Ukraine II: The Fight Against Russian Aggression

It appears to me (and I have nothing to back it up) that Putin struck a deal a few months back. NATO stays hands off in Ukraine and in exchange Russia will not get involved in Syria.

You could be right. That's just as plausible as any other reasonable explanation. One thing that is clear is that Russia is not going to get involved and has giving up on Assad.

My personal opinion is that Putin and company realized a year or so ago that Assad and Syria are hopeless cases. I know you don't always agree with me on the cynical nature of Russian foreign policy (and I know the US can certainly do such conniving things as well, as history shows), but I think they're now hoping the situation, since it's hopeless for their former guy, will keep escalating and entangling competitors like the US, Turkey, and (to a lesser extent) Iran. Like the article I linked suggests, this not only serves Russian energy purposes as best as possible, given the circumstances with world markets, but also keeps those other three, particularly the US, occupied and distracted. As long as Russia's way station in Syria, and I'm not even sure how important it really is to them, is not necessarily threatened, I think Russia is pretty content to just sit back, watch Syria burn, and let everyone else in the world waste their resources on it. One things for certain: Russia damn sure ain't doing anything to help. It's really a smart move, when you think about it, particularly from a country under sanctions.

Now, the support for ISIS and other ME terrorists, that gets much hairier and fuzzier, but I wouldn't put it past Putin, or any Russian leader for that matter. It's pretty much obvious to anyone looking that Putin was willing to kill his own countrymen (400 of them) to start the Second Chechen War and give him the popularity he needed to win the upcoming presidential election (he had been polling at around 3 or 4 percent before the events I speak of occurred). Why wouldn't he send militants to Syria, a country he's obviously given up on, despite Ras's bewilderment? Of course he would.
 
Last edited:
Getting a bit tinfoil hatty here.

Not sure how much of a real interest Russia has in Assad, but its certainly not going to waste a lot of money and blood on him.

And supporting ISIS? Why? I learned here that that's what America does.

The Iran deal is interesting. Russia seems to be a driver for it (to sell arms?) but the effect is driving oil prices lower. So what does it really gain?
 
Getting a bit tinfoil hatty here.

Not sure how much of a real interest Russia has in Assad, but its certainly not going to waste a lot of money and blood on him.

And supporting ISIS? Why? I learned here that that's what America does.

The Iran deal is interesting. Russia seems to be a driver for it (to sell arms?) but the effect is driving oil prices lower. So what does it really gain?

In the words of the late Berkeley Junior College physicist, Julio Roberto Oppenheimer, lesser known half-brother of J. Robert Oppenheimer, "In order to know the Russians, you must think like one."

RIP Julio Roberto Oppenheimer
 
The Jews do it on a daily basis hunting Nazis in their 90's. What's the difference?

Did the Russians ask the Japanese? and also forgive me if i consider genocide (what the Nazis did to the jews) different than war (what we did to the japanese). we weren't actively trying to wipe out a race, despite with Trut goes on about.
 
Did the Russians ask the Japanese? and also forgive me if i consider genocide (what the Nazis did to the jews) different than war (what we did to the japanese). we weren't actively trying to wipe out a race, despite with Trut goes on about.

Exterminating civilians is exterminating civilians...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

1. the opening paragraph is hilarious on so many levels its actually awesome.
2. if you flip the script and replace every instance of Russia with the US, and every instance of US with Russia, this story is equally true. except for the "fact" that the US runs the world media while Russia only owns the "truth telling" news agencies.
3. holy cow, we are going to use Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania to overthrow Russia. comedy gold.
the U.S. Government’s now very active campaign to conquer Russia by installing next door to Russia, in its former buffer states (the Warsaw Pact nations), new NATO nations
why haven't we seen results yet?
4. wait their argument is that corrupt isn't a bad thing because literally everyone else is corrupt.
.S. newsmedia very prominently reported was corrupt (in order to fool Americans into thinking that this was somehow a justified overthrow), while they didn’t report that all previous leaders of Ukraine had also been corrupt, so that this U.S. excuse for overthrowing Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych was entirely fake — not just illegitimate, but fake.
not sure how the overthrow was fake. that happened. and he was corrupt. (russia bought and paid for) but lets ignore the fact that he signed over sovereign Ukrainian territory to Russia.
5.
In fact, U.S. newsmedia didn’t even report that the coup was a coup,
pretty sure we did and we talked about here in this thread/Ukraine I
6. did a quick google search of this and it only came up with this article. nothing from Ukraine.
In a remarkable document, which is not posted at the English version of the website of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, but which is widely reported outside the United States, including Russia, Poroshenko, in Ukrainian (not in English), has petitioned the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (as it is being widely quoted in English):

