1 edit
@no1marauder saidIt’s as true now as when I first used it.
That seems to be your last, often used refuge.
It's silly and childish like most of your posts.
If you do not want to be known as a Putin mouthpiece stop promoting the ridiculously false claim that Putin and Russia can have security concerns regarding its smaller sovereign neighbours.
They live next door to a known aggressor it is they who have legitimate security concerns not the biggest nuclear power on the planet.
They have addressed those concerns by joining a mutual defence pact which you and Putin want to dismantle or reduce in potency, mmm I wonder why 🤔
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidA "mutual defence pact" that has attacked numerous countries in order to enforce regime change and/or dismember those "sovereign nations".
It’s as true now as when I first used it.
If you do not want to be known as a Putin mouthpiece stop promoting the ridiculously false claim that Putin and Russia can have security concerns regarding its smaller sovereign neighbours.
They live next door to a known aggressor it is they who have legitimate security concerns not the biggest nuclear power on the planet.
They ha ...[text shortened]... a mutual defence pact which you and Putin want to dismantle or reduce in potency, mmm I wonder why 🤔
Even someone as pro-West as Yeltsin opposed NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. The democratically elected Russian government in 1996 also did:
"Documents from the Russian side show opposition to NATO expansion across the political spectrum, dating back to a Yeltsin supporters’ meeting with NATO Secretary General Manfred Woerner in the summer of 1991 (he assured them expansion would not happen), and forward to the large majority of Duma deputies from every political party joining the anti-NATO caucus in 1996. As the U.S. chargé d’affaires in Moscow, James Collins, warned Secretary of State Christopher just before his trip to meet Yeltsin in October 1993 (Document 6), the NATO issue “is neuralgic to the Russians. They expect to end up on the wrong side of a new division of Europe if any decision is made quickly. No matter how nuanced, if NATO adopts a policy which envisions expansion into Central and Eastern Europe without holding the door open to Russia, it would be universally interpreted in Moscow as directed against Russia and Russian alone – or ‘neo-containment’….”"
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard
" U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher had traveled to Moscow to explain in advance of the January 1994 NATO summit that the United States would not support new members joining the alliance, but would rather develop a Partnership for Peace that would include all states of the former Warsaw Pact. Yeltsin’s relief was palpable. He thought he had dodged the NATO enlargement bullet at a time at which he was in a raging political battle against hardliners at home. A year later, when he discovered that enlargement was not only on the table but would in fact be proceeding, Yeltsin was apoplectic, and he railed against Clinton publicly at a meeting in Budapest."
https://warontherocks.com/2019/11/promises-made-promises-broken-what-yeltsin-was-told-about-nato-in-1993-and-why-it-matters-2/
Your continued insistence that anyone who opposes NATO expansion is just a Putin mouthpiece is childish nonsense.
5 edits
@no1marauder saidThat's grossly inaccurate. The catalyst for the president being forcibly removed was his use of violence to quell protestors, resulting in massive bloodshed and death.
Even at that, Russia made no aggressive moves against Ukraine until the latter's President was illegally overthrown for having the temerity to not sign a trade agreement with the West.
While it's true that Yanukovych may have eventually lost his position due to his unpopularity, leaving out the his violent crackdown against dissidents seriously misrepresents the circumstances around his removal. He wasn't removed from power merely for siding with Russia.
You also leave out that Russia threatened harsh sanctions against Ukraine if they signed the EU agreement. The president was perfectly on board with signing the agreement if not for that.
I agree with the rest of your post.
@no1marauder saidSorry what military alliances has Ukraine joined?
The situation is far more nuanced than your simplistic propaganda.
The Ukraine contains a large chunk of territory primarily populated by ethnic Russians who have an affinity for that country. When the Soviet Union fell, it was divided along pre-existing administrative units of that nation regardless of the wishes of the local population. This phenomenon occurred thro ...[text shortened]... by merely assigning a black hat to one side and refusing to consider any possibility of compromise.
Well perhaps people like yourself should stop carving the world up into nest little parcels and agreeing which defence pacts sovereign nations can join.
Rustua occupied the whole of eastern and Central Europe for 50 years and they were not good years. The idea that those nations should have ever had to take it as an act of faith that no one would invade them again from east or west is arrogant in the extreme. The last war which Poland and many other countries invaded and subdued began came from the NATO is not solely there to defend Europe from Russian aggression it’s also a very good tool for defending Europe from itself.
Your Cold War mentality whereby yourselves and the Kremlin will arrange how Europe secures itself from wars of aggression on the continent is out dated by about 30 years.
If the US decides to pull out of NATO it will have a name change but trust me we will not be relying on Putins kind and benevolent nature to secure our borders. If you knew anything of European history you would know that whenever one state gets to big ir two powerful the rest of the states form alliances to attain a balance of power. With or without the US that will continue in its own organic way,
What non Russian Europe needs is more nukes to balance its position vis a vis Russia given that they are nothing like as potent in a conventional war scenario as they once were.
@vivify saidThe protesters made clear that their objective was President Yanukovych's removal from the start:
That's grossly inaccurate. The catalyst for the president being forcibly removed was his use of violence to quell protestors, resulting in massive bloodshed and death.
While it's true that Yushchenko may have eventually lost his position due to his unpopularity, leaving out the his violent crackdown against dissidents seriously misrepresents the circumstances around his ...[text shortened]... He wasn't removed from power merely for siding with Russia.
I agree with the rest of your post.
"In November 2013, a wave of large-scale protests (known as Euromaidan) erupted in response to President Yanukovych's sudden decision not to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU), instead choosing closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. In February of that year, the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament) had overwhelmingly approved of finalizing the agreement with the EU.[25] Russia had put pressure on Ukraine to reject it.[26] These protests continued for months and their scope widened, with calls for the resignation of Yanukovych and the Azarov Government.[27] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#cite_note-Reuters121213-27
In the end, it was the most radical, nationalist elements that torpedoed an agreement, brokered by EU foreign ministers, between the President and the three opposition leaders that met all the demands except that of his and other key members of his government's removal:
"A compromise deal was agreed to on 21 February after hours of negotiations led by the European Union mediators and Foreign Ministers Radosław Sikorski of Poland, Laurent Fabius of France, and Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany.[187][188] Officially called the Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine, but unofficially called the 21 February Agreement, it was signed by both opposition leaders and the president after overnight negotiations (read the full text of the agreement here).[189] The agreed-to provisions included a restoration of the constitution as it was between 2004 and 2010; constitutional reform to be completed by September; early presidential elections no later than December 2014; an investigation into the violence conducted under joint monitoring of the administration, the opposition, and the Council of Europe; a veto on imposing a state of emergency; amnesty for protesters arrested since 17 February; the surrender of public buildings occupied by protesters; the forfeiture of illegal weapons; "new electoral laws", and the formation of a new Central Election Commission.[190][191] The three EU foreign ministers signed the document as witnesses,[192] but not the Russian mediator Vladimir Lukin, because he had no mandate to sign an agreement on the crisis.[193][194]"
"Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh rejected the agreement, saying, "We have to state the obvious fact that the criminal regime had not yet realised either the gravity of its evil doing." He noted that the agreement did not include provisions for the arrest of Interior Minister Zakharchenko; the punishing of Berkut commanders alleged to have been involved in the murder of civilians; the removal of the general prosecutor and defence minister; a ban on the Party of Regions and Communist Party; and guarantees of safety for those involved in the opposition. He called for the "people's revolution" to continue until power had been completely removed from the governing authorities.[180] Euromaidan leader Andriy Parubiy insisted that elections be held as soon as possible and reiterated that one of the main demands of protesters had been the resignation of President Yanukovych.[198] AutoMaidan also announced that it would not accept anything short of Yanukovych's resignation.[199]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#Agreement_on_settlement_of_political_crisis
"Grossly inaccurate"? I don't think so.
@no1marauder saidOh imagine asking for the resignation of a foreign agent who had orchestrated the deaths of 108 of your fellow protestors. The ungrateful swines ( I’m being sarcastic again btw )
The protesters made clear that their objective was President Yanukovych's removal from the start:
"In November 2013, a wave of large-scale protests (known as Euromaidan) erupted in response to President Yanukovych's sudden decision not to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU), instead choosing closer ties to Russia and the E ...[text shortened]... on_of_Dignity#Agreement_on_settlement_of_political_crisis
"Grossly inaccurate"? I don't think so.
