You said you'd judge Western reaction and hypocrisy if they send troops. And if they do worse? Like getting others to die for them? Off the hook?

I said I'd judge that reaction when and if that comparison becomes valid. My argument is against the validity of the specific comparison, not against Western complicity in the war in Ukraine. Separately, I've already put the West on the hook for helping to cause and extend the war. That was probably the main argument I've made during this discussion.

Putin sees no threat from NATO expansion, warns against military build-up :chin:
source: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-calls-finland-sweden-joining-nato-mistake-with-far-reaching-consequences-2022-05-16/

The internet is inundated with false information about Ukraine.

Is there any way this forum could be an oasis from that? For instance, could there be a standard of at least trying to present correct information?

A couple of the posters here have admitted they aren't interested in being truthful. Could we sanction that?

Posters should argue in good faith. But if we were to mod everything we thought was false, we'd not unjustifiably be accused of censorship and bias.

Posters should argue in good faith. But if we were to mod everything we thought was false, we'd not unjustifiably be accused of censorship and bias. — Baden

If someone argues for several pages that Russia invaded Ukraine to control Nazis, we know that poster is a troll. Couldn't we at least identify them as such? Like with a T over their avatar?

The vast majority of people would never have heard of Ukraine if all that happened was what's happening in Somalia. — Baden

That's kind of the point. 4,000 Ukrainians killed since the war began (UN figures). 350,000 children on the point of starvation in Somalia (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs figures) - 258,000 died in the same conditions in 2011, so it's no exaggeration. They're asking for $1.42 billion, a fraction of what the US alone has spent on Ukraine.

And America sends soldiers...

But it's not really about America, it's about the mindless jingoistic faddishness of the media-glamour vomited up time and again, on demand whenever Western powers need an excuse, distraction, new yachts... whatever.

So yeah, the Somali flag is symbolic (I said as much in response to @Streetlight's post which started the whole thing), but it's got nothing to do with the actual specific details of the military action.

Much as this Mark-of-Cain-for-Ukraine-Nazi-thesis-perpetrators sounds like fun, I think Big Bird will probably be against it.

Anyhow, the vitriol on this thread does nothing for its quality is all I'll say.

If someone argues for several pages that Russia invaded Ukraine to control Nazis, we know that poster is a troll. Couldn't we at least identify them as such? Like with a T over their avatar? — frank

But then, if we already know who's trolling, do we need some infamous mark? Can't we just not feed them, as @SophistiCat is saying?

The discussion died down a long time ago, in any case. Now it's a zombie thread. It's not like we're going anywhere engaging the "peace lovers".

But then, if we already know who's trolling, do we need some infamous mark? Can't we just not feed them, as SophistiCat is saying? — Olivier5

I was just thinking of ways to discourage it. I get your point.

There's another solution: fight with the proverbial pig in the proverbial mud.

I used to be good at that. :-)

:grin: Or just go somewhere else. :up:

Or just go somewhere else. :up: — frank

:up:

Or just post interesting material... :-)


Ukraine's triumphant rhetoric faces limits on the ground
According to experts, foreign weapons deliveries are not enough to sustainably push back Russian forces in the Donbas and Southern Ukraine.

By Emmanuel Grynszpan, Le Monde
Published on May 17, 2022

Ukraine dreams of a total liberation of its territory, not only of the areas occupied since February 24, but also of the "separatist" Donbas and Crimea, annexed in 2014. Successive Russian tactical setbacks, and the stalemate in the battle for Donbas over the past month and a half are the source of a triumphant discourse in Kyiv. Top Ukrainian military intelligence official, general Kyrylo Budanov, told Sky News on Saturday, May 14, "the breaking point will be in the second part of August", and "most of the active combat actions will have finished by the end of this year (...) As a result, we will renew Ukrainian power in all our territories that we have lost including Donbas and Crimea."

Last week, Defense minister Oleksiy Reznikov declared the war was "entering a new long-term phase," in which Russian forces will take a defensive posture to hold captured territory. Moscow first failed to storm Kyiv in early March, and to surround the bulk of Ukrainian troops in Donbas in April.

