War with Russia
Discussion
Mojocvh said:
AreOut said:
Russia has 150 million people, they can find 15K volunteers without forcing anyone, it's what 1 in 10.000 people.
... but Russians are emotionally connected with their brothers in Ukraine so finding 15K people shouldn't be a problem.
Psychopaths, is that what your saying? ... but Russians are emotionally connected with their brothers in Ukraine so finding 15K people shouldn't be a problem.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Mojocvh said:
AreOut said:
Russia has 150 million people, they can find 15K volunteers without forcing anyone, it's what 1 in 10.000 people.
... but Russians are emotionally connected with their brothers in Ukraine so finding 15K people shouldn't be a problem.
Psychopaths, is that what your saying? ... but Russians are emotionally connected with their brothers in Ukraine so finding 15K people shouldn't be a problem.
Russian 'volunteers' in action, hardware must also have volunteered, note Russian unit markings.
Potentially NSFW
Potentially NSFW
Mojocvh said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Mojocvh said:
AreOut said:
Russia has 150 million people, they can find 15K volunteers without forcing anyone, it's what 1 in 10.000 people.
... but Russians are emotionally connected with their brothers in Ukraine so finding 15K people shouldn't be a problem.
Psychopaths, is that what your saying? ... but Russians are emotionally connected with their brothers in Ukraine so finding 15K people shouldn't be a problem.
AreOut said:
It would be another story if it was Afghanistan or some other country not connected with Russia but Russians are emotionally connected with their brothers in Ukraine so finding 15K people shouldn't be a problem.
You might be emotionally connected with an ex-girlfriend.It doesn't mean you can break into her house, tell her to f*ck off and then make yourself at home.
Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances which provided guarantees that would maintain the political and territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up the presence of Russia's ICBMs within its borders.
Ukraine kept their part of the deal, Russia is in breach.
AreOut said:
well I do agree that Russia used force to take part of ukrainian territory, the same way NATO used force in 1999 to take part of serbian territory
the same way China takes islands from lesser countries around
it's something big powers occasionally do and did for millenias
You have a very, VERY strange way of looking at things.the same way China takes islands from lesser countries around
it's something big powers occasionally do and did for millenias
NATO attacked Serbia because Serbia was carrying out something last seen within Europe's borders in WWII, conducted by the Nazis - ethnic cleansing.
And all NATO countries haven't taken Serbia for keeps either, so it is in no way, what so f*cking ever, the same - is it?
AreOut said:
well I do agree that Russia used force to take part of ukrainian territory, the same way NATO used force in 1999 to take part of serbian territory
the same way China takes islands from lesser countries around
it's something big powers occasionally do and did for millenias
(1) the fact that big powers in the past used to invade their neighbours is no justification for doing it now. Seizing territory by force was wrong then and it continues to be wrong to do so now.the same way China takes islands from lesser countries around
it's something big powers occasionally do and did for millenias
(2) NATO did not "take" any party of Serbia. After an extended period of diplomacy during which time a lot of civilians were killed, it finally intervened in a civil war. The parallels between NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia and Russia's intervention in the Ukraine are thread bare.
The two points you made above have been the standard Russian govt "justification" that what they may or may not be doing is "normal behaviour" for a big power.
It reflects a genuinely idiotic world view. Powers behaved like this in the 19th century. The rest of the developed world has moved on.
Cobnapint said:
NATO attacked Serbia because Serbia was carrying out something last seen within Europe's borders in WWII, conducted by the Nazis - ethnic cleansing.
no it wasn't, while it's true that Albanians were treated as 2nd grade citizens they were still in a much better position than, say, Palestinians in Israeldon't forget that albanian terrorist actions started all of that because they wanted their republic even if Serbs behaved in a most nicely way towards them
ATG said:
(2) NATO did not "take" any party of Serbia. After an extended period of diplomacy during which time a lot of civilians were killed, it finally intervened in a civil war. The parallels between NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia and Russia's intervention in the Ukraine are thread bare.
yes it did, the plan was to secede Kosovo from Serbia regardless of serbian behaviour towards Albanianshow many is "lot of civilians" and how many of those were terrorists that attacked serbian regular/traffic police etc.? It's Albanians who had something to gain with war not Serbs, quite obvious who had the motivation to start all of it.
Stop believing the propaganda, rather ask people who live/lived in Kosovo/Serbia.
I'm the one swallowing propaganda? Right ...
The Serbs do not have the right to maintain the boundaries of their country. Got it? Neither does the Russia. Neither does the UK.
If a sizeable proportion of the population in a self contained region want to go it alone, they should be free to do so. It's called self determination. For example, if the Crimeans had wanted independence from the Ukraine or integration into Russia, that would have been fine if it had been conducted through a political process driven by the Crimean population itself. Even if Kiev had objected, they'd have still got the support of the West.
And I see you're still trying this bizarre relativism. So because the Palestinians have it worse than the ethnic Albanians, the treatment of the latter is somehow OK?
The Serbs do not have the right to maintain the boundaries of their country. Got it? Neither does the Russia. Neither does the UK.
