Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[Real Name]

Yes.

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.

Talk about paranoia - to think that every dissenting view is merely a shadow puppet show, orchestrated by a single individual with a dual digital identity.

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.

And yet...you haven't provided this evidence.

Evidence is - trust me bro.

 

[Lemoor]

Why can't you people treat dissenting views, such as non-linear time, with respect they deserve?

 

[Real Name]

Russians have launched a massive missile attack on Kiev.

They're ready to talk about a peace deal.

 

[B. Munich]

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.

 

[B. Munich]

Why can't you people treat dissenting views, such as non-linear time, with respect they deserve?

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.

 

[VorZakone]

Plenty of evidence - now a mountains worth - that Russia and Ukraine were close to a deal at the start of the war to end it in exchange for Ukraine's neutrality (not entering NATO), but Biden and Boris Johnson blocked it, insisting Zelensky go to war and win.

He went for it and got mauled.

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.

 

[B. Munich]

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.

 

[Enigma_87]

Plenty of evidence - now a mountains worth - that Russia and Ukraine were close to a deal at the start of the war to end it in exchange for Ukraine's neutrality (not entering NATO), but Biden and Boris Johnson blocked it, insisting Zelensky go to war and win.

He went for it and got mauled.

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.

 

[stefan92]

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.

 

[Morty_]

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.

 

[Enigma_87]

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.

Right.
The second option was really the only option as well as otherwise they would be another Belarus.

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[YouOnlyLiveTwice]

@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.

 

[stefan92]

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?

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.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

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.

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.

 

[Lemoor]

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.

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.

 

[africanspur]

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.

 

[Suedesi]

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?

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)

 

[stefan92]

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.

 

[Lemoor]

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.

 

[Suedesi]

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...

 

[NicolaSacco]

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...

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.

 

[Raoul]

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.

 

[VorZakone]

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 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".

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[VorZakone]

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 is not that special. Good on certain things, horrible on others. Not a Russian "agent", just someone who over-corrects in his anti-Western views (Milosevic apologist etc).

 

[atkar83]

Lets say we even entertain the dumb idea that this war did start because Ukraine didn't agree not staying neutral and out of NATO, how does that absolve what Russia has done since? Firing tonnes of missiles into residential areas and killing tens of thousands of civilians, using banned munitions, raping, murdering and torture in areas they've taken over, the kidnapping of children and moving them to other areas, destroying infrastructure just to make the people starve/suffer more. All this is deserved by Ukraine just because they entertained entering NATO according to Moscow? Isn't that a good sign they should have entered NATO a hell of a long time ago?

 

[VorZakone]

Lets say we even entertain the dumb idea that this war did start because Ukraine didn't agree not staying neutral and out of NATO, how does that absolve what Russia has done since? Firing tonnes of missiles into residential areas and killing tens of thousands of civilians, using banned munitions, raping, murdering and torture in areas they've taken over, the kidnapping of children and moving them to other areas, destroying infrastructure just to make the people starve/suffer more. All this is deserved by Ukraine just because they entertained entering NATO according to Moscow? Isn't that a good sign they should have entered NATO a hell of a long time ago?

What they're really saying is that Ukraine, for its own sake, should have submitted itself to Putin's wishes. And they would have been spared this outcome. Which is a debatable argument in itself.

Hardcore pro-Russian people probably absolve Russia but others frame it as a realpolitik thing, "you should have waited until Putin died" kind of framing. Which, in my opinion, is also just a shitty argument.

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Lemoor]

What they're really saying is that Ukraine, for its own sake, should have submitted itself to Putin's wishes. And they would have been spared this outcome. Which is a debatable argument in itself.

Hardcore pro-Russian people probably absolve Russia but others frame it as a realpolitik thing, "you should have waited until Putin died" kind of framing. Which, in my opinion, is also just a shitty argument.

If you're talking about Suedesi, he unironically made a point "Ukraine should have just focused on joining EU, but stay out of NATO", which is something special when coupled with his insights on Maidan.

 

[Raoul]

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.

That is my argument on Ukraine as well, except as you say Russia is largely a regional power and just as they could bully Ukraine militarily, they are just as vulnerable to being bullied by the west militarily (by way of arming Ukraine), economically through sanctions and so on.

That's a very different argument from Suedesi, who is clearly clutching at straws by way of random Putin talking points to defend his flimsy, half thought out position that war was avoidable if Ukraine simply capitulated to Putin's demands. That has long been debunked by Putin's own words.

 

[Simbo]

Russia blowing up its own boats now.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

Russia blowing up its own boats now.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Some epic fail, that.

 

[VorZakone]

Western democracies are giving Vladimir Putin so much cash that he’s having to hide it.

The answer for Russia is to pretend that it’s making less money from the West than it really is. “The incentives are for Russia to make things look less amazing than perhaps they are,” said Brooks.

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2024/03/ugly-truth-russia-putin-money-sanctions

 

[VorZakone]

The FT article among other things mentions the worries about rising gas prices in an election year.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Rajma]

The FT article among other things mentions the worries about rising gas prices in an election year.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Cynical cowards, didn’t provide Ukraine with required weapons during the previous years and brought Ukraine to the breaking point by halting the aid completely since the last September. I genuinely hate Biden administration as much as Trump, woefully incompetent and useless. That’s probably the main reason behind Sullivan’s recent visit to Ukraine.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[B. Munich]

Cynical cowards, didn’t provide Ukraine with required weapons during the previous years

I agree it's terrible that US politics are carried out on the back of the Ukrainians.

However, it's clearly the GOP (aka Trump) which are blocking the funds for weapons and aid to the Ukraine for months now.
60 billions USD are blocked.

Very similar to the southern border crisis where Trump is playing an extremely dirty game. On one hand he attacks Biden for the border crisis while on the other hand it's Trump and his Republicans who block any measures to solve the crisis just for political gains.

I'm honestly puzzled that not more Americans are outraged by this hypocrisy.

 

[Simbo]

The FT article among other things mentions the worries about rising gas prices in an election year.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Interesting conundrum. Some Ukr will be thinking they need to carry on until US gives them an alternative, but its the same yanks blocking aid that would love rising energy prices in an election year.

 

[Siorac]

The FT article among other things mentions the worries about rising gas prices in an election year.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

And what if Ukraine keeps attacking the refineries? Will the US decrease the aid from the, erm, $0 that they provided over the last few months?

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

The FT article among other things mentions the worries about rising gas prices in an election year.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Zelensky should tell those feckers to eat a pie. Fire everything at the refineries and destroy Putin's economy; that is how you can win a war in the long term.

Sounds to me this bullshit is more like stuff expressed by the big oil cartel, especially those in the Middle-East.