The influx of Western military could encourage or accelerate a shift in favor of Ukrainian forces. U.S. President Joe Biden signed a $40 billion Ukraine aid package on May 9. Ukraine's Western allies have provided around 120 long-range guns, which are technically capable of attacking Russian positions beyond the front lines.

'Going on the offensive is expensive'

For Alexander Musienko, Ukrainian military expert, there is no doubt a major Ukrainian counterattack will take place. "This counter-attack will depend on the weapons that will be supplied by the West, this is a key point. We are talking about Caesar guns, which are of excellent quality; it is very important for us to be able to use them. We will also have the Panzerhaubitze 2000 howitzer and the American Himars and M270 multiple rocket launchers which have a greater range than Russian artillery. It's just an extra three to five kilometers, but it makes a big difference. It's enough for Ukrainian forces to hold secure positions while hitting the opponent's firing positions."Mr. Musienko also emphasized the key role that "weapons more specifically intended for the offensive, such as attack drones, armored vehicles and tanks of Soviet design that will be provided by the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Poland would play."

Other observers are more cautious in their predictions. "Weapon deliveries are crucial for rebuilding the Ukrainian defense of tomorrow. On the other hand, I doubt that they will have a significant influence on the battlefield" said military expert specializing in Russian defense Pierre Grasser. "Overall, I think it is a bit too late to influence the battle of Donbas that is taking shape: I can see Severodonetsk being surrounded in the next few days. Moscow is pushing forward now and will slow down in the summer. On the other hand, the arrival of new Ukrainian units will take place in the summer. In the meantime, the troops locked in combat since the beginning are holding the line and, for the last few weeks, it has been difficult. And even if this Russian offensive were to get bogged down, the Ukrainian equipment would hardly allow for serious counterattacks. Going on the offensive is expensive, because the losses would be very difficult to replace."

Posters should argue in good faith. But if we were to mod everything we thought was false, we'd not unjustifiably be accused of censorship and bias. — Baden

These posters (Street, Isaac, Benkei) are not just arguing in bad faith. They are trolling and intentionally derailing the thread. They made it clear from the start that they are not interested in the actual topic, and instead want continue to talk about what they talk about in every other political thread: the villainy of US, the evils of capitalism, etc.

Can't we just not feed them — Olivier5

Apparently not...

Seems to me that the bad faith emanates from those who have to pigeonhole others as "trolls" as an excuse not to engage arguments. I've had perfectly fine discussions with ssu on this thread because he doesn't have a kindergarten understanding of international relations. We still disagree. Not the end of the world.

For others it appears very difficult to separate criticism of Western contributory negligence from Putin apologism.

Russian recruiting offices attacked with Molotov cocktails
Twelve fires have targeted buildings used for army recruitment, as testimonies of army reservists receiving "invitations" to report build up.

By Benoît Vitkine (Moscow, correspondent)
Posted today at 2:00 p.m.

In the middle of the night on May 4, in the center of Nizhnevartovsk, a city of just under 300,000 inhabitants located in northern Siberia, an apparently young man walks with a determined step. His face hidden under a hood and a mask, a plastic bag in his hand, he heads for Peace Street, 78. Methodically, he pulls out seven glass bottles and lines them up on a sidewalk corner. Then, perfectly calm, he lights his Molotov cocktails one by one and throws them at the door and windows of the military registration office that is there.

Not a single word is spoken, and it is impossible to trace the video, which appeared the next day on social networks. There is nothing to identify the man with the Molotov cocktails or the accomplice who films him. On May 13, the police reported having arrested two suspects, remanded in custody for two months. But unlike the usual arrests of "saboteurs" and "spies", very much staged with a lot of Nazi symbols, no details were given.

The case of Nizhnevartovsk is not isolated. In Tcherepovets, in the Vologda region (north-west), the same scenario occurred on May 12, with attackers a little less effective. They had to try twice to detonate their Molotov cocktails. The facade of the voenkomat (the military office) nevertheless caught fire.

