Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 1
Last scraped
Edited on 18/04/2025, 10:14:57 UTC
The bigger the picture the better the argument?
Oh again your fixation... Well let's then talk about what is acceptable...
- On one side you are ok with the imperial vision of Ruzzia as dominant power with full right to impose conditions around and have an area of influence. You are absolutely ok with Ruzzia trying to change a government, not even by soft power, but by direct anhilation.
- while at the same time you complain because someone else think of themselves exactly in the same terms and does the same things (in you view anyway).
Basically, you are complaning of another taur being better a cheating = at a cheater's poker table - than you.You cannot be taken seriously.
Either you accept an imperialistic view, in which case Ruzzia is clearly loosing the case or you are in favour of allowing people to vote, in which case... you are also loosing it.
BTW again and again and again...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation
Anyone can see why Ukraine was seeking allies, not the other way around.
Again and again... Putin does not need a reason to think he owns half the world...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
That's where we partially agree. The fact is that there is no reason whatsoever to allow another country to change Ukrainian government at a whim. I'm sure everyone would agree that a third highest diplomat from a country on another continent, bringing cookies and supporting coup d'etat against dully elected democratic government is direct meddling by everyone's definition. As we're all well aware, it has been done all over the world, but Ukraine was a red line for Russia, which US decided to ignore. Putin is irrelevant here, we see that Russian elites, generals, and society in general are willing to spill their blood over Ukraine because it is an existential threat for Russia. Thinking that the same applies to Poland (that NATO in Poland is an existential threat to Russia) is just a scary propaganda Ukraine pushes to drum up support for itself, since it became clear that continuing to take Ukraine with force is just no longer of interest for the west.
[...]
Nuland is also heard weighing in on the make-up of the next Ukrainian government.
She is heard telling Ambassador Pyatt that she doesn’t think Vitaly Klitschko, the boxer-turned-politician who is a main opposition leader, should have a role in a new government.
“So I don’t think Klitsch (Klitschko) should go into the government,” she said. “I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea.”
She also comments on possible future roles for the two other main protest leaders, Ukraine's former economy minister Arseny Yatseniuk and Oleh Tyahnybok, the far-right nationalist opposition leader.
“I think [Yatseniuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. What he needs is [Klitschko] and [Tyahnybok] on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week,” Nuland said in the recording.
[/b][/url]
but i'm sure you'll find a way to justify this with American exceptionalism and how that's somehow totally acceptable
You're once again (at this point I'm assuming intentionally) confusing the cause and effect. Dropping oil prices is the effect of the world going into recession, we already see that USA stopped allocating money to Ukraine and now ask yourself what will happen to European aid to Ukraine once Europe itself enters into a recession. But keep on drumming up support to encourage more Ukrainian young to go to the front lines, knowing the futility of this and that outcome has already been decided
[...]
Nuland is also heard weighing in on the make-up of the next Ukrainian government.
She is heard telling Ambassador Pyatt that she doesn’t think Vitaly Klitschko, the boxer-turned-politician who is a main opposition leader, should have a role in a new government.
“So I don’t think Klitsch (Klitschko) should go into the government,” she said. “I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea.”
She also comments on possible future roles for the two other main protest leaders, Ukraine's former economy minister Arseny Yatseniuk and Oleh Tyahnybok, the far-right nationalist opposition leader.
“I think [Yatseniuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. What he needs is [Klitschko] and [Tyahnybok] on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week,” Nuland said in the recording.
[/b][/url]
but i'm sure you'll find a way to justify this with American exceptionalism and how that's somehow totally acceptableYou're once again (at this point I'm assuming intentionally) confusing the cause and effect. Dropping oil prices is the effect of the world going into recession, we already see that USA stopped allocating money to Ukraine and now ask yourself what will happen to European aid to Ukraine once Europe itself enters into a recession. But keep on drumming up support to encourage more Ukrainian young to go to the front lines, knowing the futility of this and that outcome has already been decided
Oh again your fixation... Well let's then talk about what is acceptable...
- On one side you are ok with the imperial vision of Ruzzia as dominant power with full right to impose conditions around and have an area of influence. You are absolutely ok with Ruzzia trying to change a government, not even by soft power, but by direct anhilation.
- while at the same time you complain because someone else think of themselves exactly in the same terms and does the same things (in you view anyway).
Basically, you are complaning of another taur being better a cheating = at a cheater's poker table - than you.You cannot be taken seriously.
Either you accept an imperialistic view, in which case Ruzzia is clearly loosing the case or you are in favour of allowing people to vote, in which case... you are also loosing it.
BTW again and again and again...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation
Quote
n February and March 2014, Russia invaded the Crimean Peninsula, part of Ukraine, and then annexed it. This took place in the relative power vacuum[34] immediately following the Revolution of Dignity. It marked the beginning of the Russo-Ukrainian War.
Anyone can see why Ukraine was seeking allies, not the other way around.
Again and again... Putin does not need a reason to think he owns half the world...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
Quote
The August 2008 Russo-Georgian War, also known as the Russian invasion of Georgia,[note 3] was a war waged against Georgia by the Russian Federation and the Russian-backed separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The fighting took place in the strategically important South Caucasus region. It is regarded as the first European war of the 21st century.[31]
We had a relative stability in the last 50years because there was an understanding not to encroach on another nuclear power bordering countries, breaking that rule is the fastest way to a war. No one doubts for a second what US navy would do if China decided to enter Cuba.
You must either support for Russians to have their bases/nuclear weapons in Cuba (we know how that turned out), or for US to get out of Ukraine, but you just can't have it both ways without a war. It really is that simple.
And why did Russia took Crimea, what preceded that? Could it be that someone showed up with cookies in Ukraine and supported a coup d'etat against dully elected democratic government? You keep conveniently leaving out the root cause of this all.
Oh, I see... your point is that, according to you, "US did it first" and also Ruzzia is justified because they are a nuclear power and Ukraine must therefore be under their influence to ensure peace. It would have been easier without so many (repetitive) pictures and noise.
So you are accusing the US of creating security issues by allowing Ukraine to fall out of the Ruzzian "sphere".
My first comment is that Ukrainians should have a say. I know you do not believe that people can choose and they have to accept whatever Moscow decides, but that is actually the type of thinking that leads to wars over and over in Europe - Empires and spheres instead of democracy and public accountability. This has been historically proven over and over.
But if you decide that this about empires then security is not a priority. Empires do not care about it, they care about expanding, getting more "subjects" and resources... but historically they have been fine with war. There is not a rule that says you need to allow other to develop and maintain their empire - there will be soft-power and even proxy wars under that mentality. Empires do not last forever.
And I hear you say: But Ruzzia has nukes and that is what makes it a dominant power able to impose their will and determine how their "border estates" (thanks for recognising Ukraine BTW). That is not true. The nature of nuclear weapons does not make them generally usable in an offensive conflict, so it makes Ruzzia safer from an substantive invasion of its territory or from major interferences, but it does not work to invade others - not too well anyway. Also, other countries may be tempted to acquire nuclear capabilities (Poland) or, more likely, to increase existing like France or the UK.
Then there is the Ruzzian army, which is another imperial weapon of choice. But it is not doing well, in fact it is being quite close to being ridiculed by a much smaller country.
I guess it is hard for a proud ex-empire, led by an old KGB guy and an oversized army that Ruzzia may no longer be what it used to - although it would have been better to understand it and avoid millions of deaths on both sides.
Funny you speak about Cuba, I mean, kind of a USSR land-based aircraft carrier during decades. And I guess even more funny since the US tried to invade and failed - like Ruzzia in Ukraine maybe.
Original archived Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress]
Scraped on 11/04/2025, 10:14:53 UTC
The bigger the picture the better the argument?
