Red D, your nonsense continues. I don't know if you're a Useful Idiot or a knowing troll, but you need a new patter and/or a new audience. Do yourself a favour...
I am doing you all a favour by educating you all regarding the facts of the situation, I have spent very little time actually arguing *for* the Russian position and against the Ukrainian one. The average Ukrainiak seems to know nothing at all about the background to the situation in Ukraine, that is quite evident to me from all the posting that ignores basic historical facts. They are also typically fanatics highly intolerant of anyone that would breach their media propoganda bubble, because they have attempted to fill the gaps in their knowledge presently occupied by essentially Hollywood/Disney film scripts.
Putin denies Russian soldiers in Crimea. Annexes Crimea. Announces that the non-uniformed men were in fact, Russian soldiers.
And of course you're saying no one denied Russia sent its military into Ukrainian territory despite Putin denying Russian troops were in Ukrainian territory during the war in donbass. You're just intentionally spreading lies at this point.
There are two senses of the word Russian soldier here. There are those soldiers who have Russian nationality and there are those who presently belong to the Russian army (who may not have said nationality), so when you ask Putin a question about whether Russian soldiers are fighting in Crimea, you will get two answers depending upon what he thinks the context of your question happens to be.
They were recruited from Spanish Italy, led by the Spanish Duke of Parma, under Spanish organisation, colours and command, to fight in the Spanish navy.
Um no.
https://www.britishbattles.com/the-spanish-war/the-spanish-armada/Combatants in the Spanish Armada campaign: The Armada (Spanish for “Fleet”), manned by Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, Germans, Dutch, Flemings, Irish and English against the English Fleet assisted by the Dutch Fleet.
The armada is manned by people from basically everywhere, including apparently England itself.
Point is that countries are not legally responsible for the acts carried out by volunteers/merceneries of their nationality fighting abroard. So if Russians fight against Ukraine in the Donbass, Russia is not responsible for their acts, since they do not fight under Russian command and bear Russian colours. The last part is important, a mercenery/volunteer force not presently employed by anyone marches without an insignia and then recieves an insignia from it's new employers upon arrival in their territory; that is how the world has worked since forever.
Invades your country
"What? It's a conspiracy, no russians here,"
Russian troops with russian equipment and uniforms with insignias removed
"Where's the evidence? Where's the proof? I bet those locals just found some tanks from a Ukrainian pound shop,"
President of Russia says they are Russian troops
"The President of Russia is clearly a NATO shill,"
As already described, the first part (in 2014) is a conspiracy theory. Ukraine lost control of said territories because it had a
revolution to overthrow their previous, democratically elected president. Those places were the staunchest supporters *of* said government and so it is not a stretch to imagine that Ukraine would *lose* control of said territories during the process of the revolution.
And if the Ukrainians do not control the territories, there isn't any invasion of Ukraine is there?
My guy you have gone off-rail drifting beyond the boundaries of reality
Russia just tried to wipe Ukraine off the map. Ukraine is not trying to do anything except repel an invader
Russia for ages actually recognised Ukrainian legal claim to the Donbass, refusing to annex the place despite it being their ally and Ukraine their enemy. Nowadays they are trying to make 'extensive territorial adjustments' to move Ukraine's borders hundreds of miles westward.
Maidens, it is always because of young women, right?
Political crises are normal in democracies, in young democracies they can be rather messy. It doesn't mean that they stop being democracies or that country somehow loses its legitimacy. Euromaydan crisis ended with democratically elected parliament removing president (who had single digits approval rating at this point. even pro-Russians hated) followed by democratic elections of new president.
Nothing, absolutely nothing would happen if not the invasion of Russia. Tell me why nothing happened in Central Ukraine in which Yanukovitch also won the election. Why no "revolt" there? The answer is simple - Russian soldiers and mercenaries couldn't really reach there. Their resources were limited.
If this would be a reaction to "the unlawful removal of the president"... Ukraine would see a Civil War with guerillas everywhere. It never happened. Even in Odesa (after Russian agents, who mostly came from Transnistria, were put in their place by the resistance of citizens, local police didn't really function.) and Kharkiv (there police arrested a bunch of people) we had seen nothing resembling armed resistance.
Also, there are really few collaborators now. And no Pro-Russian partisan groups behind the lines. Some traitors provide intelligence to the Russians and that's all.
Whether the present Ukraine is presently a democracy or not is entirely irrelevant to the issue. Both what country claims to possess and what is does possess remain absolutely unchanged regardless of whether the country is considered a democracy or not.
"A civil war with guerillas everywhere," this is basically what happened.
