Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Twdft]

It wasn't us!
-- Ukraine, on the plane crash

I can just imagine it, a small crew of Ukranian ultra chads hooking an anti aircraft gun to a ZIS-5 they stole, driving on the highway between Moscow and Petersburg, downing the plane and retreat unseen to Kyiv.

[Kaleredar]

Putin certainly has his agendas. I'm not shying away from this war being instigated as an act of aggression. He wants Ukraine and seeks any excuse to get what he wants.

That makes what is happening here predictable, as well as not justifiable. And the US having meddled in Ukraine's politics IS a perceived threat in the eyes of Putin. That really can not be understated here.

Again, none of this is justifiable at all.



Yet we are talking about a country that Putin himself considers a part of Russia, both historically and in spirit. This is not just politics, it's personal. That is the difference. We're not talking about the usual political meddling in some random foreign country, this one is a former part of the Soviet Union. What do we really think was going to happen?



Putin basically sees Ukraine as a part of Russia the same way China sees Taiwan a part of China. They are looking at this through a historic lens. So yes, 1960+, hell go even further beyond that, because to these leaders in these countries with long histories, these things matter to them.

Ukraine adopting western ideals is what Putin believes is the true threat, and it's clearly predictable that he would not stand for them joining NATO.


Now, what I will also say is perhaps Putin would have planned to do this regardless. He already forcefully annexed Crimea after all. I don't discount that at all, but the difference in Ukraine seems to be a personal issue with a perceived ideological threat, and an appeal to NATO was just the 'last straw' to it.

Who gives a rat’s ass what Putin thinks Ukraine is or isn’t.

[Iphie]

Dutch news is now reporting that putin confirmed prig's death

[YUPPIE]

Wagner vows vengeance

Wagner mercenaries were on Thursday reported to be trying to head back into Russia after threatening retaliation over the suspected killing of their leader Yevgeny Prigozhin in a plane crash on the orders of Vladimir Putin.

Reports from Ukraine’s national resistance centre said sources in Belarus, where some of Prigozhin’s fighters have been based, had seen mercenaries dismantling camps and forming convoys to leave the country.

“The convoys are likely heading towards the border with Russia,” the centre said.

The report followed the posting online of a threatening message by a masked man claiming to be a Wagner fighter.

“There’s a lot talk right now about what the Wagner Group will do,” he said. “We can tell you one thing. We are getting started, get ready for us.”

At the same time, a Russian news site with links to Prigozhin — who staged a mutiny against President Vladimir Putin in June over the Kremlin’s faltering war effort in Ukraine — claimed that the Wagner Group had “a long-established approved mechanism of action in the event of the death of Prigozhin” or his key ally Dmitry Utkin, who is also believed to have died in yesterday’s plane crash.

The reports came as mystery continued to surround the cause of the crash, 190 miles north west of Moscow, which appears to have killed Prigozhin and other Wagner leaders.

US President Joe Biden has said that there is little that happens in Russia that Putin is not behind and former MI6 boss Sir John Sawers today said it appeared that the Russian leader had ordered the strike.

“All the indications point to the fact that Putin has taken him out… he is making clear to everyone both inside Russia and outside that he’s not going to brook any challenge,” Sir John said. “I would have thought there was some device on board that brought the plane down suddenly and killed all those on board. It was a way of taking out the entire Wagner leadership in one go.”

[Edge-]

We've had first coup attempt, but have we had second coup attempt?

Wagner Part Deux: Electric Boogaloo?

[Gorsameth]

We've had first coup attempt, but have we had second coup attempt?

Wagner Part Deux: Electric Boogaloo?

They are mercenaries. Their loyalty is to money, and a dead man isn't writing their checks.

[Makabreska]

They are mercenaries. Their loyalty is to money, and a dead man isn't writing their checks.

Sure, but killing the leadership throws entire enterprise into a disarray and jeopardizes their income. Not saying they will go aggressive, but I doubt they are happy about current developments.

[YUPPIE]

Reading about international reactions to Prigozhin's death illustrates the aforementioned terror that is Putin.

No world leader believes Prigozhin died naturally; instead, they cite it as what happens for going against Putin, and how he is a sadistic monster that revels in brutality.

In response to news of Prigozhin's apparent death, officials from the United States, including United States National Security Council spokeswoman Adrienne Watson and President Joe Biden, remarked that it did not come as a "surprise". When asked about the attribution of responsibility, Biden added, "There is not much that happens in Russia that Putin is not behind, but I don't know enough to know the answer." CIA Director William J. Burns commented that "revenge is a dish Putin prefers served cold".

Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, called Prigozhin's apparent death a "demonstrative elimination" and a signal from Putin to Russian elites against disloyalty ahead of the 2024 presidential elections, adding that "Putin does not forgive anyone for his own bestial terror." Zelenskyy himself denied Ukraine's involvement in the crash but said "everyone understands" who did it.

Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas called the crash a reminder of Putin's ability to eliminate opponents and scare off dissent, while Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau, said that those who threatened Putin's power do not "die naturally" and expressed strong doubts about the crash being accidental. The French government expressed "reasonable doubts" about the cause of the crash.

[Triceron]

Who gives a rat’s ass what Putin thinks Ukraine is or isn’t.

Well, obviously you and everyone else here does, because his actions are a result of what he's (projected as) thinking what Ukraine is.

The whole reason anyone is in this thread is because of his thoughts being manifested. We all care about his thoughts, because his thoughts become actions, and his actions are dangerous.

[Belize]

We've had first coup attempt, but have we had second coup attempt?

Wagner Part Deux: Electric Boogaloo?

I don't think they know about second coup Pip.

[Triceron]

And Putin is wrong.
Ukraine tried to become its own nation after the Russian Revolution of 1917.

They still believe that Ukraine took some of its historic territory when they became fully independent after the collapse of the Soviet Union, namely the south-eastern regions that are being fought over today. They believe it has no historic connection to Ukraine, and that it is rightfully Russian territory. Putin talked about it 10 years ago, and continues to talk about that today. And no, I am not making any indications that he is justified for thinking so or in acting on it, I am making a point that 'Ukraine became its own nation' is not an answer to what is happening today in the conflict.

It's a complex matter involving historic territorial disputes, much like I would compare to the current thoughts and recognition of Taiwan (which is divided even in the UN), or the territorial disputes of Israel and Palestine. It's not a simple matter of 'It is now a country' and everyone is suddenly satisfied. This has always been split between two major parties with wildly different ideals.

In terms of Putin being wrong, it is only Putin's actions that are wrong. The beliefs themselves are neither right or wrong, they're just different ideals. Just like any religious conflict; it is not wrong to have a certain religious belief, but would be wrong in how that belief may be weaponized or manifested into violent action. Having Christian belief is not wrong, but the Crusades were. Having Muslim faith is not wrong, but terrorism in the name of Jihad is. I think it's important to make this distinction, and not just blur it all as one and the same. The belief itself does not have to manifest itself into dangerous action.

That's the common problem with associating Communist belief with corrupt dictatorships. It's not a problem of the core belief, it is a problem in the execution. Truth is, any social ideal is prone to corruption and abuse of power.

[Makabreska]

I wouldn't boil it down to either side being right or wrong. It's not a simple binary situation where there is a legitimate right or wrong answer. It's a matter of culture and social perspectives. And historically speaking, the one who writes history is the one who is right. Let's just say if Hitler won WW2, we'd all be looking at the Axis and Allies quite differently. Or if Soviet Union won the Cold War, things would be very different today.

Imagine fucking saying that Russia had some legitimate reason to not acknowledge Ukraine right to self-determination and just invade it to take land and control. Imagine saying it's hard to say who is right/wrong in this case.

holy fucking shit dude

[ghotihook]

Imagine fucking saying that Russia had some legitimate reason to not acknowledge Ukraine right to self-determination and just invade it to take control.

I am going to have to agree with you Makabreska, what an absolute psychopath take. At some people every piece of land belonged to someone else at some point of history. That doesn't give them a right to take it.

[Gigantique]

I am going to have to agree with you Makabreska, what an absolute psychopath take. At some people every piece of land belonged to someone else at some point of history. That doesn't give them a right to take it.

That's not how I read it myself as he does repeatedly state that none of this makes it justifiable. It reads more as being explaining what motivates this absolute garbage aggro behaviour not justifying it.

Explaining/debating why a deranged man is doing deranged things doesn't mean you justify said deranged thing cmon now.

[Gorsameth]

They still believe that Ukraine took some of its historic territory when they became fully independent after the collapse of the Soviet Union, namely the south-eastern regions that are being fought over today. They believe it has no historic connection to Ukraine, and that it is rightfully Russian territory. Putin talked about it 10 years ago, and continues to talk about that today. And no, I am not making any indications that he is justified for thinking so or in acting on it, I am making a point that 'Ukraine became its own nation' is not an answer to what is happening today in the conflict.

It's a complex matter involving historic territorial disputes, much like I would compare to the current thoughts and recognition of Taiwan (which is divided even in the UN), or the territorial disputes of Israel and Palestine. It's not a simple matter of 'It is now a country' and everyone is suddenly satisfied. This has always been split between two major parties with wildly different ideals.

In terms of Putin being wrong, it is only Putin's actions that are wrong. The beliefs themselves are neither right or wrong, they're just different ideals. Just like any religious conflict; it is not wrong to have a certain religious belief, but would be wrong in how that belief may be weaponized or manifested into violent action. Having Christian belief is not wrong, but the Crusades were. Having Muslim faith is not wrong, but terrorism in the name of Jihad is.

I'll just link this again. Seriously take the 2 minutes to listen to it.

[Makabreska]

That's not how I read it myself as he does repeatedly state that none of this makes it justifiable. It reads more as being explaining what motivates this absolute garbage aggro behaviour not justifying it.

