Biden's Cascade of Failure!

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Dr. Steve Turley discusses a new development in Ukraine--evidently Zelensky is now persecuting Orthodox Christians. Dr. Turley also discusses the US government's involvement with starting the "Colour Revolution" that overthrew a democratically elected government in Ukraine.

Very interesting.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Klava]

I'd be curious to hear your views on more about what's going on and why.

did you watch this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcn3_V2_rJ0

SHARK i think posted this in another thread. while i don't exactly 100% agree wtih everything said in that video, it's mostly on point imo.

Basically all of the handful of Ukrainians and Russian people I know are English-speaking role-players, so it's not surprising that they tend to align more with Western views

not surprising, huh? i'm an english speaking person... kinda. that didn't make me align with western views at all though.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

This is an interesting documentary on the war in Ukraine, and also discusses various events and issues in different EU countries. Special attention documents American involvement and policies for years leading up to the conflict in Ukraine, and provides additional insight concerning President Biden's leadership and involvement. Get some popcorn, and pour some coffee. The documentary is well worth your time to watch, and consider many different contexts and issues.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Greetings!

Yes, Klava! I posted this video documentary here earlier in this thread, from page 36.

And no, I don't believe that Jhkim has watched the documentary. *Laughing*

I am also very glad that you watched the documentary, Klava! Black Pigeon Speaks has done an excellent documentary that digs into the truth--the nuances, all the different angles and events. All the stuff that Western propagandists and morons don't seem to ever want to really look at or talk about. The corruption, the arrogance, the hypocrisy, is so disgusting to me. It goes against all of our cherished values, and what we have always championed and believed in. It is because of all of these things, that I have been deeply skeptical of any kind of American involvement in the Ukraine war, and why I have always opposed America being involved in the Ukraine war in any way. All of this proxy war BS won't end well, and I have always believed that the US should genuinely respect Russia, and seek to embrace Russia as a friend. In light of our own corruption, incompetence, arrogance, and greed--as well as good measures of stupidity--in our campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Syria and Libya--I am deeply suspicious of America getting involved in any kind of military operations or wars that simply do not correspond with absolute strategic interests. I accord Russia, or China, or any large nation with the same kind of respectful regard. We all have red lines of strategic interest. Britain has Scotland and Ireland. We have Canada, Mexico, and the little countries of the Caribbean and South America. China has their own interests as well. Russia has Ukraine, and all of the various smaller countries that border the Motherland. For anyone to seek to step against these real and legitimate strategic security interests--is just asking for a fight.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Ratman_tf]

Remember when America was deried for getting involved in other countries wars?

[jhkim]

I'd be curious to hear your views on more about what's going on and why.

did you watch this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcn3_V2_rJ0

SHARK i think posted this in another thread. while i don't exactly 100% agree wtih everything said in that video, it's mostly on point imo.

Yes, Klava! I posted this video documentary here earlier in this thread, from page 36.

And no, I don't believe that Jhkim has watched the documentary. *Laughing*

I am also very glad that you watched the documentary, Klava!

I hadn't watched the full documentary earlier. I have finished it now. The big disagreements I have are:

1) In the conclusion at 1:38, they claim that if only Ukraine had supported the Minsk II accords, then the war would never have happened. I think that is crap. Neither side has adhered to either of the Minsk accords, and it is folly to suggest that Putin is a trustworthy fellow who only wants the rules followed.

2) At 1:34, they claim that "The ex-israeli Prime Minister confirmed that a peace deal that he had brokered had been all but agreed upon by all parties in March of 2022. However, that peace plan was scuttled as Washington vetoed the agreement and that in his words the U.S. and its allies decided to keep striking at Russian President Vladimir Putin and blocked the agreement." As I said earlier, that is denied by Naftali Bennett himself - and does not match what was said in the interview. When prompted by the interviewer, Bennett does say "basically they blocked it" -- but the rest makes clear that there was no agreed-upon plan, and that by "blocked" he meant that they didn't think it had any chance and did not support it for that reason. In March 2022, Russia had the upper hand, and any deal would almost certainly be Ukraine capitulating to Russia.

