28 Mar 22
1 edit
@no1marauder saidHere you go more misrepresentation, perhaps you should tell the Georgians that they were not actually invaded and did not lose a chunk of territory to Russian forces.
The Russians didn't conquer Georgia in 2008, did they? They haven't engaged in any military activities in the area since then, have they? Their slow motion conquest of Europe that you insist they are embarking on is sure taking a long time!
Your paranoid delusions are almost laughable; Russian "ambitions in the west" are hardly obvious nor has it insisted that NATO ret ...[text shortened]... hreat to other nations security? For a refutation of that silliness google "Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis".
Yeah that’s right Mr rational the Soviets retreated from central and Eastern Europe out of philanthropy.
You keep talking about the Serbs as if they were some innocent little peace loving country that nato bombed out of spite. They were and had carried out genocidal acts in the Balkan’s, they literally ethnically cleansed areas of Muslims and literally set up and operated death camps. They got bombed and they stopped, and Serb war criminals went to The Hague.
I suppose when you decide to defend indefensible fascist child murdering pigs like Putin and Milosovic etc you have to misrepresent reality.
28 Mar 22
@no1marauder saidHahaha yeah ‘safe passage to Russia and a concentration camp or taken to the east as far away as they can get them from Ukraine.
They're one on AlJazeera every day. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/27/russias-invasion-of-ukraine-list-of-key-events-from-day-32
Eyeballing it, the Russians seem to have made some gains in he last few days between Kyiv and Kharkiv and seem to have extended the area they control in the South. Mariupol seems hopelessly lost, but the Ukrainians there refuse to surrender despite a Russian offer of safe passage for both troops and civilians if they did.
To transport civilians that you’ve bombed out of their homes to your country is not safe passage it’s kidnap and hostage taking.
28 Mar 22
@kevcvs57 saidI read they were using them as slave labor.
Hahaha yeah ‘safe passage to Russia and a concentration camp or taken to the east as far away as they can get them from Ukraine.
To transport civilians that you’ve bombed out of their homes to your country is not safe passage it’s kidnap and hostage taking.
28 Mar 22
@earl-of-trumps saidThere are satellite pictures of a camp inside soviet territory. I saw an interview with a woman who was lucky enough to have relatives in Moscow so they sent her there.
I read they were using them as slave labor.
But as she relates Russian troops made them walk about six miles out of muriopol and gave them the choice of going to one of the breakaway states or Russia, so a bit of a Hobson’s choice at best and some of her neighbours were sent far to the east of Russia.
If they had given them the choice of going west via Belorussian territory then the choice would not have seemed so sinister.
28 Mar 22
From the link below:
"Meanwhile, more and more Russian flags have been observed going up in and around Mariupol, which appears still on the brink of total takeover by Russian forces amid fierce fighting.
And despite indications that Russia is most heavily focused to the east, Ukraine authorities say that Russian forces have continued to surround the capital of Kiev, as fighting is ongoing in the suburbs and it's believed the Russians are trying to choke off supply lines."
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukraine-says-russia-seeking-split-country-north-south-korea
Russia is winning. Stop believing the propaganda. It is obvious BS.
28 Mar 22
@kevcvs57 saidBut your claim is that Putin is out to conquer, at a minimum, the entire area previously held by the USSR. But that hardly comports with what happened in the Russia-Georgia war. As usual, your history absolutely sucks. In actual fact, it was Georgia that triggered the war by attacking two rebellious regions which had been separate from that nation since 1994:
Here you go more misrepresentation, perhaps you should tell the Georgians that they were not actually invaded and did not lose a chunk of territory to Russian forces.
Yeah that’s right Mr rational the Soviets retreated from central and Eastern Europe out of philanthropy.
You keep talking about the Serbs as if they were some innocent little peace loving country that nato bo ...[text shortened]... fensible fascist child murdering pigs like Putin and Milosovic etc you have to misrepresent reality.
"In early August 2008, after Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili sent troops into the rebellious province of South Ossetia, Russia came to its defense, beginning a five-day-long conflict that ended with Russian troops within striking distance of Tbilisi, the Georgian capital."
