Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[Paulie97]

And if you come back with Paulie's refrain, that you can't trust anything in Wikipedia, it's going to be hard to take that seriously unless you go back to their references and show they're B.S.

When you source Wikipedia you show yourself as someone who isn't serious. If you believe their references are good, then follow them, post those links and tell us why you think they are valid. You obviously have enough time on your hands. But it's all irrelevant anyway, as this was all hashed out long before you found this thread. Here's an excerpt from an earlier post from Jmsuttr. I'm personally not going in circles here, have better things to do, like retirement and travel. As to you, I recommend that you stop trying to defend the indefensible here and go back to your Libertarian thing in the Opinions Politics forum.

"As the USSR was in the process of dissolution, Ukraine's legislature declared independence TWICE, once in July of 1990 and then again in August of 1991.

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/12/10802...ukraine-russia

And Russia OFFICIALLY recognized Ukrainian independence in August 1991.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ime-story.html

Ukraine followed up the declaration by holding a referendum vote that encompassed EVERY part of the territory that was universally recognized as the (now former) Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic.

Here are the voting percentages, and you'll notice the first area on the list is Crimea, and further down you'll see the Donbas regions of Luhansk and Donetsk (both over 80 percent).

https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2...e-declaration/

If Russia had any territorial claims to make, or any objection to the referendum being held in Crimea, or the Donbas, that was the time to raise the issue. All the events of 1991 detailed above are conclusive evidence that Crimea, Donbas, and ALL the territory of the Ukraine SSR, were considered part of the newly independent Ukraine. And that fact was officially recognized by Russia, Ukraine itself, and the world at large.

But wait, there's more!

In 1997 two treaties were signed between Ukraine and Russia. One was the "Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet," and the other was the "Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty" In neither of those treaties did Russia seek to exert a claim on Crimea or any other area.

Two additional points re 1997:

1. As part of the Friendship Treaty, BOTH nations recognized the inviolability of EXISTING borders. And those borders included Crimea + Donbas as part of Ukraine (see 1991).

2. As part of the Black Sea Fleet Status Treaty, by agreeing to pay Ukraine for the lease of the naval base at Sevastopol, Russia explicitly recognized it as sovereign Ukrainian territory. They, Russia, were leasing from the owner, Ukraine.

I could go on, but there's no need. From 1991 the world has recognized that Crimea is part of the territory of Ukraine, and the Donbas as well. Russia itself also recognized this fact from 1991 to 2014, when they decided to invade. But, aside from maybe a couple of rogue states, NO country in the world accepts Russia's annexation of Crimea OR the Donbas. Not China and, IIRC, not even Iran. " Jmsuttr.

[Tiny 12]

I don't know who you work for or how you are being paid but, frankly, you are disseminating Kremlin propaganda.

I do.

https://www.propublica.org/article/i...ine-propaganda

Gentlemen, Zenduka is not employed by the Russian government. He's a Tijuana monger.

....I don't know what "gentlemen" you're referring to....

In this case Xpartan, I'm referring to you and Clayton. It's EXTREMELY unlikely you're executives of Lockheed Martin, Ukrainian intelligence operatives, neoconservative policy makers, or Dick Cheney. Rather you're gentlemen posting on ISG.

[Paulie97]

I have seen some dumb post, but this is dumbest of all time. Why anyone would even consider playing around In country at war is bizarre and potentially a death sentence, but this is Ukraine, nothing surprises me.

Other than occasionally lying about visiting certain Latin American cities, ones you demonstrated you know nothing about, you are here to bash Ukraine. And though it's true that vacationing in a city under threat of bombardment isn't wise while better choices exist, the Ukrainian people are doing exactly as they should when they go on with their lives as best as possible. While you are at it, mock the British who did the same during World War II. These are examples of courage that you certainly know nothing about.

[Tiny 12]

Polling data from the occupiers can be discarded.

See, when you mindlessly repeat Kremlin propaganda like this, that just chips away at your credibility big time. Seriously.

So Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, the Ukrainian Institute of the Future, Gallup, Pew Research, and Germany's GfK Group (the largest German market research company) are arms of the Kremlin?

OK, I'll spell it out for you. I've added info from links in the quotes below.

Please see this article from 2019.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/7557

Only 5.1 percent of people living in the Russia-controlled parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions want Ukraine to regain control over the territories under the old terms, according to the findings of a joint survey conducted by the Ukrainian Institute of the Future and the Dzerkalo Tyzhnia. Ukraine weekly newspaper with the assistance of New Image Marketing Group, which were unveiled on Nov. 9, 2019....Half (50.9 percent) want a union with Russia and another 13.4 percent said the region should accede to Russia with a "special status." For the whole of Donbas, including its Ukraine-controlled areas, 49.6 percent want it to become part of Russia, with another 13.3 percent choosing such a scenario with a "special status" for Donbas. A fifth (19.2 percent) see Donbas as part of Ukraine."