3) They cite the Cuban missile crisis (at 46 and 1:15), but that shows the exact opposite of what they claim. Cuba was an explicit military ally of the USSR for years. The U.S. put a trade embargo and encouraged revolutionaries, but we did not invade Cuba in response to Soviet provocations. It was only when the Soviets were directly going to put their own nuclear missiles in Cuba that it reached a crisis, and even then we still did not invade Cuba. I strongly oppose a lot of U.S. foreign action, but it is false to claim that we will invade any neighbors that oppose us.

4) It claims that Putin had legitimate security concerns -- citing the Monroe Doctrine from 1823, but that is warmongering bullshit from two hundred years ago that does not reflect modern sensibilities. The U.S. would not be justified in invading Cuba or Venezuela simply because they are communist. Likewise, Russia cannot justify invading neighboring countries if they ally with others.

5) It claims that the Yanukovych government was fairly democratically elected, and his ouster a coup. But Yanukovych was ousted by vote of parliament. The parliamentary elections were arguably undemocratic and corrupt, but so was Yanukovych's rule. It rightly decries how Zelensky's government is whitewashed by Western press, claiming that the Western press lacks nuance of the corruption. However, it then turns around and does exactly the same thing, describing Yanukovych's government as pure democracy compared to Zelensky.

6) At 1:32, they claim that the U.S. is attempting to enact regime change in Russia by ousting Putin and divide up Russia along ethnic lines. This is fantasy. The U.S. is not invading Russia. The U.S. government might idly wish that -- but I'm sure that Putin's idle wishes about the U.S. are similar.

I am deeply suspicious of America getting involved in any kind of military operations or wars that simply do not correspond with absolute strategic interests. I accord Russia, or China, or any large nation with the same kind of respectful regard. We all have red lines of strategic interest. Britain has Scotland and Ireland. We have Canada, Mexico, and the little countries of the Caribbean and South America. China has their own interests as well. Russia has Ukraine, and all of the various smaller countries that border the Motherland. For anyone to seek to step against these real and legitimate strategic security interests--is just asking for a fight.

Especially on the eve of Saint Patrick's Day, I think the Irish would hotly deny that Britain "has" Ireland. Nor does the U.S. "have" Canada and Mexico any more than it has Venezuela or Cuba. These are all independent countries, who get to decide for themselves how they should live.

Claiming that Britain has the right to invade Ireland if Ireland doesn't obey is both globalist and warmongering.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Jhkim, come on. Stop being obtuse. "We didn't invade Cuba!"--No, we didn't. We locked every ocean mile down so a Tuna couldn't get there--and we mobilized for global nuclear war. B-52's were loaded up, and on their way to launch fire and death on Russia in a fucking hour.

So, you keeep on believing that we didn't flex ourselves over Cuba. The fuck we didn't. We were an HOUR AWAY from global nuclear war. As for the US invading Cuba--geesus, Jhkim. We were not only ready to invade Cuba--we did far more than that! As I noted, we were on the brink of launching global nuclear war. When you are launching global nuclear war, geesus Jhkim, it makes invading rather besides the point. Oh, by the way, our prepping to go full nuclear has been confirmed by the US government. It is the absolute closest we have come to full nuclear disaster, and we were definitely ready to do it, by President John F. Kennedy's direct orders.

As for all your other whining, bullshit. Canada and Mexico--oh, and the Western Hemisphere in general, is OUR hemisphere. If you want to believe they can "Do whatever they want!"--I will charitably say that you are simply being hopelessly naïve and blind.