"The roots of the Russia-Georgia conflict go back to the early 1990s, when both Russia and Georgia were newly independent nations after the dissolution of the USSR. Civil war erupted within Georgia, located to the south of Russia on the eastern shore of the Black Sea, when two provinces—South Ossetia in eastern Georgia, and Abkhazia, on the northwestern coast—sought to declare their own independence.
“One can track [the 2008 conflict] back, really from the very beginning of the independence of Georgia, when Abkhazia in particular split away, and the Russians backed Abkhazia,” says Mark Galeotti, senior non-resident fellow at the Institute of International Relations Prague and an expert on modern Russian history and security affairs.
A ceasefire in 1994 ended the worst fighting, but tensions continued to simmer in the two breakaway provinces, which remained technically part of Georgia. Home to different ethnic groups, the Ossetians and the Abkhazians, they had been autonomous earlier in the 20th century, after the Russian Revolution, and they wanted their autonomy back."
https://www.history.com/news/russia-georgia-war-military-nato
You probably have been spoon fed so much propaganda you don't even know this. The Russians struck back, threw the Georgians out of the separatist regions and advanced into Georgian territory to force a cease fire. The war lasted a total of five days and Georgia lost no territory that they hadn't lost control of in 1994. How that fits into your narrative of Putin's lust for conquest is hard to say.
No, the Soviets retreated out of central and eastern Europe because, among other things, they received assurances from Western leaders that they wouldn't push NATO eastward. Instead, NATO became an aggressive, expanding military alliance that is a threat to the peace and security of the world.
Your "white, black hat" version of what happened during the breakup of Yugoslavia is typically one sided. There were atrocities on both sides in the Balkan wars and all three sides had individuals tried and convicted of war crimes. Of course, "genocide" is always the magic word the West uses when it wants to attack a smaller country but NATO didn't intervene against the Croats when they committed atrocities against Serbs (in fact, Germany was the main provider of military equipment used in their offensive):
""Croatian forces committed acts of murder, cruel treatment, inhumane acts, destruction, plunder, persecution and deportation. There was a widespread and systematic attack directed against this Serb civilian population, [creating] an environment in which those present there had no choice but to flee"
"The judges went further than finding two former generals guilty, ruling that the regime of the late President Franjo Tudjman planned a campaign of systematic violence to empty south-western Croatia of its Serbian minority in order to resettle the region with ethnic Croats."
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/apr/15/croatian-general-jailed-war-crimes#:~:text=%22Croatian%20forces%20committed%20acts%20of,leave%2C%22%20the%20judges%20found.
I assume you don't even know any of this. Serbs in Bosnia were denied the right to continue to be part of Yugoslavia, they rebelled and NATO eventually crushed them though it left the country of Bosnia in two separate zones that have little to do with each other. The one populated by Serbs continues to be dissatisfied with their forced political union. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/21/all-you-need-to-know-about-bosnias-crisis-in-600-words
NATO then decided to bomb Serbia to force it to detach Kosovo (the magic "G" word was used there as well) and was successful though why Albanians in Kosovo should have an independent State but Serbs in Bosnia should have to remain part of a hostile country hasn't been explained (certainly you haven't even tried).
I don't have to defend those who committed war crimes (who deserve punishment) to recognize that NATO intervention was one-sided and in the end, committed an injustice on Bosnian Serbs.
28 Mar 22
1 edit
@metal-brain saidDepends how you define winning I guess. If four weeks in your still haven’t fully captured a major city and your still having to use stand off weapons rather than getting boots on the ground then yeah they are winning.
From the link below:
"Meanwhile, more and more Russian flags have been observed going up in and around Mariupol, which appears still on the brink of total takeover by Russian forces amid fierce fighting.
And despite indications that Russia is most heavily focused to the east, Ukraine authorities say that Russian forces have continued to surround the capital of Kiev, ...[text shortened]... lit-country-north-south-korea
Russia is winning. Stop believing the propaganda. It is obvious BS.
But I think from Putins perspective ( given his expectations ) he’s losing and Zelensky must feel like his relatively small weak country is surely winning and we haven’t even got to the insurgency phase yet because Ukraines standing army is still standing.
28 Mar 22
@kevcvs57 saidZelensky still thinks he can, with NATO help, achieve a military victory. This fantasy has led him to unrealistic positions in the peace talks. As long as he continues to cling to it, there is little hope for the negotiated settlement that is the only realistic hope to end the war.