Oh again your fixation... Well let's then talk about what is acceptable...
- On one side you are ok with the imperial vision of Ruzzia as dominant power with full right to impose conditions around and have an area of influence. You are absolutely ok with Ruzzia trying to change a government, not even by soft power, but by direct anhilation.
- while at the same time you complain because someone else think of themselves exactly in the same terms and does the same things (in you view anyway).
Basically, you are complaning of another taur being better a cheating = at a cheater's poker table - than you.You cannot be taken seriously.
Either you accept an imperialistic view, in which case Ruzzia is clearly loosing the case or you are in favour of allowing people to vote, in which case... you are also loosing it.
BTW again and again and again...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation
Anyone can see why Ukraine was seeking allies, not the other way around.
Again and again... Putin does not need a reason to think he owns half the world...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
That's where we partially agree. The fact is that there is no reason whatsoever to allow another country to change Ukrainian government at a whim. I'm sure everyone would agree that a third highest diplomat from a country on another continent, bringing cookies and supporting coup d'etat against dully elected democratic government is direct meddling by everyone's definition. As we're all well aware, it has been done all over the world, but Ukraine was a red line for Russia, which US decided to ignore. Putin is irrelevant here, we see that Russian elites, generals, and society in general are willing to spill their blood over Ukraine because it is an existential threat for Russia. Thinking that the same applies to Poland (that NATO in Poland is an existential threat to Russia) is just a scary propaganda Ukraine pushes to drum up support for itself, since it became clear that continuing to take Ukraine with force is just no longer of interest for the west.
[...]
Nuland is also heard weighing in on the make-up of the next Ukrainian government.
She is heard telling Ambassador Pyatt that she doesn’t think Vitaly Klitschko, the boxer-turned-politician who is a main opposition leader, should have a role in a new government.
“So I don’t think Klitsch (Klitschko) should go into the government,” she said. “I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea.”
She also comments on possible future roles for the two other main protest leaders, Ukraine's former economy minister Arseny Yatseniuk and Oleh Tyahnybok, the far-right nationalist opposition leader.
“I think [Yatseniuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. What he needs is [Klitschko] and [Tyahnybok] on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week,” Nuland said in the recording.
[/b][/url]
but i'm sure you'll find a way to justify this with American exceptionalism and how that's somehow totally acceptable
You're once again (at this point I'm assuming intentionally) confusing the cause and effect. Dropping oil prices is the effect of the world going into recession, we already see that USA stopped allocating money to Ukraine and now ask yourself what will happen to European aid to Ukraine once Europe itself enters into a recession. But keep on drumming up support to encourage more Ukrainian young to go to the front lines, knowing the futility of this and that outcome has already been decided
[...]
Nuland is also heard weighing in on the make-up of the next Ukrainian government.
She is heard telling Ambassador Pyatt that she doesn’t think Vitaly Klitschko, the boxer-turned-politician who is a main opposition leader, should have a role in a new government.
“So I don’t think Klitsch (Klitschko) should go into the government,” she said. “I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea.”
She also comments on possible future roles for the two other main protest leaders, Ukraine's former economy minister Arseny Yatseniuk and Oleh Tyahnybok, the far-right nationalist opposition leader.
“I think [Yatseniuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. What he needs is [Klitschko] and [Tyahnybok] on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week,” Nuland said in the recording.
[/b][/url]
but i'm sure you'll find a way to justify this with American exceptionalism and how that's somehow totally acceptableYou're once again (at this point I'm assuming intentionally) confusing the cause and effect. Dropping oil prices is the effect of the world going into recession, we already see that USA stopped allocating money to Ukraine and now ask yourself what will happen to European aid to Ukraine once Europe itself enters into a recession. But keep on drumming up support to encourage more Ukrainian young to go to the front lines, knowing the futility of this and that outcome has already been decided
Oh again your fixation... Well let's then talk about what is acceptable...
- On one side you are ok with the imperial vision of Ruzzia as dominant power with full right to impose conditions around and have an area of influence. You are absolutely ok with Ruzzia trying to change a government, not even by soft power, but by direct anhilation.
- while at the same time you complain because someone else think of themselves exactly in the same terms and does the same things (in you view anyway).
Basically, you are complaning of another taur being better a cheating = at a cheater's poker table - than you.You cannot be taken seriously.
Either you accept an imperialistic view, in which case Ruzzia is clearly loosing the case or you are in favour of allowing people to vote, in which case... you are also loosing it.
BTW again and again and again...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation
Quote
n February and March 2014, Russia invaded the Crimean Peninsula, part of Ukraine, and then annexed it. This took place in the relative power vacuum[34] immediately following the Revolution of Dignity. It marked the beginning of the Russo-Ukrainian War.
Anyone can see why Ukraine was seeking allies, not the other way around.
Again and again... Putin does not need a reason to think he owns half the world...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
Quote
The August 2008 Russo-Georgian War, also known as the Russian invasion of Georgia,[note 3] was a war waged against Georgia by the Russian Federation and the Russian-backed separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The fighting took place in the strategically important South Caucasus region. It is regarded as the first European war of the 21st century.[31]
You once again are missing a crucial part of my argument. USA set a precedent that loosing influence over a country on it's (almost) border, is considered an existential threat. That's why Russia will extend all it's resources for Ukraine, and just guess what is the prime target for China's growing military.
We had a relative stability in the last 50years because there was an understanding not to encroach on another nuclear power bordering countries, breaking that rule is the fastest way to a war. No one doubts for a second what US navy would do if China decided to enter Cuba.
You must either support for Russians to have their bases/nuclear weapons in Cuba (we know how that turned out), or for US to get out of Ukraine, but you just can't have it both ways without a war. It really is that simple.
And why did Russia took Crimea, what preceded that? Could it be that someone showed up with cookies in Ukraine and supported a coup d'etat against dully elected democratic government? You keep conveniently leaving out the root cause of this all.
Oh, I see... your point is that, according to you, "US did it first" and also Ruzzia is justified because they are a nuclear power and Ukraine must therefore be under their influence to ensure peace. It would have been easier without so many (repetitive) pictures and noise.
So you are accusing the US of creating security issues by allowing Ukraine to fall out of the Ruzzian "sphere".
My first comment is that Ukrainians should have a say. I know you do not believe that people can choose and they have to accept whatever Moscow decides, but that is actually the type of thinking that leads to wars over and over in Europe - Empires and spheres instead of democracy and public accountability. This has been historically proven over and over.
But if you decide that this about empires then security is not a priority. Empires do not care about it, they care about expanding, getting more "subjects" and resources... but historically they have been fine with war. There is not a rule that says you need to allow other to develop and maintain their empire - there will be soft-power and even proxy wars under that mentality. Empires do not last forever.
And I hear you say: But Ruzzia has nukes and that is what makes it a dominant power able to impose their will and determine how their "border estates" (thanks for recognising Ukraine BTW). That is not true. The nature of nuclear weapons does not make them generally usable in an offensive conflict, so it makes Ruzzia safer from an substantive invasion of its territory or from major interferences, but it does not work to invade others - not too well anyway. Also, other countries may be tempted to acquire nuclear capabilities (Poland) or, more likely, to increase existing like France or the UK.
Then there is the Ruzzian army, which is another imperial weapon of choice. But it is not doing well, in fact it is being quite close to being ridiculed by a much smaller country.
I guess it is hard for a proud ex-empire, led by an old KGB guy and an oversized army that Ruzzia may no longer be what it used to - although it would have been better to understand it and avoid millions of deaths on both sides.
Funny you speak about Cuba, I mean, kind of a USSR land-based aircraft carrier during decades. And I guess even more funny since the US tried to invade and failed - like Ruzzia in Ukraine maybe.