Russia / Ukraine Watch

[Max B Gold]

It's the collection of russian apologist talking points and shilling that have been shared for the last year by the weird fringe left. Nothing new or interesting in it at all.

Perhaps but it does add some much needed context.

Are you able to highlight for us the bits that are incorrect/false or misleading?

PS. Name calling only confuses and isn't actually in any way an argument or a refutation of the points you think it is. Only debate clarifies.

Be fair - being called 'weird fringe left' by centrists is more polite than being called 'loony left' by the righties.

Comrade, you are confused centrists are righties.

[tuffers#1]

I believe Ukraine can't win this war, and if it goes on and on, Russia will win.
By supplying Ukraine with money and weapons, the West, is prolonging this war, which means more deaths.
It suits USA to have a weakened Russia, hence their interest in prolonging this war.
A neutral country(if there is one), must broker peace talks.
Once again, the UN has proved useless.
The death and suffering is truly terrible, and this war must end

Are you saying Ukranians must give up & become new Russians ?

[Mistadobalina]

An interesting article:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/r ... -paved-how

It's the collection of russian apologist talking points and shilling that have been shared for the last year by the weird fringe left. Nothing new or interesting in it at all.

Perhaps but it does add some much needed context.

Are you able to highlight for us the bits that are incorrect/false or misleading?

PS. Name calling only confuses and isn't actually in any way an argument or a refutation of the points you think it is. Only debate clarifies.

So much of this type of analysis either affords Ukraine zero agency ( everything they do is a ploy by NATO to attack Russia) or zero right to agency (how dare they seek ties with NATO).

It's basically saying it'd have been better if Russia had simply rolled over Ukraine in the first few weeks and then asserted complete dominance over their country, as they have done for the last several hundred years. This is euphemistically phrased as 'new regional security arrangements'.

This bit in particular:

'Without prolonged US intervention, the reality is that Ukraine would have had to come to an accommodation many years ago with its much larger, stronger neighbour - just as Mexico and Canada have had to do with the US. Invasion would have been avoided. Now Ukraine’s fate is largely out of its hands.'

Complete gubbins. 'If only Ukraine had accepted it's status as a client state of russia, it'd have it's autonomy.'

[Max B Gold]

It's the collection of russian apologist talking points and shilling that have been shared for the last year by the weird fringe left. Nothing new or interesting in it at all.

Perhaps but it does add some much needed context.

Are you able to highlight for us the bits that are incorrect/false or misleading?

PS. Name calling only confuses and isn't actually in any way an argument or a refutation of the points you think it is. Only debate clarifies.

So much of this type of analysis either affords Ukraine zero agency ( everything they do is a ploy by NATO to attack Russia) or zero right to agency (how dare they seek ties with NATO).

It's basically saying it'd have been better if Russia had simply rolled over Ukraine in the first few weeks and then asserted complete dominance over their country, as they have done for the last several hundred years. This is euphemistically phrased as 'new regional security arrangements'.

This bit in particular:

'Without prolonged US intervention, the reality is that Ukraine would have had to come to an accommodation many years ago with its much larger, stronger neighbour - just as Mexico and Canada have had to do with the US. Invasion would have been avoided. Now Ukraine’s fate is largely out of its hands.'

Complete gubbins. 'If only Ukraine had accepted it's status as a client state of russia, it'd have it's autonomy.'

Do you think that back in the day the USA would have been OK with Mexico joining the Warsaw Pact?

They were very unhappy about Cuba hosting a few missiles.

[Mistadobalina]

I don't really get that argument, unless you think that the Bay of Pigs was fair enough and that America using spheres of influence as justification for f*cking it's neighbours over was actually justified. Which you don't.

[Max B Gold]

It's the collection of russian apologist talking points and shilling that have been shared for the last year by the weird fringe left. Nothing new or interesting in it at all.

Perhaps but it does add some much needed context.

Are you able to highlight for us the bits that are incorrect/false or misleading?

PS. Name calling only confuses and isn't actually in any way an argument or a refutation of the points you think it is. Only debate clarifies.

So much of this type of analysis either affords Ukraine zero agency ( everything they do is a ploy by NATO to attack Russia) or zero right to agency (how dare they seek ties with NATO).

It's basically saying it'd have been better if Russia had simply rolled over Ukraine in the first few weeks and then asserted complete dominance over their country, as they have done for the last several hundred years. This is euphemistically phrased as 'new regional security arrangements'.

This bit in particular:

'Without prolonged US intervention, the reality is that Ukraine would have had to come to an accommodation many years ago with its much larger, stronger neighbour - just as Mexico and Canada have had to do with the US. Invasion would have been avoided. Now Ukraine’s fate is largely out of its hands.'

Complete gubbins. 'If only Ukraine had accepted it's status as a client state of russia, it'd have it's autonomy.'

Highlighting the loss of free agency for Ukraine whatever that is because we live in an interdependent world ignores the meddling in Ukraine by the US and freelancers like Manafort, Bannon etc for some time.

[Max B Gold]

I believe Ukraine can't win this war, and if it goes on and on, Russia will win.
By supplying Ukraine with money and weapons, the West, is prolonging this war, which means more deaths.
It suits USA to have a weakened Russia, hence their interest in prolonging this war.
A neutral country(if there is one), must broker peace talks.
Once again, the UN has proved useless.
The death and suffering is truly terrible, and this war must end

Are you saying Ukranians must give up & become new Russians ?

Some Ukrainians already consider themselves to be Russian.

[Dunners]

It's the collection of russian apologist talking points and shilling that have been shared for the last year by the weird fringe left. Nothing new or interesting in it at all.

Perhaps but it does add some much needed context.

Are you able to highlight for us the bits that are incorrect/false or misleading?

PS. Name calling only confuses and isn't actually in any way an argument or a refutation of the points you think it is. Only debate clarifies.

So much of this type of analysis either affords Ukraine zero agency ( everything they do is a ploy by NATO to attack Russia) or zero right to agency (how dare they seek ties with NATO).

It's basically saying it'd have been better if Russia had simply rolled over Ukraine in the first few weeks and then asserted complete dominance over their country, as they have done for the last several hundred years. This is euphemistically phrased as 'new regional security arrangements'.

This bit in particular:

'Without prolonged US intervention, the reality is that Ukraine would have had to come to an accommodation many years ago with its much larger, stronger neighbour - just as Mexico and Canada have had to do with the US. Invasion would have been avoided. Now Ukraine’s fate is largely out of its hands.'

Complete gubbins. 'If only Ukraine had accepted it's status as a client state of russia, it'd have it's autonomy.'

Yep, and this was also already addressed way back in this thread, such as this from page 13:

It's funny how a lot of 'balance' fails to address the point that Eastern European countries begged to join NATO due to their fear of Russia. And that, as a defensive alliance, NATO is only a threat if you think you might fancy invading one of those countries in the future. And that the permanent forward positioning of NATO troops in Eastern European countries only happened because those countries requested it following Russia's invasion in 2014. And that a further invasion of Ukraine simply brings Russia into even more NATO contact.

[BoniO]

I believe Ukraine can't win this war, and if it goes on and on, Russia will win.
By supplying Ukraine with money and weapons, the West, is prolonging this war, which means more deaths.
It suits USA to have a weakened Russia, hence their interest in prolonging this war.
A neutral country(if there is one), must broker peace talks.
Once again, the UN has proved useless.
The death and suffering is truly terrible, and this war must end

Are you saying Ukranians must give up & become new Russians ?

Some Ukrainians already consider themselves to be Russian.

I've known some Scottish people who live and abide by the law of the land in England to still consider themselves Scottish.

[tuffers#1]

I believe Ukraine can't win this war, and if it goes on and on, Russia will win.
By supplying Ukraine with money and weapons, the West, is prolonging this war, which means more deaths.
It suits USA to have a weakened Russia, hence their interest in prolonging this war.
A neutral country(if there is one), must broker peace talks.
Once again, the UN has proved useless.
The death and suffering is truly terrible, and this war must end

Are you saying Ukranians must give up & become new Russians ?

Some Ukrainians already consider themselves to be Russian.

Only the ones born in Russia !

[The Mindsweep]

I believe Ukraine can't win this war, and if it goes on and on, Russia will win.
By supplying Ukraine with money and weapons, the West, is prolonging this war, which means more deaths.
It suits USA to have a weakened Russia, hence their interest in prolonging this war.
A neutral country(if there is one), must broker peace talks.
Once again, the UN has proved useless.
The death and suffering is truly terrible, and this war must end

Are you saying Ukranians must give up & become new Russians ?

Some Ukrainians already consider themselves to be Russian.

You're Scottish ain't you Max? Are you also George Galloway?

[Max B Gold]

I don't really get that argument, unless you think that the Bay of Pigs was fair enough and that America using spheres of influence as justification for f*cking it's neighbours over was actually justified. Which you don't.

No I don't.

But what you are struggling to grasp is the point that the US is not a near neighbour of Ukrainia or Russia (I checked the map) but wishes to meddle in the affairs of both as part of a wider policy of maintaining/imposing global military supremecy. Just ask Dunners what they are up to with China.

[StockholmO]

I believe Ukraine can't win this war, and if it goes on and on, Russia will win.
By supplying Ukraine with money and weapons, the West, is prolonging this war, which means more deaths.
It suits USA to have a weakened Russia, hence their interest in prolonging this war.
A neutral country(if there is one), must broker peace talks.
Once again, the UN has proved useless.
The death and suffering is truly terrible, and this war must end

This war could end tomorrow if Russia pulls out of Ukraine.

[Max B Gold]

Are you saying Ukranians must give up & become new Russians ?

Some Ukrainians already consider themselves to be Russian.

Only the ones born in Russia !

No. Also the so called "ethnic Russians" born in Ukrainia and various others who prefer to tilt to Russia for historical and confusing reasons.

[Max B Gold]

Are you saying Ukranians must give up & become new Russians ?

Some Ukrainians already consider themselves to be Russian.

You're Scottish ain't you Max? Are you also George Galloway?

I am a citizen of the world and if we all thought a bit more like that we might not have the conflicts we do.

If you think I sound like Galloway then you have severe comprehension problems reading what I am actually saying.

[tuffers#1]

I don't really get that argument, unless you think that the Bay of Pigs was fair enough and that America using spheres of influence as justification for f*cking it's neighbours over was actually justified. Which you don't.

No I don't.

But what you are struggling to grasp is the point that the US is not a near neighbour of Ukrainia or Russia (I checked the map) but wishes to meddle in the affairs of both as part of a wider policy of maintaining/imposing global military supremecy. Just ask Dunners what they are up to with China.

The Berring straight shows Russia & the U.S are closer to each other than London & Birmingham

[Max B Gold]

It's the collection of russian apologist talking points and shilling that have been shared for the last year by the weird fringe left. Nothing new or interesting in it at all.

Perhaps but it does add some much needed context.

Are you able to highlight for us the bits that are incorrect/false or misleading?

PS. Name calling only confuses and isn't actually in any way an argument or a refutation of the points you think it is. Only debate clarifies.

So much of this type of analysis either affords Ukraine zero agency ( everything they do is a ploy by NATO to attack Russia) or zero right to agency (how dare they seek ties with NATO).

It's basically saying it'd have been better if Russia had simply rolled over Ukraine in the first few weeks and then asserted complete dominance over their country, as they have done for the last several hundred years. This is euphemistically phrased as 'new regional security arrangements'.

This bit in particular:

'Without prolonged US intervention, the reality is that Ukraine would have had to come to an accommodation many years ago with its much larger, stronger neighbour - just as Mexico and Canada have had to do with the US. Invasion would have been avoided. Now Ukraine’s fate is largely out of its hands.'

Complete gubbins. 'If only Ukraine had accepted it's status as a client state of russia, it'd have it's autonomy.'

Highlighting the loss of free agency for Ukraine, whatever that is, because we live in an interdependent world ignores the meddling in Ukraine by the US and freelancers like Manafort, Bannon etc for some time.

[Max B Gold]

I don't really get that argument, unless you think that the Bay of Pigs was fair enough and that America using spheres of influence as justification for f*cking it's neighbours over was actually justified. Which you don't.

No I don't.

But what you are struggling to grasp is the point that the US is not a near neighbour of Ukrainia or Russia (I checked the map) but wishes to meddle in the affairs of both as part of a wider policy of maintaining/imposing global military supremecy. Just ask Dunners what they are up to with China.

The Berring straight shows Russia & the U.S are closer to each other than London & Birmingham

Irrelevant.

[tuffers#1]

Some Ukrainians already consider themselves to be Russian.

Only the ones born in Russia !

No. Also the so called "ethnic Russians" born in Ukrainia and various others who prefer to tilt to Russia for historical and confusing reasons.

Nope thats the Russian propagandist story they told Chechnea & Georgia before as well .

[tuffers#1]

No I don't.

But what you are struggling to grasp is the point that the US is not a near neighbour of Ukrainia or Russia (I checked the map) but wishes to meddle in the affairs of both as part of a wider policy of maintaining/imposing global military supremecy. Just ask Dunners what they are up to with China.

The Berring straight shows Russia & the U.S are closer to each other than London & Birmingham

Irrelevant.

Not at all . Why else was the TSR built ?

[Max B Gold]

The Berring straight shows Russia & the U.S are closer to each other than London & Birmingham

Irrelevant.

Not at all . Why else was the TSR built ?

It fails as a comparison because Ukrainia is not as close to USA as London is to Birmingham. Other than that ta for your input.

[Max B Gold]

Only the ones born in Russia !

No. Also the so called "ethnic Russians" born in Ukrainia and various others who prefer to tilt to Russia for historical and confusing reasons.

Nope thats the Russian propagandist story they told Chechnea & Georgia before as well .

Whilst it has been used as a propoganda tool you cannot ignore the FACT these people exist for historical reasons reaching back to the days of the USSR.

[tuffers#1]

Irrelevant.

Not at all . Why else was the TSR built ?

It fails as a comparison because Ukrainia is not as close to USA as London is to Birmingham. Other than that ta for your input.

It doesnt fail because you said the US isnt close to russia & you checked your map !!

[tuffers#1]

No. Also the so called "ethnic Russians" born in Ukrainia and various others who prefer to tilt to Russia for historical and confusing reasons.

Nope thats the Russian propagandist story they told Chechnea & Georgia before as well .

Whilst it has been used as a propoganda tool you cannot ignore the FACT these people exist for historical reasons reaching back to the days of the USSR.

Historical reasons ?
Kiev founded 5th Century ,
Moscow 12th Century
USSR/CCCP 20th Century.
Plbease carry on about History !!

[Max B Gold]

Nope thats the Russian propagandist story they told Chechnea & Georgia before as well .

Whilst it has been used as a propoganda tool you cannot ignore the FACT these people exist for historical reasons reaching back to the days of the USSR.

Historical reasons ?
Kiev founded 5th Century ,
Moscow 12th Century
USSR/CCCP 20th Century.
Plbease carry on about History !!

More irrelevancy. Point again missed by an Imperial mile.

I'm reviewing whether I need to put you back on foe.