Depends how you define winning I guess. If four weeks in your still haven’t fully captured a major city and your still having to use stand off weapons rather than getting boots on the ground then yeah they are winning.
But I think from Putins perspective ( given his expectations ) he’s losing and Zelensky must feel like his relatively small weak country is surely winning and we haven’t even got to the insurgency phase yet because Ukraines standing army is still standing.
28 Mar 22
@no1marauder said“ But your claim is that Putin is out to conquer, at a minimum, the entire area previously held by the USSR. But that hardly comports with what happened in the Russia-Georgia war. As usual, your history absolutely sucks. In actual fact, it was Georgia that triggered the war by attacking two rebellious regions which had been separate from that nation since 1994: ”
But your claim is that Putin is out to conquer, at a minimum, the entire area previously held by the USSR. But that hardly comports with what happened in the Russia-Georgia war. As usual, your history absolutely sucks. In actual fact, it was Georgia that triggered the war by attacking two rebellious regions which had been separate from that nation since 1994:
"In early ...[text shortened]... ognize that NATO intervention was one-sided and in the end, committed an injustice on Bosnian Serbs.
Repeating Kremlin propaganda does not equate to a grasp on history it just means your in lock step with the Kremlin which would be obvious to any casual observer of this topic by now.
Usual Kremlin playbook stir up rebellion in its neighbours border declare a breakaway region subservient to Moscow then produce a pretext for using lethal force against the smaller neighbour and take the territory.
Just like Ukraine in fact are you being stupid or maliciously disingenuous again.
Putin is out to dominate politically and militarily central and Eastern Europe. Unfortunately unlike some Americans these Europeans have seen an authoritarian Russia up close for 50 years and unlike they do not trust the Kremlin not to wait for the dust to settle before they find another reason to attack a western neighbour and come away with more territory. Try flogging your BS version of history in the Baltic states if Poland or better yet tell the Georgians you and Putin know best regarding what parts of their territory they get to keep.
You must have loved the cold wad when only you guys and the Russians got a say in Europe huh.
28 Mar 22
@kevcvs57 saidSo history.com is "Kremlin propaganda" now?
“ But your claim is that Putin is out to conquer, at a minimum, the entire area previously held by the USSR. But that hardly comports with what happened in the Russia-Georgia war. As usual, your history absolutely sucks. In actual fact, it was Georgia that triggered the war by attacking two rebellious regions which had been separate from that nation since 1994: ”
Repeating ...[text shortened]... keep.
You must have loved the cold wad when only you guys and the Russians got a say in Europe huh.
28 Mar 22
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYou must be reading it with Putin glasses on.
So history.com is "Kremlin propaganda" now?
“ The Russo-Georgian War[note 3] was a war between Georgia, on one side, and Russia and the Russian-backed self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on the other. The war took place in August 2008 following a period of worsening relations between Russia and Georgia, both formerly constituent republics of the Soviet Union. The fighting took place in the strategically important South Caucasus region. It is regarded as the first European war of the 21st century.[31]
The Republic of Georgia declared its independence in early 1991 as the Soviet Union began to fall apart. Amid this backdrop, fighting between Georgia and separatists left parts of the former South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast under the de facto control of Russian-backed but internationally unrecognised separatists. Following the war, a joint peacekeeping force of Georgian, Russian, and Ossetian troops was stationed in the territory. A similar stalemate developed in the region of Abkhazia, where Abkhaz separatists had waged a war in 1992–1993. Following the election of Vladimir Putin in Russia in 2000 and a pro-Western change of power in Georgia in 2003, relations between Russia and Georgia began to deteriorate, reaching a full diplomatic crisis by April 2008. On 1 August 2008, the Russian-backed South Ossetian forces started shelling Georgian villages, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the area.[32][33][34][35][36] Intensifying artillery attacks by the South Ossetians broke a 1992 ceasefire agreement.[37][38][39][40] To put an end to these attacks, the Georgian army units were sent in to the South Ossetian conflict zone on 7 August.[41] Georgian troops took control of most of Tskhinvali, a separatist stronghold, in hours.
