I don't think either of these explanations hold much water, and basically exemplify the inability that is prevalent in this thread to see the Russians as anything other than cartoon villains. — Tzeentch
The Crimean War started with Russia's invasion of the Turkish Danubian principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia (now Romania). Britain and France both wanted to prop up the ailing Ottoman Empire and resist Russian expansionism in the Near East. — google
NATO expansion is one reason, but it was more of a figleaf than an actual reason for him to attack Ukraine as only massing troops to the border already got him clear signals that Ukraine wouldn't be part of NATO (with Germany saying so). Still actually Hungary objects Ukrainian NATO membership. Hence if Ukraine staying out of NATO would have been the only objective, no reason to start an all out war. Yet annexing territories should make it totally clear to everyone what the actual objectives are.What is it about in your view (a year into it)? — frank
I would like to recall that, in the 1930s, the West had virtually paved the way to power for the Nazis in Germany. In our time, they started turning Ukraine into an “anti-Russia.” Actually, this project is not new. People who are knowledgeable about history at least to some extent realise that this project dates back to the 19th century. The Austro-Hungarian Empire and Poland had conceived it for one purpose, that is, to deprive Russia of these historical territories that are now called Ukraine. This is their goal. There is nothing new here; they are repeating everything.
Responsibility for inciting and escalating the Ukraine conflict as well as the sheer number of casualties lies entirely with the Western elites and, of course, today’s Kiev regime, for which the Ukrainian people are, in fact, not its own people. The current Ukrainian regime is serving not national interests, but the interests of third countries.
Basically yes.So you think it's basically a land grab? — frank
The Western elite make no secret of their goal, which is, I quote, “Russia’s strategic defeat.” What does this mean to us? This means they plan to finish us once and for all. In other words, they plan to grow a local conflict into a global confrontation. This is how we understand it and we will respond accordingly, because this represents an existential threat to our country.
However, they too realize it is impossible to defeat Russia on the battlefield and are conducting increasingly aggressive information attacks against us targeting primarily the younger generation. They never stop lying and distorting historical facts as they attack our culture, the Russian Orthodox Church and other traditional religious organizations in our country.
Look what they are doing to their own people. It is all about the destruction of the family, of cultural and national identity, perversion and abuse of children, including pedophilia, all of which are declared normal in their life. They are forcing the priests to bless same-sex marriages. Bless their hearts, let them do as they please. Here is what I would like to say in this regard. Adult people can do as they please. We in Russia have always seen it that way and always will: no one is going to intrude into other people’s private lives, and we are not going to do it, either.
it's important to understand what Putin is really saying: — ssu
...[[b]NATO[/b]] moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.
...these past days NATO leadership has been blunt in its statements that they need to accelerate and step up efforts to bring the alliance’s infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders.
Any further expansion of the North Atlantic alliance’s infrastructure or the ongoing efforts to gain a military foothold of the Ukrainian territory are unacceptable for us.
Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine
First a bloody military operation was waged against Belgrade, without the UN Security Council’s sanction but with combat aircraft and missiles used in the heart of Europe. The bombing of peaceful cities and vital infrastructure went on for several weeks. I have to recall these facts, because some Western colleagues prefer to forget them, and when we mentioned the event, they prefer to avoid speaking about international law, instead emphasising the circumstances which they interpret as they think necessary.
Then came the turn of Iraq, Libya and Syria.
They [The Western powers] will undoubtedly try to bring war to Crimea just as they have done in Donbass — Putin's speech marking the initiation of the invasion
?Only now it's suddenly becomes possible for Putin to lie. — Isaac
IrrelevantPutin lies. That means we don't know what he really thinks from his speeches. — Isaac
Odd how that whenever it suits your narrative we should trust his word, and whenever it doesn't suit your narrative, he's lying.
15 years of protest against NATO expansion > Not a genuine expression of worry, but a carefully crafted lie.
Some war-time rhetoric > Not nonsense narratives meant to influence the public, but a genuine expression of his intentions.
You have to be pretty deep down the propaganda rabbit hole not to see this. — Tzeentch
Zygar writes that Putin ‘flew into a rage’ and warned that ‘if Ukraine joins NATO it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart’ (Zygar 2016, 153–154). — Rajan Menon, William Ruger · 2020
Putin threw a fit like a petulant little child and decided to no longer play the game he was losing...so you now have violence and war. — Sooner5030 · Mar 10, 2022
Wrong, What I say what he speaks is important how Kremlin portrays this war, what is the narrative fed to the Russian people. And it's telling how he sees the West.You call Putin a liar in one sentence and take his word in the next. — Tzeentch
Actions matters, not what people really think, but what they do. — ssu
his speeches show clearly the way how the Kremlin now sees the war. — ssu
Russia is really taking the historical discourse from the Soviet Union: the Lithurgy. The Lithurgy is the official line and you talk the official line to show that you are totally on with the official line. It can be a lie, it can be just nonsense or nothing, but you repeat it to show that you are an ardent backer of the regime.What's up with Lavrov? Lying? Following the script? Bullshitting? Propagandizing? Expressing his belief? — jorndoe
Taken together with Lavrov's statements (and others) a story is told.
Russia says little about its soldiers dying, so an open-source team is trying to keep trackbut now Putin's Russia is busy elsewhere (Ukraine), and apparently neglecting the alliance — Jan 11, 2023
Says the "grown-up" who thinks that Ukraine should have surrendered, blames Zelensky for not surrendering, because he himself sees no difference in what flag flies over Kiev, Russian or Ukrainian. And says that there wouldn't be much bad consequences for that surrender.Grown ups are discussing how best to end a bloody and dreadful war.
If you children want to discuss who "the baddies" are perhaps you could do so on a more suitable forum. Don't Disney have a little chat room you could use. — Isaac
Zelensky bears some moral responsibility for the deaths if he chooses to continue fighting when he could have take a less harmful other option. — Isaac
I'm pointing out that the terms offered by Russia are in this specific case, not applying to every single case in the world (which you bizarrely assumed), are such that it's not worth thousands of lives and huge indebtedness just to avoid them. — Isaac
As such it's not correct to say that we ought to support the Ukrainians in whatever they choose. We don't have any obligation to share their concern about their national identity, we do have an obligation to share their concern about their welfare.
This is relevant because if ceding territory to Russia ends the war and if there's no good reason to think that doing so will create a major loss in welfare, then we ought to support such a solution, even if the Ukrainians themselves don't. — Isaac
Ukrainians are not an homogeneous mass, we don't even know if they all support Zelensky's current strategy, and even if we did all the measures usually in place to ensure well-informed mandates are missing. There's no reason at all to assume 'Ukrainians' are calling the shots here and even if they were, there's no moral incentive to act on their expressed preference. — Isaac
I have no interest in why (some of) the Ukrainians want to remain outside of Russian control. — Isaac
Says the "grown-up" who thinks — ssu
I'm just quoting what you have said. What's wrong with that?Yes. That's right. I do think those things. That'll be why I said them.
Have you got anything more than your incredulity to offer? — Isaac
EU seeks to use frozen Russian funds to rebuild Ukraine
— Terje Solsvik, Essi Lehto, Niklas Pollard, Sandra Maler · Reuters · Feb 14, 2023
There's an idea. — Feb 14, 2023
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.