ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Nah, I'm kind of way past that point.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Russian chest thumping - Chinese incursions
- Thread starter sun rise
- Start date
lukethethird
unknown member
So there was no 7 year civil war leading up to this invasion, 14,000 Russian speaking Ukrainians were not killed after all, is that what you mean?
Olga Sukharevskaya: How the West has long planned to use Ukraine to fight a proxy war with Russia
Politicians generally tell the truth only after resigning. Statements from former German chancellor Angela Merkel and former French president Francois Hollande have revealed that the 2014 and 2015 Minsk (peace) Agreements were signed only in order to arm Ukraine and buy it time before a full on military confrontation with Russia.
Last edited:
This article rests upon the absurd notion that....
"Using Kiev to take on Moscow has been a meticulously planned strategy, long in the making."
Our government lacks the continuity to achieve anything
that's meticulous over a long period of time. A better
explanation for supporting Ukraine is that Putin must
be contained, lest he next go after Moldova & Poland.
lukethethird
unknown member
Nonsense. I oppose Putin and I oppose Biden and his Nato lackies for escalating and prolonging this war at the expense of Ukrainians. Your off hand dismissal of what led up to this conflict is meaningless.
I like the idea of Ukraine winning the war.
They certainly seem motivated to win.
If this prolongs it, than so be it.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
No, I told you I knew about that. Also, kind of interesting that you call it a "civil war" when it was actually a war between Ukrainians and Russian-backed separatists.
RT is Russian state-controlled media (and is also blocked to me).
"14,000 Russian speaking Ukrainians" being "killed" is kind of an ambiguous thing to say. HOW were they killed? Were they SPECIFICALLY targeted by the government? Is that just the total number who died in the civil war? Was the fact that they spoke Russian incidental? How many of them were separatists? How many of them were Ukrainian citizens who just happened to speak Russian?
That's what I am asking. You are saying (or, at least, implying) that Russian-affiliated Ukrainians in the Donbas were being persecuted in some way, and this justified the Russian invasion. What I want to know is what evidence exists that demonstrates that this persecution was either widespread or enforced by the Ukrainian government.
You keep not answering that request, and it's becoming a little suspicious.
Last edited:
lukethethird
unknown member
Ukraine is not the prize, Ukraine is merely the battle ground and Ukrainians are the pawns, it's their blood, they are being used. This is a proxy war between the US and Russia, the US wants Putin out so that they can put a yes man to Washington back in place, like Boris Yeltsin was. All in the name of freedom and democracy.
Ukraine is done, Zelensky has sold every public utility to foreign private investors, he has outlawed political opposition parties, made himself and all his cronies rich, if it was crap before, every Ukrainian is way worse off now.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Biden and NATO are currently supporting Ukrainians fighting back against their invaders. As a result, Ukraine has been able to push their invaders further back, preventing total occupation by Russia.
That is pretty objectively NOT "at the expense of Ukrainians". They want to fight back. NATO and "the west" have given them the means to do that. If "prolonging the war" means "actually allowing people who do not want to be occupied to fight back against the occupiers", then that's a good thing.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
This is just nonsense. Putin chose to invade. He was never prompted to invade, he never had to invade, he was never forced to invade. Putin has made his overtures very clear that he wants to re-establish the former Soviet borders. He has said that he considers Ukraine to basically belong to Russia. His intentions have been made very clear.
This is not a proxy war. Ukraine is fighting against an occupying force, and I find it disgusting that the will of the Ukrainian people is being completely ignored in this narrative of yours. As far as I'm aware, the last "puppet government" involved in this conflict was one installed by Putin in Ukraine, which eventually lead to the Euromaidan protests and the people of Ukraine ousting him from power. Putin is the one engaging openly in power-grabs here, and it's his history of manipulating and meddling in the region that lead to the current state of affairs. You seem to conveniently ignore Russia's involvement in the history of Ukraine altogether, in order to absolve Russia of all wrongdoing, despite the fact that they installed a tyranical oligarch to power to serve their best interests and funded and supported separatist military groups in the region.
Sources, please.
lukethethird
unknown member
Nato is not supporting Ukraine, they are using Ukraine.
Putin stated going in that he was securing the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, while the western mainstream media said he was taking all of Ukraine, and that he wants to take back all of eastern Europe as well. What is really going on is with Washington, they want Putin out so they can put a yes man in his place. It's regime change, it's always regime change, and always in the name of freedom and democracy. Look how well that has worked out for the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Palestine, too many to list.
lukethethird
unknown member
Can you not access any news sources aside from western mainstream media?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Ukraine is fighting against an invading force. They are doing so because they want to not be occupied by that force. NATO is supporting them with weapons. The Ukrainians are not being "used". They are defending themselves.
Putin also said it wasn't an invasion and maintains to this day that it is a "special military operation".
He's a liar and a imperialist aggressor.
