Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strongpoint]

It is factually incorrect to say that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 (as opposed to now) because at no point did they or even their allied forces enter territory controlled by Ukraine IN-FACT.   

It is a blatant and outright lie. Some were even POWed  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28934213

(And if Crimea wasn't an invasion then... Or if Strelkov wasn't a Russian...)

Also, go there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ilovaisk and see "units involved", before you say BUT wikipedia... There are links in that article.

Not that I think that you have any interest in truth or don't know that you are lying

Oh wait... i misunderstood... in your bizzare world it is ok to violate internationally recognized borders if you call some random folks ( under your full control) a new country or new government

[jipehog]

Btw, it took almost a decade but finally a court decision found that Russia was indeed behind the downing of the mh17 flight. As well as noting that Russia had overall control of the separatist forces in eastern Ukraine at the time. The problem is it really doesn't matter much after the fact, Russian denials and attempt to muddy the water with host of alternative theories has served its purpose, it is not like their propaganda is  know for consistency or observance of fact just enough plausibility to distract from or reinforce something on repeat.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/17/three-men-found-guilty-of-murdering-298-people-in-flight-mh17-bombing

Also quick note on propaganda, one shouldn't fall into the false dichotomy of you are either pro or anti Putin, there are a lot of people who are anti-Putin however, they also believe that it isn't their fight that preferring to stay on the fence letting others handle it. And it is sometimes more convenient to dip into existing narrative because the media sound bites and social media idealistic outraged idiots do not lend well to more than that.

@anewaname, no.

Georgia Wants Russia to Leave Its Land in a Ukraine Peace Deal
[..]

Regardless of how you feel about it, this is actually a very good thing, part of larger trend in the caucuses and central Asia, simply put the more pressure the better.

[bloop_bleep]

Why can you not accept that if someone overthrows a government they do not automatically gain IN-FACT possession of every inch of territory the government they overthrew possessed?  Ukraine lost possession of Donbass (and Crimea) when their government was overthrown because said places did not recognise the new government's authority.  Therefore they had to invade those places but the Russians came to their aid and they were partly unsuccessful, since much of the territory of those provinces was lost.  Thus there is a divergence between the legal claims of Ukraine and the factual reality. 

According to you every successful vote of no confidence means the new government is a rebel government and and is an invitation to invade. Do you hear yourself?

These guys who supposedly didn't "recognize the new government's authority" were Russian plants who ran in moments before to set up shop. DPR and LPR are transparent farces. They have no legitimacy from the people or anything else. They are completely full of nothing but Russian criminals. LPR's minister of culture is an actual fucking prostitute. It's a sick joke.

It is so abundantly not-a-secret that Russian government sent some cronies over the border to yak a little about some supposed new government (which just coincidentally wants to join Russia) to paint some shitty half-assed-as-always veneer of legitimacy over their expansionism and you just eat it up hook, line, and sinker.

[Starver]

The exact same logic you are using to support Georgian rule over Ossetia would also support Serbian rule over Kosovo.

You have no idea what I think about all those FYRs, especially that particular hotspot. What I don't support is ethnic cleansing in any form, whether it is by direct persecution or 'merely' paperwork.

Georgian rule over Ossetia is a legal fiction,

...sounds very much like a "Soverign Citizen" line of argument; notoriously misguided, and "selectively editing out" of any established regulations deemed inconvenient to the current dissatisfaction du jour.

"Legal fictions" aren't imaginary/arbitrary, they are established to clarify potentially labyrinthine legal mish-mashes of competing legislation by cutting through to the chase and saying (for example) that the current balance of understanding is that <Foo> is effectively equivalent to <Bar>, and so all dependant legal issues should consider it so without painstakingly revisiting the question (and potentially dealing with an interim judgement at odds with all those judgements that already sided with the opposite version of interim judgement). A legal fiction can be revisited, should the need arise, but often that means a replacement with an alternate legal fiction to reflect modified circumstances/understanding.

An excellent example of "legal fiction" is that of adoption. Having gone through the process of adopting a child, the legal fiction establishes that the adoptee is the child of the adopters, for all future legal purposes, and that the original parents now are no longer so (excepting where other adoption-aware legislation explicitly unpacks the various relationships as being meaningful in their original subtleties). This saves time in back-tracking the decision whenever future parentage issues, to be dealt with, are written without reason to distinguish or otherwise specifically mention adoptive statuses.

Should (for whatever reason, hopefully less common in this day and age) twins be separately adopted by separate families, this does not allow one family to then unilaterally tempt the other family's twin to run away and live with them, outwith any proper legal reassessment and rearrangement of the situation.

With countries/regions you get other complications (also easements) to the situation, plus no eventual assurance that (mortality allowing) the 'twins' will attain the age of majority. Our human twins are eventually (theoretically) able to make their own adult decisions as to what family (if any, if not all!) they each/both decide to socially accept and declare for themselves, on an ongoing basis from there on in, which is different from how territorial aspirations have all kinds of local legislatures ('adoptive family') and international courts (finding a family court, or higher, to appeal the prior decisions to) which should always be available to renegotiate through whilstsoever the (sub)national-zeitgeist is inclined to rebargain the unwanted situation. Glacial as such things are, the pop-up zeitgeist may not last long enough to see the result, but that is, if anything, even more reason to decry non-legal rearrangements of the issue.

A home invasion and 'kidnap', by one family on the other, is rarely seen as justifiable. Especially if the kidnapping family has been taking every opportunity to groom the "willingly kidnapped" child with whispers and promises and even gaslighting the lawful family's rightful intentions.

(...I can't parse this. The first "They" is Russia, but I'm not sure the rest of the "they"s and "their"s are also Russia. Or who else 'they' might be. Which grossly changes which alliances were kept/broken in your statement. I have a feeling what you tend towards, based on the rest, but it's such a bad summary that I'm not sure at all.)

First the Donbass republics are part of Ukraine and then they aren't.  Can you lot make your minds up?

My mind remains that (outwith a proper, albeit lengthy, process of petition to change things) Donbas republics are Ukrainean. I was (and remain) just expressing confusion over your own phrasing. Never mind, I get the gist of what your attitude is, even if I couldn't work out the convoluted meaning intended in the phrase referenced above. (And I'm no stranger to convolution!)

Invading somewhere does not automatically mean you in the wrong Starver.

It doesn't help. See the "twin kidnap" example, above, only it's not the 'missing twin' just another folk's kid, straight...  You could argue that Crimea is more "my own kid, bringing back home after an acrimonious divorce", but perhaps the best analogy is the one who went off with the other step-parent during the trial-separation (though you saw at weekends and let them keep their military bases), because everyone was (originally) happy with the continuity of school-catchment and various other reasons.

[...]

Why can you not accept that if someone overthrows a government they do not automatically gain IN-FACT possession of every inch of territory the government they overthrew possessed?

It was more an overthrown leadership. The government itself had voted for closer ties to the EU, the leadership had acted against it, the protests caused the change-over (after punctuated violence, much of that due to the leadership's responses to popular protest) and government reorganisation which led to the Yatsenyuk (whose coalition drew back from EU-tying), Groysman, [...], Honcharuk governments, with elections and/or coalition-rewranglings all along the way, and thus into Zelenskyy's current era that has had to morph into a War Cabinet form but is still a government within the obvious constraints.

(And yet the overthrown Crimean autonomy, being held at gunpoint in the Supreme Council of Crimea building to support the 'referendum', does invoke the wholesale parcelling up of the applicable territory? Choose what's valid and what isn't?!)
 

You might as well say that Rishi Sunak doesn't rule the same UK as Winston Churchill, the number of resignations/forced-elections/national dissatisfactions that have occured in the meantime. But only because your own particular slant requires justification to ignore the (bumpy, but effectively coterminous) line of continuity are you trying to sever the recognisable succession of responsibility... Crimea being the interesting point, with the externally enforced transition for this starting practically the same day as the post-protest continuation of government at the national level (which probably helped wedge that particular door open, and lay open the most untransparent 'official' process of eventually being transferred to Russia).

 
And I probably should not have bothered going toe-to-toe with your 'arguments' against my bits, so I'm not going to bother at all with what I see wrong in your other bits.

[MaxTheFox]

Hey Red Diamond. Are you a Russian troll or do you just have shit for brains?

I think we should start banning Putin apologists here.

[Eric Blank]

Toady isn't going to ban someone as long as they're not actively starting fights or insulting/harassing other users, just because they are blatantly wrong in every respect.

Remember those rules apply to us too.

[hector13]

It’s just like the last guy who seems to be unable to consider how their arguments apply to their position. “Legal fictions” also apply to the authority of the “government of Donbas and Luhansk”, and quite frankly the logical conclusion of their arguments is that all authority everywhere in the world is a “legal fiction” and thus can be ignored by anyone. It would be interesting if the varied and sundry regional independence movements around the globe decided to take this position, but it’s unworkable in reality.

As Starver said, it’s basically the Sovereign Citizen nonsense writ large, and consequently as ridiculous as those positions.

But yeah, banning someone for idiocy is no bueno.

[Cathar]

First the Donbass republics are part of Ukraine and then they aren't.  Can you lot make your minds up?

There is no "mind to be made". There is no such thing as a Dombass republic, if we're talking about facts as you imply you want. There is a pseudo government ran by FSB agents without legitimacy nor international recognition, and a republic it does not make.

The only good thing about those bandit groups (which is a factual characterisation) is Strelkov's twitter warfare.

In general, reading your post, you seem to be confused about what makes legitimacy. Ukraine is a sovereign territory, its institutions are internationally recognized, so are its borders (which include Crimea by the way). The country is audited by its peers and recognized by the majority of the world's powers. And yes, even though the country had gone through the Orange revolution and the revolution of dignity (whose legitmacy are, again, internationally recognized).

Lugansk and Donetsk so-called republics however, have none of the sort. They are without legitimacy, and remain foreign occupied regions of Ukraine. It doesn't really matter what Russia say to its domestic population ; these are not countries, they are Russian occupied territories nothing more nothing less.

[MaxTheFox]

Toady isn't going to ban someone as long as they're not actively starting fights or insulting/harassing other users, just because they are blatantly wrong in every respect.

Remember those rules apply to us too.

I just don't think blatant shills for a genocidal regime should just be allowed to talk here. He's not even Russian like that guy from 6 months ago, he has no excuse.

[hector13]

We’re sensible enough around here to call people out in their bullshit; any views based on utter nonsense don’t tend to stick around long,

[Egan_BW]

I think we should start banning Putin apologists here.

I just don't think blatant shills for a genocidal regime should just be allowed to talk here.

Ultimately there's only one person around here with the authority to ban people, so there's really really no point in bringing it up in a public post. If you think moderation is needed, contact Toady and be done with it. If you think the rules here should be changed, discuss it with someone who can change them and not us, because Toady won't see it here.

[MaxTheFox]

I mean, people were banned before for trolling and genocide denial/advocacy, so it's not like I am asking to change the rules or a precedent.

[Egan_BW]

The first of your comments was worded like that. Regardless, report and move on.

[Strongpoint]

Regardless of how you feel about it, this is actually a very good thing, part of larger trend in the caucuses and central Asia, simply put the more pressure the better.

I am not sure that it counts as pressure and not empty words that contradict the actions of the Georgian Government... Since their defeat in 2008, Georgians elected only corrupted populists who are borderline pro-Russian and it is SAD(c).

[EuchreJack]

report and move on.

Solid advice.

Personally, I would prefer a bit less crosstalk.

Unfortunately, the American Republican Party has been infiltrated by Putinist and his propaganda. In addition, American Politics are so Polarized that some American Republicans are going to hate on Ukraine solely because our Democrat President supports them. There are even some complete idiots that think if only the aid to Ukraine ended, those damn Democrats would actually stop wasting US taxpayer money, rather than the far more likely alternative that those damn Democrats would just waste the money on something far far worse.

I miss the Real Republicans that were Pro-US and Anti-Russia. They still exist, thankfully, but they're at odds with the Louder and more Popular Russian sellouts.