Disproportionate aggression can also come from widely shared idea of the manifest destiny of the 'Russian World', and a perceived weakness of the people you're being aggressive against.

I personally don't buy the NATO excuse, or the denazificiation / desatanisation excuse, or protecting Russian speakers excuse.

I think you just have to listen to what they say and watch what they do to understand their motivations.

The Russian leaders want the Soviet Union back. Imagine that we set about attacking our old Empire to restore our power around the world. I agree the NATO excuse - but Putin and his cronies hate Gorbachev for breaking down the barriers. NATO forces don't need to be on his doorstep to obliterate them plus of course two 'neutral' countries are now clamouring to join ("Dear Mr Putin, countries apply to join, they don't get invaded")

Putin, the thug, has been laughing and sneering at the West as he built up his riches and funds for this war on our money. I wonder what warnings our leaders were given by the analysts over the past 20+ years that were ignored for cheap fuel.

Minimal response to the shooting down of MAS17 must have emboldened Putin, but he is getting increasingly desperate now that his "special operations" invasion of Ukraine wasn't over in one week.

Meanwhile the Ukrainian population suffers but the seem to be displaying the bulldog spirit that got us through WWII.

[Old_pie]

"America did bad things therefore it's fine for Russia to invade and conquer other nations" is a ridiculous non-argument that I'm sure nobody's trying to make.

Are you being ironic or have I misinterpreted our Canadian poster?

[andy6025]

Fair minded or brainwashed by Western media, article from 8 years ago by one of the few journalists with morality warning of what came to pass
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ia-john-pilger

Good article, Maddogslater. I’m not sure if you’ve seen it but John Pilger recently tweeted this out about the western media’s coverage of the war:

“Watching the BBC's loaded reports from Moscow, reading the rest of the cartoon journalism on Ukraine, it ought now to be clear to the dimmest that, whatever your views, there is no real news on the war, no trusted mainstream source, none, merely a censorship by omission. Beware.”

https://mobile.twitter.com/johnpilge...68451058991104

I think the media’s reporting of the Nordstream pipelines sabotage is good example of this. Everybody knows whodunnit, but... welcome to 1984.

[drillerpie]

It's not just the John pilger article though, new York Times, Washington Post articles from around the same time saying the same basically how corrupt and full of neo nazis at high levels of power is the Ukraine.
Don't know if you read the pilger article on why the UK really voted for brexit a few years ago, he writes the truth however unpalatable it is.

Ok well about Pilger, yes I am familiar with his work. I think it is interesting, but I think it's a stretch to say 'he writes the truth'.

IMO he falls into the category of people who think the West is bad, and all bad comes from the West. He was always going to be in favour of throwing Ukraine under the bus as it now favours ties with the West, while Russia is anti-West (therefore good).

I have seen the angle that 'Ukraine is corrupt so shouldn't be helped' quite a few times, particularly on social media. I really don't understand it.

Here's a list of the most corrupt countries in Europe. I'm sure there are other lists but I'm also sure they would be quite similar to this one.

1- Russia
2- Ukraine
3- Bosnia
4- Albania
5- Moldova
6- Turkey
7- Serbia
8- Macedonia
9- Kosovo
10- Belarus

Two things strike me. The first is very simply that the big daddy of corruption is Russia. When you look at its large military budget, then look at the living conditions and equipment of its new recruits, this makes sense.

The second is that nine of the ten most corrupt European countries are either:

Russia itself

Very close allies of Russia (Belarus)

Former Soviet republics with heavy Russian influence (aka currently partly occupied by Russia) (Ukraine, Moldova)

Former Warsaw Pact country (Albania)

Countries in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, which was aligned with Russia although more loosely than the Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact countries (Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, Kosovo).

How anyone can look at that and not understand why most Ukranians want to leave the 'Russian World' and align with the West, is beyond me. Russian influence is a cancer that almost guarantees a high level of corruption.

[GranthamPie]

Ok well about Pilger, yes I am familiar with his work. I think it is interesting, but I think it's a stretch to say 'he writes the truth'.

IMO he falls into the category of people who think the West is bad, and all bad comes from the West. He was always going to be in favour of throwing Ukraine under the bus as it now favours ties with the West, while Russia is anti-West (therefore good).

I have seen the angle that 'Ukraine is corrupt so shouldn't be helped' quite a few times, particularly on social media. I really don't understand it.

Here's a list of the most corrupt countries in Europe. I'm sure there are other lists but I'm also sure they would be quite similar to this one.

1- Russia
2- Ukraine
3- Bosnia
4- Albania
5- Moldova
6- Turkey
7- Serbia
8- Macedonia
9- Kosovo
10- Belarus

Two things strike me. The first is very simply that the big daddy of corruption is Russia. When you look at its large military budget, then look at the living conditions and equipment of its new recruits, this makes sense.

The second is that nine of the ten most corrupt European countries are either:

Russia itself

Very close allies of Russia (Belarus)

Former Soviet republics with heavy Russian influence (aka currently partly occupied by Russia) (Ukraine, Moldova)

Former Warsaw Pact country (Albania)

Countries in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, which was aligned with Russia although more loosely than the Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact countries (Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, Kosovo).

How anyone can look at that and not understand why most Ukranians want to leave the 'Russian World' and align with the West, is beyond me. Russian influence is a cancer that almost guarantees a high level of corruption.

Not arguing with this list but the UK has a reputation itself.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7054851.html

[andy6025]

Ok well about Pilger, yes I am familiar with his work. I think it is interesting, but I think it's a stretch to say 'he writes the truth'.

IMO he falls into the category of people who think the West is bad, and all bad comes from the West. He was always going to be in favour of throwing Ukraine under the bus as it now favours ties with the West, while Russia is anti-West (therefore good).

I have seen the angle that 'Ukraine is corrupt so shouldn't be helped' quite a few times, particularly on social media. I really don't understand it.

Here's a list of the most corrupt countries in Europe. I'm sure there are other lists but I'm also sure they would be quite similar to this one.

1- Russia
2- Ukraine
3- Bosnia
4- Albania
5- Moldova
6- Turkey
7- Serbia
8- Macedonia
9- Kosovo
10- Belarus

Two things strike me. The first is very simply that the big daddy of corruption is Russia. When you look at its large military budget, then look at the living conditions and equipment of its new recruits, this makes sense.

The second is that nine of the ten most corrupt European countries are either:

Russia itself

Very close allies of Russia (Belarus)

Former Soviet republics with heavy Russian influence (aka currently partly occupied by Russia) (Ukraine, Moldova)

Former Warsaw Pact country (Albania)

Countries in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, which was aligned with Russia although more loosely than the Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact countries (Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, Kosovo).

How anyone can look at that and not understand why most Ukranians want to leave the 'Russian World' and align with the West, is beyond me. Russian influence is a cancer that almost guarantees a high level of corruption.

I find this post to be disingenuous. It erroneously suggests that Ukrainians are a political (and ethnic) monolith that sought closer ties with Europe in order to distance themselves from the ever corrupt Russia.

Ukraine is politically, ethnically and linguistically diverse. Western Ukrainians, who are predominantly Polish and Ukrainian, typically look to seek closer ties to Europe. Eastern Ukrainians, who are predominantly Russian, tend to look to seek closer ties to Russia. Ukraine also has minority groups that consider themselves Hungarians, Romanians, Belarusians, and others.

In most Ukrainian national elections, the voting patterns typically follow these lines accordingly.

Zalensky, himself an ethnic Russian, came to power in 2019. By then the civil war had been raging for 5 years. By Feb of this year, it had claimed the lives of approximately 14,000 people, the majority of whom were ethnic Russians killed by Ukrainian government and ultranationalist forces.

Despite the patently false common western narrative, Russian president Vladimir Putin did not seek to pull the ethnic Russian regions away from Ukraine and absorb them into Russia - despite his own parliament wishing him to do so. As maddogslater’s article attests, Putin was long opposed the early independence referendums conducted in these regions. Instead, Putin sought an end to the civil war in the context of a peace accord (The Minsk II agreement) that would keep these regions *as part of Ukraine*. Recently, the Ukrainian president at the time, Petro Poreshenko, has admitted that Ukraine never intended to adhere to the very peace agreement that they signed, and which was brokered by France and Germany - but rather he saw it as a means to buy time to build the Ukrainian army and smash the ethnic Russians in the Donbas.

As mentioned, Zalensky came to power in 2019. He won over 70% of the popular vote in a landslide victory. This meant that he had a tremendous opportunity to put an end to the civil war and unify the country. What’s more, this is exactly what he campaigned on. His platform had two central themes: crack down on corruption, and end the civil war by means of direct negotiations with Russia. He had the popular mandate to do this.

When he got into power, he did neither of these. And his popularity rating quickly found itself in the toilet. What’s more is that in the two weeks prior to the Russian invasion, Ukrainian government shelling of their own people in the Donbas *increased* dramatically. It went from less than 50 shells being fired per day to over 1,400.

In March and April of this year, Russia and Ukraine engaged in direct peace negotiations, brokered by Turkey. As we know, they reached an agreement in spirit and we’re about to conclude when Boris Johnson suddenly made an appearance in Kiev and torpedoed any hopes. Some of the relevant details of that have agreement emerged, namely that Ukraine would remain militarily neutral (ie. they would not join NATO), but they could pursue membership in the European Union if they so desired.

[drillerpie]

I find this post to be disingenuous. It erroneously suggests that Ukrainians are a political (and ethnic) monolith that sought closer ties with Europe in order to distance themselves from the ever corrupt Russia.

Ukraine is politically, ethnically and linguistically diverse. Western Ukrainians, who are predominantly Polish and Ukrainian, typically look to seek closer ties to Europe. Eastern Ukrainians, who are predominantly Russian, tend to look to seek closer ties to Russia. Ukraine also has minority groups that consider themselves Hungarians, Romanians, Belarusians, and others.

In most Ukrainian national elections, the voting patterns typically follow these lines accordingly.

Zalensky, himself an ethnic Russian, came to power in 2019. By then the civil war had been raging for 5 years. By Feb of this year, it had claimed the lives of approximately 14,000 people, the majority of whom were ethnic Russians killed by Ukrainian government and ultranationalist forces.

Despite the patently false common western narrative, Russian president Vladimir Putin did not seek to pull the ethnic Russian regions away from Ukraine and absorb them into Russia - despite his own parliament wishing him to do so. As maddogslater’s article attests, Putin was long opposed the early independence referendums conducted in these regions. Instead, Putin sought an end to the civil war in the context of a peace accord (The Minsk II agreement) that would keep these regions *as part of Ukraine*. Recently, the Ukrainian president at the time, Petro Poreshenko, has admitted that Ukraine never intended to adhere to the very peace agreement that they signed, and which was brokered by France and Germany - but rather he saw it as a means to buy time to build the Ukrainian army and smash the ethnic Russians in the Donbas.

As mentioned, Zalensky came to power in 2019. He won over 70% of the popular vote in a landslide victory. This meant that he had a tremendous opportunity to put an end to the civil war and unify the country. What’s more, this is exactly what he campaigned on. His platform had two central themes: crack down on corruption, and end the civil war by means of direct negotiations with Russia. He had the popular mandate to do this.

When he got into power, he did neither of these. And his popularity rating quickly found itself in the toilet. What’s more is that in the two weeks prior to the Russian invasion, Ukrainian government shelling of their own people in the Donbas *increased* dramatically. It went from less than 50 shells being fired per day to over 1,400.

In March and April of this year, Russia and Ukraine engaged in direct peace negotiations, brokered by Turkey. As we know, they reached an agreement in spirit and we’re about to conclude when Boris Johnson suddenly made an appearance in Kiev and torpedoed any hopes. Some of the relevant details of that have agreement emerged, namely that Ukraine would remain militarily neutral (ie. they would not join NATO), but they could pursue membership in the European Union if they so desired.

Hi, Andy.

As I mentioned last time, I will respectfully decline any invitation to debate this with you. For what it's worth, and again respectfully, I find all your posts on this topic to be disingenuous (and more).

If anyone else reading this is interested, I would encourage you to read up on the numerous articles and academic papers in political science and foreign policy journals covering the 2019 elections (plural because there were presidential elections then parliamentary elections several months later).

There you can find a thorough analysis of the platforms the various candidates ran on and the type of politicians (or not politicians) they are, the controversies, what was said in the debates, and the declarations on foreign policy made by the new president before/after each of the two elections.

[Jampie]

As usual, Andy is repeating the Kremlin lines basically word for word.

[Old_pie]

Hi, Andy.

As I mentioned last time, I will respectfully decline any invitation to debate this with you. For what it's worth, and again respectfully, I find all your posts on this topic to be disingenuous (and more).

If anyone else reading this is interested, I would encourage you to read up on the numerous articles and academic papers in political science and foreign policy journals covering the 2019 elections (plural because there were presidential elections then parliamentary elections several months later).

There you can find a thorough analysis of the platforms the various candidates ran on and the type of politicians (or not politicians) they are, the controversies, what was said in the debates, and the declarations on foreign policy made by the new president before/after each of the two elections.

I suspect Andy is merely seeking debating issues for his lectures.

However I do expect him to be in full support when France attacks (British) Canada with the view of freeing Quebec from Western Nazism.

[andy6025]

A good documentary just came out on the Ukrainian civil war from the perspective of people living in the Donbas being shelled indiscriminately by their own government. Worth a watch.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JM0VYkL_UI4