Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/05/is-the-u-s-actually-trying-to-help-ukraine
Here's former PM of Israel Naftali Bennet, saying that Western leaders blocked Ukraine / Russia peace deal which he negotiated on Zelensky's request in March '22 because they wanted to continue to strike Putin. He says that there was good chance of such deal.
At least you don't deny you're on the "let Russia win" camp. The mask is finally slipping off .
Some tweets all from the same person...a mountain of conclusive proof right there. Weren't you the muppet banging on about Hunter Biden last year as well?
I'm really failing to understand your logic here to be honest. I have summarized in chronological steps to what you believe the timeline of events were. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but let's just assume you are correct.
1. Ukraine and Russia is at peace, sans Little Green men in Donetsk and Luhansk.
2. Russia Invades.
3. War kicks off properly and officially.
4. After X time Russia and Ukraine start negotiating peace deal.
5. Talks scuppered due to Western pressure on Ukrainian side.
6. Bloodbath for 2 years.
That's a reductive summary for what you believe happened right?
So, assuming this is what actually happened...Why do you blame the war on the west for 5) in the series of events, but somehow Russia is not at fault for 2) despite, you know, rolling Combat Battalion groups into Ukraine and launching a full scale invasion?
Let's ignore for a minute the questionable source, the fact that time is linear and that these supposed negotiations about peace deals took place in March while Russia's invasion of Ukraine began in February (for starters, the Bucha massacre was an ongoing event at the time). And also the fact that at the time everyone thought the UA wouldn't last a month against the RA and therefore strong, decisive actions to support Ukraine and/or punish Russia unfolded very slowly.
By the same source here provided, accepting said peace deals meant Zelensky:
A) Going against Ukraine's constitution (which means he would probably be deposed instantly)
B) Legally recognising Russia's sovereignity over Crimea.
C) Legally recognising the independence of two new republics in his own territory.
D) Trusting the word of a leader that had just recently invaded them, had broken tonnes of agreements before, and was at the moment perpetrating massacres on civilians like the previously mentioned in Bucha.
So... No, you're gonna need something stronger than that.
By the same source here provided, accepting said peace deals meant Zelensky:
A) Going against Ukraine's constitution (which means he would probably be deposed instantly)
B) Legally recognising Russia's sovereignity over Crimea.
C) Legally recognising the independence of two new republics in his own territory.
D) Trusting the word of a leader that had just recently invaded them, had broken tonnes of agreements before, and was at the moment perpetrating massacres on civilians like the previously mentioned in Bucha.
So... No, you're gonna need something stronger than that.
Where does it say that those countries control Ukraine though? Even if Ukraine did want to have a peace treaty (and if that was a realistic prospect) - what's the issue with the UK and US saying 'you're on your own if you do that' ? Are they not allowed to have an opinion and foresee consequences?
I mean, if Ukraine would have been about to sign that treaty and the UK and US would have instantly replaced their leadership with people who wouldn't sign, then sure, Ukraine clearly would have been a puppet state. But even if all you say is true, all that happened is that Ukraine was provided with a choice and choose to stay closely aligned with the UK and the US. Just as all of eastern Europe has had a choice in their geopolitical orientation since the fall of the USSR and have generally consistently chosen to be on the side of the EU and the US.
To me, all this says more about how unattractive the idea of alignment with Russia continues to be. But I don't think that's the point you were trying to make.
So dramatic - the mask is slipping off, feckinell. I'd say I'm a realist, and Russia has won on the ground. Unless Ukraine can reverse the course of the war, perhaps it should for peace?
Let's start at time 0: US conspires to overthrow the democratically elected government in Ukraine through the Maidan coup, picks the successor gov't and sets it for collision with Russia, in order to fight a proxy war with a longstanding adversary.
Interesting. I was there in 2013 (note the protests did not kick off in 2014) in the first set of protests.
My partner's brother in law was one of the Майдан organizers, as he was working as a parliamentary assistant to Kyrylenko. I had dinner with many figures in the movement such as Igor Lutsenko, Irena Karper and Olek Sushko . Many of them I still remain in contact with through various forms of media despite not stepping foot in Ukraine since 2016. I've even had a conversation with Poroshenko. A lot of my time in Kyiv was spent discussing what was going on, the motivations, what the org groups wanted.
Are you saying that all my Ukrainian friends and family of my partner are all....American stooges?
Don't bother. This is straight out of the Russian playbook again: they also say and even teach it in their schools that the 1956 uprising in Hungary was also somehow a CIA operation.
That's just plain wrong. You are just repeating Putin's propaganda lies.
The wall street journal article a few weeks ago refuted this thesis.
Ukraine was ready to negotiate but Russia didn't. Instead they came up with a catalog, which was simply unacceptable.