Nicaragua, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Panama, and more, have all been invaded and crushed by US forces. Not two hundred years ago, either. In addition, we have the US School of the Americas, which trains and controls special intelligence and security forces throughout Central and South America. We have entire military units in Central and South American militaries that are trained, equipped, and coordinate with US forces.We also control a host of financial assets and controls--that allow us to manipulate and control entire economies in South America. Not to mention assassin squads on speed dial for any South American leader that we really want to send a message to. You damn better believe these nations all KNOW where the line is. In the last 60 years, the US has refined it's control levers of using hard and soft power, especially in Central and South America. Oftentimes, just having a press-release of some Senator talking about "considering" some kind of military operation in Central or South America is all it takes. It can be gibberish--and seemingly meaningless or merely bravado. That is INTENTIONAL. We routinely telegraph our intentions, and our expectations. But behind the scenes, these little nations all KNOW what the fuck is coming, if they don't get with the program. We have loyalist forces throughout South America. The US also has various client states throughout the entire Western Hemisphere that also serve as "Watch Dogs" and power-projection jump points, as well as fully-integrated and linked up security troops that could bring the fire down on any opposition--meanwhile with America looking off from afar, and playing nice. That allows us more strategic flexibility, and knowing when and where precisely to bring in the shock troops--the U.S. Marines.

Even in the 1930's--US MARINE GENERAL SMEDLEY BUTLER--a decorated war hero--publicly discussed how the US had intervened, instigated rebellions, "regime changes"--and wars--throughout Central America, for SUGAR, PINEAPPLES, and BANANAS. Doe Pineappe and Chiquita Banana baby! They had the White House on SPEED DIAL. Oh, also US Oil companies also gathered at the trough for obscene profits, too. I suppose in your world, Jhkim, the US doesn't do that anymore, right?

I hate to bust that sweet jello bubble, Jhkim, but yes, it still goes on to this day. It has never stopped, nor has it ever been any different. You seem to be blissfully blind to how all nations struggle and compete. Every nation struggles and fights for supremacy, for influence, for power, dominance, and security. Every nation does this--or lines themselves up as the friend behind the big dog on the block.

It is kind of amusing--and alarming, or sobering for sure--but in recent diplomatic talks, China told the US to go fuck themselves, and that China would do whatever it felt necessary for their security. Biden's crew had no response. Just like when Biden tried to wave his flaccid dick about China helping Russia--the very next week, China announced they were sending some military goodies to Russia, and laughed in our fucking face. Yeah, China is getting a bigger cock, and the globalist, weak pussies in Washington KNOW IT. That doesn't bode well for us, I can assure you. However, it is how GEO POLITICS WORK in the real world, man.

Throughout the 20th Century, we have enforced the MONROE DOCTRINE. All over the Western Hemisphere. Beyond those numerous instances, we have instigated all kinds of interventions and wars all over the world, to change regimes, and enforce our will--for political and economic motives. I guess you must have missed the dirty, backroom memo on how we fucked over Syria and Libya just in the recent years, right? By the way--Libya was proceeding with a plan to adopt their own god standard, and remove US dollar as a currency exchange for their oil resources on the international Oil Market. That, we would not allow--so Mohammar had to die, and we fucked up his entire country, which, aside from Mohammar's efforts to modernize Libya, and make Libya more self-sufficient and independent--he had also participated in different programs that had helped NATO and the US. That didn't matter though. He was trying to make Libya breathe air above their paygrade--and their subservient station that the US had declared for Libya, so Libya got fucked. Same thing with Syria. Oh, and what about Kosovo and Yugoslavia? Right. The US and the cock-sucking EU can act however the fuck they want for our "security" and our 'Strategic Interests"--but when Russia seeks to do the same, well, we can't have that!

You really don't see how absolutely hypocritical, arrogant, and fucking self-righteous and evil that is, Jhkim?

Canada? They are our little sister, and they do what we tell them to do. If they did anything that compromised our security, they would be fucked hard, in a blink. Have you ever heard of NORAD? Canada's entire military, their airspace, the fucking air they breathe and every radar they see birds fly on is hooked up to US. They don't fucking fart without America knowing about it. They cross it, and they would be fucked. You really don't know what you are talking about, I have to say.