If a sizeable proportion of the population in a self contained region want to go it alone, they should be free to do so. It's called self determination. For example, if the Crimeans had wanted independence from the Ukraine or integration into Russia, that would have been fine if it had been conducted through a political process driven by the Crimean population itself. Even if Kiev had objected, they'd have still got the support of the West.
And I see you're still trying this bizarre relativism. So because the Palestinians have it worse than the ethnic Albanians, the treatment of the latter is somehow OK?
ATG said:
(1) the fact that big powers in the past used to invade their neighbours is no justification for doing it now. Seizing territory by force was wrong then and it continues to be wrong to do so now.
(2) NATO did not "take" any party of Serbia. After an extended period of diplomacy during which time a lot of civilians were killed, it finally intervened in a civil war. The parallels between NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia and Russia's intervention in the Ukraine are thread bare.
The two points you made above have been the standard Russian govt "justification" that what they may or may not be doing is "normal behaviour" for a big power.
It reflects a genuinely idiotic world view. Powers behaved like this in the 19th century. The rest of the developed world has moved on.
Actually the intervention in Kosovo can indeed be categorised by the West seizing a part of a Serbia and giving it to someone else.(2) NATO did not "take" any party of Serbia. After an extended period of diplomacy during which time a lot of civilians were killed, it finally intervened in a civil war. The parallels between NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia and Russia's intervention in the Ukraine are thread bare.
The two points you made above have been the standard Russian govt "justification" that what they may or may not be doing is "normal behaviour" for a big power.
It reflects a genuinely idiotic world view. Powers behaved like this in the 19th century. The rest of the developed world has moved on.
It appears also that the inviolability of borders, per the West, now extended as well to provincial boundaries. As the province of Kosovo had to be removed from Serbian control in its entirety apparently....including mainly Serbian areas in the north. Why this area could not be given to the rest of Serbia as part of an independence deal for the rest of Kosovo is a mystery to me.
If the west refuses to accept any change in borders no matter how arbitrarily set then they can not be surprised if others decide that force is the only way.
skyrover said:
Big power subjugating smaller powers?
How very Tsarist/Soviet
Russia is simply behaving as it has for the past 800 years
Very true. Despite Russian society now modernising, it's government still insists on playing the aHow very Tsarist/Soviet
Russia is simply behaving as it has for the past 800 years
hole at the back of the class by intimidating it's former states and Sweden and Norway; suppressing independent Russian free press; lying to it's own people and the rest of the world as a matter of course; banning western goods with a host of trumped up excuses; continuing with provocative military flights around the UK and Baltics; facilitating the deaths or imprisonment of Russian opposition leaders; vetoing or voting against just about every rational resolution that attempts to promote international law and justice at the UN, and continuing with a Mafia-like approach to business and politics with embedded corruption.I won't even mention the 2018 World Cup. Oops.
Edited by Cobnapint on Sunday 30th August 10:32
ATG said:
If a sizeable proportion of the population in a self contained region want to go it alone, they should be free to do so.
who decides when it becomes sizeable and what is precisely a self contained region?there is like a thousand of regions like Kosovo in the world, e.g. does it mean Calais migrants can now request independence of Calais from France?
What has West done about thousands of gypsies that got expelled from Kosovo after Albanians took control, or they don't matter because they are "lower race"?
AreOut said:
who decides when it becomes sizeable and what is precisely a self contained region?
there is like a thousand of regions like Kosovo in the world, e.g. does it mean Calais migrants can now request independence of Calais from France?
What has West done about thousands of gypsies that got expelled from Kosovo after Albanians took control, or they don't matter because they are "lower race"?
The question then becomes whether it can be a viable state. The bulk of Kosovo is sufficiently ethinically and geographically distinct for that to be the case. there is like a thousand of regions like Kosovo in the world, e.g. does it mean Calais migrants can now request independence of Calais from France?
What has West done about thousands of gypsies that got expelled from Kosovo after Albanians took control, or they don't matter because they are "lower race"?
I actually support the independence of Kosovans, but can see no reason whatsoever why the Serbs in the North of the province had to be dragged into a foreign country ruled by people they hate.
There used to be a rational method used to create the borders of new states. Look at the local referenda used to set the borders of Denmark and Germany after the first world war, and in a host of other areas.
As I have mentioned above however now even internal provincial boundaries are sacrosanct to the west. No matter if these were ancient internal boundaries set for the convenience of some long vanished empire, the lines are there so must be maintained. We are however building up a legacy of hatred and a system that can only be maintained by European economic pressure combined with American military power.
Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 1st September 11:46
JagLover said:
The bulk of Kosovo is sufficiently ethically and geographically distinct for that to be the case.
you mean ethnically, and while it's true that Albanians represent huge majority on Kosovo the way they got to those numbers is huge birthrate which is all nice and well but if you award one nation on that basis that will motivate other nations too and this planet is already overpopulated so...it can't end well
skyrover said:
The difference being, the so called "west", got the hell out as soon as possible.
Russia simply annexes the territory
Depends what you mean by 'got out.' The West imposed rules on what came after the fall of Saddam, and splitting into it's natural three entities was not to be tolerated, and so made permanent bases and massaged things to go their way.Russia simply annexes the territory
Crimea was historically Russian.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff