Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

This was why I retracted the comment, I assumed that it meant the recent surge by Russia, not the original invasion. If not, then I still don't understand the point that was made. So having defensive armaments in case Russia invades (which they did) caused Russia to invade? Does anyone except paranoid Putin think that Ukraine was planning to attack Russia? How would any military build up in Ukraine (if it happened at all) be anything other than a defence in case Russia invaded. Demonstrably necessary I would say. 

 

 

It makes no sense at all because it is demonstrably not true

[NoelVilla]

16 minutes ago, tinker said:

Where did you get this story from? 

Some guy in a basement with a Youtube-channel

[avfc1982am]

35 minutes ago, villakram said:

One of the primary reasons for the Russian move was the ongoing arming of Ukraine and their calculation that in XX months time very little would be possible and their geo-strategic position would be significantly weakened given that Ukraine would not just sit and stare at it's shiny new toys. Somewhat of a chicken and egg situation for Ukraine of course, but one would suggest that earnest negotiations could have avoided all of this. Alas, the Minsk process was completely abandoned.

This US has no problem with this, as it's on someone else's doorstep, so away we went.

The absence of any desire for a negotiated settlement and all the associated zero-sum talk is a sad indictment of many.

So Ukraine were going to attack Russia with the vast amount of weapons they had but Russia beat them to it. Where you get this fairy tale from?

I don't doubt the US have no problem whatsoever with any scenario such is the love of a dollar bill but your little fantasy makes no sense. 

 

The West have been training them(Ukraine) for years but the idea Ukraine have been buying and storing Western weapons for an invasion of Russia is total bollox. 

The frontline in the Donbas or Crimea hadn't moved in 8 years but Ukraine in their wisdom thought. "Lets stack weapons up and wait until Russia have destroyed our Country and are blowing out their arse before we invade them back, rope a dope style". Makes a shit load of sense that does. Not. 

[magnkarl]

12 minutes ago, NoelVilla said:

Some guy in a basement with a Youtube-channel

Take your pick, George Galloway, Tulsi Gabbard, Tucker Carlsson, STWC, Elon, one of the pie-heads in the no to nato (yes to rubles) collective etc..

They have sway over the angry people in the basement.

My personal favourite..

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by magnkarl

[tinker]

3 minutes ago, NoelVilla said:

Some guy in a basement with a Youtube-channel

It would be very interesting to find out how his @villakram has formed his opinion on this war, his news sources or perhaps a YouTube channel or whatever. For him to believe what he does means Russia's media machine is successfully selling their version of events.  

[avfc1982am]

 

[avfc1982am]

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

2 hours ago, villakram said:

One of the primary reasons for the Russian move was the ongoing arming of Ukraine and their calculation that in XX months time very little would be possible and their geo-strategic position would be significantly weakened given that Ukraine would not just sit and stare at it's shiny new toys. Somewhat of a chicken and egg situation for Ukraine of course, but one would suggest that earnest negotiations could have avoided all of this. Alas, the Minsk process was completely abandoned.

This US has no problem with this, as it's on someone else's doorstep, so away we went.

The absence of any desire for a negotiated settlement and all the associated zero-sum talk is a sad indictment of many.

May I ask you a couple of simple question please. 

What is the aim of this war?  

If UKraine had unconditionally surrendered on day 1 what would have happened next? 

 

 

[villa89]

2 hours ago, tinker said:

Where did you get this story from? 

QANON or the Illuminati would be my guess.

[bannedfromHandV]

2 hours ago, tinker said:

Where did you get this story from? 

Qanon, Trump, Fox / GBNews…..or just good old Facebook, take your pick.

[avfc1982am]

I love TVP.... Straight to the point.

 

[avfc1982am]

Really good podcast on Wagner from the Times. 

 

[bickster]

Another problem for Sholz along with his coaltion Russian shills is that public opinion polls are only 42% in favour and 48% against Germany supplying Leopard 2 to Ukraine

[villakram]

Echo chamber much.

There were plenty of statements of a nationalistic tinge from the Ukrainian leadership over the past number of years and a move to disavow the Minsk II process. Not that any different should be really expected from the leaders of any country under threat (real or imagined, but that's a broader discussion). There was an ongoing slow burn conflict in the Donbass and many statements that they would take back the "rebel" areas.

There were also other interesting things occurring and/or planned, e.g., increasing large NATO exercises were planned to be hosted with the Ukrainian military. 

Now, if reading all of the above has triggered "Russia is justified in this war", which is not nor has been stated anywhere, you ought to question why that is so.

Why is it that this cannot be discussed and instead, Russia bad is the only thing worth saying.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

1 minute ago, villakram said:

Why is it that this cannot be discussed and instead, Russia bad is the only thing worth saying.

I wasn't aware that it couldn't be discussed.  But you just realise that you are in a minority on this forum because the majority support Ukraine.  

In Russia you cannot legally refer to this matter as a war.  The free speech you have on here is more than you would have if you posted on an equivalent site in Russia.  

I'd still like you to answer my earlier questions. 

What is the aim of this war?

If Ukraine surrendered unconditionally on day 1, what would Ukraine be like today? 

[fruitvilla]

There's a great Russian site to discuss things @villakram

Слава Астон Вилле

[avfc1982am]

46 minutes ago, villakram said:

Echo chamber much.

There were plenty of statements of a nationalistic tinge from the Ukrainian leadership over the past number of years and a move to disavow the Minsk II process. Not that any different should be really expected from the leaders of any country under threat (real or imagined, but that's a broader discussion). There was an ongoing slow burn conflict in the Donbass and many statements that they would take back the "rebel" areas.

There were also other interesting things occurring and/or planned, e.g., increasing large NATO exercises were planned to be hosted with the Ukrainian military. 

Now, if reading all of the above has triggered "Russia is justified in this war", which is not nor has been stated anywhere, you ought to question why that is so.

Why is it that this cannot be discussed and instead, Russia bad is the only thing worth saying.

Your talking in riddles and about nothing of real substance. Non of the above answers what others were asking in relation to your comments regarding NATO arming Ukraine prior to the war, hence Russia's invasion as you stated. 

Not only that but your now talking about "Nationalistic tinge" as some excuse for what is happening. Even mentioning the Donbas being under rebel control and Ukraine's rhetoric in wanting to take it back. If rebels control it then why wouldn't they want to reclaim that territory and return it to Ukraine? Nationalistic tinge happens everywhere and in every country when their back is to the wall. That is just a fact. Russia occupying the Donbas was always going to create Nationalistic and patriotic attitudes amongst Ukrainians. That doesn't mean they're Nazi's. 

If your going to come on here and make wild claims about Ukraine and why Russia have attacked them then add more substance to your argument because your post is lame.   

[avfc1982am]

It's seems to me that the Minsk agreements weren't really worth the paper they were written on and that Russia decided to manipulate it and the situation in the Donbas by giving Russian citizenship to 720,000 citizens in 2019.

 

Explainer: What Are the Minsk Agreements? - The Moscow Times

As tensions between Russia and the West over Ukraine remain at an all-time high, the 2015 Minsk protocols have become a key factor in discussions aimed at resolving the long-simmering conflict in eastern Ukraine.

France and Germany-mediated talks between Russia and Ukraine on Thursday in Berlin failed to reach a breakthrough despite nine hours of negotiations, with the Russian and Ukrainian sides disagreeing over their interpretations of the Minsk agreements.

Here’s a brief look at the Minsk agreements and why Ukraine and Russia have been unable to find a middle ground: 

What’s the difference between Minsk I and Minsk II?

The first Minsk Protocol was signed by Ukraine, Russia, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the pro-Russia separatist leaders in September 2014. Ukraine and the separatists agreed to an immediate 12-point ceasefire deal including withdrawal of heavy weapons and prisoner exchanges. But the agreement failed to stop the fighting, with frequent violations by both sides. 

Five months later, after Ukraine lost territory to pro-Russia separatists, Minsk II was signed. Representatives of Russia and Ukraine, mediated by France and Germany, signed a 13-point agreement in February 2015. The second agreement also quickly broke down, with the OSCE reporting around 200 weekly violations in 2016-2020 and more than 1,000 since 2021, according to Novaya Gazeta.

In addition to the ceasefire, Minsk II’s notable points include the withdrawal of weapons, monitoring of the ceasefire by the OSCE and the holding of local elections in the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics on their future status in Ukraine. 

Where do Russia and Ukraine disagree?

The major disagreements over Minsk II stem from differing interpretations of Russia’s role in the conflict and how the points should be implemented.

The Minsk accord does not contain any obligations that Russia is bound to fulfill. Moscow calls itself a mediator, like the OSCE, to help Ukraine and the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics reach an agreement, according to BBC Russia. 

Ukraine argues that point 10 of the Minsk agreement, which mentions the withdrawal of “all foreign armed forces” refers to Russia, while Russia denies having any military presence on the territories. 

The implementation order of political and military steps is another point on which Russia and Ukraine disagree. While Russia argues that elections in the separatist republics should come before the withdrawal of military equipment, Ukraine insists on the opposite. 

More than 720,000 people living in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions have obtained Russian citizenship under a simplified passport regime Russia adopted in 2019 — something Ukraine sees as a violation of the Minsk accord. 

Ukrainian law recognizes the Donetsk and Luhansk regions territories as occupied by Russia, and as a result Ukrainian officials argue that granting special status to these territories is unfeasible.

Who has said what about the Minsk accord? 

Mainstream Russian and Ukrainian media tend to reiterate arguments made by their countries’ officials. 

In Ukraine, the widely watched ICTV broadcaster debates about why exactly “the Minsk accord is dead” and news website Censor.net discuss why Russia misinterprets the Minsk agreements and how they should be rewritten. 

Russian state-run television refers to the Minsk agreements as “the only solution” to Russia-Ukraine tensions, echoing the statement made by Russian President Vladimir Putin in his Monday meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron.

Speaking to Macron on Tuesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenksiy said Ukraine is committed to fulfilling the Minsk accords, as long as this happens in the way Kyiv interprets them.

Earlier this year, Ukraine’s security chief argued that the full realization of the Minsk accord would lead to domestic destabilization that would give Russia the upper hand.

[Jareth]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

Why is it that this cannot be discussed and instead, Russia bad is the only thing worth saying.

But Russia has invaded Ukraine and raped and tortured children. There is absolutely no equivalence in this. How much clearer could it be? 

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

Echo chamber much.

There were plenty of statements of a nationalistic tinge from the Ukrainian leadership over the past number of years and a move to disavow the Minsk II process. Not that any different should be really expected from the leaders of any country under threat (real or imagined, but that's a broader discussion). There was an ongoing slow burn conflict in the Donbass and many statements that they would take back the "rebel" areas.

There were also other interesting things occurring and/or planned, e.g., increasing large NATO exercises were planned to be hosted with the Ukrainian military. 

Now, if reading all of the above has triggered "Russia is justified in this war", which is not nor has been stated anywhere, you ought to question why that is so.

Why is it that this cannot be discussed and instead, Russia bad is the only thing worth saying.

So a country being nationalist is an excuse for invading them, terror bombing them, ethnically cleansing them and taking their land?

How nationalist do you consider your own country?