"These are all independent countries, who get to decide for themselves how they should live." *LAUGHING* Oh, my God, Jhkim! You really believe that? Oh, wow, man. You really didn't study History or Political Science in college, did you? I know. You are a science guy. That's ok, Jhkim. I can assure you though, whatever university you went to didn't do you any favours in that regard. They failed miserably to teach you History and Political Science properly, and educate you on how the real world *really works*. You should know that we have over 100 military bases around the world, and we control a global, economic empire that is plugged into the system, that we are the masters of, and at the top of the pecking order. WE, the US, are the big dog on the block, and the center of power for the global Liberal Hegemony, the "Unipolar World". Our money, our armies, our fleets, are the military machine that dictates the do's and don'ts to much of the entire world.

I don't quite understand though, Jhkim, where you get all of this moralizing, naïve jello-thinking from. There isn't a MONTH that goes by, that US agents and special forces, and intelligence operatives--and money--aren't working on subverting, intererfering, or corrupting some country around the word to ensure American control. We ROUTINELY orchestrate "Colour Revolutions", rebellions, insurrections--and coups--around the world. We ROUTINEY orchestrate scandals and financial fuckery to manipulate and subvert control of nations to force them to fall in line and get with our program. We also ROUTINELY influence and interfere with other nation's elections. NON-FUCKING STOP.

In a similar manner, you really believe that foreign powers--hostile to Britain--could set up bases and assets in Scotland or Ireland, and that wouldn't get a HOT reaction from Britain?

Again, it's a moot point. By treaty and protocol. Britain has entirely integraated any and all military assets and resources to maintain the security of the British Isles. Ireland and Scotland are NOT going to invite hostile foreign powers to come over and do anything. That's by treaty, protocol, and, yeah, backed up by the real strategic security interest that would demand Britain take action and fuck them if they tried to do anything like that.

Also, since 2014, the US has had US Special Forces and US Marines in Ukraine. Training, "Advising"--and supervising the construction of bases and other miitary preparations. I guess you also missed the tidbit in the documentary about how PM of Germany, Angela Merkel, said that Minsk was never going to do a damned thing. Minsk was just to buy time--so we could arm Ukraine the fuck up. There were NO INTENTIONS FROM THE BEGINNING for us to ever honour the Minsk treaty agreements! Russia had nothing to do with it. We were playing Russia like suckers, while we prepared to jack them hard at the first opportunity. But you don't see that as evil, dupicitous, and corrupt? Somehow, that kind of political fuckery is all a bowl of sweet peaches for you? And somehow, RUSSIA is supposed to just get on their knees, and take the fucking, right? You don't think there are high people in RUSSIA--like Vladimir Putin--that might say to us, "Go and Fuck yourself! We have a different plan for you!" Again, the absolute smugness, the arrogance, the HUBRIS, of the US and the EU shows through with vivid colours. The scheming, the lies, the lack of genuine respect for Russia and taking them seriously. I guess you also don't know that back in the 1990's, we PROMISED RUSSIA that NATO would NOT ADVANCE EASTWARDS. We repeatedly assured them that we would never expand NATO eastwards, near Russia's borers, and in areas and regions that were important to them. Ahh, too bad, huh? SUCKS TO BE THEM, RIGHT? More broken promises, lies, and fuckery by the US and the EU towards Russia. That scheming, that arrogance, that lack of genuine respect, will cost us with a steep price. It already has. And the sad thing, is that the Ukrainian people get the hardest fucking and most of the suffering.

This is how real world geo-politics and Foreign Relations work, Jhkim. It isn't your fantasy and wishful thinking--but hard, cold reality. The real world equation of strategic distances, strategic resources, and strategic assets. Again, you just don't know what you are talking about.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Klava]

I hadn't watched the full documentary earlier. I have finished it now. The big disagreements I have are:

okay, let us a least try to get the smell of stupid out of the room, shall we?

i didn't ask you what you meant by "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian people" earlier for no reason. so now, let's stop casting the blame for a second and at least agree that after United States instigated a coup brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine and, as a result, a civil war started when eastern regions, populated largely by ethnic russians, refused to accept the clowns that were installed in Kiev, "Ukraine" ceased to exist as a coherent state with stable power, and "Ukrainian people" ceased to exist as social consensus? can we agree on that?