In other similar cases, the perpetrators remain hidden. An understandable element knowing the very heavy penalties incurred. Only surveillance cameras, when installed, provide an overview of the facts. Otherwise, only partially charred facades remain, the photos of which begin to circulate in the early morning. In all, since the beginning of the "special operation" on February 24, twelve fires or attempts to burn such buildings have been listed in the local media.

The figure of twelve seems important, but it should be put into perspective: Russia has just under 1,500 voenkomat. This name, contraction of "military commissariat", is inherited from the Soviet period. The role of the institution is to manage the recruitment of contractors for the army at the local level, to organize conscription and to keep the list of men who can be mobilized up to date. ...

If it is to be seen as a mode of protest against the conflict, in the same way as the posters or the tags visible in Russian cities, the target, as well as the chronology, are telling. The first attack dates back to February 28, but there has been a clear acceleration since the beginning of May. The latest, in the suburbs of Moscow, was perpetrated on the night of May 17 to 18. ...

More and more elements show an intensification of the work of these military offices, which certain Russian sites in exile go so far as to compare to an “underground mobilization”.

Apparently not... — SophistiCat

Maybe it's harder for me to give up on a discussion than it should be. In any case you've long adopted the only sane and effective approach re. our most "peace-loving" friends, and I respect that.

Well that was a war on terror conducted by the French. Who deserved every dead Frenchman killed by an Algerian. — Streetlight

?

I think you are referring to the Algerian war, not the Algerian Civil war of 1991- 2002. The Algerian FLN wasn't at all islamist (or what we would call now islamist).

The civil war happened when the Algerian military made a coup when rulers didn't accept that the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) would have victory in the elections. Unlike in Mali, France didn't play an active role in the war and the only Frenchmen killed were those killed by the Armed Islamic Group (GIA). GIA was far more active in killing FIS members and Algerian civilians than the soldiers of the Algerian military. FIS didn't attack France.

Hence the dead Frenchmen killed by Algerians (GIA) in this war were in 1994 four French embassy workers, in 1995 (killed or wounded) users of the Paris metro, passers by on the Arc de Triomphe, and some in a Jewish school. Only ten killing ten were killed, but scores were wounded (about 200 people). In 1996 four were killed in Paris by a car bomb. Earlier one person in a hijacked Air France plane had been killed the organization's hijackers.

The connection between GIA and the Algerian junta seems to have been clear to the French as Chirac refused to meet with Algerian ministers after the 1995 bombings, openly saying that the GIA could have been manipulated by the Algerian secret services. Such allegations were actually widespread.

Algerian civil would be a prime example were the insurgents are successfully divided and the most bloodthirsty extremist cabal then turns the public sentiment against the insurgents.

I understand their nervousness. They chose the wrong camp and are panicking now. — Olivier5

I'm not sure about that how much panic there is. It's just usually that when you don't have anything to say, any actual objections on the topic, anything to counter the arguments, some people then resort to ad hominems.

Street shows signs of worsening agitation. I'm afraid he's gona blow a gasket.

Street clearly shows signs of worsening agitation. I'm afraid he's gona blow a gasket. — Olivier5

Maybe.

I've had perfectly fine discussions with ssu on this thread because he doesn't have a kindergarten understanding of international relations. We still disagree. Not the end of the world. — Benkei

And sometimes we have agreed on issues. Besides, if people can make myself to change my opinion / views, learn something or see something from a different perspective, what could be more beneficial?

I quoted you not only Wikipedia but ethnogenesis studies on the Crimean Tatars, that prove Crimean Tatars' origins were pre-Mongol. — neomac

Hilarious. You must be attending the same second-rate kindergarten as the other two. Or maybe CIA-NATO bots come in packs of three. As the poet says, “bad things come in threes” .... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The truth of the matter is that there is very little genetic difference between Mongols and Turkic people like the Tatars. They all originated from the same place.

Recent linguistic, genetic and archaeological evidence suggests that the earliest Turkic peoples descended from agricultural communities in Northeastern China and wider Northeast Asia, who moved westwards into Mongolia in the late 3rd millennium BC, where they adopted a pastoral lifestyle. By the early 1st millennium BC, these peoples had become equestrian nomads. – Wikipedia

Essentially, Turkic peoples were peoples originally from the region comprising South Siberia and Mongolia. In other words, Mongols were from Mongolia proper, and Turkic people were Mongols from adjacent areas.

As the Mongols proper (i.e., Mongols from Mongolia) expanded their rule westward, they became increasingly “Turkified”, so that eventually most “Mongol” invaders were in fact Turkic.

For example, when Genghis Khan divided his empire among his four sons, his eldest son Jochi inherited the westernmost part with 4,000 Mongol troops. Later he had an army of nearly 500,000, virtually all of whom were Turkic. Genghis Khan’s grandson Berke became ruler of the Kipchak Khanate which was almost entirely Turkic, etc., etc.

Turkic peoples looked like the Mongols, spoke a language that was identical or closely related to, and mutually intelligible with Mongolian, and had the same nomadic culture with horses and bows and arrows that they used to attack sedentary Slavic populations.

There were several Mongol-Turkic invasion waves including Bulgars, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Kipchaks, followed by Mongols, with later waves pushing earlier ones further and further west, or assimilating them in the process. This also holds for areas now known as Russia and Ukraine.

To indigenous Russians and Ukrainians there was no difference between Mongols, Turkic people, and Tatars. The term “Tatar” referred to the non-Slavic, Mongol and Turkic tribes that invaded the region in the Middle Ages. Crimean Tatars are a subgroup of the Tatars and are, by definition, Turkic, i.e, closely related to the Mongols. You can see that for yourself if you take a look at a picture of Turkish president Erdogan!

Historically, the term Tatars (or Tartars) was applied to anyone originating from the vast Northern and Central Asian landmass then known as Tartary – Wikipedia

This is precisely why they are called, and call themselves, “Tatars”.

The original inhabitants of Crimea were the Tauri who lived mainly in the southern highlands while the lowlands were invaded by a succession of various tribes. But by the time of the Mongol invasions, Crimea was controlled by Russia who later took it back from the Mongols and Turks.

Obviously, as the Tatars enslaved the local population (consisting of Greeks, Slavs, etc.) and raped their women, modern-day Tatars are mixed-race with various amounts of Mongol-Turkic DNA. This is why some look Mongolian, some look European, and others look mixed. And they’re currently a small MINORITY (about 10%) in Crimea while the majority are ethnic Russian.

In any case, none of this shows that “Crimea belongs to Ukraine”!

But Russia didn't intervene or come to the help of Armenia when Azerbaijan attacked in the Nagorno-Karabach. It actually had sold weapons to Azerbaijan. And is all but happy using the divide and rule tactics in the Caucasus. — ssu

"Divide and rule tactics in the Caucasus"? Armenia and Azerbaijan have been at loggerheads for ages!

There were already fights between the Armenians and Azerbaijanis in 1905. The reason was that Azerbaijanis were Muslim fanatics who had joined Turkey's dream of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire.

See also the Khilafat Movement - Wikipedia

Before that, it goes back to centuries of clashes between local Armenian Christians and Muslim-Turkic invaders. Nothing to do with Russian "divide-and-rule" tactics. If anything, it's got to do with Turkey who's still trying to revive the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate.

As I've explained to you many times before, Turkey has been aspiring to create a "Turkish world from the Adriatic to the Great Wall of China" since the 1990s which is why it has founded the Organization of Turkic States, comprising Turkic countries like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey and Uzbekistan.

From the Adriatic Sea to the Great Wall of China – TEPAV

The idea, of course, was promoted by US state secretary Kissinger as part of established US policy of containing and encircling Russia, and keeping it not only "out of Europe" as stated by NATO, but also out of Asia. Which pretty much exposes NATO's true intentions .... :smile:

There is a reason why Ukrainians don't want to live under Putin's boot. — Olivier5

Most of the world don't want to live under America's boot, either.

My main problem with US support of the Ukrainian Conflict is that the United States is the largest and most committed arms dealer in the world and NATO, as far as we view it, is an international protection racket - war is a racket, full stop - so it feels like we'll end up with a divided Ukraine anyway, but one that required the devastation of the nation and a mountain of Ukrainian and Russian casualties. — ASmallTalentForWar

Good point. People tend to forget that the main purpose of US foreign policy is to promote US business especially as dictated by oil and defense lobbies.

Incidentally, US State Department figures show that between 2014 and 2016 U.S arms exports to the EU were worth $62.9 billion. EU arms exports to the U.S were only about $7.6 billion. And EU arms imports from the US are growing, and growing fast. If the EU now starts buying oil and gas from the US as well, we can see how this serves the interests of America’s global empire.

And I agree that a quick Russian victory in Ukraine would have saved thousands of lives and many cities and villages that are now just heaps of dust and rubble. It's difficult to see what Zelensky's actual "plan" is. A ruined and bankrupt country that will be taken over by Western corporations and the local oligarch mafia that are currently sunbathing in Cyprus, Israel, or Miami while waiting for the war to end?

I'd like you to know I didn't read any of this. Not a word. If I wanted a second-hand Wikipedia summary I'd do it myself. However, why do you think Algeria was in such a shitty position to begin with? Well, because it had been plundered and turned to shit by the countrymen of a certain poster here. Everything follows from that.

That's kind of the point. 4,000 Ukrainians killed since the war began (UN figures). 350,000 children on the point of starvation in Somalia (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs figures) - 258,000 died in the same conditions in 2011, so it's no exaggeration. They're asking for $1.42 billion, a fraction of what the US alone has spent on Ukraine.

And America sends soldiers...

But it's not really about America, it's about the mindless jingoistic faddishness of the media-glamour vomited up time and again, on demand whenever Western powers need an excuse, distraction, new yachts... whatever. — Isaac

This is exactly it.

Oops.

These are the demented murderous fucking clowns that people here are falling over themselves to defend as goodies against Russian baddies.

These people are so used to treating plots of land beyond their borders as their personal fiefdoms that they can't keep straight which one their imperial designs are currently bearing on.

Which is unfortunate, since he's often a very knowledgeable contributor. I'd invite you to look at his post history, particularly things older than 2 years when he was more mellow.

They made it clear from the start that they are not interested in the actual topic, and instead want continue to talk about what they talk about in every other political thread: the villainy of US, the evils of capitalism, etc. — SophistiCat

The 'topic' is the Ukraine crisis. Says it right at the top of the page. It's not 'how bad do we think Putin is', nor is it 'who's winning right now'.

The Ukraine crisis is a complex geopolitical situation involving more than two parties. Even at the most superficial level possible the US are involved in arming Ukraine. At the level of basic adult conversation we'd accept that Ukraine's propaganda war is being fought substantially in Western countries, largely for the purposes of securing military aid...

Then there's the terms of the American and European loans, the extent to which NATO figures in Putin's address, the fact the the whole war started (back in 2014) as a conflict in Ukraine between support for Russia and support for Europe, the fact that the US were involved in that initiating event, and the degree to which that figures in Putin's propaganda.

All this is simply the facts of the case prior to any opinion about it.

To say that America and Europe are not part of the "actual topic" is itself a political opinion within the topic. All you're trying to do here is make political opinions you personally don't like seem as if they don't deserve to be discussed. It's a pathetic ruse which undermines the power of this exact tool for political opinions which do, in fact, not deserve to be discussed (like Nazism).

It's just usually that when you don't have anything to say, any actual objections on the topic, anything to counter the arguments, some people then resort to ad hominems. — ssu

Take a look back at the posts of @Olivier5 (the person to whom you are replying here) and @Christoffer, and no few of your own, and tell me seriously if you still want to stand by the whole 'ad hominem=nothing to say' theory. Shall I quote them for you?

I am not really interested in reading the posts of a person who supports terrorism and mass murder, thank you.