Demilitarize the Ukraine and leaving the country helpless to answer a new Russian aggression in the future. Not allowed to join NATO. Crimea staying under Russian rule. No solution about the occupied parts in the east of Ukraine.
Selensky was ready to negotiate with Putin. However, Putin refused to sit down with Selensky. The Russian negotiators were low level bureaucrats who had no real power to take decisions. Lavrow was their for a couple of days but only stated he doesn't have the authority to take any decisions. It was a farce!
During the negotiations the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians in Butcha happened. Mariupol was completely annihilated.
So please stop spouting this nonsense about Russia being serious about peace talks.
Right on cue.
Of all the pro Russian lines the 'West is at fault for Russian's agression and not the ones who are doing it' is the best one.
I'd love to hear your views on Ukrainian statehood and history.
Its not about paranoia, its about your posts sounding like every other pro Russian one.
Whatever they say you just believe it and repeat it. For instance that notion they're aways ready to talk about peace. Sure, we're bombing you, killing you, turning your cities into a rubble but why wont you talk to us.
That line about a deal at the start of the war is hilarious. Russians were massing their troops and after they started the attack they were already ready for a deal. Sure mate.
Evidence is - trust me bro.
Last edited:
Why can't you people treat dissenting views, such as non-linear time, with respect they deserve?
Russians have launched a massive missile attack on Kiev.
They're ready to talk about a peace deal.
They're ready to talk about a peace deal.
Last edited:
I wonder how the world would look like, if the allies had believed the narrative spread by Nazi Germany about who is responsible for the war like some here fell for Putin's propaganda.
The problem is that it's unbelievable hard to discuss with people who post pure propaganda without any facts. Be it the Putin's narrative or the MAGA crowd which just dismisses any facts they don't like as fake news.
It's an huge problem that is getting more and more difficult to discuss certain topics in a civilized matter based on facts.
There isn't mountains of evidence to support that. The WSJ had an article a couple of weeks ago. Ukrainian minister Kuleba said there were no binding commitments. The discovery of Bucha was one of the turning points.
Granted, you may or may not believe the article and what the Ukrainians say. But to suggest there is mountains of credible evidence...I haven't seen it.
In Putin own words he said in his latest interview.
"Why would we negotiate with Ukraine now when they are running out of ammunition? Thus would incredibly stupid."
Putin isn't interested in peace deal. He wants to annex the Ukraine and rebuilt the former USSR.
"Why would we negotiate with Ukraine now when they are running out of ammunition? Thus would incredibly stupid."
Putin isn't interested in peace deal. He wants to annex the Ukraine and rebuilt the former USSR.
There's absolutely no way Ukraine should accept any deal that prevents them to enter NATO. There's absolutely no guarantee Putin won't invade again so accepting a deal like that would be mental from Ukraine and bordering near stupidity.
And even if they did... At the time it was quite clear that two proposals to Ukraine existed:
Russia: give us everything we want voluntarily and make sure that we can invade you whenever we feel the need to in the future (to ensure that we will also in the future get what we want from you)
NATO/EU: Keep fighting and we will support you and you will have the perspective to join us at some point in the future.
Ukraine decided to take the second option. It seemed to be the lesser evil and every Ukrainian I know (which are not many, but just a few) absolutely think it is the right decision to not let Russia dictate what happens, especially not after Russia started the war. Even those who before were quite friendly towards Russia or even lived in Russia for some time.
The problem isn't that Ukraine decided to go that way, but more likely that the support they got wasn't up to the required level, which is quite sad. So I get if someone thinks Ukraine was betrayed or mislead in a way, but claiming that they were forced to refuse the "peace deal" which was much closer to a complete capitulation is just stupid.
The fundamental problem remains, Russia don't view Ukrainians as real people, nor Ukraine as a real country, they admit as much every so often.
At the end of the day, Russia wants every Ukrainian dead or enslaved, you can't have discussions with a foe like that, which is why Ukraine itself are the ones most opposed to any kind of "peace" deal.
It doesn't solve anything, it just pushes the can down the road a few years, and then, Russia will build up and go for rest of Ukraine anyway.
At the end of the day, Russia wants every Ukrainian dead or enslaved, you can't have discussions with a foe like that, which is why Ukraine itself are the ones most opposed to any kind of "peace" deal.
It doesn't solve anything, it just pushes the can down the road a few years, and then, Russia will build up and go for rest of Ukraine anyway.
Right.
The second option was really the only option as well as otherwise they would be another Belarus.
Unfortunately it wasn't and it isn't. There's also a question in what direction will the USA go with most probably Trump winning the elections. Having said that Ukraine are doing quite well all things considered.
I mean it has probably 1:10 of the resources Russia have. They are able to recoup and then keep the front for months with little support, not able to add convicts and other crap into the meatgrinder and generally doing more strategic attacks rather than the scattered and terrorist approach Putin is doing.
I'm not sure if it is stupid or plain propaganda. It's quite clear that Putin has converted the economy one. You don't do that if you want peace. You have people claiming he wants to sit on the table but that's only to generate unrest within the supporting countries. Why would he want to strike a peace deal and generally try to annex few villages(considering he already had control of Luhansk and Donetsk since 2014) at the cost of all the reparations and losses on the battlefield?
@Suedesi
I hope you come back from the dark side of the propaganda one day and see Russia for what it is, if you ever supported Ukrainian right to decide for themselves in the first place that is.
I hope you come back from the dark side of the propaganda one day and see Russia for what it is, if you ever supported Ukrainian right to decide for themselves in the first place that is.
Those "peace talks" happened very early into the war, at the time Russia hadn't converted to war economy yet. And that peace deal reportedly had conditions that came close to just giving Russia what they wanted without a fight.
How can this be time 0 though.
Surely we should start time 0 at the creation of an independent state backed under international treaty with Russia guaranteeing its borders in exchange for the nuclear missiles stationed inside Ukraine.
Then we could then look at Russia changing its mind when Putin comes to power and all the events that led to Maidan.
You can always tell the Russian apologists by where they want to start the clock.
Pure propaganda doesn't neccessarily have to mean that it's wrong, to me a bigger problem is how he uses those talking points. It's obvious that's he doesn't actually care how culpable Johnson is for the situation, he just uses it because it kind of sounds like it fits his belief that he obviously held for a lot longer than the invasion and gives him the pretense of having anything to back his shit up. He just uses this as ammunition for slinging shit against the wall and the moment anyone engages him in anything even remotely resembling good faith, he immidiately retreats or switches the subject.
It's not as much about bad choice of sources as it is just deeply dishonest behavior from him.
Isn't Sudesis position essentially just a variation of Raoul's position on foreign affairs? That might is right? Except Russian might is more regional compared to the American global might.
I disagree fundamentally with Sudesi on this, as I do with Raoul.
I disagree fundamentally with Sudesi on this, as I do with Raoul.
Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.
Here's the puppet master at work
And here's a BBC piece at the time talking about the links between the new Ukrainian government and Neo-nazis. (I'm sure it's Russian propaganda, and all the people interviewed are Moscow actors)
Was it in US interest to support Ukrainians who wanted to break free from Russian influence? Yes
Did they try to influence the protests? Probably
Is it surprising that nationalists / neo-nazis want to improve the independence of their country? No
Do those neo-nazis need advise or payment from the CIA to advocate derussification? No
Did the CIA pay everyone to protest? Surely not
Russian propaganda works well by taking some truth and taking it out of context or just overexaggerating that, the Ukrainian Nazis are an excellent example for that. Yes they exist, but that doesn't mean that they control the whole country like Russia claims. It's also probably fair to assume that the US poured some oil in the fire, but they didn't start it.
Yanukovych and Putin are on CIA's payroll too, since they triggered those protests in the first place and used force on those protesters.
And here's the great John Pilger calling it right - "above all, this is a war of propaganda, and I think almost nothing one reads in the Western press about the invasion of Ukraine is to be trusted. The skills of skepticism, but I'm not sure the reading public, the watching public particularly in the United States possesses that is crucial now because nothing can be believed. Everyday when I scan the media, I look at the source and it's Ukrainian intelligence. The propaganda operation in Ukraine is quite brilliant. They've managed to invent a chemical warfare attack when there wasn't one. They've managed to keep out of the Western media that so much of Ukraine is infested, if not run by, infested with true extremists, fascists, neo-N@zis they're called. The United States may be about to fight, or to encourage a war in which it plays a leading role in Ukraine. What to remember here is the US doesn't give a damn about Ukraine. Ukraine is simply a pawn in this. But the object as the US Defense Secretary says (and I paraphrase him) is to destroy the Russian Federation. That's been known for a long time. That is the most dangerous project in the world today, because the Russians are not going to allow that."
John Pilger everybody, clearly a Russian agent...
John Pilger everybody, clearly a Russian agent...
Jesus Christ I’ve just made the mistake of reading your post history to see if this is a one-off brain fart from you, or not. I need to bleach my eyes. Your agenda is so very, very obvious.
Yeah, its not worth engaging as he clearly isn't able to have a rational conversation without spamming up the page with conspiracy theories or pro-Putin talking points.
I don't think Raoul would say something to the tune of "Iraq provoked US to invade", while Suedesi does make the argument that "Russia was provoked".