if you granted me that, then just about all the rhetoric that any one side pushes in this goes out the window. it's a civil fucking war there, one side of which is propped up by United States and another by Russia. the side backed by Russia was starting to loose, so Russia went in and intervened directly. now, where have i heard that story before? oh, wait, it happens all throughout the history all the time! multiple times very recently even, with United States involved without fail.

so, here's the thing you and all the other bleeding hearts all around the world seem to be missing here, imo: Russia does not fight Ukraine right now - it's two imperialist fucking camarilla's that are atm in power in Russia and United States fighting each other in Ukraine, because they were unable to settle their disagreements on who was going to expand their domain of influence in the region in any other way. Ukraine as a nation, or Ukrainians as a people (or Russians for that matter) don't matter squat to those who call the shots, those are but resources to be managed and spent at will to them - and that's the saddest part of it all.

[jhkim]

I hadn't watched the full documentary earlier. I have finished it now. The big disagreements I have are:

okay, let us a least try to get the smell of stupid out of the room, shall we?

i didn't ask you what you meant by "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian people" earlier for no reason. so now, let's stop casting the blame for a second and at least agree that after United States instigated a coup brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine and, as a result, a civil war started when eastern regions, populated largely by ethnic russians, refused to accept the clowns that were installed in Kiev, "Ukraine" ceased to exist as a coherent state with stable power, and "Ukrainian people" ceased to exist as social consensus? can we agree on that?

No, I don't agree to that. You're suggesting that under Yanukovych, there was a coherent country of Ukraine with stable power and social consensus -- that the documentary claimed was democratically elected. And that the Maidan Revolution was an external coup that refused to accept that. I think Ukraine has never been coherent and stable. It has had a frequently shifting constitution and regime. Its government was corrupt and flawed under all of Russia-favoring Kuchma, U.S.-favoring Yushchenko, Russia-favoring Yanukovych, and U.S.-favoring Poroshenko.

If we say that Poroshenko was installed by the U.S. in the Maidan Revolution, then it is no less true that Yanukovych was installed by Russia.

I think the example of Cuba is a good parallel. Prior to Castro's communist revolution, the Batista era was corrupt, oppressive, undemocratic and backed by the United States. Castro lead a Russian-backed revolution against it -- but Castro's rule was also oppressive and undemocratic. The U.S. backed Cuban exiles to try to take back Cuba, in the Bay of Pigs. The U.S. refused to allow Russian nuclear missiles to be installed in Cuba, leading to the crisis. After the crisis, Castro remained in power.

The situation in Ukraine is similar. The power has shifted between ethnic Ukrainians favoring the West in half the country, and ethnic Russians favoring Russia in the other half. Prior to 2022, it was a seesawing conflict -- and I would say that the U.S. and Russia were similarly culpable.

But Russia massively escalated and turned what had been a limited regional conflict into a devastating all-out war.

so, here's the thing you and all the other bleeding hearts all around the world seem to be missing here, imo: Russia does not fight Ukraine right now - it's two imperialist fucking camarilla's that are atm in power in Russia and United States fighting each other in Ukraine, because they were unable to settle their disagreements on who was going to expand their domain of influence in the region in any other way. Ukraine as a nation, or Ukrainians as a people (or Russians for that matter) don't matter squat to those who call the shots, those are but resources to be managed and spent at will to them - and that's the saddest part of it all.

I agree that this is imperialist conflict just like in Cuba. But it is Putin who turned Ukraine from seesawing governments and corruption into devastating hot war, and began slaughtering Ukrainians when he didn't get his way.

The U.S. has had devastating wars that it started -- but this isn't one of them.

[jhkim]

Even in the 1930's--US MARINE GENERAL SMEDLEY BUTLER--a decorated war hero--publicly discussed how the US had intervened, instigated rebellions, "regime changes"--and wars--throughout Central America, for SUGAR, PINEAPPLES, and BANANAS. Doe Pineappe and Chiquita Banana baby! They had the White House on SPEED DIAL. Oh, also US Oil companies also gathered at the trough for obscene profits, too. I suppose in your world, Jhkim, the US doesn't do that anymore, right?