@no1marauder saidFrom what you posted as a reason for the President's removal:
"Grossly inaccurate"? I don't think so.
"the punishing of Berkut commanders alleged to have been involved in the murder of civilians"
Regardless of what the protestors initially wanted, the forcible removal by the *government* was significantly influenced by the President's violent, mass-scale crackdown resulting in deaths of protestors.
You also failed to mention Russia's threat of harsh sanctions that influenced the President's last-minute change of heart regarding signing the EU deal; the Ukrainian was actually fully on board with signing the EU deal, if not for the threat of crippling sanctions.
For someone who preached about "nuance" in the very post I quoted from, you lack that very thing here.
@kevcvs57 saidThe "foreign agent" that the Ukrainians elected President?
Oh imagine asking for the resignation of a foreign agent who had orchestrated the deaths of 108 of your fellow protestors. The ungrateful swines ( I’m being sarcastic again btw )
There were violent protests which resulted in deaths on both sides; as I've shown 18 police died in the violence. Whether the police reaction warranted President Yanukovych's removal should have been decided by Constitutional process, not by the decisions of armed right wing, nationalist radicals.
@vivify saidMy statement: " [Ukraine's] President was illegally overthrown for having the temerity to not sign a trade agreement with the West" is accurate.
From what you posted as a reason for the President's removal:
"the punishing of Berkut commanders alleged to have been involved in the murder of civilians"
Regardless of what the protestors initially wanted, the forcible removal by the *government* was significantly influenced by the President's violent, mass-scale crackdown resulting in deaths of protestors.
You al ...[text shortened]... r someone who preached about "nuance" in the very post I quoted from, you lack that very thing here.
The protests started immediately after " Yanukovych refused to sign the association agreement with the EU at a meeting of the Eastern Partnership in Vilnius, Lithuania, choosing closer ties with Russia instead." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#Agreement_on_settlement_of_political_crisis
They aimed for his removal as I have shown. The police response to the violent protests may have increased support for his illegal removal, but the very basis of the whole movement was to replace Yanukovych because he favored economic ties with Russia over the West (a position he was certainly entitled to take).
Both the West and Russia applied economic pressures and promises to entice Ukraine to enter certain trade agreements. What such agreements that nation should make was a political decision for it to decide on based on established constitutional processes, not armed mobs taking over government buildings and making demands.
5 edits
@no1marauder saidProtestors call for the removal of world leaders all the time; this even occurred in the U.S. with Trump. That alone doesn't mean this will happen. Lukashenko is still in power despite protests for his removal.
My statement: " [Ukraine's] President was illegally overthrown for having the temerity to not sign a trade agreement with the West" is accurate.
The protests started immediately after " Yanukovych refused to sign the association agreement with the EU at a meeting of the Eastern Partnership in Vilnius, Lithuania, choosing closer ties with Russia instead." https://en.wi ...[text shortened]... lished constitutional processes, not armed mobs taking over government buildings and making demands.
You're trying to assert that mere protests would've been enough for an armed removal of Yanukavych from power; most of history disagrees with you. Failing to mention the violent suppression of protestors that included murder falls short of the "nuance" you claim to be so interested in.
And as for the President's "temerity" in not signing the deal, you also failed to mention the fact that Russia threatened crippling sanctions if the EU deal was signed. So you failed to mention not only that the Ukrainian president was perfectly willing to sign the deal, but Russia strong-arming the president into backing out.
I'm not arguing with you, just providing nuance.
@vivify saidI certainly am not "trying to assert that mere protests would've been enough for an armed removal of Yanukavych from power;". This turned into an armed coup led by far right nationalists. But the catalyst was Yanukovych's A) refusal to sign the EU agreement. Sure other factors were in play - his regime, like most in the Ukraine, was corrupt - and the police response was probably excessive but/for A he would not have been forced out illegally.
Protestors call for the removal of world leaders all the time; this even happened in the U.S. with Trump. That alone doesn't mean this will happen. Lukashenko is still in power despite protests for his removal.
