How Odd Is Putin's Russia?

[Magic Man]

There you go. Look, the US can't intervene in every global conflict.

Not every one, no, but this seems a reasonable one in which to intervene.

Anyway, no, Russia is not invading "all" of Ukraine, they are focusing on the eastern parts. From the BBC in May:

Ukraine in maps: Tracking the war with Russia

As Russian forces make slow progress in eastern Ukraine, Ukraine's military stages a surprise cross-border attack.

www.bbc.com

Yes, they are. They invaded the eastern parts because they're east of Ukraine. Their goal is to get to Kyiv.

They aren't doing it to "stop Ukraine from joining NATO" though I wouldn't blame them for that actually.

Yes, they are. That was the whole point. Putin didn't like them wanting to join NATO, so he instigated this. That's why them promising not to join NATO is one of his conditions for a ceasefire. It's pretty much the primary point of Russia's actions.

And you wouldn't blame them for that? Seriously? At least you're not shy about your full support for Putin now.

I mean, you don't want a world war, do you? I don't, for sure

What does that have to do with it? Ukraine joining NATO would not start a world war. If Russia is willing to go to war with NATO over this, then there are bigger problems.

(so much for that pesky conservative platform).

Yeah, that pesky selfish "sorry, you handle Russia by yourself" agenda.

Ukraine has sought NATO membership since the Russians attacked them in 2014 but they didn't vote to include that goal in their constitution till 2018.

They've sought it longer than that. Ukraine wanted to join NATO since the 90s. I have no idea why you think this timeline is relevant, though.

Polls held before 2014 found low support among Ukrainians for NATO membership. However, Ukrainian public support for NATO membership has risen greatly during the Russo-Ukrainian War, and there has been overwhelming public support for joining NATO since the 2022 Russian invasion.

Let's see those polls.

And then explain why you think any of this matters to anything. Whether they wanted to join NATO for decades or just decided to in the past few years, so what? They want to join precisely because of what's happening now. Like, Russia just made their entire case for them. "I'll teach you to try to protect yourself!"

 

[Aupmanyav]

Not every one, no, but this seems a reasonable one in which to intervene.

It is the US/NATO intervention that brought the war on Ukraine.

 

[Tomef]

It is the US/NATO intervention that brought the war on Ukraine.

Huh? The war started in 2014 with the presence of Russian troops and Russian-financed groups in the Donbas, escalated in 2022 with a full on Russian invasion of Ukraine, aimed at taking Kyiv, wiping out the govt and installing a Kremlin-friendly dictator. That failed, but Russian troops are still on Ukrainian soil. When and how do you think the US or NATO intervened? Other than some vague impression you have, what exactly is it you are referring to? So far in this discussion you haven’t referred to a single actual event in any way that supports what you claim to know. Please use some factual information to explain your ‘view’. Saying ‘NATO did it’ is not a ‘view’, it’s just a random, meaningless utterance. Why do you think that? Based on what, exactly? What facts, figures, events, happenings etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is the US/NATO intervention that brought the war on Ukraine.

Please establish a timeline at least back to 2014 and further back if you think it is relevant and explain what has happened.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe I do.

Then you will know that Ukarian membership of NATO will only happen if there is no outstanding unresolved conflict.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Huh? The war started in 2014 with the presence of Russian troops and Russian-financed groups in the Donbas, escalated in 2022 with a full on Russian invasion of Ukraine, aimed at taking Kyiv, wiping out the govt and installing a Kremlin-friendly dictator.

NATO was there in Kyiv at the time of ouster of Yanukowych.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

NATO was there in Kyiv at the time of Orange Revolution.

Evidence in some sense and clarification of what you mean.

 

[Tomef]

NATO was there in Kyiv at the time of Orange Revolution.

Ok, let’s have your detailed argument that led you to conclude ‘NATO was in Kyiv’ and what you think that means.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Please establish a timeline at least back to 2014 and further back if you think it is relevant and explain what has happened.

This is a standard procedure of sabotage. Incite people of issues, make the crowd act against government, which will lead to government acting against the crowd. And you have a civil war.
This is not a democratic procedure which must go with the decision of the majority party in the parliament.
Yanukovych was ousted with this strategy. Even Trump attempted that in US.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is a standard procedure of sabotage. Incite people of issues, make the crowd act against government, which will lead to government acting against the crowd. And you have a civil war.
This is not a democratic procedure which must go with the decision of the majority party in the parliament.
Yanukovych was ousted with this strategy. Even Trump attempted that in US.

So NATO did this??? Any evidence???

What did Russia do since the fall of the Sovjet Union in regards to Ukraine?

 

[Tomef]

This is a standard procedure of sabotage. Incite people of issues, make the crowd act against government, which will lead to government acting against the crowd. And you have a civil war.
This is not a democratic procedure which must go with the decision of the majority party in the parliament.
Yanukovych was ousted with this strategy. Even Trump attempted that in US.