I hate to bust that sweet jello bubble, Jhkim, but yes, it still goes on to this day. It has never stopped, nor has it ever been any different. You seem to be blissfully blind to how all nations struggle and compete. Every nation struggles and fights for supremacy, for influence, for power, dominance, and security. Every nation does this--or lines themselves up as the friend behind the big dog on the block.

SHARK, I think we're talking past each other. What that you're saying has been a part of my talking points for decades. Really, it sounds right out of typical progressive critique of globalist imperialism since the 1960s, right up through the 2000s and 2010s to the present.

My ex-father-in-law grew up in Venezuela as part of the American oil companies operating there. So I've learned first hand about the exploitation that American oil companies in Venezuela were responsible for. That doesn't mean that I'm in favor of Chavez and Maduro, though.

The question isn't whether this sort imperialism happens. The question is whether or not it is a good thing.

From my view, it sounds like you're justifying globalist imperialism as "this is just how the world works - learn to accept it". So in the U.S., we should continue to vote in uniparty candidates who do the bidding of oil companies - and not complain about other countries that do the same.

I think that things can get better, and in the long term, they have gotten better. Over the past century, we have seen more and more countries where people live free lives with democratic control of their government.

[Klava]

No, I don't agree to that.
...
The U.S. has had devastating wars that it started -- but this isn't one of them.

i'm a little disappointed, because i tried to offer an honest discussion to you and you came back regurgitating all the propaganda they do in Kiev and in western media back at me, complete with "maidan revolution" and "democratic elections". well, let's try to ventilate the room a little more.

"stable state" and "social consensus" are all relative concepts. just about any kind of those is better than civil war - and there wasn't one in Ukraine prior to the coup of 2014. it doesn't matter at all who installed whom - it happens all the time everywhere to those, who allow it, and Ukraine, or rather their post-soviet oligarchy, certainly did - what matters is, which particular seesaw shift resulted in a civil war. which was it again?
and, consequently, Mr. Putin didn't ignite the war - it was going on for eight bloody years before Russia intervened directly, which was a huge escalation for sure, but it wasn't what started this shit at all. the fuckards US installed in Kiev were bombing Donbass for   e i g h t   y e a r s   - why weren't you and the rest of the bleeding hearts around the world as vocal about that as you are now when Putin went berserk? what, you were too busy calling him names and didn't notice?
then, how would you propose this conflict should have been de-escalated in the first place? Putin and co made it abundantly clear that they would not be tolerating any NATO expansion towards their borders anymore, and what was the response? - why, United States and their vassals tried to insert another NATO member right up Putin's keister. and then, just recently Merkel and the rest of US lackeys publicly admitted that Misk agreements were only there to buy time for them to bolster their puppets in Kiev, and there they were not any plans of reconciliation in the first place - so who was escalating again? just Putin? really?

The question isn't whether this sort imperialism happens. The question is whether or not it is a good thing.

From my view, it sounds like you're justifying globalist imperialism as "this is just how the world works - learn to accept it".

and this is just... sad, man. i'm sure SHARK can speak for himself, but allow me chime in as well - no one is telling you to accept anything, that's your choice alone. what's being told to you here is that before you accept or reject something you must fist understand it, and it doesn't look to me like you do. imperialism is a fact of the matter, and it always takes two to fight (at least), but for some reason you insist on only calling the kettle black.

edit: typos

[I]

But it is Putin who turned Ukraine from seesawing governments and corruption into devastating hot war, and began slaughtering Ukrainians when he didn't get his way.

The U.S. has had devastating wars that it started -- but this isn't one of them.

The war's been going on since 2014, long before Russia invaded.  Zelensky was "slaughtering Ukrainians when he didn't get his way," too.  It was a lot worse than just "seesawing governments and corruption."

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Here is  video news report made by The Real News Network. The interview is with author Max Blumenthal. Also, take notice that this news report and video were presented *5 Years ago*. This is before the Russo-Ukraine war began in February, of 2022.