You're trying to assert that mere protests would've been enough for an armed removal of Yanukavych from power; most of history disagrees with you. Failing to me ...[text shortened]... ia strong-arming the president into backing out.
I'm not arguing with you, just providing nuance.
Russia's economic arm twisting was little different from the EU's.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidAre you confusing NATO with US led aggressions like Iraq. name the NATO aggressions that were not triggered by article 5 or carried out under the auspices of the UN and we can probably agree that they were wrong.
A "mutual defence pact" that has attacked numerous countries in order to enforce regime change and/or dismember those "sovereign nations".
Even someone as pro-West as Yeltsin opposed NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. The democratically elected Russian government in 1996 also did:
"[b]Documents from the Russian side show opposition to NATO expansion across the pol ...[text shortened]... d insistence that anyone who opposes NATO expansion is just a Putin mouthpiece is childish nonsense.
Russia has been levelling cities ever since Putin took over and unleashed his armed forces on Chechnya.
Russia has been on a war footing with the west for decades, you perhaps haven’t experienced having polonium traipsed around your capital city by Russian assassins or Novichok smeared on door handles. Only useful idiots like yourself believe that the KGB stood down after the fall of the wall. They merely regrouped and made themselves rich at the expense of the Russian people whilst continuing their war on the west..
You can prattle on until your blue in the face about big bad nato but they will never come close to the evil that Putin is unleashing in Ukraine and you know that to be true. You are simply an apologist for rape and mass murder.
This war will continue until Ukraine either pushes Russian forces back to the pre invasion positions or decide to trade some more of their sovereign state for peace but it will not be for a lack of weapons with which to kill Russian invaders and all the while the sanctions will leave the Russian people in no doubt how much support Ukraine is getting from its likeminded friends in the west.
@kevcvs57 saidThe UN votes are coerced by the USA. Those votes therefore mean nothing. Bush extorted and bribed votes to get UN authorization for war with Iraq and still failed because of one country, France.
Are you confusing NATO with US led aggressions like Iraq. name the NATO aggressions that were not triggered by article 5 or carried out under the auspices of the UN and we can probably agree that they were wrong.
Russia has been levelling cities ever since Putin took over and unleashed his armed forces on Chechnya.
Russia has been on a war footing with the west for decades ...[text shortened]... sian people in no doubt how much support Ukraine is getting from its likeminded friends in the west.
1 edit
“ Evidence some Ukrainian women raped before being killed, say doctors
Forensic specialists carrying out autopsies north of Kyiv say they ‘still have hundreds of bodies to examine’”
“ A foreign coroner working north of Kyiv who asked to remain anonymous said some bodies “are in such bad shape that it is not easy to find signs of rapes and sexual abuses. But we are collecting evidence in a few cases of women we believe had been raped before being murdered.”
Following the withdrawal of Russian troops from towns and suburbs around the capital, dozens of women have told police, the media and human rights organisations about atrocities they say they suffered suffered at the hands of Russian soldiers. Investigators have heard testimony of gang-rapes, assaults taking place at gunpoint and rapes committed in front of children.
Ukraine’s human rights commissioner, Lyudmila Denisova, has officially documented the cases of 25 women who were kept in a basement and systematically raped in Bucha, a town north of Kyiv now synonymous with Russian war crimes. Authorities have warned those cases could be the tip of the iceberg and accused Russian troops of using rape as an instrument of war.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/25/evidence-ukraine-women-raped-before-being-killed-say-doctors-russia-war?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
‘Sarcasm alert’
Yeah these women were probably raped and murdered by nato troops carrying out a false flag operation on behalf of the UN.🙄
@kevcvs57 saidWomen get raped in war? Tell us something else we already know as if we don't.
“ Evidence some Ukrainian women raped before being killed, say doctors
Forensic specialists carrying out autopsies north of Kyiv say they ‘still have hundreds of bodies to examine’”
“ A foreign coroner working north of Kyiv who asked to remain anonymous said some bodies “are in such bad shape that it is not easy to find signs of rapes and sexual abuses. But we are collec ...[text shortened]... probably raped and murdered by nato troops carrying out a false flag operation on behalf of the UN.🙄
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iraq-soldier-suicide-idUSBREA1I03V20140219
Can you name a single war that soldiers didn't rape women? Grow up.