Some Russian troops had illicitly crossed the Russo-Georgian state border through the Roki Tunnel and advanced into the South Ossetian conflict zone by 7 August before the large-scale Georgian military response.[note 4][39][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] Russia accused Georgia of an "aggression against South Ossetia",[41] and launched a full-scale land, air and sea invasion of Georgia, including its undisputed territory, on 8 August, referring to it as a "peace enforcement" operation.[49] Russian and South Ossetian forces fought Georgian forces in and around South Ossetia for several days, until Georgian forces retreated. Russian and Abkhaz forces opened a second front by attacking the Kodori Gorge held by Georgia. Russian naval forces blockaded part of the Georgian Black Sea coastline. The Russian air force attacked targets both within and beyond the conflict zone. This was the first war in history in which cyber warfare coincided with military action. An information war was also waged during and after the conflict. Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France, personally negotiated a ceasefire agreement on 12 August.
Russian forces temporarily occupied the Georgian cities of Zugdidi, Senaki, Poti and Gori, holding on to these areas beyond the ceasefire. The South Ossetians destroyed most ethnic Georgian villages in South Ossetia and were responsible for an ethnic cleansing of Georgians.Russia recognised the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia on 26 August and the Georgian government severed diplomatic relations with Russia. Russia mostly completed its withdrawal of troops from undisputed parts of Georgia on 8 October. Russian international relations were largely unharmed. The war displaced 192,000 people. While many returned to their homes after the war, 20,272 people, mostly ethnic Georgians, remained displaced as of 2014. In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Russia maintained "direct control" over the separatist regions and was responsible for grave human rights abuses taking place there.[50][51]”
Does any of this playbook look familiar.
28 Mar 22
@kevcvs57 saidKinda: "On March 18, further peace talks in Paris collapsed after the Serbian delegation refused to sign a deal calling for Kosovo autonomy and the deployment of NATO troops to enforce the agreement."
You must be reading it with Putin glasses on.
“ The Russo-Georgian War[note 3] was a war between Georgia, on one side, and Russia and the Russian-backed self-proclaimed republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on the other. The war took place in August 2008 following a period of worsening relations between Russia and Georgia, both formerly constituent republics of the Sovie ...[text shortened]... for grave human rights abuses taking place there.[50][51]”
Does any of this playbook look familiar.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nato-bombs-yugoslavia
28 Mar 22
@no1marauder saidThat’s a very confusing aside it would make more sense if you were answering my critique of your misrepresentation of the NATO bombing of Serbia.
Kinda: "On March 18, further peace talks in Paris collapsed after the Serbian delegation refused to sign a deal calling for Kosovo autonomy and the deployment of NATO troops to enforce the agreement."
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nato-bombs-yugoslavia
28 Mar 22
@kevcvs57 saidIt's a direct answer to the question you asked in the last sentence of your prior post:
That’s a very confusing aside it would make more sense if you were answering my critique of your misrepresentation of the NATO bombing of Serbia.
kev: Does any of this playbook look familiar.
I don't think I "misrepresented" anything. You never seem to address the 1998 NATO bombing of Serbia but I'm sure the "G" word can be conveniently used there as well.
In truth, most of these disputes stem from the breakup of States in the 1990s and the fact that many regions in them were not granted self-determination. Both sides have picked and chosen which groups should be free of previous territorial arrangements. But that is a little too nuanced an assessment to fit your "white hat, black hat" view of the world.
28 Mar 22
@kevcvs57 saidUrban warfare this soon simply is not in the interest of Russia. They would lose soldiers which they need to occupy that big country and it would hurt morale. Cutting off supplies to the cities makes more sense. Smart.
Depends how you define winning I guess. If four weeks in your still haven’t fully captured a major city and your still having to use stand off weapons rather than getting boots on the ground then yeah they are winning.
But I think from Putins perspective ( given his expectations ) he’s losing and Zelensky must feel like his relatively small weak country is surely winning and we haven’t even got to the insurgency phase yet because Ukraines standing army is still standing.
Kiev will be surrounded soon. If Zelenskyy is in Kiev he will be dead sooner or later. He cannot live in a bunker forever. Ukraine is not taking back any territory it lost to Russia. Ukraine is losing despite getting the new switchblade kamikaze drones and other cool and new military toys. It is laughable to assert Ukraine is kicking butt when they keep losing territory to Russia.