NOTE: Oh, and if there are any cock-sucking Nazi apologists--or Libtard morons that want to try and tap dance and screech that the fucking AZOV BATTALION doesn't exist, or isn't really full of NAZIS, or any other GASLIGHTING excuse for fucking Ukraine and the Zelensky Junta, pack it in your ass right now. I have literally multiple videos--by Left wing and Right wing news outfits--as well as a video by British Historian Mark Felton--a renowned scholar--all confirming the existence of the Azov Nazi forces, and the Ukrainian government's support of the Azov battalion. Oh, and also more than one referencing US support for arming Azov forces. YOU stupid fuckers out there can do the research. DIG, DIG, and DIG, and find all the different videos and interviews. Actually become fucking educated instead of just swallowing down Western Jello propaganda. I've seen these news reports and videos for *years now*--again, also from multiple sources. You can trust me, or do the research yourself, or pound fucking sand. I don't care. I'm not going to post a dozens videos here all demonstrating sources, news, an arguments.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Here, we have a video showing Ukrainian citizens fighting against the Ukrainian Army. this is from years ago--like 2014 or 2016, as I recall. The Ukrainian forces for YEARS have been attacking, slaughtering, and oppressing the *Russian* people of Luhansk and Donestsk, that rebelled and resisted the Pro-Western, Pro-NATO, Pro-EU JUNTA in Kiev. They resisted oppression from 2014, when the Ukrainian government declared that the people of the eastern provinces were "Terrorists".

Notice all the destroyed cities? All the slaughtered people, the women, the children. The devastated and shattered lives. That bloody and savage oppression has been done by UKRAINE. *Sigh* The arrogance, the hypocrisy, the absolute lies, presented over and over by Ukraine, by the EU, and by the US through all of this--from way back, years before Russia chose to step in directly--and all of that, all of the lies, and the violence, slaughter, and oppression by a corrupt Junta in Ukraine, supported by the EU and the US, that, somehow isn't provoking Russia? That isn't the WEST provoking Russia? The West's advancing control, influence, and power into Ukraine is somehow not provoking Russia? All of this somehow isn't a threat to Russia? And somehow, still, the Russians are the "evil empire" and Putin is Darth Vader for striking back? Geesus. It makes me wonder why so many of my fellow Americans are such morons. A bunch of easily led, easily mind-fucked cattle, bleating sheep, all easily controlled and manipulated by the Western Media.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[jhkim]

"stable state" and "social consensus" are all relative concepts. just about any kind of those is better than civil war - and there wasn't one in Ukraine prior to the coup of 2014. it doesn't matter at all who installed whom - it happens all the time everywhere to those, who allow it, and Ukraine, or rather their post-soviet oligarchy, certainly did - what matters is, which particular seesaw shift resulted in a civil war. which was it again?
and, consequently, Mr. Putin didn't ignite the war - it was going on for eight bloody years before Russia intervened directly, which was a huge escalation for sure, but it wasn't what started this shit at all.

Russia intervened directly with the annexation of Crimea immediately, before the interim government had done anything in Donbas.

As for the start of hostilities in Donbas... As I understand it, you are saying that the interim government is to blame for its extremism - in other words, for going too far on the seesaw. But was what the interim government objectively that much worse than the Yanukovych government? I'd be open to evidence on this. From what I have learned, it doesn't seem like it.

From what I understand, ethnic Ukrainians experienced some anti-democratic oppression under Yanukovych, and ethnic Russians experienced some anti-democratic oppression under the the interim government and later Poroshenko. Oppression means, among other things, that anti-government protesters were jailed unfairly - and not allowed legitimate anti-government free speech. So ethnic Russians had legitimate grievances with the Poroshenko government, but then so did ethnic Ukrainians under Yanukovych.

My impression is that ethnic Russians in Donbas were emboldened by the Russian annexation of Crimea, and expected to receive Russian military support, so quickly turned to extreme separatism and violence. They had some legitimate grievances with the government, but no worse than ethnic Ukrainians had with Yanukovych government.

Do you think that the new government in 2014 was objectively more oppressive and less democratic than the Yanukovych government? Is there anything to show that?