That is where the "little green men" conspiracy theory comes in, the Ukrainiaks have to deny that Ukraine is shattered by the Revolution of Dignity, as can be expected if you overthrow an elected president. Central Ukraine is a
"swing state" here, if roughly half the people in the place support the new government, it is pretty difficult to for their opposition to stop said new government taking over without outside military support. The places Ukraine ends up losing are those places that are solidly behind the previous government and these places then choose to do what they
probably always wanted to do anyway (but Ukraine wouldn't let them) which is to join Russia. Ironically, it is Russia that doesn't want the Donbass Republics for ages because to Russia supporters
inside Ukraine are more useful than just another Russian province since Russia's interests are to control the alignment of the whole Ukraine not own scraps of it outright.
That there are divergant interests *between* the Russians and the Donbass republics is evidence against the green man conspiracy theory. The republics want to join Russia, the Russians want them to remain in Ukraine and try to win back control of the government there. If the invading Russian armies simply invented the rebublics as a fiction, their interests would align perfectly with the ends of the Kremlin.
Another reason the little green men conspiracy theory is nonsense is simply the speed and ease with which Russia takes Crimea. There is simply no way for Russian forces to swiftly *get* to Crimea, since the bridge has yet to be built. So the only way for Russia to take Crimea is to land on the coastline, which means they have to control the ports (but Ukraine controls the ports don't they?). Yes the Russians do have a few troops in Crimea already, but with the Ukrainians in charge of Crimea they will soon be besieged inside their bases.
Tell me, what do you think actually happened at Euromaidan? Give me a rundown. How did Yanukovych vacate the office of President? Who broke the law in any meaningful way, other than state authorities who killed protestors?
I am still amazed anyone would defend the Yanukovych government, which was literally the world's epitome of criminality and corruption, as Transparency International says.
If people protesting in the town square is such a sad disregard of law for you, what do you say about unelected, violent "separatists" storming and taking control of elected regional administrations with arms, which by the way had not changed in Euromaidan? These same separatists who then set up whatever you call this horrific circus.
If the people you keep defending on legal grounds consistently happen to be the absolute scum of the earth, it may be time to reflect on the validity or relevance of these legal grounds.
Because claims of ultra-corruptness are seldom anything but a form of black propoganda against a regime. Corruption is subjective anyway, government officials do not serve in Dwarf Fortress dwarf fashion perfectly selflessly working for the good of their countries; they want stuff for themselves. Anti-Corruption then is rather funny, the more laws you have against corrupt practices the more corrupt you are because the more the laws interfere with your self-enrichment, the more people you are going to have breaking them. Anti-corruption efforts lead to anti-corruption laws, hence more 'corruption'.
They aren't seperatists and they aren't very well armed, which is why Ukraine ended up with most of it's old territories, it conquered them. They were not prepared beforehand to go up against the Ukrainian army, so only those able to recieve militery aid from Russia were able to stand their ground.
What happens in Euromaiden, well you can just go look at Wikipedia but this is my take.
1. Yanukavich gets elected by the east of the country, opposed by the west.
2. Yanukavich faces an opposition legislative that lobbies him to sign an agreement with the EU.
3. Yanukavich signals he will sign said agreement in order to leverage more support from Moscow.
4. Yanukavich negotiates a very, very nice loan from Russia in return for not signing the agreement.
5. Yanukavich abandons the agreement with the EU.
6. The opposition are angry that they did not get their way.
7. A rebellion forms trying to oust Yanukavich.
8. Yanukavich's forces begin to crush the rebellion.
9. The opposition legislative successfully sabotages the government's efforts to deal with the rebels.
10. The Russians are too stupid to send forces into Kiev to keep Yanukavich from being overthrown so he is.
11. With the fall of Yanukavich, a new government is formed.
12. Ukraine loses control of Crimea, Luhansk and Donetesk (at least) because these supported the former president.
13. Ukraine starts a war of conquest to bring all splinter territories back under it's rule.
14. The Russians annex Crimea outright.
15. The Russians support Luhansk and Donetesk in their war against Russia. All the other splinter territories, (if there are any) are swiftly conquered because of the lack of such support.
Please stop misappropriating this thread. The purpose of this thread is for people to give their personal thoughts, or emotional responses, to the War in Ukraine. I also note the phrase "Personal Diary & Mutual Support".
So far, you are stating your position in a downright mechanical way, with no emotion and no opinion. This isn't Rational Debate over the War in Ukraine. If you want to debate the war, please make your own thread and get out of mine. This is "Russians, Americans, and Ukrainians bitch about the war" thread.
I am stating my position so in a mechanical way because that is how you argue with angry people, you mechanically state facts while avoiding anything that will further inflame their emotional rage.
Author
Topic: Emotional Responses to War in Ukraine - Personal Diary & Mutual Support (Read 119108 times)