He has literally said that he considers Ukraine to be a part of Russia. His forces have attacked the Ukrainian capital. If he took over all of Ukraine, he would be pushing up against the eastern borders of NATO and threatening eastern Europe with further expansion.
Ah, yes, so they FORCED Putin to invade Ukraine, lie to his people, break international law and agreements he signed. Very cunning.
Honestly, if this were the case, you might as well get down on your hands and knees already because Washington might as well be mount Olympus.
Because it's not like Russia has a similar history at all?
Or is it the old logic of "America bad"? If America does it, it bad. If Russia does it, it not worth remarking on.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Can you access any news sources that aren't Russian-state controlled media?
lukethethird
unknown member
No Russian leader would have tolerated Nato taking in Ukraine as a member. Russia does not want US missiles at its border aimed at Moscow. Nato provoked Russia by promising to take in Ukraine as a member. That is what provoked Russia into invading Ukraine. Experts have been warning for decades that Ukraine will be the battlefield if Nato moves eastward into Ukraine. Ukraine was always been the red line that couldn't be crossed.
lukethethird
unknown member
I read mainly US, European and Australian based journalists, some of whom write for RT because RT does not control what they can or cannot write.
The Grayzone - Investigative journalism on empire
Volume 28, Number 47 — Thursday, February 16, 2023 Consortium News
World News - Breaking International News from all over the World Sputnik
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
An important observation
Just something to take note of, here. What we are looking at is an example of what is referred to as "narrativising". It's when you use language in an attempt to either obfuscate or over-simplify certain events to subtly (or overtly) portray a particular impression of events that generally makes one side look worse than the other. A particularly egregious example occurred on this page of the thread, detailed here:
The War in Donbas
What it was: A seven-year armed conflict between Ukrainian forces and a group of military separatists who were supported, armed and trained by Russia in order to conquer territory in the Donbas region and establish independent "republics" within Ukraine that were effectively controlled directly by Russia.
How lukethethird described it: "a civil war"
The Current Russo-Ukrainian War
What it is: An armed conflict between invading Russian forces who have entered Ukraine and the Ukrainian military forces supported with weapons and supplies from NATO-affiliated countries and other Ukrainian allies.
How lukethethird describes it: "a proxy war between NATO and Russia"
Interesting, don't we think?
Just something to take note of, here. What we are looking at is an example of what is referred to as "narrativising". It's when you use language in an attempt to either obfuscate or over-simplify certain events to subtly (or overtly) portray a particular impression of events that generally makes one side look worse than the other. A particularly egregious example occurred on this page of the thread, detailed here:
The War in Donbas
What it was: A seven-year armed conflict between Ukrainian forces and a group of military separatists who were supported, armed and trained by Russia in order to conquer territory in the Donbas region and establish independent "republics" within Ukraine that were effectively controlled directly by Russia.
How lukethethird described it: "a civil war"
The Current Russo-Ukrainian War
What it is: An armed conflict between invading Russian forces who have entered Ukraine and the Ukrainian military forces supported with weapons and supplies from NATO-affiliated countries and other Ukrainian allies.
How lukethethird describes it: "a proxy war between NATO and Russia"
Interesting, don't we think?
Last edited:
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Tough titty. They don't get to decide what alliances sovereign states outside of their borders get to make. And if they weren't constantly trying to install puppet regimes, militarily occupy and outright attack their neighbours maybe the threat of their neighbours joining NATO in the first place needn't exist. I am not amenable to the needs or desires of aggressive, imperialistic states when they cry about not wanting other states to stop them from invading them.
Russia is a nuclear power. There has never been any threat to Russia from NATO.
Nope. This is just a lie.
Ukraine had been denied entry before, and assurances that Ukraine would be denied NATO membership in future did not deter Putin.
In any case, it doesn't matter, because Ukraine - as a free state - has the right to join whatever military alliances it wants. Russia can swivel.
Because everyone knew Russia was a state run by a lunatic. But there's no reason we should just allow them to conquer their neighbours and commit war crimes against tens of thousands of people.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
The Grayzone - a tankie news site that supports authoritarian regimes.
Consortium News - I am not too familiar with, but looks very similar to the above.
Sputnik News - literally another Russian state-owned news site.
I will not swallow this tripe. Do you have anything non-authoritarian?
lukethethird
unknown member
Since you are being censored from news sources by your authoritarian government, you are a fine one to dismiss different viewpoints.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
I just find it odd that you exclusively get your information either from Russian-state owned news sites or sites known for pro-authoritarian positions. I've already provided examples in this thread of your false reporting of factual events, so perhaps it's time to consider more "mainstream" news sources?
Also, very interesting that you call my government "authoritarian" because they block RT news.
Meanwhile, Russia censors the BBC, numerous European and Ukrainian state news sources, and a number of international news sources - including Meduza, who are the largest independent news source in Russia. They even block certain Wiki pages about the war and openly mark Wikipedia as being in violation of Russian law.
Those who live in glass houses... should probably censor any news that reports on that fact to prevent people from realizing they live in one.
Last edited: