[flagged]
I know you're doing your best here but you will have to try harder with this they literally admitted to blowing up the dam and then on TV threatened to blow up more dams in Kyiv.
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/16660615320803614...
>> "We mined everything on Kakhovka HPP. So, they'll f*king blow it up and will wash away Ukrainian Armed Forces on the other side" - a Russian says. The video was published on 10 December, 2022.
https://twitter.com/den_kazansky/status/1666003021925347328
>> Russian soldier Yegor Guzenko, who is fighting in the Kherson region, admitted that Russia blew up the dam in Nova Kakhovka to stop Ukrainian army He also said that the Russian army should also blow up other dams on the Dnieper
It’s bad debate technique to include ONE controversial thing among 20 settled things because you can be sure someone will seize on that ONE easiest-hanging fruit and others will think that taints the whole list. I should have left it out. And yet…
Let me add nuance. This one is different from all the others because whoever did it was clearly either going rogue / breaking chain of command, or that PLUS it was an accident and they went too far.
Neither Russian top military brass nor Ukraine’s would order the blowing up of Kahkovka’s dam, because whatever speculative temporary “advantage” that would confer to their side would be MASSIVELY outweighed by the long-term damage to their own side.
For Russia, it is the utter cutting off of FRESH DRINKING WATER to Crimea from Ukraine, something that Ukraine had cut off before and Russia worked hard to restore and did so as soon as they got control of the dam and reservoir. Russia considers Crimea its own terreitory and citizens, and wouldn’t undo all that effort by blowing up the dam. Not the higher-ups anyway.
Furthermore, Russian troops had to retreat as a result, and abandon their positions. It is not clear that Ukrainian troops were harmed more than Russian ones. Putin even publicly said that he wishes the explosion hadn’t happened since they WANTED the Ukrainians to attack via that direction and were prepared.
Speaking of other dams on the Dnieper, the one upstream of this one, controlled by Ukrainians, was opened to maximum capacity flow, almost as if to exacerbate the flow downstream, right around the same time as the explosion. The amount it was opened to (all 3 valves) was unprecedented in decades. Who did that and why? Whoever did, it wasn’t the Russians.
I will read about Yegor Guzenko, but I predict he’s likely going to describe a rogue group that went too far, or something, rather than Russia directly ordering this. And why do we believe what he says? Weeks after an event (eg Bucha massacre), hundreds of “intercepted conversations” appear, almost “too good” where the soldiers say exactly what is the most incriminating stufff to Russia itself. Maybe those are true, but how would we know? I prefer The Guardian’s analysis in Bucha, or the UN’s independent investigations, which should include people from Russia and Ukraine — of both the pipeline and the Kakhovka dam.
Again I would prefer to stay away from this speculative stuff and focus on the known facts and settled stuff, which is extremely egregious for USA (as they have done it far more than any other country). But since this is threaded, we can focus on exclusively this one weak point in my list, which I should have known better than to include among the others.
I never said they were smart just they blew up the dam and admitted to it.
We have pictures of a car full of explosives on the dam with a wire leading to the Russian controlled side as well.
> Speaking of other dams on the Dnieper, the one upstream of this one, controlled by Ukrainians, was opened to maximum capacity flow, almost as if to exacerbate the flow downstream, right around the same time as the explosion. The amount it was opened to (all 3 valves) was unprecedented in decades. Who did that and why? Whoever did, it wasn’t the Russians.
The Ukrainians don't control how much rain hits the dam.
Do you know who does?. The Russians, they had control of the spill gates and decided to keep them closed they purposely closed the gates and let it fill up as much as possible.
This isn't surprising given the videos we have where they admit that they want to blow up the dam and then admit that they do blew up the dam.
Same with “I don’t know why Assad would use chemical weapons after he was winning with conventional ones, just so he can do the one thing that would force USA to attack him, he’s just a dumb evil man”
I watched your twitter linked video. I understand Russian. The guy says he WARNED about it going to be blown up after Russians retreated from Kherson (thus presumably he means by Ukrainians). He says he won’t speculate on who did it (hardly a proof that he admits Russians did it). He goes on to say that now that it’s done what matters is how well the evac their guys. And then goes on to say bravado things like “we should do this stuff to more dams.” (as in — well, the Ukrainians did it to this one, they dont give a shit about civilians, so let’s do it to other dama too). That last part is what’s monstrous about war. Soldiers may just be exasperated and just say “fuck it” and start destroying civilian infrastructure, raping, and causing a lot of suffering. And all for what?
My position isn’t that Russians are somehow good, or “whataboutism” to excuse war crimes. My position is that we could have had averted the war in 20 different ways (putting Russia on a path into NATO, agreeing not to push Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, also the CIA NOT arming training paramilitary groups in Ukraine) some of which are well accepted (Minsk II agreements, or the deal brokered by Naftali Bennett to stop the war 2 weeks in —- tell me, why was it blocked by USA?)
Every expert trivially predicted this would be the outvome of NATO expansion for decades, and were systematically ignored. Is this wise foreign policy, or reckless? We disregard Ukrainians, Afghans, Kurds etc. sacrificing them as the tip of the spear to achieve adversarial geopolitical goals: https://theconversation.com/amp/ukraine-war-follows-decades-...
The plan was to try and stop part of the Ukrainian counter offensive, and the secondary goal was to cause an ecological disaster in Ukraine.
Thats likely the reason that they blew up the second dam as well.
> Russia even tried to warn the UN security council that Ukraine is about to blow up the dam (around the time of your second link, Dec 2022) so they were saying the same “they are evil/dumb” bullcrap about Ukrianians.
This is a typical Russian tactic which attempts to blame the enemy for an atrocity that they are about to commit.
It's part of Russias extensive disinformation and misinformation campaigns.
You see it in action right now, where the Russian propaganda network has been mobilised to claim that Ukraine is about to blow up its own Nuclear power plant and irradiate its own country for now reason extensibly.
> I watched your twitter linked video. I understand Russian.
You were born in St Petersburg no? id say you more then "understand Russian".
> (putting Russia on a path into NATO)
We tried that, the Russians flat out rejected the fact that they would have to join NATO like everyone else.
> agreeing not to push Ukraine and Georgia into NATO
The Russians already had this assurance from countries before the war even started its clearly not about that.
> CIA NOT arming training paramilitary groups in Ukraine
The CIA has every right to train troops in whatever country it wants to be if it's invited, Russia has no right to dictate what Ukraine does.
Ukraine already had a deal that was meant to stop this war.
It's called the Budapest Memorandum, in it, in exchange for its nuclear weapons Ukraine got assurances from the UK, US and Russia that they would respect its borders and never threaten its sovereignty.
If Russia never bothered respecting the Budapest Memorandum why should we believe they would respect any other agreement?.
> Every expert trivially predicted this would be the outvome of NATO expansion for decades, and were systematically ignored.
NATO expansion stops Russian imperialism, I have no doubt in my mind that if NATO did not exist today that Russia would be causing its own brand of misery in more countries then it is right now.
The CIA has every right to train troops in whatever country it wants to be if it's invited, Russia has no right to dictate what Ukraine does.
Not only is this stance destructive, but it's also designed for useful idiots.
First of all, the CIA training people in countries has almost always brought calamity and destruction. The CIA itself even studied it and concluded this, but we do it anyway: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/arming-rebels-has-...
Secondly, would you argue that the KGB had ever right to train the PLO, because they asked for it?
Well, Russia was welcomed by the government of Syria (as was Hezbollah from Lebanon) to help stabilize the country against Sunni Jihadists with American weapons. Seeing this, we funded the opposition, which we called "Moderate Rebels", but the Free Syrian Army was largely a myth since 2012, it was all going to Al Nusra front. Was Syria helped by the sunni jihadists? What is the USA even DOING thousands of miles away in a country destabilizing a government that didn't invite them, and which presents ZERO THREAT to them? Well, we all know what: they are "showing leadership" by making sure Putin doesn't help Syria defeat the Jihadists all by himself, and making sure that Russia loses "its last ally in the region": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wib6cLJ99yY
Well, the USSR was welcomed by the Afghan government. The CIA still trained rebels against that government (Mujahideen) including foreign fighters (Afghan Arabs). Did this help Afghanistan? 1-2 million dead civilians would indicate no. The American people deserve to know about this, but it's secret. It all started in Laos, which was heavily bombed and Americans didn't even know. Why are you seriously defending intelligence agencies training foreign fighters as a good thing when they themselves concluded it never works out well?
Ukraine already had a deal that was meant to stop this war. It's called the Budapest Memorandum, in it, in exchange for its nuclear weapons Ukraine got assurances from the UK, US and Russia that they would respect its borders and never threaten its sovereignty.
Yeah, that deal was once again pushed by the USA. Clinton's admin felt that all the nukes in Ukraine and Russia were aimed at the USA. It was the USA that pushed for Ukraine to get rid of its nukes. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-01-11-mn-10675-...
Ukraine, politically and economically unstable since it became an independent state after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, has 176 intercontinental missiles armed with some 1,240 nuclear warheads--all aimed at the United States. It also has 592 nuclear warheads aboard bombers, which would be covered by the agreement.
NATO itself admits on its own website that they undertook the world's largest DISARMAMENT project, to rid Ukraine of its DEFENSIVE weapons, and then presented themselves as a solution: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_22266.htm
You may have not known this?
As far as violating agreements, that's sadly fairly common among countries. Clinton's Three Nos given in 1994 publicly were amply violated... but if USA violates things it's OK: https://usrussiarelations.org/2/timeline/after-the-fall/34
USA was the first to undermine stability in Ukraine, as I have already shown... with McCain visiting the country and publicly calling for an ouster of a government that's relatively friendly with Russia and shut down the hugely unpopular NATO program that needed to be restarted: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-n...
If Russia never bothered respecting the Budapest Memorandum why should we believe they would respect any other agreement?.
I mean, a memorandum doesn't have the level of a treaty, in any case. Russia tends to respect treaties way more than the USA does. USA has constantly openly flaunted treaties, often because the next administration comes along. Some selections:
Clinton's "Agreed Framework" with Kim Jong Il - torpedoed by US Republicans
Iran Deal - Tom Cotton and some radical Republicans openly admitted that they will reneg on the deal as soon as a Republican president comes to power ... and they did!
This goes back to the Native American nations. "White man speaks with forked tongue". Jefferson promised the Civilized Tribes they'd be fine because they took on our customs. The following president, Jackson, was a well-known "Indian killer" and he said nah. They sued and won in Supreme Court and he said "let them enforce it". Caused the Trail of Tears, ethnic cleansing.
I mean hey, USA took Mexico's territory from California to Texas. It maintains a worldwide protectorate. Yet you are super concerned about China and Russia, which are nowhere close to any of that. Not a word about USA breaking its word.
The truth is, you can't really trust the "Great Powers", especially if they are democratic because the next party will try to undo everything the previous party did. I'd rather trust the king of Morocco's treaty, because he's going to be there for decades. But whatever.
Being born somewhere does of course affect some of your worldview, though not always predictably. Ayn Rand was born in Russia, ran away from communist Russia, and she spent her life being as anti-communist as she could be, developing a philosophy (objectivism) that even argued against altruism. Refugees born in Cuba sometimes have family there, but they don’t exactly endorse the Castro regime. Republicans love to welcome those refugees, but not the ones who come thru Mexico, because they can’t use them to show how socialism fails everywhere.
I’m Jewish and my family left as refugees from USSR. I have practically no family there. (As opposed to, say 11 million Ukrainians who have family in Russia and vice versa.)
Personally, I think that today’s refugees from Honduras are fleeing much worse conditions (and Trump sending them back is like FDR sending ships full of Jews back). I think many people who could leave USSR did so for economic opportunities and not true “refugee” status, but that’s a separate issue.
I also think that if the USSR hadn’t fallen apart, it could have become a lot MORE liberal than the US. Gorbachev started liberal reforms in the 80s, imagine if that continued for another 30-40 years. But instead, the USSR fell apart and he Russia got a president (Boris Yeltsin) who for the first few years did everything USA wanted. “Shock therapy”, privatizing all national resources to oligarchs, all the Chicago School reforms — same as in was tried in Chile, Iraq etc. And same as in those countries, the people rebelled and their representatives voted no confidence to oust him. In 1993, he fired on the parliament, arrested them, and took control with US support. (The president of Peru tried that this year but utterly failed due to having no US support). In 1996 we openly helped meddle in Russia elections to get Yeltsin re-elected while he had an abysmal 6% (not a typo) approval rating.
I hope you see that my analysis — while it may be unorthodox - is evenhanded. I condemn Russia for its funding and arming of terrorists in Donbas (Strelkov, Motorola, etc.) Russia also deserves blame for causing this war in Ukraine. I condemn Russia for carpet bombing civilians in Chechnya, Aleppo, Homs. Does that sound like a standard-issue follower of Russian propaganda?
But at the same time, I compare apples to apples. Everything Russia does, USA did 10x (including funding paramilitary groups in Ukraine, Syri, etc. for proxy wars). I understand that each side reacts to the other and it’s SHEER FANTASY to expect either Russia or China or Brazil etc. to roll over and allow a roadmap where its enemies to place nukes on their doorstep.
USA has 30x as many bases as the rest of the world combined. I am just for dialogue and peace. Same as Bernie was during the cold war when he visited Russia to make sister cities with Burlington. Same as Tulsi. Same as Trump, indeed. And there are billions of people outside the NATO bubble who think like me. I travel… unless you believe as the Pope, multiple heads of state, multiple populations, are all on Putin’s payroll, the answer is that we have to stop the one dimensional cartoonish justifications for the wars, like “they hate us for our freedoms”.
I love USA with its freedom of speech, I have gotten Noam Chomsky to admit on video that USA has the greatest protections for speech of any country. But when you love your family, and jow they treat their own members, you can also criticize them for harming others, and want them to do better.
Am I biased? To the extent anyone is, sure. But if you asked me about India, or China, or Palestinians, I’d have an opinion too. To me, peace and fairness are the main factors. I’d like to think that I can look past propaganda on multiple sides, not just “the other side”.
Nobody has placed, or intented to place, nuclear weapons anywhere near Russia. The only country that has nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe is Russia with missiles in Kaliningrad targeting Europe. Map: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1...
Now they have placed nuclear weapons in Belarus too, right on Poland's doorstep while spewing highly aggressive rhetoric and constantly threatening to bomb everyone.
All your grievances are made up nonsense.
Heck the USA gets involved halfway around the world, invading and occupying and bombing countries for FAR LESS. I don’t think anyone agrees that’s good, but everyone is powerless to stop it. Anyway, whatever the standard is, it’s supremely hypocrtical to expect other “great powers” to roll over, while USA goes to war or foments revolutions in countries that present literally zero threat to it, a few times every decade.
It’s not “made up nonsense”. What I am saying is common knowledge, that everyone outside the NATO bubble condemns, especially the “global south”. The USA even declassifies it and admits it, and officially regrets it, saying “mistakes were made”, and “Bush is gone now” etc. No one has been prosecuted in The Hague. On the contrary, they threaten the International Criminal Court if they even so much as start an investigation. Far larger body count, worldwide.
As for nukes — the US has broken every promise it ever made about NATO expansion. I mean, it’s broken nearly every treaty it ever made about its own expansion since the times of the colonists. Why would any country ever trust the US when it says it won’t expand or place nukes somewhere? Nuclear Sharing is already very widespread. And they already started building an “anti-nuclear” battery in Poland, ever closer to Russia’s borders, which conveniently could also double as a “nuclear” launch facility. But just call it “defensive”, and suddenly it’s fine right? Wrong, it caused Russia to pull out of its nuclear treaties with USA, making the world less safe for everyone. And for what?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
Oh and 5 days ago: Poland wants USA to give it NUCLEAR WARHEADS FOR ITS PLANES. Well, that didn’t take long:
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/poland-nukes-f35-s...
“Made up concerns.” I’m sure you’ll go to step 2 soon, “well, it’s true but so what, you can’t reason with Russians!”
Belarus now has a number of Russian controlled nuclear weapons on its territory bordering Poland.
This is a direct escalation by Russia against Poland.
> To prevent even the possibility of a hostile alliance placing missiles on its doorstep, the USA would have acted militarily the same way much sooner than Russia, wouldn’t wait 8 years trying to reason with diplomacy. And many people around the world would understand that. And they did (eg in Cuban missile crisis).
But its literally hasn't happened in over 60 years, your example of Cuba is old at this point it would be a in a retirement home.
> As for nukes — the US has broken every promise it ever made about NATO expansion.
No one ever made promises about NATO expansion that once again, as is a large majority of your opinions straight from the Kremlins playbook and Russian propaganda.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-e...
>> The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification.
> Why would any country ever trust the US when it says it won’t expand or place nukes somewhere? Nuclear Sharing is already very widespread.
You're telling me one of the NATO policies that helps defend a country against further Russian aggression is widespread and popular, I for one am shocked.
> And they already started building an “anti-nuclear” battery in Poland, ever closer to Russia’s borders, which conveniently could also double as a “nuclear” launch facility.
What kind of propaganda rubbish is this even, what does this sentence even mean?.
> it caused Russia to pull out of its nuclear treaties with USA, making the world less safe for everyone. And for what?
Thats not what Putin said though.
>> President Vladimir Putin has said Russia is suspending participation in the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with the United States after accusing the West of being directly involved in attempts to attack its strategic air bases.
> Oh and 5 days ago: Poland wants USA to give it NUCLEAR WARHEADS FOR ITS PLANES. Well, that didn’t take long:
Yeah sounds like Poland wants to defend itself from a Russian invasion via Belarus that involves nuclear weapons.
Which is looking more likely now that Russia has established PMC bases in Belarus and is placing nuclear weapons in Belarus.
Russia needs to respect Polands legitimate security needs.
It’s exasperating every time A escalates and B escalates in return, then A escalates in return, each side only cites what B did or what A did. This is an example. ns just like with AI, people are dumb about existential global threats. They race to the precipice and justify it with some trivial things that won’t matter when an exinction-level event happens.
And btw Russia does NOT have PMC bases in Belarus. Neither did Russia have boots on the ground til 2022. Any more than USA had “boots on the ground” in various countries, or NATO has “boots on the ground” right now in Ukraine with all those “volunteers”. It’s all a game and propaganda from all sides. Acting like Belarus isn’t a real country and has no agency to demand their nukes back, but Ukraine is a country with REAL agency because it is fighting a proxy war and listening to US generals and selling off all their land to US corporations.
What? the PMC themselves says they are in Belarus.
> https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/satellite-images-appear...
> Neither did Russia have boots on the ground til 2022.
Yeah this more Russian propaganda that has no basis in reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrain...
>> Little green men (Russian: зелёные человечки, romanized: zelyonye chelovechki; Ukrainian: зелені чоловічки, romanized: zeleni cholovichky; Polish: zielone ludziki) are masked soldiers of the Russian Federation who appeared during the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2014 carrying weapons and equipment, but wearing unmarked green army uniforms.[1]
>> On 17 April 2014, President Putin admitted publicly for the first time that Russian special forces were involved in the events of Crimea, for the purposes of protecting local people and creating conditions for a referendum.[25] [9][10][26][27] Later, he admitted that the Russian Armed Forces had blocked the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Crimea during the events.[28]
>> In April 2015, retired Russian Admiral Igor Kasatonov [ru] said that the "little green men" were members of Russian Spetsnaz special forces units. According to his information, Russian troop deployment in Crimea included six helicopter landings and three landings of Ilyushin Il-76 with 500 troops.[31][32][33][34]
>> https://www.france24.com/en/20140422-ukraine-little-green-me...
> Any more than USA had “boots on the ground” in various countries, or NATO has “boots on the ground” right now in Ukraine with all those “volunteers”
NATO's not really involved in this conflict outside of supplying weapons and intelligence, if they were the war would be over and there'd be fireworks in Moscow in time for the 4th of July.
The volunteers are actual volunteers a lot of them speak about how hard it is to fight in Ukraine compared to where they fought previously which generally had a better equipment army fighting a worse equipped enemy.
> It’s all a game and propaganda from all sides.
It's mostly propaganda from the Russian side, but this 'both sides' thing is a Russian propaganda tactic designed to muddy the waters and created doubt when there is none.
> Acting like Belarus isn’t a real country and has no agency to demand their nukes back
No one said Belarus couldn't ask for its nukes back.
You have invented a straw man to fight against cause the reality is not something you can argue with.
> but Ukraine is a country with REAL agency because it is fighting a proxy war and listening to US generals and selling off all their land to US corporations.
Ukraine is fighting for its existence, Russia is fighting to subjugate Ukraine and rape its land and people.
Why do you devote so much energy to promoting Russian talking points?
Belarus built the bases. Belarus’ president negotiated a deescalation between Wagner and Russian military. The guy tried to do the same for Ukraine and Russia since 2015 — the agreements are called Minsk I and II for a reason. Belarus also demanded their nukes back, they never made any “Budapest Memorandum”. Why do you ignore the agency of Belarus, and conflate it with Russia building bases for PMCs in Belarus?
If Ukraine trains its armed forces in US and UK, its military uses NATO weaponry follows the detailed planned and directions of NATO generals, do you say it has no agency and is just a puppet of NATO? If not, why apply the double standard to Belarus being a puppet of Russia? Saying Yanukovich or Lukashenko is just a Putin puppet is the kind of caricature and oversimplification that is the systemic problem. When they asked for the nukes back, what was Russia supposed to do? Or when Assad asked Russia for help, what were they supposed to do, it was their agreed duty to defend their ally.
Next, you conflate Donbas and Crimea. Russians had “little green men” in Crimea. They were allowed to have 25K troops there, according ti an agreement with Ukraine, but the “little green men” is just another red herring. They didn’t shoot or kill anyone. They are ENTIRELY different than the Antimaidan protests across Ukraine including cities like Odessa and Kharkiv, and also different than the uprisings in Donbas. What happened there is similar to what happened in the Judaic wars where Zealots won a few battles in the north and then came to Jerusalem to get everyone to fight the Romans, and burned their provisions. Strelkov and Motorola are similar to Manuel Norriega or contras or “moderate rebels” in Syria. This is the despicable stuff imperialist countries do, which I condemn in an evenhanded way, but you only care when Russia does it.
So no, “little green men” has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Russia having “boots on the ground” in Donbas. Russia didn’t invade Donbas in 2015. What happened was a proxy war with Russia arming the pro-Russian militias (many of whom were USSR sympathizers) and CIA + NATO training and arming anti-Russian militias (many of whom were nazi sympathizers). It is almost a textbook definition of a proxy war, just like we have had all throughout the cold war, and it should have been settled with the Minsk II Agreements. We all know how these proxy wars end up ravaging a country once they escalate, and that’s why it is so crucial to give diplomacy and peace a chance.
The fact that you think what half the world believes is merely “Russian talking points” shows that you are in a bubble. Outside NATO countries, outside the bubble, people largely think what I am saying. Even within the NATO countries, people are saying it. I mean I was literally in Latvia this past week - Riga and Liepaja - and spoke to cab drivers and others. I was struck by how many people speak Russian there and also how many people tell me (unprompted) the same things I’m saying here.
And even in the USA nearly all the experts whose job it was to know these things all predicted and warned for decades that NATO expansion would lead to exactly this outcome, but just like we can’t stop an AI apocalypse, we can’t stop the military industrial complex. They’ll just race to the precipice.
Look, if you believe this is about Ukraine — Hillary was just as eager to make a no-fly zone in Syria if it meant she could engage Putin. Everyone told her she was risking WW3 since 2013 but she doubled down on it. She would rather fight Putin than work together to eliminate Jihadists. The country was overrun by jihadist terrorists spilling over from Iraq, using our own weapons and vehicles. But no one even dared question that at all, they just assumed it was extreme incompetence, not a concerted effort to destabilize Syria. The calculus is simple: if they are our geopolitical foes, they are dictators and “must go”. If they are our allies (eg Saudis) then we do the mirror opposite and call it “supporting our allies in the region”.
The country doesn’t matter to these hawks — the epicenter of escalation from proxy war to WW3 could have just as easily been Syria instead of Ukraine, if Hillary had been elected. Obama was attacked on 60 mins that he is “letting Putin lead in Syria” and had to defend himself by saying they are making Russia commit their army to “barely hold together by a thread their last ally in the region”. All the while being ravaged by hordes of sunni jihadists with American weapons, who themselves are the result of CIA funding and training. You don’t see the problem here? Hillary says it herself — WE create the problems ourselves, we fund terrorists and even get blowback, but it’s all worth it because we get to stick it to the Russians. It is the same as what Brezhinski and others said. I don’t know why you only think there is Russian propaganda, while the CIA is “free to train and arm whoever they want.”
Still not convinced? Read this, I wrote it months before any Russian invasion:
Russian colonists are hardly objective observers, "Russian cab driver in Riga" is a particularly meme-worthy benchmark. They are a brainwashed fifth column that Russia has tried throughout decades to pit against Latvia to weaken it and gain influence over Latvia and enslave it again. That's the main reason why Latvia is in NATO.
But even with a massive amounts of Russian colonists in Latvia, the support for Russia has dropped to 4% while 86% of Latvia's population is against. Even most colonists have come to their senses and shut up about "glorious Russia".
>> And even in the USA nearly all the experts whose job it was to know these things all predicted and warned for decades that NATO expansion would lead to exactly this outcome
Russia has invaded only countries that have not joined NATO. Ukraine didn't take the risk of invasion seriously (unlike Poland, for example), didn't join mutual defense pacts and tried to sit on both chairs and stay neutral, and that's what they got.
The invasion was indeed predictable, but for other reasons than you state. Here's Dudayev predicting in 1995 that Ukraine will see similar genocidal war as Chechnya was seeing then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7xJl3ZrFeI That war in 1995 was a breaking point that led to Eastern European countries speeding up their entry into NATO. The war proved that Russia would stop at nothing to enslave people. Those who moved quickly are now in NATO and relatively safe, several who didn't have been invaded by Russia.
>> So no, “little green men” has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Russia having “boots on the ground” in Donbas. Russia didn’t invade Donbas in 2015.
European Court of Human Rights has decided otherwise: "the Court found that areas in eastern Ukraine in separatist hands were, from 11 May 2014 and up to at least 26 January 2022, under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. It referred to the presence in eastern Ukraine of Russian military personnel from April 2014 and the large-scale deployment of Russian troops from August 2014 at the latest. It further found that the respondent State had a significant influence on the separatists’ military strategy; that it had provided weapons and other military equipment to separatists on a significant scale from the earliest days of the “DPR” and the “LPR” and over the following months and years; that it had carried out artillery attacks upon requests from the separatists; and that it had provided political and economic support to the separatists."
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-222889
>> Outside NATO countries, outside the bubble, people largely think what I am saying.
Most people in the world disapprove what Russia is doing. Disapproval skyrocketed in 2022, largest change towards disapproval was in Southern America. https://www.voanews.com/a/global-public-perception-of-russia...
“Russian colonists” is an extremely biased way of labeling people who moved to a region while living in a federation, and wound up living there after the federation allowed the regions to secede. By contrast, the USA fought a civil war and killed millions of people to “preserve the union” and prevent anyone from ever seceding. The USA conquered territory, eg the state you live in (California) is part of a huge swarh down to Texas which was simply TAKEN from Mexico, and that’s why so many spanish speakers live there and so many cities have spanish names. That’s far more egregious (as is taking an entire continent from Native American nations, invading, enslaving people etc etc.) than voluntarily allowing secession (eg Brexit) and then having a lot of Russian-speakers there.
Over half of the people I see in Latvia speak Russian as I pass by. Including in the capitol, Riga. That was also the case in Kyiv in 2018 when I was there last. To you they are a “fifth column” — that’s very telling. Because by speaking Russian they undermind the anti-Russian agenda you seem to support (??) It’s like an anti-vaxxer or an old school liberal being “on the wrong side of history”.
This “fifth column” includes grandparents in Latvia who will soon be forced out of the country because due to new laws because they won’t learn the language. They don’t have citizenship and were never granted it, much like Palestinians in Lebanon or Syri, but to be fair they are treated MUCH better. Still, they aren’t exactly “fully welcome”, and may have to be deported in their old age soon. That’s the kind of stuff I heard from Latvians who grew up in Latvia and whose elderly parents haven’t mastered the language. (When Donald Trump insists that IMMIGRANTS learn English, he is excoriated.) I mean, maybe have a carve-our for elderly and infirm peolle at least? But the anti-Russian-language crowd has been emboldened of late. They already outlawed SPEAKING it on a job (even a private job) and teaching it in schools (even private schools).
It’s nothing new, after the Ottoman empire fell apart many people were pissed at Turkey, especially Christians who got essentially genocided (Armenians, Greeks, etc). I can understand Latvians wanting to preserve their language. That’s because I can understand where people are coming from on MULTIPLE sides. Why not try it in the case of Russia and USA? The majority of the Russian public supports this war just as the US public supported the Iraq war — and rather than caricature them all, or say they’re deluded by one man, it’s crucial to understand why they do support it.
As far as your criteria, it sounds EXACTLY like what NATO has been doing in Ukraine as well, further supporting my point about a symmetric proxy war:
providing weapons and military equipment
Significant influence on military strategy
political and economic support
USA didn’t havs boots on the ground when we did the above things to Syrian rebels, or Contras, or Mujahideen etc etc etc.? CIA made sure we didnt have official soldiers there but did that make it “boots on the ground”?
Of course that’s mostly rhetorical nonsense. USA didn’t have boots on the ground when its military contractors and volunteers from USA were in Iraq? No one knows how many military contractors were in Iraq.
This is all wordplay. I condemn Russia for supporting terrorists but USA does it all day long and very curiously you always seem to avoid the subject of how do we stop that. You don’t seem to care that “great powers” destabilize smaller countries, but care deeply if Russia does it.
To take a proxy war going on at the same time that has been actually even more destructive, but has nothing to do with Russia… Yemen. Maybe then you will see it really was a proxy war in Ukriane. In Yemen, Iran, playing the role of USA in Ukraine, fomented a revolution by Houthi Rebels, and provided support for them, but less than USA did for Ukraine’s paramilitary and military. Saudis responded worse than Russia did to maintain their power — they blockaded the country and millions of people are starving. For every hospital Russia bombed in Ukraine, the Saudi coalition using US planes bombed multiple hospitals, markets, mosques, schools.
We heard about the maternity ward with a couple causalties endlessly, but do you remember seeing any stories of hospitals bombed in Yemen? Yet we help the Saudis continue, what is the consistent logic…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/20...
Beirut got attacked by the same group (ISIS) as Paris did, on the same day, same number of causalties. Yet the world lit up in French colors and hardly anyone remembered Lebanon: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/world/middleeast/beirut-l...
The reasons people treat the Ukraine war specially from everything else, even wars that lead to even more misery, are:
1. European Lives Matter More
2. Opportunity to blame Russia and finally isolate it and prove it’s the worst actor in the world
It’s like when Republicans welcome refugees from Cuba with open arms (because they can blame socialism) but hate allowing refugees from central America seek asylum. It’s a double standard with a clear agenda.
Latvia wasn't "allowed to secede", but was occupied by force in 1940 and restored its independence in 1991 when the USSR crumbled. Soviet forces tried to prevent it using violent means until the very end: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Barricades In Riga, Nevzorov recorded a famous video with Spetsnaz instructor preparing soldiers to go on a rampage on civilians. In neighbouring Lithuania, Soviet forces drove tanks over civilians: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/eb/15/a7eb15202e9b6655af25... "Allowed to secede", you say? Fuck you. People fought for their freedom and won, it wasn't handed to them.
As to colonization, Latvia is literally an example in Wikipedia article on Colonization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization#Baltic_states
Over the three Baltic countries, 630 000 people were murdered or deported and their homes were given to Russian colonists. Due to oppressive policies and constant flow of colonizers, the share of Latvians in Latvia steadily decreased until they were about to become a minority in their own country by the late 1980s. Latvia was mercilessly exploited by Russians, and those colonists who are now left there are former plantation owners, bitter that they have no special status and no slaves anymore, and have to learn the language of slaves and drive a cab to survive.
>> my point about a symmetric proxy war
"Proxy war" is nothing but a hollow Russian talking point, because Russians see Ukrainians as inferior and cannot bring themselves to admit that they are losing to "subhumans". So they are desperate to depict this as a grand war against the whole NATO. It's not. Russian invasion of Donbas was a Russian military action from the earliest days, carried out by its special forces and regular army. According to top Russian commander of the invading forces, they had next to no local support. In contrast, Ukrainian defense against Russian invasion is fought by Ukrainians under Ukrainian command, with military aid from the whole world - such as tanks from Morocco, artillery guns from Sweden, shells from Pakistan and APCs from Australia -, and not from anyone in particular.
People who don’t want Ukraine to be the next Afghanistan are not “Russian agents”. They likely care about the Ukrainian people more than you do.
What you call “the USSR crumbling” is in fact what I described — a federation whose constitution allowed for its members to get together (originally in a secret meeting in Beloverzhakaya Puscha, much like the creation of the Fed on Jekyll island) and sign an agreement to secede.
Brexit was also possible because the EU allows secession. The US does NOT.
How do you always manage to ignore everything about genociding the native population, ethnic cleansing, conquest of huge swaths of territory from a neighboring country — when your own country does it — but even the very fact of regular folks peacefully moving to a region of the federation which later seceded and proclaimed independence, is described as “Russian colonists”. Are you not a US colonist then? Where are the native nations that used to be on that land? Why is your city part of the US and not Mexico? This EXTREME double standard is defended by a brilliant invention — the word “whataboutism”. It can excuse the biggest double standards but simply saying they are “off-topic”, even while employing them! I wrote a post called “whataboutism considered harmful” years ago.
We may not ever get the absolute truth, but eliminating double standards is how people strive towards getting closer through intellectuall honest discussion. The first thing you have to think when you make a claim X is bad, so we must do Y is consider whether you are advocating an extreme double standard.
As far as the rest — once again, everything you say is doubly true about your own country but you’ve never cared. Will you support at LEAST the same level of sanctions and isolation for the US? Of course, that’s a sheer fantasy but if you feel so strongly about these principles, is your silence just based on the unenforceability or because you believe the US is a shining city on a hill, a democracy that shows the world the best ways to live and that’s why it’s entitled to take over a continent, carve off parts of countries, be the world’s policeman, invade, occupy, regime change regularly around the world in dozens of countries etc.?
Everything you described btw is true of many federations - Tibet complains about China, Catalonia complains about Spain, various US states complain about the US, etc. To say nothing of native american reservations. It is hardly a cause for nuclear war.
Who is Ukraine a proxy for?. Who is Russia a proxy for?.
Russia has repeatedly said they started this war for imperialistic reasons, I find hard to connect imperialistic war with proxy war.
> We may not ever get the absolute truth, but eliminating double standards is how people strive towards getting closer through intellectuall honest discussion.
Spewing the same 4 paragraphs about America bad
Whatabout Afghanistan
Whatabout Cuba
Whatabout event from 200 years ago
Does not really pass muster for "intellectuall honest discussion".
> Who is Ukraine a proxy for?. Who is Russia a proxy for?.
That's not what Proxy War works. You probably know that, and are just arguing a straw man. But here we go:
During classical antiquity and the Middle Ages, many non-state proxies were external parties that were introduced to an internal conflict and aligned themselves with a belligerent to gain influence and to further their own interests in the region.[3][4] Proxies could be introduced by an external or local power and most commonly took the form of irregular armies which were used to achieve their sponsor's goals in a contested region.[4] Some medieval states like the Byzantine Empire used proxy warfare as a foreign policy tool by deliberately cultivating intrigue among hostile rivals and then backing them when they went to war with each other.
If you want the names of these belligerents, we have on the one side the rebels of the Donbas region, and on the other side we have groups like Right Sector, Azov Battallion and Dnipro. Anyway, the proxy war has now ballooned into more of a world war, and all sides contributing to escalating it, instead of speaking with each other to work together to resolve it.
For another example of similar dynamics that don't involve Russia at all (but of course involve USA because USA inserts itself into every conflict): Houthi Rebels are party of a proxy war where Iran has given them far less weapons and training and support, than USA and its allies have done with Ukraine. And China is in the process of finally getting Iran and Saudis to settle it, showing leadership where USA has abdicated it (thanks to Trump scuttling the Iran deal).
It used to be OK as late as 2018 to point this out... until the battallions on "our" side became whitewashed, just like the "moderate rebels" in Syria (but of course not the Houthi rebels in Yemen): https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2018-07-09/ty-article/ri...
But now, Human Rights Watch, White Helmets, Amnesty International and others were attacked by both sides, including the Ukrainian side, for reporting impartially, or working with "the other side" to render humanitarian aid. For example:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrai...
2014: https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-c...
Three days ago: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/07/06/ukraine-civilian-deaths-...
And of course the USA supports this directly, here is a title of an article from a few hours ago: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66144153
Title: "Cluster bombs: Unease grows over US sending cluster bombs to Ukraine"
"Oh but whatabout USA. America bad. That's off topic. USA is not involved in this war. We're just helping Ukrainians!"
I'm sure this will help the Ukrainian civilian population massively.
Even in Bucha, the Guardian's investigation showed that the majority of people died from shrapnel such as "flechettes", after autopsies were conducted. The real tragedy is how many civilians die in the crossfire, especially from cluster munitions which are banned by tons of countries, but notably NOT by USA, Ukraine and Russia: https://infobrics.org/post/35646/
> instead of speaking with each other to work together to resolve it.
This is Russias doing more than anything, but can you blame the Ukrainians, would you want to "speak" with the person who raped your child, killed your wife and executed your bother before they annex some of your house?.
> But now, Human Rights Watch, White Helmets, Amnesty International and others were attacked by both sides, including the Ukrainian side, for reporting impartially, or working with "the other side" to render humanitarian aid. For example:
These articles get attacked because they are ridiculous and come from a very privileged position.
> I'm sure this will help the Ukrainian civilian population massively.
If it helps push back Russia it will undoubtedly help them, what Russia does to a civilian population after it captures some citizens is beyond horrific.
> Even in Bucha, the Guardian's investigation showed that the majority of people died from shrapnel such as "flechettes", after autopsies were conducted. The real tragedy is how many civilians die in the crossfire, especially from cluster munitions which are banned by tons of countries, but notably NOT by USA, Ukraine and Russia:
Yep and this crossfire will go to 0 when Russia leaves Ukraine, so until then we need to arm them with all the weapons they need to make Russia leave.
You do want Russia out of Ukraine right?.
> https://infobrics.org/post/35646/
Your source is literally an alliance Russia is a founding member of LOL.
I thought Whataboutism was bad? Anyway, I point out that USA RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT sends cluster munitions to Ukraine, responsible for killing so many civilians as Human Rights Watch has documented since 2014, and banned throughout much of the world -- and your argument is "what about Russia?"
Here is what you should conclude:
* USA doesn't care about Ukrainian lives as much as making sure Russia loses (same in other proxy wars, e.g. Yemen with Iran, Afghanistan with USSR, Kurds with Iraq etc.)
* I care that armed forces of Russia, Ukraine or any country don't drop cluster munitions. I understand they will explode IN UKRAINE. So even if Russia does it, my conclusion is the same: bring an end to this war, as quickly as possible. Finally happened last year in Yemen. That's a GOOD thing!
> This is Russias doing more than anything,
The blame game isn't much use in ending a war. Even if one party was 100% responsible for starting it (which is rarely, if ever the case), the goal of diplomacy and compromise is to end the war. It doesn't do much good to blame one actor if the result is the entire country is destroyed, or maybe human civilization on the planet. Our statemen need to grow up. "BUT HE STARTED IT!" is how kids argue in kindergarten, these people are supposed to put their egos aside and hear each other out to avert disaster for millions of innocent civilians.
> but can you blame the Ukrainians, would you want to "speak" with the person who raped your child, killed your wife and executed your bother before they annex some of your house?.
Nope. I don't blame the civilian population. Just like I don't blame Iraqis for what Saddam Hussein did. USA is of course largely to blame for invading Iraq, BUT at the same time I can blame Saddam for ousting the UN inspectors (Hans Blix and co). Had he not done that, USA wouldn't have been able to claim he had WMDs as a justification to invade. In short, I can blame USA for invading AND I can still blame the government of Iraq for failing to avert the invasion by doing basic things. Same here, I can blame the liars in Kyiv government for pretending to be interested in implementing Minsk II but really never doing it, because they used it to "buy time" for this war. Had they done it, all of Ukraine would have been MUCH better off.
The elites predicted this war, and concluded (in their infinite wisdom) that it far preferable to no war, and has to happen (of course, these elites somehow magically never get a summons to go to fight that war): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwcwGSFPqIo
> These articles get attacked because they are ridiculous and come from a very privileged position.
Really, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International documenting suffering from cluster bombs "comes from a privileged position"? I think the privileged position is the war hawks in the USA, and the Ukrainian politicians, who never have to go to the front lines, but send peons (abducted on the street) to the meat grinder instead. Whenever a couch warrior volunteers others to die for their geopolitical ambitions, that's the personification of privilege.
> Yep and this crossfire will go to 0 when Russia leaves Ukraine, so until then we need to arm them with all the weapons they need to make Russia leave.
Sure, the same fantasy logic could have been used in every other war. It's very rare that an imperialist country "just leaves", especially after fighting for so long. It would have been far better to have prevented the war.
Imagine Saddam Hussein using this logic, "The war will be over when US leaves, so I might as well continue to escalate". It would be ridiculous.
Or here is another example... Palestinians in Gaza have been blockaded by Egypt and Israel for almost two decades, after Hamas got elected. Using your iron-clad logic, the gulf states and Iran sending them weapons made them SAFER. Any day now they're going to defeat Israel and Egypt with those weapons, right? On the contrary, had they never got the weapons, and THEIR GOVERNMENT simply abided by previous agreements, they would have never had this situation. But they got stuck with a government that acted like maniacs:
2006: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/world/middleeast/22cnd-mi...
2014: https://www.jordantimes.com/news/region/hamas-will-not-recog...
They also disarmed all the hamullas, making it impossible to remove them. Zelensky also canceled 2024 elections recently.
> You do want Russia out of Ukraine right?.
I do! I also want China out of Hong Kong and Tibet, Spain out of Catalonia, and so on. I want Russia out of Chechnya. I am for decentralization.
But what I really want more is for people to live in peace. I don't really care if Crimea is under Russia or Ukraine. And most people living in these regions do not care enough to fight and kill for this. In 1954, when Crimea went from Russian SSR to Ukrainian SSR, no one wanted to fight and kill. It was regarded as an administrative decision. No one asked the population. But every time the population was asked, they were very clear they wanted to be independent of Ukraine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_refer...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
So, the formulation "I want Russia out of Ukraine" assumes I am a statist who believes the rights of states trump the welfare of millions of people. After watching this video, you will see why I am not:
You can "blame" them all you want if it makes you feel better. But there's no evidence that this was their intention. The whole "they did it to buy time" meme rests on single quote from Merkel, well after the fact, taken judiciously out of context.
Overall this is highly misleading representation of the events that led to failure of the Minsk protocols. But even if this is what they did - so what? To suggest that this is somehow an important thing in itself, to be weighed against the broader insanity and evil of the full scale invasion -- let alone, as you are implying, that it effectively caused the invasion (even partially) -- is just asinine.
Like a lawyer who offers in defense: "I blame that lying hussy that some are calling a 'rape victim' for feigning cooperation with the my client's perfectly natural and understandable impulses, while she looked for a sufficient heavy object to club him with."
Calling the war in Ukraine a "proxy war" doesn't match the provided definition on Wikipedia. Ukraine is not fighting at the instigation or on behalf of others. Ukraine is fighting for itself and struggled hard to get any considerable military support in the first months of the war.
>> What you call “the USSR crumbling” is in fact what I described — a federation whose constitution allowed for its members to get together (originally in a secret meeting in Beloverzhakaya Puscha, much like the creation of the Fed on Jekyll island) and sign an agreement to secede.
Latvia did not sign any seccesion agreements. Can't secede from something you never joined. The constitution of invaders has no bearing on Latvia, it's null and void.
>> How do you always manage to ignore everything about genociding the native population, ethnic cleansing, conquest of huge swaths of territory from a neighboring country — when your own country does it
My country has never done it. I am the native population. Perhaps you should assume less about other people before trying to smear them with white guilt.
I forgot to answer this part: > "Allowed to secede", you say? Fuck you. People fought for their freedom and won, it wasn't handed to them.
I am all for freedom and decentralization. In fact I have spent over a decade of hard work with my team in Ukraine and Russia, Armenia and other countries, building a system to help make that happen: https://qbix.com
However, I do not believe that in people killing and getting killed for a flag. If people want to have more autonomy and freedom, they should do it within the system, because many other people don't want to be caught in the crossfire. The vast majority just want to go to work and they don't particularly care about this, despite any "fuck yous" you may throw their way. I don't want PKK to endanger Kurds, PLO to endanger Palestinians, Tibetan activists to endanger Tibetans, etc. What I want is international courts to be set up and cases brought there. I care about the health and safety of the vast majority of regular people more than I care about the national aspiration of separatists and nationalists. I want the people to rise up democratically and demand that negotiations take place on video, so we can all see what happened. Sorry if that offends you.
In fact, the secret Molotov-Ribentrop pact would not have been possible in a world where governments provide transparency to their people, and the Baltic states would never have been occupied by the USSR. Latvia, Lithuania and others throughout their history were often occupied.
> "can't secede from something you never joined"
When it came to the USSR, they did in fact become a member: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Soviet_Socialist_Repub...
As far as "allowed", I quote In 1989, the USSR also condemned the 1939 secret protocol between Nazi Germany and herself that had led to the invasion and occupation of the three Baltic countries, including Latvia. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Latvia_in...)
I believe in non-violent resistance and bringing cases within the democratic system. Women's suffrage got male politicians on board, and that's how they got it done ultimately. Martin Luther King's approach got the US to pass the Civil Rights Act. Gandhi's revolution got the British to leave, and again that didn't kill a lot of Indians.
Of course, when an actual genocide or famine is going on, that's different. Some people you may respect (like Winston Churchill, who was instrumental in fighting the Nazis) also was responsible for exacerbating major famines (in Bengal for instance). British also exacerbated the Great Potato Famine in neighboring Ireland. This was actually a lot more motivated by nationalism and racism, than the famines cited in socialist countries. For example, Stalin's government exacerbated a famine throughout Ukraine but also Volga region and Kazakhstan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%93...). China under Mao had a "Great famine" as well. If I had to rank which ones were more motivated by nationalism / racism, it would be in the less socialist countries (because socialists often considered that they were uniting "proletariat of all countries").
As far as "proxy war" see the sibling thread
That does not address anything I've said.
>> Well, if you are the native population, what do you have to say about USA's actions since its founding until now, towards your people?
Nothing. The US has not committed any "actions" against my people.
>> The vast majority just want to go to work and they don't particularly care about this, despite any "fuck yous" you may throw their way.
You are totally out of your depth again. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have a combined population of about 6 million. In 1989, they organized a protest against Soviet occupation, the largest protest in the history of the world, with 2 million people taking part in it - a third of the whole population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way
In Estonia in particular, about two thirds of all Estonians came together on the same day and participated in the protest, precisely to send a fuck you to people like you who kept making excuses for the occupation.
>> When it came to the USSR, they did in fact become a member
No they didn't.
While in alliance with Germany, USSR made increasing demands to Latvia in 1939-1940, culminating with demanding establishment of Soviet military bases on Latvian soil due to "security concerns" (sounds familiar?). Latvian government kept making one concession after another to appease the USSR and avoid war, but once the bases were established, USSR used them to overthrow Latvian government, staged mock elections where only collaborants were allowed to set up their candidacy (and got all the votes), then those collaborants "asked" to join the USSR literally at gunpoint (armed Soviet military personnel were in the parliament), and then in the finale, NKVD and the Red army murdered members of legitimate Latvian government and other officials, and murdered or deported tens of thousands of people, and gave their home to Russian colonists, and then continued to exploit Latvia economically and suppressing Latvian language and culture and bringing in further colonists for 50 years.
All international organizations, from the European Court of Human Rights and European Council to the United Nations recognize the Soviet occupation of Latvia as illegal.
From a 2006 decision of the European Court of Human Rights: "Latvia, together with the other Baltic States, lost its independence in 1940 in the aftermath of the partition of Europe between Germany and the USSR agreed by Adolf Hitler's Germany and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union by way of the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, an agreement contrary to the generally recognised principles of international law. The ensuing annexation of Latvia by the Soviet Union was orchestrated and conducted under the authority of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), the Communist Party of Latvia (CPL) being a satellite branch of the CPSU."
In another case, related to Estonia (shared the same fate), the Court found: "The Court notes, first, that Estonia lost its independence as a result of the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (also known as "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact"), concluded on 23 August 1939, and the secret additional protocols to it. Following an ultimatum to set up Soviet military bases in Estonia in 1939, a large-scale entry of the Soviet army into Estonia took place in June 1940. The lawful government of the country was overthrown and Soviet rule was imposed by force. The totalitarian communist regime of the Soviet Union conducted large-scale and systematic actions against the Estonian population, including, for example, the deportation of about 10,000 persons on 14 June 1941 and of more than 20,000 on 25 March 1949. After the Second World War, tens of thousands of persons went into hiding in the forests to avoid repression by the Soviet authorities; part of those in hiding actively resisted the occupation regime. According to the data of the security organs, about 1,500 persons were killed and almost 10,000 arrested in the course of the resistance movement of 1944–1953. Interrupted by the German occupation in 1941–1944, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until its restoration of independence in 1991. Accordingly, Estonia as a state was temporarily prevented from fulfilling its international commitments."
Even your own liked article says: "The Soviet occupation of the Baltic states from 1939–40 and 1944–1991 is widely considered illegal by the international community and human rights organisations."
Latvia never joined the USSR and any notion of seccession is utter nonsense. Latvia was an occupied territory, and once the USSR collapsed, Latvian government returned from exile, restored its institutions, and continued serving its people after a 50-year pause violently forced upon them.
>> As far as "allowed", I quote In 1989, the USSR also condemned the 1939 secret protocol between Nazi Germany and herself that had led to the invasion and occupation of the three Baltic countries, including Latvia.
Soviet authorities denied for 50 years that the secret protocol existed, calling it a forgery, and condemned it in 1989 only because an Estonian physicist managed to get his hands on a copy authenticated by the National Archives of the United States, and brought the copy to USSR. After that, there was simply no other option than to condemn the alliance with Hitler as it was, clearly written down in black and white.
While it was an important moral victory to Latvian independence movement, it did very little to end the Soviet occupation of Latvia in practical terms. Soviet authorities continued to suppress the independence movement until the very end, until the USSR fell apart several years later. Military forces that enforced the occupation didn't leave until mid-1990s. To this day, Russia denies the illegal occupation, has not paid any reparations nor extradited war criminals, continues hostile rhetoric towards Latvia, and makes excuses for crimes against humanity commited by them in Latvia.
I guess I will rephrase — can you, at long last, address what I have been asking about US crimes, which have been far more egregious and affected large swaths of land and people? Where is the CONSISTENCY in the moral and practical stance being advocated?
About proxy war: yes it does, because the strawman is that Ukraine as a whole has to be a proxy for another country, for that to be a proxy war, but that’s not how proxy wars work.
You won’t see much support for invasions or occupations from me, but it is a fact that Latvia was an SSR.
Many regions do not get the luxury of independence at all. Hong Kong for instance was a mere football between two empires (Chinese and British). They don’t have a say. Neither did Kurds or Catalonians or Basques etc.
Hong Kong all by itself also had 2 million people protest recently, and China didn’t care. You don’t seem to say very much about that. I mean China’s a Big Bad too, right?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-48656471.amp
In Chechnya, far more than 1/3 of the population showed up to protest Charlie Hebdo cartoons. And what is your prescription there?
I think peaceful protests are great. Democracy and international courts are even better! War is not. I am glad that Latvia got its independence without any shots fired. So did Australia. Not so for the USA, they fought a war to secede from the British empire, then fought an even bloodier civil war to prevent the southern states from seceding. They also fought a war with Mexico to annex a lot of territory. And so on.
USA doesn’t have a great track record of getting involved. It supports Saudi hegemony over Yemen, providing planes that bomb hospitals and markets. It supported Pakistan in Bangladesh’s war of independence, even as Pakistan’s army engaged in genocidal rape. These are recent events.
Also, US itself has invaded and occupied many areas much the same way. Some, it annexed (like when it overthrew Hawaii’s kingdom and annexed Hawaii, then stationed troops there — how is that different?) Others, it basically enslaved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Ha... … more recently, it simply invades and occupies, undermines or destroys but doesn’t annex or enslave (Iraq, Libya, etc.)
Anyway, I am critical of the Russian government and can condemn crimes done by it as well as US and China. Are you able to say anything of substance about the long list of crimes by the US? My point is that these imperialist countries and their cold war are the reason that smaller countries get caught in their proxy wars. And the only way out is for them to stop the violence and commit to good-faith dialogue where they agree not to crods each other’s red lines.
The war in Ukraine does not fit the definition of proxy war that you provided. Ukrainian army is against Russian army, and both are at war because they want (Russia) or need (Ukraine) to, and not because some third party forces them to and uses them as pawns. It is a traditional war between two countries. The fact that Australia has given armored cars to Ukraine and Iran has given drones to Russia doesn't make this a shadow war between Australia and Iran.
>> I am glad that Latvia got its independence without any shots fired.
Shots were fired and people died. Russians murdered peaceful Latvians, and to this day deny that it ever happened, and shelter people who ordered and commited those crimes. And not only that. Russians have recycled one of those criminals in Ukraine and installed him as an official in occupied Donbas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Antyufeyev
>> You won’t see much support for invasions or occupations from me, but it is a fact that Latvia was an SSR.
Republic of Latvia declared independence in 1918, was occupied by the USSR in 1940, and restored its independence when its government returned from exile in 1991. Latvian SSR was a fake government set up in 1940 by the USSR and it ceased to exist in 1991 along with the USSR itself. Latvian SSR has nothing to do with the Republic of Latvia, nor its independence, nor Latvian people. It was an illegitimate totalitarian regime run from Moscow, similar to Nazi General Government in Poland. You said that Latvia signed an seccession agreement. That is just plain false. Latvia never joined the USSR in the first place. Might as well say that the Poles joined Nazi Germany in 1939 and then in 1945 Nazis "allowed" them to secede when Wehrmacht retreated from Poland. Utter nonsense.
In fact, USSR created fake governments for every country they intended to enslave. One of the best examples is Finnish Democratic Republic, led by Otto Wille Kuusinen. But since the Soviet invasion of Finland failed, they had to abandon the project after a few months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic
The same handwriting has more recently continued in Abkhazia (fake government created in Georgia), Transnistria (Moldova), and now in Ukraine too. Russian forces invaded Ukraine, established fake governments in Luhansk and Donetsk regions. Those fake governments "asked" to join Russia and Russia gladly accepted them. Except no-one was fooled by the charade and no-one in the world recognized them as legitimate governments, and everything they have done is legally void.
I haven't provided one, Wikipedia has. I will quote it and add emphasis:
A proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors, one or both of which act at the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities.
The non-state actors, as I pointed out, were, respectively:
1) The Right Sector, Azov Battallion, Dnipro and others, which were armed and trained by the CIA, as well as NATO members and allies (e.g. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2018-07-09/ty-article/ri...)
2) The rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk, made up of local militias. They wished Donetsk and Luhansk regions to be absorbed by Russia early on, but Russia refused and told them to deal with Kyiv. The Minsk II agreements had as their aim guaranteeing a degree of autonomy WITHIN Ukraine, and that's what Russia wanted. Strelkov reports being disappointed by that.
In short, non-state actors formed paramilitary groups, one side received support from Russia and the other side received support from US, UK and other NATO members. Do you understand what I'm talking about?
This is how proxy wars form. Wikipedia goes on to say that large nuclear powers (USA and USSR, for instance) did this all the time during the cold war -- instead of engaging each other directly, each side would train rebels inside a country, against the other side. Each promised that they'd defeat the other and take over the country (e.g. Viet nam, Korea, etc. etc.) The sectarian violence is exacerbated and it tears a country apart, and often leads it into much larger conflicts as other countries double down and funnel weapons into it.
For example, KGB trained the PLO, against Israel and Jordan, after they entered the Western sphere of influence (previously, Stalin supported Israel because it was going to be a socialist country in the middle east, and largely was, with the kibbutzes and Labor party etc. but when they switched, Khrustchev and others started training "liberation organizations".) USA had an entire school devoted to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f...
Anyway, proxy wars have been happening all over the place. I gave an example of a proxy war happening in Yemen, between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It's a very common scenario and there is nothing new about the Ukraine war except it's in Europe and White Lives Matter More (TM) + Russia can be blamed and surrounded / contained. So this war is in the news whereas e.g. Yemen is not, despite being a far greater humanitarian catastrophe than in Ukraine.
You've been arguing with civility, so please let's not be obtuse on purpose. You see what I mean now, right? Ukraine has been a staging ground for a proxy war, and eventually it turned into a "regular war" as you call it, perhaps it will become a world war. I hope not.
(To be clear: your examples of Australia and Iran totally miss the mark. Read the wikipedia article, and try to steelman my argument before strawmanning it.)
>> Shots were fired and people died.
Alright, fair enough, you may know more about what really happened than what is available in official sources. But the extent of the violence was much smaller than, say, the American Revolution, or Bangladesh war of independence, or any of the dozens or hundreds of independence movements that were a lot more bloody.
> Latvian SSR was a fake government set up in 1940 by the USSR and it ceased to exist in 1991 along with the USSR itself.
What makes a government fake? History is written by the winners, but if a government allows people to elect their representatives, then it has some legitimacy. I sympathize with people's desire for complete sovereignty, but sometimes they have to settle for a degree of autonomy (as I mentioned, Hong Kong, Catalonia, etc.) and the vast majority of civilians prioritize health and safety over flags and geopolitical aspirations. I think it's obscene to volunteer people far away for the meat grinder just so you can enjoy a flag on a map for 50 years. Look at a time-lapse video of Europe to show how provincial these aspirations are. It's only recently that this myth arose that the borders of nation-states will be enshrined forever, now that UN is here.
> Latvia never joined the USSR in the first place.
By that standard, the Kingdom of Hawaii never joined the USA in the first place, and Hawaii currently has a fake government. Would you agree, if you applied a consistent standard? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_King...
I just want you to recognize that the same exact situation can be viewed differently depending on what country is doing it.
> Might as well say that the Poles joined Nazi Germany in 1939 and then in 1945 Nazis "allowed" them to secede when Wehrmacht retreated from Poland. Utter nonsense.
No, the Wehrmacht retreated because they were being decimated and killed by an enraged Red Army. Soviets lost 30 million people (largely due to Stalin's incompetence, btw.) Anyway, that is not at all the same as the situation in 1991, which involved far less brutality, genocide and killing. You may be able to show some limited amount of it, but NOWHERE NEAR your example. It's in a totally different league. Find a better example.
Perhaps a closer example would be the end of the British Raj in India, or the British Mandate in Palestine. They also involved far less violence. However -- and this is the cautionary tale -- it left behind a vacuum that led to civil war in which many people were killed or fled to become refugees. My point is that you have to compare apples to apples and look at similar situations around the world, in order to draw general conclusions and advocate for prescriptions.
> In fact, USSR created fake governments for every country they intended to enslave.
Literally that's what ever empire throughout history has done, including USA. And you use the word "enslave" very liberally, I might add. Have you seen what real slavery looks like? People going about their day under a different flag and not having total political sovereignty is not slavery. Tibet is not enslaved by China, in fact China argues that Tibet's own government was far more slave-owning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy
On the other hand, capitalists often did end up enslaving people. Here for example is USA literally setting up a fake government and enslaving Haiti: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Ha...
One could argue that many places which the Communists "enslaved" actually liberated women, freethinkers and others, and allowed them to go get an education, they built universities, brought electricity, etc. I'm not saying communists taking over was all-good, but many people were thankful (e.g. in Uzbekistan, etc.) and also minorities that were oppressed. You have to realize that these countries are made up of many different groups.
> The same handwriting has more recently continued in Abkhazia (fake government created in Georgia), Transnistria (Moldova), and now in Ukraine too.
Yes, I agree, and I actually don't consider it a bad thing. People who live in Abhazia want to have their own republic, too. So did Crimea, they overwhelmingly voted to SECEDE from Ukraine, back in 1991: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_refer... ... whereas the vote to join Ukraine was only 54%. We also can see similar things here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Kurdistan_Region_independ... and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Catalan_independence_refe...
The thing is that UN is composed of COUNTRIES, and they don't want little pieces to fly off. So you have a weird double-standard whereby a country like Russia can bomb its own region (Chechnya) and raze its capitol city to the ground, or China can extrajudicially kidnap and lock up 1 million Uyghurs in internment camps, and UN says very little because it's "an internal matter". I find that to be obscene. But likewise when Ukraine's government uses cluster bombs in Donetsk: https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-c... ... since 2014 they did it, HRW also reported it last week (!) https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/07/06/ukraine-civilian-deaths-... and USA just announced a couple days ago that it will send more cluster munitions (banned by most civilized countries) to Ukraine's government to use.
Make no mistake - these munitions will be almost exclusively killing civilians in Ukraine, NOT Russia. So it shows how much USA cares about Ukrainians: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66144153
Surely you can see that there are real problems for the Ukrainian civilian population, and the counteroffensive has now resorted to kidnapping men off the street and shanghaing them into the meat grinder with very little training. It's time to bring it to an end.
And look, here is how US corporations benefit... it's frankly a bit insane: https://www.facebook.com/jaketran.io/videos/9654289727945826...
So yes, I understand the wish to be politically sovereign, but the majority of civilians have other priorities and frankly I think being part of the same federation, (USA, USSR, etc.) is far better and more stable and peaceful for them, than all this endless fighting and war. Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa got left behind most other countries for centuries, because they lacked any serious empires. Empires may suck during the conquering phase, but once they have formed, it's better to keep the stability. The neighboring regions stop fighting each other, and devote resources to working together. They speak the same language, have common roads, share education centers, etc. Throughout history, empires have helped move civilization forward. When people say that "paper / gunpowder / etc. was invented in china" or "algebra / chess was invented by Arabs" etc. what they really mean is that someone in a giant freaking empire invented it, and then it spread. When they talk about Pax Mongolica or Pax Romana, it was a net benefit to many: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3x0ae1/was_t...
The linked article says the opposite. I knew I was in for a treat when I saw the title: "Rights Groups Demand Israel Stop Arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine". Representatives of Ukraine's air force met with Israeli military electronics company Elbit to talk about upgrading Ukrainian air defense systems. Some nutjob used that as an example in his petition to argue that "Israel arms Nazis". Amusing.
>> 2) The rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk, made up of local militias. They wished Donetsk and Luhansk regions to be absorbed by Russia early on, but Russia refused and told them to deal with Kyiv. The Minsk II agreements had as their aim guaranteeing a degree of autonomy WITHIN Ukraine, and that's what Russia wanted. Strelkov reports being disappointed by that.
Russian invasion of Crimea took Ukraine by surprise and allowed Russia to make fast progress. Russia failed to repeat the same trick in Donbas, because Ukraine recovered from surprise, put up fierce resistance, Russian progress stalled, and it became a frozen conflict until Russia invaded with a much larger force in 2022. They miscalculated again, but nevertheless continued with the official annexation of Luhansk and Donetsk into Russia despite never controlling the full extent of the territory they annexed (eg Zaporizhzhia). The purpose of this step was to declare those territories as "Russia proper" and make nuclear threats prior to Ukraine's 2022 summer offensive. Russian surprise retreat from Kherson (also annexed) undermined those threats and showed how hollow they were.
As to "rebels", there is no reason to speak them of as of an independent entity. The European Court of Human Rights has determined that this was merely a Russian invasion force without proper insignia.
>> In short, non-state actors formed paramilitary groups, one side received support from Russia and the other side received support from US, UK and other NATO members. Do you understand what I'm talking about?
Yes, I understand why you are calling this a proxy war. In your view, this war has two sides, "rebels" (supported by Russia) and "Ukrainian Nazis" (supported by the US). The trouble is that neither is true.
>> By that standard, the Kingdom of Hawaii never joined the USA in the first place
"By that standard" is how all international organizations treat Latvia. After Latvia restored independence, it resumed relations with other countries and organizations from where they were halted by Russians in 1940.
Regarding Hawaii, I am not well enough read to comment on anything really, but as far as I know, the US government has recognized the fact that Hawaii was illegally occupied and annexed into the US. Russia refuses to admit the illegal occupation of Latvia. From what I've read, native hawaiians can freely work on restoring their independence and no-one is locking them up in labor camps for promoting the idea. Latvians did not have this luxury. The US government is far more open to Hawaiian independence than the USSR ever was to Latvian independence.
The main obstacles to Hawaiian independence seem internal. Latvia had a government in exile holding up state continuity. There was never any doubt who represented the legitimate government of Latvia. Latvia also had clearly defined citizens (all people who held citizenship at the start of occupation in 1940 + their direct descendants), whereas native hawaiians are having hard time agreeing who belongs to native hawaiians and who doesn't.
This highlights why Russians tried to murder every single member of every pre-war Latvian government (few were lucky enough to escape to exile in time), and why they brought in colonists to replace Latvian population, so there would be no Latvian government and no people for them to represent. In Latvia, the process ran for 50 years and was barely reversed. In Hawaii, the process has run for more than twice as long, and it remains to be seen if the situation is salvageable.
>> What makes a government fake? History is written by the winners, but if a government allows people to elect their representatives, then it has some legitimacy.
Elections are indeed a good indicator. Latvian SSR never had free elections (except at the very end, when Latvians immediately voted for candidates who would dissolve it). Throughout its 50 year history, only a single party was allowed, the Communist Party of Latvia, a satellite branch of the Communist Party of the USSR. Elections saw 100% participation and the sole party "won" with 100% of votes. They didn't even bother to make it look convincing.
>> So yes, I understand the wish to be politically sovereign, but the majority of civilians have other priorities and frankly I think being part of the same federation, (USA, USSR, etc.) is far better and more stable and peaceful for them, than all this endless fighting and war.
The Soviet occupation of Latvia was not stable, peaceful nor prosperous. It began to crumble as soon as the USSR stopped shipping dissenters to labor camps, and the well-being of Latvians has skyrocketed since then. By far the largest threat to Latvian culture and the well-being of Latvians is another Russian invasion. Given their history with Russian "security concerns" and how appeasement in 1939-1940 led to 50-year occupation of Latvia and countless crimes against humanity, they have no reason to take seriously your recommendations to repeat the same mistake twice.
Let’s just stick with the Hawaii example. You say they can’t figure out who is Hawaiian anymore and who is USA. Why do you think that is? But the same situation in Latvia is described as “moving colonists in”. The USA has been “moving colonists in” to all the regions it conquered. The entire continent full of indigenous natoons was ethnically cleansed or genocided as USA expanded, yet you say little about it or treat it calmly as a fait accompli. Big double standard. You can try to say that “well, it was longer ago” but that’s pretty dubious, Hawaii annexation by USA isn’t much more remote on the timeline than Latvia by USSR, yet you don’t say anything about internationally recognized borders and outrage in the former case.
When USA invades Iraq, or bombs Yugoslavia illegally against UN and international law, or lets Kosovo secede by referendum and stations peacekeepers there, you don’t say nearly as much as when Russia invades Ukraine or lets Abhazia secede by referendum and stations peacekeepers there etc. In the latter case, you call it “occupying”, but in the Kosovo case you call it “peacekeeping” not “NATO occupying a part of Serbia”.
I happen to support “peacekeeping” and autonomy - thus sympathetic to both Kosovo and Abhazia. I care about health and safety of the actual people, not “territorial integrity” enriching fatcats and countries.
The fact simply is that USA is too powerful and has too much control on the world stage to ever face any sanctions or organized punishment for ANYTHING they do on the world stage. Russia is weaker and more isolated (largely because it DIDNT pursue a systematic policy of expansion around the world since USSR fell apart) and USA is fully taking advantage of it, by finding anti-Russian sentiment anywhere it can and offering to install bases there. We also offer IMF and World Bank loans, and anyone who doesn’t play ball gets regime-changed. If Russia or China reacts, we’ll feed them to the wolves (the ones who are our tip of the spear) promising to defend them, and if they win in the end we’ll help rebuild the country, they’ll owe us and our corporations will come to own large swaths of it. Great strategy to keep growing and putting our bases everywhere next to our geopolitical competitors, while the populations of the countries bear the brunt of the violence when they react. If they don’t react, then we take advantage of their “naivete”. When they finallh react as a cornered animal we paint their reaction as “unprovoked and unjustified”, and spend a TON of our own political capital and effort repeating the Big Lie to make it stick long enough to win the next battle and surround them further. Containment and isolation until only one is left. And people worldwidd should accept USA as the sole superpower, policeman, reserve currency, etc. Well, it seems to be backfiring, BRICS is growing and de-dollarization is coming etc.
I have said no such thing, quite the opposite - I found it worse for native hawaiians, since the occupation has lasted much longer.
>> I care about health and safety of the actual people
No, you don't - you say that countries like Latvia should pursue similar neutrality as they did in 1930s, which will put them at high risk of another Russian invasion. Or better yet, that they should voluntarily join Russian "federation" so that they could be systematically wiped out in what you call peace and stability. And blacks should go back to plantations too, I suppose?
>> Russia is weaker and more isolated (largely because it DIDNT pursue a systematic policy of expansion around the world since USSR fell apart)
It did pursue that. The policy is known as Karaganov doctrine and it declared Latvia as "near abroad", that is, not a real country, but some breakaway colony on Russian border that Russians believe they have a right to enslave. Latvia has been on the receiving end of that doctrine since the early 1990s. Russia has done everything they could to undermine Latvia's independence, economic relations with other countries and cooperation with international organizations. Latvian State Security Service publishes excellent annual reports that chronicle Russian activities against them. https://vdd.gov.lv/en/useful/annual-reports
Given that nearly every place in Europe is currently being sat on by people who kicked some other group out of there, way back when -- even Riga itself was part of territory inhabited by Finno-Ugric peoples before becoming basically a German (Hanseatic) settlement for 600+ years -- not to mention the genetic "colonist" guilt inherited by virtually everyone in the US/CAN/UK/AUS/NZ of European ancestry, by your calculus --
Let's just say your putting yourself on some very thin ice, out there, in bandying about pejoratives like this.
>> The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three substantially identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
What? they are literally one of three named states alongside Ukraine and Kazakhstan that willing signed up to the NPT and gave up their weapons in the Budapest Memorandum did you seriously never look this up?.
> Why do you ignore the agency of Belarus, and conflate it with Russia building bases for PMCs in Belarus?
Literally no one has ignored the agency of Belarus, the agency of Belarus is a straw man you keep creating to have something to set fire to.
> Next, you conflate Donbas and Crimea. Russians had “little green men” in Crimea. They were allowed to have 25K troops there, according ti an agreement with Ukraine, but the “little green men” is just another red herring. They didn’t shoot or kill anyone.
More lies as usual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Simferopol_incident
Multiple people died in Crimea from these 'little green men'.
As for the case of Dobass the Russians themselves admit it.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/11/21/russias-igor-strel...
> At the start of this summer, 90 percent of the rebel forces were made up of local residents, Strelkov was quoted as saying. However, by early August, Russian servicemen supposedly on "vacation" from the army had begun to arrive, he said.
> According to Strelkov, the assault on the Black Sea town of Mariupol in September, which prompted concerns in Ukraine and the West that Russia has entered the conflict on a large scale, was conducted mostly by the Russian military "vacationers."
Antimaidan protests were organic and covered by many Western outlets. No green men.
Donbas and Strelkov and Motorola are not the same as “little green men” in Crimea.
Russia had the right to station up to 25K servicemen in Crimea.
These or “green men” were also called “polite men” because it was widely reported that they didn’t do anything. The stats you cited are comparable to stuff that routinely happens in the US and other countries, NOT an armed invasion like in Iraq or Libya. Not even close. You try to conflate them to somehow make the case that “Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014” because you need it for a rhetorical chess move to “win” something — rather than intellectual honesty.
Now, Russia did arm and train terrorists against the Ukraine government, and that was very destructive. I admit that and condemn them for it. I also put it context to say that, sadly, this happens all over the world, usually with CIA doing it, and if you really care about this phenomenon you should discuss it everywhere and not just this one case. Yes, that is exactly the spark that lights the fire of civil war and proxy war.
That’s what we SHOULD focus on preventing, instead of blame games.
And Russia is squarely at fault for training the rebels. But also others symmetrically. If USA didn’t train the other side then Minsk II would have been implemented long ago.
The ONLY thing I will grant to the US which makes its training and arming more legitimate than Russia here is that it was helping the government of a sovereign country maintain control of a region. But in Syria it was the EXACT opposite with the sides switched, and you don’t have the consistently opposite analysis. USA is sither right all the time regardless of whether it trains militants against the government or for it, or perhaps you want to be consistent but just don’t bother?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/politics/american-comb...
As far as “vacationers”, um USA had PMCs in Iraq, all over the place for years, but claimed “no boots ok the ground” and “end of operations”. And by your standard, what do you call US army vets fighting in Ukraine right now? Are they “NATO boots on the ground”?
I think Motorola and Strelkov are the analogue of Manuel Norriega. USA even had the School of the Americas to train people like that. What is the relevant difference? And once again I want to say IT IS BAD. My prescription is always:
* Don’t train and arm terrorists
* Don’t get involved 3000 miles away
* Force public servants to engage in diplomacy before authorizing any violent operations
* Force all meeting between politicians to be on video
* Favor electing people who tend towards deescalation
You are so caught up in the blame game that you spend nearly no time discussing the SOLUTIONS I propose, which are universal for people of all nations to demand. Your “solution” is to keep volunteering people 3000 miles away to die in yet another “forever war” until a fantasy scenario plays out, or — more realistically - new politicians are votes in and everyone forgets and moves on from “the latest thing”.
Antimaidan protests were organic and covered by many Western outlets. No green men.
Donbas and Strelkov and Motorola are not the same as “little green men” in Crimea.
Russia had the right to station up to 25K servicemen in Crimea.
These or “green men” were also called “polite men” because it was widely reported that they didn’t do anything. The stats you cited are comparable to stuff that routinely happens in the US and other countries, NOT an armed invasion like in Iraq or Libya. Not even close. You try to conflate them to somehow make the case that “Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014” because you need it for a rhetorical chess move to “win” something — rather than intellectual honesty.
Now, Russia did arm and train terrorists against the Ukraine government, and that was very destructive. I admit that and condemn them for it. I also put it context to say that, sadly, this happens all over the world, usually with CIA doing it, and if you really care about this phenomenon you should discuss it everywhere and not just this one case. Yes, that is exactly the spark that lights the fire of civil war and proxy war.
That’s what we SHOULD focus on preventing, instead of blame games.
And Russia is squarely at fault for training the rebels. But also others symmetrically. If USA didn’t train the other side then Minsk II would have been implemented long ago.
The ONLY thing I will grant to the US which makes its training and arming more legitimate than Russia here is that it was helping the government of a sovereign country maintain control of a region. But in Syria it was the EXACT opposite with the sides switched, and you don’t have the consistently opposite analysis. USA is sither right all the time regardless of whether it trains militants against the government or for it, or perhaps you want to be consistent but just don’t bother?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/politics/american-comb...
As far as “vacationers”, um USA had PMCs in Iraq, all over the place for years, but claimed “no boots ok the ground” and “end of operations”. And by your standard, what do you call US army vets fighting in Ukraine right now? Are they “NATO boots on the ground”?
I think Motorola and Strelkov are the analogue of Manuel Norriega. USA even had the School of the Americas to train people like that. What is the relevant difference? And once again I want to say IT IS BAD. My prescription is always:
* Don’t train and arm terrorists
* Don’t get involved 3000 miles away
* Force public servants to engage in diplomacy before suthori
Sure, and the earth is flat too.
> Donbas and Strelkov and Motorola are not the same as “little green men” in Crimea.
No, but they were both in Donbass, both Russian soldiers or intelligence officers and at least Strelkov admits that real Russian soldiers were in Donbass in 2014.
> he stats you cited are comparable to stuff that routinely happens in the US and other countries, NOT an armed invasion like in Iraq or Libya. Not even close.
Yeah but your claim wasn't about an armed invasion it was literally this.
>> > Next, you conflate Donbas and Crimea. Russians had “little green men” in Crimea. They were allowed to have 25K troops there, according ti an agreement with Ukraine, but the “little green men” is just another red herring. They didn’t shoot or kill anyone.
This isn't true, they did shoot and kill people.
> That’s what we SHOULD focus on preventing, instead of blame games.
We should and as Russia has made it clear the only way to prevent Russian aggression is a boot on their neck or a rope around their throat.
So we have to arm Ukraine enough to make Russia withdraw.
> As far as “vacationers”, um USA had PMCs in Iraq, all over the place for years, but claimed “no boots ok the ground” and “end of operations”. And by your standard, what do you call US army vets fighting in Ukraine right now? Are they “NATO boots on the ground”?
These weren't PMC's they where active duty Russian solders in Ukraine on "vacation".
There are no active duty foreign nationals taking part in the Ukraine conflict on the Ukrainian side.
Theres only veterans who are no longer part of foreign armies.
I just wonder if you are ever going to respond with out trying to include an example of America doing the same thing in every single paragraph.
In fact in these threads about Russia, and Russian aggression in Ukraine you talk a lot more about American then Russia.
Why don't you mention in this sentence that both Strelkov and Motorola are Russian and that Strelkov is an FSB officer?.
It also less arming terrorists and more an invasion, the 'little green men' narrative _is_ propaganda. It was largely just literal Russian soldiers in Donbas.
> I understand that each side reacts to the other and it’s SHEER FANTASY to expect either Russia or China or Brazil etc. to roll over and allow a roadmap where its enemies to place nukes on their doorstep.
No one wants to place nukes in Ukraine. This is a false narrative designed to try and disguise Ukraines want to be in NATO as anything other than Ukraine wanting protection from the country that has so far invaded them at least twice.
“No one wants” to do a lot of things, but when the tools are there, the next administrations may very well do those same things. That’s been the story of NATO expansion, US colonists’ expansion, erosion of civil liberties, outlawing cash etc etc.
Where and what?.
> that can be retrofitted to launch them
What can be retrofitted to launch what nukes?
> and now Poland wants nukes for their planes.
Yes because Belarus has already got actual Russian nukes inside Belarus.
So now Poland feels like they need extra protection, and they feel the best way to do this is to get nukes from America, as they likely think it will dissuade Russia from invading Poland _again_ or trying to nuke them.
> “No one wants” to do a lot of things, but when the tools are there, the next administrations may very well do those same things.
Ah I see now we have moved onto future hypothetical's that may never happen.
Also unlike Belarus, Ukraine has remained committed to the Budapest Memorandum and has shown no want to have nuclear weapons placed on their territory.
> That’s been the story of NATO expansion, US colonists’ expansion, erosion of civil liberties, outlawing cash etc etc.
NATO expansion is the direct result of Russian aggression. If Russia never invaded Ukraine theres a good chance Finland and Sweden would have just never joined NATO.
But Russia has a seemingly uncontrollable need to invade former soviet states and until they calm down and stop the best bet for world stability and to stop the hyper proliferation of nuclear weapons is to start putting more countries that need protection into NATO.
Romania: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-shield-idINKCN0Y30JX
(Undermines at the very least the treaty that Russia and USA had about not building nuclear interception defenses, in order to preserve the mutually assured destruction deterrent. At the worst, it can be quickly converted to an offensive site to launch rockets from. We wouldn’t allow Iran to build “defensive” nuclear installations, would we? I wonder why can’t we just trust Iran like Russia is being asked to trust NATO. In fact, the official line is that this installation in Romania had nothing to do with Russia at all… it was to counter a threat to Europe from… Iran! Yes the same Iran that had negotiated a deal with the US that the US broke right around that time.)
Poland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_...
> What can be retrofitted to launch what nukes?
What nukes? That’s a strange question. Are you asking in good faith? You’re asking me to tell you which specific nukes? Can you tell me what the choices are here? Is there a kind of nuke that is acceptable to host at the missile “defense” site?
The transparent trick is to call it “purely defensive” and have an army of patriots unquestioningly parrot the exact line, “purely defensive”, “Russia has nothing to worry about, on the contrary, they are the aggressor”. Very standard stuff every country always says (and usually is totally false)
https://www.rferl.org/amp/nato-shows-off-missile-base-in-rom...
Experts admit that it is fairly easy to turn them into offensive sites into Russia, quote: Abraham Denmark, director of the Asia program at the Wilson Center and a former Pentagon official, said the two facilities “could fairly readily be turned” from defensive posture against Iranian ballistic missiles threatening Europe to an offensive capability targeting Russia. This would be a “direct threat” contention the Kremlin has said violated the existing treaty and was the American goal from that start in deploying the missiles, radars and fire control systems so close to its borders.
https://news.usni.org/2018/10/31/aegis-ashore-new-role-post-...
I would wager none of that makes even a modicum of impact on you, and you have nothing to say about it, so let’s move on
“But Russia has a seemingly uncontrollable need to invade former soviet states”
USA has long since invaded, stolen, annexed and subjugated all the lands around it (manifest destiny). It has long ago staked its claim on the entire hemisphere as its protectorate, explicitly foreign foreign powers cannot come and meddle there (Monroe doctrine). It has since then gone around the world and did that same exact type of meddling — with disastrous results — in pretty much every country on earth! We have 800 bases around the world, which is 30x more than the rest of the world combined. We spend more on the military than the next 10 countries, including our own allies. It is a real problem that US Americans seem to only focus on other countries and call them out for the very things that their own country has done and is currently doing, while insisting they have nothing to worry about and if they respond in ANY WAY they’re the aggressor!!
Nations need protection from the US, which is the only country on earth today that conducts drone strikes in multiple far-away sovereign countries, blowing up weddings, funds rebels and destabilizes countries on a mass scale, does regime change in dozens of countries around the world, sometimes leaving the country devastated (Iraq, Libya) and bouncing to the next.
And of course US has economic hit men who come first (Guatemala, Iran, Chile, etc) and if the people elect a socialist or someone nationalizes resources the CIA and MI6 foment a revolution and take them out. We later put them in massive debt and offer our IMF and World Bank loans, as well as our corporations to own and make use of exporting the best resources. It’s standard practice:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_H...
BlackRock is doing it in Ukraine — it’s not just a bonanza for weapons contractors but also US conglomerates, watch this short video:
If the concern is a rogue state that is belligerent on the world stage, then countries should start banding together to defend themslves from the USA.
https://www.amazon.com/Rogue-State-Guide-Worlds-Superpower/d...
And they are:
You said you can retrofit the defensive missile system to launch nukes yet cannot name a single nuke it launch?. So you _certain_ it can launch a nuke yet cannot even name a single type of nuke it can launch?.
> USA has long since invaded, stolen, annexed and subjugated all the lands around it (manifest destiny). It has long ago staked its claim on the entire hemisphere as its protectorate, explicitly foreign foreign powers cannot come and meddle there (Monroe doctrine). It has since then gone around the world and did that same exact type of meddling — with disastrous results — in pretty much every country on earth! We have 800 bases around the world, which is 30x more than the rest of the world combined. We spend more on the military than the next 10 countries, including our own allies. It is a real problem that US Americans seem to only focus on other countries and call them out for the very things that their own country has done and is currently doing, while insisting they have nothing to worry about and if they respond in ANY WAY they’re the aggressor!!
Cool,
But this is about Russia.
Russia is the one who expands NATO due to Russias actions, if Russia was capable of not being a shitty neighbour then theres a good chance NATO would be at least (two (soon)) members smaller.
> Nations need protection from the US, which is the only country on earth today that conducts drone strikes in multiple far-away sovereign countries, blowing up weddings, funds rebels and destabilizes countries on a mass scale, does regime change in dozens of countries around the world, sometimes leaving the country devastated (Iraq, Libya) and bouncing to the next.
Cool then they can enter an alliance to do so if they want (like CSTO).
I fully support this if countries feel this way.
> https://fb.watch/lHuKHbM_fW/
Your source doesn't seem so good to be honest.
Iran can also claim that its nuclear enrichment is peaceful, and they have no intention (FOR NOW!) of developing nuclear weapons. Why not just believe them? That logic is native and stupid. Country leaders aren’t supposed to totally ignore the very real possibility that experts say is easy to achieve.
“Cool. But this is about Russia.”
Funny how this tactic is used over and over by the USA. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, that’s whataboutism.” “Stop pointing out double standards and hypocrisy, that’s whataboutism.” “We are only here to talk about this other country. Sure if the situation was reversed we’d do a lot worse, but this isn’t about us.”
Oh how convenient. The same tactic is used by pretty much anyone with an agenda. Everyone outside the bubble is rightly exasperated by this technique of shutting down all possible good faith discussion. It is also why the rest of the world outside the NATO bubble (especially the global south) doesn’t buy what the US is selling… neither that NATO is purely defensive, nor that US hegemony is a net good, nor that Russia’s reaction was “unprovoked”. Really, people polled around the world outside the NATO bubble blame NATO and USA. For years, since 2003 at least. Every year. It’s just not reported here.
I am glad you support countries joining military alliances against each other. Worked very well for triggering WW1, but I’m sure that will never happen again.
By the way, joining an economic alliance like BRICS is far more peaceful and I support it.
> “Your source”
Did you watch the video? I don’t care who says the facts as long as they say true facts. The substance is what matters. The pitch where the guy attempts to invite his viewers to learn how to be unscrupulous comes at the very end of the video - I found it weird and ignored it. The rest of the video is great and exposes BlackRock’s role in plundering Ukraine.
But hey — we know how the establishment operates by now. Assange reveals their corruption, but they are more upset that it was revealed, not the corruption itself. And same here. The video exposes the truth with all mainstream sources - so adhominem and don’t watch it!
Gallup: "Counter to some impressions, the U.S. and its allies aren’t the only ones who care about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Gallup surveys in 137 countries show Russia’s image has suffered worldwide since it began its war in Ukraine. For the first time in Gallup’s history of tracking ratings of world leaders, the majority of the world disapproves of Russia’s leadership." https://news.gallup.com/poll/474596/russia-suffers-global-re...