As elsewhere, your propaganda sources are showing. Yanukovych was removed by a unanimous vote of parliament, not by protestors. The gathering of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians was not something the US wanted or expected. Those were dicey times. Same reasons for Bush’s ‘chicken Kiev’ speech. Yanukovych bowed to pressure from the Kremlin to renege on one of his key campaign promises, then authorised deadly force against protestors. What you happen to think about it is irrelevant, the removal of Yanukovych was both popular and constitutional. Whatever idiot nonsense you’ve been filling your brain up with, this is hardly unusual. The UK , for example, has pushed 2 PMs out of the top role in recent years over issues of personal conduct and doubts over their ability to perform.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So NATO did this??? Any evidence???
What did Russia do since the fall of the Sovjet Union in regards to Ukraine?

Engineered protests. They are not worth their name if they leave evidence behind.
Oh, sure, evidence must be there, it is impossible to erase all evidence. But I am not privy to that, Zelensky may have that.
Russia did not want Ukraine to join EU or NATO. Ukraine tried to do just that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As elsewhere, your propaganda sources are showing. Yanukovych was removed by a unanimous vote of parliament, not by protestors. The gathering of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians was not something the US wanted or expected. Those were dicey times. Same reasons for Bush’s ‘chicken Kiev’ speech. Yanukovych bowed to pressure from the Kremlin to renege on one of his key campaign promises, then authorised deadly force against protestors. What you happen to think about it is irrelevant, the removal of Yanukovych was both popular and constitutional. Whatever idiot nonsense you’ve been filling your brain up with, this is hardly unusual. The UK , for example, has pushed 2 PMs out of the top role in recent years over issues of personal conduct and doubts over their ability to perform.

Can the US Congress remove the US President? They are elected directly. I do not what rules Ukraine had for impeachment of a President. Indian Parliament alone cannot remove a President. If Yanukovych bowed to some Russian desire, he was wise. See, what the later fools have brought on to Ukraine. And even now, peace will come only if Putin is satisfied with the terms.

Article 61: Procedure for impeachment of the President - Constitution of India

The Constituent Assembly took up this Article for debate on 28 December 1948. It set out the procedure by which the President of India could be removed from office.

www.constitutionofindia.net

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Engineered protests. They are not worth their name if they leave evidence behind.
Oh, sure, evidence must be there, it is impossible to erase all evidence. But I am not privy to that, Zelensky may have that.
Russia did not want Ukraine to join EU or NATO. Ukraine tried to do just that.

So you have no evidence.

Yes, India still belongs to the UK and must bow to it as it is not even a proper country or culture. All India does, is controled from the outside and the evidence is that there is none.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can the US Congress remove the US President? They are elected directly. I do not what rules Ukraine had for impeachment of a President. Indian Parliament alone cannot remove a President. If Yanukovych bowed to some Russian desire, he was wise. See, what the later fools have brought on to Ukraine. And even now, peace will come only if Putin is satisfied with the terms.

Yes, the US Congress can remove the US President!

I want your house and money. If you deny that, it is your fault that I take it as you are a fool and not wise!!!

 

[Aupmanyav]

So you have no evidence.

Yes, India still belongs to the UK and must bow to it as it is not even a proper country or culture. All India does, is controlled from the outside and the evidence is that there is none.

Yeah, we are still a part of the paper-organization, 'The Commonwealth', and sometimes hold the Commonwealth Games, though it costs a lot of money. The 2010 Games left a host of scams behind. UK does not have any control over what we do. The Gandhi family is a Hindu-hating Christian family, but it has not been in power in the Parliament for 10 years and Modi is around for the next five years.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, the US Congress can remove the US President!

I want your house and money. If you deny that, it is your fault that I take it as you are a fool and not wise!!!

That may be true. I am not much interested in US Presidency though the incoming President may have Hindu family (She has Jamaican and Jewish family too). My house is all yours. Come to India and take possession of it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, we are still a part of the paper-organization, 'The Commonwealth', and sometimes hold the Commonwealth Games, though it costs a lot of money. The 2010 Games left a host of scams behind. UK does not have any control over what we do. The Gandhi family is a Hindu-hating Christian family, but it has not been in power in the Parliament for 10 years and Modi is around for the next five years.

Yeah, that is what you think, but it is not real and the evidence is that there is no evidence. That is because your puppet masters won't want you to know it. You are a fool and not wise.

Ukraine is a country, culture and people and shouldn't have been attacked by Russia. Putin could have done it differently, but apparently he didn't want to go the democratic route and ask for UN controlled referendums.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

.... My house is all yours. Come to India and take possession of it.

So your understanding is universal law for all humans?

 

[Tomef]

Can the US Congress remove the US President? They are elected directly. I do not what rules Ukraine had for impeachment of a President. Indian Parliament alone cannot remove a President. If Yanukovych bowed to some Russian desire, he was wise. See, what the later fools have brought on to Ukraine. And even now, peace will come only if Putin is satisfied with the terms.

Article 61: Procedure for impeachment of the President - Constitution of India

The Constituent Assembly took up this Article for debate on 28 December 1948. It set out the procedure by which the President of India could be removed from office.

www.constitutionofindia.net

So, basically, you don't have a clue.