Explaining/debating why a deranged man is doing deranged things doesn't mean you justify said deranged thing cmon now.

And yet he says:

"I wouldn't boil it down to either side being right or wrong. It's not a simple binary situation where there is a legitimate right or wrong answer."

If he keeps saying that "none of this makes it justifiable", then wtf is he trying to argue here?

[Triceron]

I am going to have to agree with you Makabreska, what an absolute psychopath take. At some people every piece of land belonged to someone else at some point of history. That doesn't give them a right to take it.

And I've been clear to say he is not justified in taking it.

So anyone attacking my argument for implying it is doing so in bad faith, just for the sake of arguing.

I'm making a point of why the madman is mad. Others are looking at this from a 'any talk about the madman is equal to supporting them'.

[Makabreska]

And I've been clear to say he is not justified in taking it.

So anyone attacking my argument for implying it is doing so in bad faith, just for the sake of arguing.

I'm making a point of why the madman is mad. Others are looking at this from a 'any talk about the madman is equal to supporting them'.

"I wouldn't boil it down to either side being right or wrong. It's not a simple binary situation where there is a legitimate right or wrong answer."

Why did you edit this part out? It was your first thought. Why do you think believes are not wrong? It is not wrong to believe you can invade, kill and destroy other country that did nothing to you? Go tell that to millions of escaping Ukrainians that sit in my country, those whose lives were literally destroyed, that Putin beliefs ain't wrong.

[Triceron]

And yet he says:

"I wouldn't boil it down to either side being right or wrong. It's not a simple binary situation where there is a legitimate right or wrong answer."

If he keeps saying that "none of this makes it justifiable", then wtf is he trying to argue here?

That a belief does not need to be acted on, and if it is acted on then the 'right' or 'wrong' needs to be attributed to the action, not the belief.

Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King shared the same core beliefs, but took different actions. Martin Luther King's actions were considered justified, Malcolm X's actions were considered dangerous and generally condemned. These are not problems with the beliefs themselves, but the actions that were taken.

Trotsky and Stalin shared the same core Communist beliefs, but took different actions. We all know what happened there. Yet it's not as simple as painting all of Communism as bad; it is generally the actions that were taken and the system being exploited in its name that was the core problem. There is nothing inherently 'evil' about communist belief, rather it's always been a problem of the actions that have been taken in its name.

Same can be said about Religious belief and all the horrible things taken up in its name. We can separate the belief from the atrocity. We simply don't do that with social paradigms, because there's still quite a large stigma being perpetuated for the sake of politics. It's easier to rally the people against a 'common enemy', and so it's continued to be used as a means of fear-mongering to unite the people. We're still living with Cold War beliefs, essentially.


If someone says 'Putin is wrong' implying any belief that Russia should have claim to historic parts of territory is inherently wrong, I would disagree on principle. People SHOULD be allowed freedom to believe that if they want, but they shouldn't be using violence to obtain that goal. Sometimes the belief may not be realistically plausible, but it doesn't make the belief itself wrong. In this case, it is not an inherently dangerous belief.

Even historically, we have seen some of these things handled peacefully. Reunification of Eastern and Western Germany. India regaining its independence from British rule. The ideal of 'wanting our territory back' is not inherrently evil.

- - - Updated - - -

"I wouldn't boil it down to either side being right or wrong. It's not a simple binary situation where there is a legitimate right or wrong answer."

Why did you edit this part out? It was your first thought. Why do you think believes are not wrong? It is not wrong to believe you can invade, kill and destroy other country that did nothing to you? Go tell that to millions of escaping Ukrainians that sit in my country, those whose lives were literally destroyed, that Putin beliefs ain't wrong.

The belief for having territory returned to 'its rightful owner' is not inherently wrong or evil.

The action to invade, kill and destroy is. Invasion is not belief, it is action. Putin does not outwardly ever talk about his belief in invasions, he simply acts on it. And that is where I will say he is wrong.

But to simply say 'Putin is wrong' implying that his beliefs are also wrong, should be distinguished separately.

Go tell that to millions of escaping Ukrainians that sit in my country, those whose lives were literally destroyed, that Putin beliefs ain't wrong.

It is his actions that are wrong.

You wouldn't say Gandhi's beliefs were wrong for wanting his country/territory back, would you? What is right and wrong is the actions taken by the individuals. Not the core beliefs that are stated. The belief of wanting territory returned is not inherrently dangerous.

I don't think I'm making an egregious statement by merely pointing this out, and I think we should reach common ground here if you'd actually read what my argument is about, rather than holding on to a belief that I am some kind of blind Putin sympathizer. I am talking about separating Action from Belief.

[ghotihook]

The belief for having territory returned to 'its rightful owner' is not wrong.

The action to invade, kill and destroy is. Invasion is not belief, it is action.

Who determines this. Almost the entire USA was "OWNED" by another country or group. Like I said before almost EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY was "owned" by another country or group in it's history. Who is the rightful owner?