I ask the court to acknowledge that the law ‘on the removal of the presidential title from Viktor Yanukovych’ as [being] unconstitutional.
a link would be nice
7.
rejected Russia’s request to join NATO
what? also more wat
nd so Chechnya’s breakaway movement actually did constitute a national security threat to the rest of Russia. Chechnya was none of the United States’s business, but Clinton needed an excuse, and it served that function for him
pretty sure this line about un-stabilized nations is something that has been used multiple times to keep states out of NATO.
8. the first part I don't know anything about the second has me scratching my head.
(including even the establishment of a major TV station to propagandize for overthrowing Yanukovych and for mass-murdering the people who had voted for him),
outside of Maidan what other mass murdering has there been?
9. they make up some crap. they say they have quotes from Poroshenko admitting he lined up the Maidan shooting to frame Yany. then the link that is given goes to a blogspot website (i have one of those) which has a transcript between two people, neither of which is Poroshenko. and it just goes onto say that the guy talking says he knows that Poroshenko knew about it before it happened. hmmm. seems legit.

sorry thats as far as I made it before I had to go back to work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Exterminating civilians is exterminating civilians...

Who knows. Maybe so. Regardless, I never lose any sleep at night worrying about those two particular decisions.

I've noticed (and you're just one example) that, over the last decade or two, there's been a strong cynicism, most of it often woefully uninformed about historical conditions and realities, over the US and its actions, specifically relating to its foreign policy. Somewhere along the way the US somehow became the "bad guy." I've noticed this in particular with the recent ceremonies regarding the atomic bombings. Much of this is justified, but much of it isn't. When you compare the US's actions to the only feasible alternatives, the US looks like a saint. And people forget, because they only ever look at raw statistics and then want simple culprits and narratives to explain them, but the majority of wars the US has been in (outside of WWII), the majority of civilian casualties were the people killing each other (not the US). Even regarding the indigenous populations here (which is often considered a genocide), the overwhelming majority of native peoples died from exposure to diseases they had no immunity to, not necessarily from coordinated genocide efforts.

Now, if you want to blame the US primarily for these things, that's understandable, but let's not pretend like these societies and peoples are saints that didn't have some real serious underlying issues with one another. (You don't get half a million Iraqis to murder one another unless they have some serious, deep-rooted historical issues with one another that need to be resolved at some point.) Perhaps the US was the spark, but I don't think it was the actual problem. In today's 24/7 news/media cycle, which has never existed until now, we tend to overlook the fact that people have always been killing one another and that the parts of the world that are currently "unstable" have just about always been "unstable" simply due to geography and historical migrational/cultural interaction patterns. But, historically speaking, the past 70 years (and I include the Soviet Union in this as well as "relative" keepers of the peace, but mostly the US) have most likely been the most peaceful in history. We just don't think they are, because we have things like Twitter and CNN and RT to remind us constantly how someone got killed by a drone today. And so we think the world's on fire, when it really isn't.

Regarding our past indiscretions as a nation, I think that in order to earn back the goodwill of the rest of the world we need to follow the Russian model. What is the Russian model, you might ask. I'll break it down in simple, comprehensible steps:

1. Claim successor state status to the USSR (and, by extension, to the Russian Empire).
2. Look at everything good and desirable about claiming such a successor status (UN Security Counsel permanent member, vast nuclear arsenal, etc.), and claim it. Sell it to the world for all it's worth, as the natural inheritor of these good, desirable things and deeds. Along with Comrade Stalin, we saved the entire world from fascist aggression and tyranny! Heyyyy!!!
3. Look at everything bad and undesirable about claiming such a successor status, and don't claim it. Let the world know that, whatever those other guys (Soviets and Imperialists) did in the past, well, those were entirely different nations. Not the Russian Federation. Stalin murdering 40 million Russians? Not us! That was a completely different nation, the Soviets. Comrade Stalin? Who the hell is he?
4. The world completely absolves you, at least in your mind, and you move on. Move on to just blame someone else constantly for the past or for your current problems.

This way you get to dissociate yourself with the bad while only keeping the good. Kind of like having your cake and eating it at the same time.

So maybe if the US renames itself to the United States of North America and sets up a de facto three-party system instead of a de facto two-party one, we can dissociate ourselves with all the bad in our past and only claim the good. And the world will absolve us of any wrongdoing the United States of America may have done. You know, those bad other guys. Not us.

Logic.
 