If not, it seems to me that the escalation to greater violence came primarily from the Russian side in 2014, just as Russia further escalated in 2022 with its invasion.

-----

the fuckards US installed in Kiev were bombing Donbass for   e i g h t   y e a r s   - why weren't you and the rest of the bleeding hearts around the world as vocal about that as you are now when Putin went berserk? what, you were too busy calling him names and didn't notice?
then, how would you propose this conflict should have been de-escalated in the first place? Putin and co made it abundantly clear that they would not be tolerating any NATO expansion towards their borders anymore, and what was the response? - why, United States and their vassals tried to insert another NATO member right up Putin's keister.

The War in Donbas could have been de-escalated by negotiating another ceasefire. Minsk and Minsk 2 failed, but many conflicts have had a dozen or more attempts at ceasefires. The prior failures were a fault of both poorly established rules as well as failure on both sides to adhere to them. Given continued fighting, I think the proper de-escalation should have been to simply accept the existing border and establish a demilitarized zone along it -- as has been done in many other civil wars. Minsk 3 should have been much shorter and had only clear and simple rules to end hostilities rather than presuming any political solution. A ceasefire was successfully negotiated in Georgia in 2008 almost immediately, which seems like a good case.

As far as NATO, the U.S. and the West are not obliged to submit to Putin's demands any more than Putin is obliged to submit to the demands of the U.S. Putin can't simply demand that, say, Finland can't join NATO or he will invade Finland. That wouldn't be a reasonable demand. Finland has a border with Russia, but it is an independent country.

What both sides are responsible for is to not escalate violence.

The U.S. has escalated violence in many cases, like in Vietnam, Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003. In the case of Ukraine, though, the escalation came from the Russian side. I think the case of Georgia is more debatable, and I will admit I'm not sure who is more responsible in that case.

[jhkim]

Here, we have a video showing Ukrainian citizens fighting against the Ukrainian Army. this is from years ago--like 2014 or 2016, as I recall. The Ukrainian forces for YEARS have been attacking, slaughtering, and oppressing the *Russian* people of Luhansk and Donestsk, that rebelled and resisted the Pro-Western, Pro-NATO, Pro-EU JUNTA in Kiev. They resisted oppression from 2014, when the Ukrainian government declared that the people of the eastern provinces were "Terrorists".

Notice all the destroyed cities? All the slaughtered people, the women, the children. The devastated and shattered lives. That bloody and savage oppression has been done by UKRAINE. *Sigh* The arrogance, the hypocrisy, the absolute lies, presented over and over by Ukraine, by the EU, and by the US through all of this

SHARK, I haven't watched this video yet -- but also, you haven't responded to my previous discussion.

I find it rather jarring that you accuse me of lacking nuance and understanding and being one-sided -- but then you jump to this sort of language. Are you claiming that the separatists in Donbas in 2014 were all peaceful, freedom-loving citizens who were simply responding to one-sided military aggression from the Ukraine government? Do you claim that the Yanukovych government was fair and democratic, giving freedom to all Ukrainians?

At the start of April 2014, armed protesters stormed and took control of government offices in Donetsk and Kharkiv and Luhansk, waving Russian flags. That's not a one-sided claim - that is what RT itself says. RT also says that the participants "pushing for a Crimea-style referendum on independence from Ukraine."

Do you also think that the March referendum for Crimea to rejoin Russia was fair and democratic - where 96.77% of Crimean voters chose to rejoin Russia (again, according to RT)? I think those results seem awfully suspicious given that Russian troops had already moved in and seized control.

I don't claim that the interim and Poroshenko governments were blameless, but I also don't think that the separatists were either. It seems to me that the separatists turned to military force as their first choice, and many were aiming for military takeover of the region rather than real democratic referendum.

EDITED TO ADD: Here is the RT article on the armed takeovers in Donbas

https://www.rt.com/news/ukraine-donetsk-protest-russia-733/

If you have evidence of military oppression in Donbas prior to April 6th 2014, I would be open to hearing it. Or other specific points. I'd be fine with discussing evidence in general.