Last edited:
1. the opening paragraph is hilarious on so many levels its actually awesome.
2. if you flip the script and replace every instance of Russia with the US, and every instance of US with Russia, this story is equally true. except for the "fact" that the US runs the world media while Russia only owns the "truth telling" news agencies.
3. holy cow, we are going to use Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania to overthrow Russia. comedy gold. why haven't we seen results yet?
4. wait their argument is that corrupt isn't a bad thing because literally everyone else is corrupt. not sure how the overthrow was fake. that happened. and he was corrupt. (russia bought and paid for) but lets ignore the fact that he signed over sovereign Ukrainian territory to Russia.
5. pretty sure we did and we talked about here in this thread/Ukraine I
6. did a quick google search of this and it only came up with this article. nothing from Ukraine. a link would be nice
7. what? also more wat pretty sure this line about un-stabilized nations is something that has been used multiple times to keep states out of NATO.
8. the first part I don't know anything about the second has me scratching my head. outside of Maidan what other mass murdering has there been?
9. they make up some crap. they say they have quotes from Poroshenko admitting he lined up the Maidan shooting to frame Yany. then the link that is given goes to a blogspot website (i have one of those) which has a transcript between two people, neither of which is Poroshenko. and it just goes onto say that the guy talking says he knows that Poroshenko knew about it before it happened. hmmm. seems legit.

sorry thats as far as I made it before I had to go back to work.

I haven't bothered even so much as glancing at a Global Research article since reading the line "in typical Jew fashion" a couple years back in one of the published essays there. If you're a neo-Nazi, anti-Semite, like many of the fringe academics there are, at least have more creativity and cleverness than that. Jesus H. Semite!
 
I haven't bothered even so much as glancing at a Global Research article since reading the line "in typical Jew fashion" a couple years back in one of the published essays there. If you're a neo-Nazi, anti-Semite, like many of the fringe academics there are, at least have more creativity and cleverness than that. Jesus H. Semite!

they make reference to a lot of vague stuff i hadn't heard about, so I give them credit for that, and that makes it somewhat worthwhile. and they have some "interesting" ways of putting together "facts" to come up with their stories. but about 1/3 at least, the articles they link, and reference too, don't actually say what Global research say they say. and usually it is on the craziest stuff the links and references don't work for. so it becomes pretty easy to discount a good chunk of the article on that basis alone.
 
they make reference to a lot of vague stuff i hadn't heard about, so I give them credit for that, and that makes it somewhat worthwhile. and they have some "interesting" ways of putting together "facts" to come up with their stories. but about 1/3 at least, the articles they link, and reference too, don't actually say what Global research say they say. and usually it is on the craziest stuff the links and references don't work for. so it becomes pretty easy to discount a good chunk of the article on that basis alone.

Like the article states, people discredit these articles automatically because they've been conditioned by American media, schools, history, etc. that America is always in the right and has an excuse for any bad they do. Most dismiss our involvement at all.

I do respect the fact that you, at least, take the time to read an alternative view. We don't have to agree on it's contents..
 
Like the article states, people discredit these articles automatically because they've been conditioned by American media, schools, history, etc. that America is always in the right and has an excuse for any bad they do. Most dismiss our involvement at all.

I do respect the fact that you, at least, take the time to read an alternative view. We don't have to agree on it's contents..

as I said most the time the article(s) do a good job of discrediting themselves when you click on the imbedded links in the Global Research article. I have learned a decent bit of information from Global Research, just not what they want, and only indirectly because of Global Research.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Like the article states, people discredit these articles automatically because they've been conditioned by American media, schools, history, etc. that America is always in the right and has an excuse for any bad they do. Most dismiss our involvement at all.

I do respect the fact that you, at least, take the time to read an alternative view. We don't have to agree on it's contents..

The article states that because it wants people to think that our media never tells us how awful we are, so the author can get his or her jollies off about ranting how dumb Americans are.

You're a bit older than me, so I know you probably don't realize, but, growing up, we were fully inundated with the fact we treated the natives so awful and were often hypocritical in our national rhetoric.

Maybe that was just me, but I've always been fully aware of it. Of course there's always the occasional moron who is the "My country or leave it" type, but I think most Americans are very critical of their country.

My god, we have you, as just one example, among many.

Your kind doesn't exist in Russia. And when they do, they're promptly exterminated, since that's your apparent word for the day.

P.S. I bet when you go into a restaurant, you sit over in a corner somewhere, sipping from your glass of Long Island Iced Tea, glaring down at all the other patrons who are laughing and in conversation, thinking to yourself what a bunch of sheep they are. I bet you a million bucks you do that all the time, don't you?
 
Last edited:
as I said most the time the article(s) do a good job of discrediting themselves when you click on the imbedded links in the Global Research article. I have learned a decent bit of information from Global Research, just not what they want, and only indirectly because of Global Research.

No, they don't discredit themselves....

How can you discredit them? I'm curious! Is it because they're only contrary to what msm reports?

That was the whole point of the article...
 
No, they don't discredit themselves....

How can you discredit them? I'm curious! Is it because they're only contrary to what msm reports?

That was the whole point of the article...

Cancel that last part of my above post.

You're probably having a Pabst Blue Ribbon instead as you scoff at your fellow diners. You sound like a PBR kind of guy.
 
Advertisement





Back
Top