So apparently 50.9% wanted to live in a Russian oblast, and another 13.4% in something like a Russian territory (e.g. like Puerto Rico in the USA). Only 5.1% wanted to live in a Ukrainian controlled oblast.

To be clear, the preceding is from the Kyiv Post, not Wikipedia. However, according to Wikipedia, Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, a Ukrainian newspaper, "is nonpartisan, while strongly liberal-leaning by Ukrainian Standards. Dzerkalo Tyzhnia is partially funded by Western non-governmental organizations. The paper is widely read and highly regarded among Ukrainian business and political elites which largely explains its political influence."

The web site is here. It's clearly pro-Ukrainian.

https://zn.ua/

The Ukrainian Institute for the Future also clearly is pro-Ukrainian. Here's a link to their web site.

https://uifuture.org/

See here for info about polls in Crimea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_C...tus_referendum

The pre-2014 polls are a mixed bag, but post referendum polls indicate a preference for being a part of Russia:

"The results of a survey by the U.S. government Broadcasting Board of Governors agency, conducted April 2129, 2014, showed that 83% of Crimeans felt that the results of the March 16 referendum on Crimea's status likely reflected the views of most people there, whereas this view is shared only by 30% in the rest of Ukraine.

Gallup conducted an immediate post-referendum survey of Ukraine and Crimea and published their results in April 2014. Gallup reported that, among the population of Crimea, 93.6% of ethnic Russians and 68.4% of ethnic Ukrainians believed the referendum result accurately represents the will of the Crimean people. Only 1.7% of ethnic Russians and 14.5% of ethnic Ukrainians living in Crimea thought that the referendum results didn't accurately reflect the views of the Crimean people. According to the Gallup's survey performed on April 2127, 82.8% of Crimean people consider the referendum results reflecting most Crimeans' views, and 73.9% of Crimeans say Crimea's becoming part of Russia will make life better for themselves and their families, while 5.5% disagree.

In May 2014, Washington, D.C., pollster Pew Research published results of a survey that encompassed Crimea, Ukraine, and Russia, in which it was reported that 88% of Crimeans believed the government of Kyiv should officially recognize the result of Crimea's referendum. According to survey carried out by Pew Research Center in April 2014, the majority of Crimean residents say they believed the referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).

From January 16 22, 2015, Germany's GfK Group, with support from the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives, followed-up their pre-referendum survey of Crimeans' voting intention with a post-referendum survey about how satisfied Crimeans are with the outcome of their referendum. GfK's post-referendum survey found that 82% of Crimeans "Fully endorse" Crimea's referendum and return to Russia, while another 11% "Mostly endorse" it. According to a poll of the Crimeans by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on January 1622, 2015: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. ... Fifty-one percent reported their well-being had improved in the past year." Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky noted that "The calls were made on Jan. 1622 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages. On the other hand, no calls were placed in Sevastopol, the most pro-Russian city in Crimea. Even with these limitations, it was the most representative independent poll taken on the peninsula since its annexation."

And if you come back with Paulie's refrain, that you can't trust anything in Wikipedia, it's going to be hard to take that seriously unless you go back to their references and show they're B.S.

[Reiner Otto]

Let me remind you that in 1994 Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine to:

1 Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the...

You are quoting the "Memorandum of Budapest". Problem is, that aggressive dictators, like Hitler or his pupil, Putler, do not care about contracts.

[Xpartan]

Do a search on username Xpartan for Tiny12 and you'll find them all.

Nope, not there.

You gentlemen perennially believe Ukraine is on the cusp of a victory. Prigozhin is going to overthrow Putin. Ukraine's counteroffensive is pushing out the Russians. The Ukrainians will kick ass with the F16's. Russia's economy is about to fall apart. Well it ain't happening. The two sides will just keep on slugging it out, killing each other and making life a lot more difficult for the Ukrainians.

Well, aside from Russia's economy falling apart, which I do insist is true, I don't know what "gentlemen" you're referring to. But your kind concern for Ukrainians is noted. Not that you're in good company, though, as every Kremlin troll in this thread is hurting for the wellbeing of Ukrainians. With friends like you fellas, who needs enemies?

If you believe the Russians are rational

If they were rational, they wouldn't a) attack; b) attack a 40-million strong country with 100,000 troops; c) attack expecting that the populace that hates their guts would greet them with flowers.

why wouldn't they be content to sit on Crimea and the area they currently occupy in Donbas after a ceasefire?

Why weren't they?

Putin apparently is looking for a face saving way out.

For now. The moment he gains strength, however, he'll use the currently occupied territories as a springboard to attack again. And it'll be 100 times worse.

Europe and the USA should encourage the Ukrainians to put an end to this, instead of contributing to their fantasy that they can regain all territory lost since 2014.

Again, I understand this notion coming from someone who doesn't know Russia and its turbulent history. Those of us who do know how "Russia rolls" can confidently predict that it will disintegrate. This war will be an empire killer, much worse than Afghanistan and 1992. When that happens, Ukraine will get its lands back and sooner than you can imagine.

The majority of people in the area occupied by Russia would prefer to be affiliated with Russia instead of Ukraine anyway.

See, when you mindlessly repeat Kremlin propaganda like this, that just chips away at your credibility big time. Seriously.

I don't know who you work for or how you are being paid

I do.

https://www.propublica.org/article/i...ine-propaganda

[John Clayton]

In my humble opinion I think that is the viable option at this juncture. The only way Ukraine can ensure its security is to commit to no EU and no NATO membership and remove the current government. That is just the Red pill they need to take. When you live next to a superpower it is a hard reality that you have to succumb to the wishes of your bigger Brother. Look at Cuba, look at Mexico. Do you think Mexico will survive a day if it becomes a Russian Satellite state with Nukes planted in its territory? No.

I don't know who you work for or how you are being paid but, frankly, you are disseminating Kremlin propaganda. Let me remind you that in 1994 Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine to:

1 Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the...

2 Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations...

3 Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

et cetera

[Elvis 2008]

In my humble opinion I think that is the viable option at this juncture. The only way Ukraine can ensure its security is to commit to no EU and no NATO membership and remove the current government. That is just the Red pill they need to take. When you live next to a superpower it is a hard reality that you have to succumb to the wishes of your bigger Brother. Look at Cuba, look at Mexico. Do you think Mexico will survive a day if it becomes a Russian Satellite state with Nukes planted in its territory? No.

I need to start giving compliments as often as I tell people they are wrong. Like Blood Red said, this is a great realistic post, and I totally agree with everything you wrote.

[Tiny 12]

Two of my replies to you have been lost somewhere in the forum abyss, and I'm not feeling like wasting another 20 minutes replicating them. But here are the reasons why you're wrong on almost all counts.

1. Ukraine would be crazy to trust Russia about anything. I don't expect you to agree with me. I actually understand why you wouldn't -- it really boggles the mind to grasp Russia's historic disregard for any treaties and agreements it deems "unfair" and "inconvenient". Hint: it didn't start with Putin or Stalin or even Lenin. That's how Russia has rolled for centuries.

2. Ending like Korea is completely unrealistic. That ceasefire is based upon the might of the United States. There is no way in hell a similar arrangement is even remotely possible in Ukraine.

4. Are these people fanatics who are prepared to launch the nuclear apocalypses (that will end Russia too)? No, these people are not fanatics. They're corrupt, wealthier than god, swindlers; they love their yachts, jets and mansions; and they have no desire to commit a murder-suicide of the world. That's not even mentioning their families and their hoars who're all living here, in the West. Who exactly are they going to bomb? I'm more scared of a drunken accident or misunderstanding in this high-pitched environment.

5. Russia is a giant with feet of clay. Its war effort has already cannibalized the economy, and all Putin's posturing and saber-rattling is just smoke and mirrors. Which are the only two products Russia truly excels in.

Do a search on username Xpartan for Tiny12 and you'll find them all. We were arguing about this 7 months ago, before Paulie ran me off, and neither Ukraine nor Russia had gained any territory in the 6 months prior to that. The battle lines are still stuck where they were over a year ago. And maybe a couple of hundred thousand more people have been killed or maimed.

You gentlemen perennially believe Ukraine is on the cusp of a victory. Prigozhin is going to overthrow Putin. Ukraine's counteroffensive is pushing out the Russians. The Ukrainians will kick ass with the F16's. Russia's economy is about to fall apart. Well it ain't happening. The two sides will just keep on slugging it out, killing each other and making life a lot more difficult for the Ukrainians.

If you believe the Russians are rational, not fanatics, why wouldn't they be content to sit on Crimea and the area they currently occupy in Donbas after a ceasefire? The invasion of Ukraine is Russia's biggest military misadventure in over 100 years, Afghanistan included. The Ukrainians have shown they have the will and the ability to resist, and Putin apparently is looking for a face saving way out. Europe and the USA should encourage the Ukrainians to put an end to this, instead of contributing to their fantasy that they can regain all territory lost since 2014. The majority of people in the area occupied by Russia would prefer to be affiliated with Russia instead of Ukraine anyway.

[Blood Red]

I guess the imminent arrival of F-16's prompted this influx of Z propaganda.

Just out of interest how are the planes from the invading army doing now that the new Ukrainian air defense has been deployed?

I can't believe people are this gullible. The F16's will make no difference whatsoever, just like they Leopards didn't, just like the storm shadows didn't, just like the ATACMS didn't. I could go on and on. The F16's when they arrive will be quickly shot down and they will burn.

[Blood Red]

In my humble opinion I think that is the viable option at this juncture. The only way Ukraine can ensure its security is to commit to no EU and no NATO membership and remove the current government. That is just the Red pill they need to take. When you live next to a superpower it is a hard reality that you have to succumb to the wishes of your bigger Brother. Look at Cuba, look at Mexico. Do you think Mexico will survive a day if it becomes a Russian Satellite state with Nukes planted in its territory? No.

This is a brilliant post and spot on. I am shocked that people do not understand this very simple thing. Russia, whether you like it or not, is a great power. Great powers have their red lines. Ukraine joining NATO was Russia's red line and they acted. I'm not justifying it. But look at what the American's did when the Soviets placed missiles in Cuba. What would the Americans do if China placed missiles in Mexico. Looking back at it, was neutrality so bad for Ukraine? They will never ever join NATO. And look at Ukraine now. A destroyed nation that will forever be a dysfunctional rump state thanks to NATO and the warmongers, may the rot in hell.

[Xpartan]

I said "insure", not "ensure. " That was poor word choice on my part. I should have written something like "provides reasonable security to Ukraine.

The best ending would be like what Zenduka suggests. Ukraine ends up like Switzerland or Austria, peaceful and prosperous. But as Rina said, that ship has most likely sailed. Absent a change in Russian leadership, Ukraine would indeed have to swallow Zenduka's Red Pill, and that's very unlikely.

An ending like Korea is more likely, only without the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine -- both countries armed to the teeth, but not killing each others young men (and old men and women and children) any longer. This is the best realistic solution. The sooner there's a ceasefire the better -- take my challenge with the interactive map in post #2387 -- neither side has made any progress in over a year..

Two of my replies to you have been lost somewhere in the forum abyss, and I'm not feeling like wasting another 20 minutes replicating them. But here are the reasons why you're wrong on almost all counts.

1. Ukraine would be crazy to trust Russia about anything. I don't expect you to agree with me. I actually understand why you wouldn't -- it really boggles the mind to grasp Russia's historic disregard for any treaties and agreements it deems "unfair" and "inconvenient". Hint: it didn't start with Putin or Stalin or even Lenin. That's how Russia has rolled for centuries.

2. Ending like Korea is completely unrealistic. That ceasefire is based upon the might of the United States. There is no way in hell a similar arrangement is even remotely possible in Ukraine.

4. Are these people fanatics who are prepared to launch the nuclear apocalypses (that will end Russia too)? No, these people are not fanatics. They're corrupt, wealthier than god, swindlers; they love their yachts, jets and mansions; and they have no desire to commit a murder-suicide of the world. That's not even mentioning their families and their hoars who're all living here, in the West. Who exactly are they going to bomb? I'm more scared of a drunken accident or misunderstanding in this high-pitched environment.

5. Russia is a giant with feet of clay. Its war effort has already cannibalized the economy, and all Putin's posturing and saber-rattling is just smoke and mirrors. Which are the only two products Russia truly excels in.

[Tiny 12]

How would a ceasefire ensure the security of Ukraine?

I said "insure", not "ensure. " That was poor word choice on my part. I should have written something like "provides reasonable security to Ukraine.

The best ending would be like what Zenduka suggests. Ukraine ends up like Switzerland or Austria, peaceful and prosperous. But as Rina said, that ship has most likely sailed. Absent a change in Russian leadership, Ukraine would indeed have to swallow Zenduka's Red Pill, and that's very unlikely.

An ending like Korea is more likely, only without the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine -- both countries armed to the teeth, but not killing each others young men (and old men and women and children) any longer. This is the best realistic solution. The sooner there's a ceasefire the better -- take my challenge with the interactive map in post #2387 -- neither side has made any progress in over a year.

There's going to have to be a radical change in political will in Russia or the West for either side to win. And that change is more likely to come from the west, by reducing aid to Ukraine. As to Russia, yes, a change of leadership there could result in a Ukrainian victory. But on the other hand, Russia has 6,000 nukes and can end this anytime it wants.

[Xpartan]

I guess the imminent arrival of F-16's prompted this influx of Z propaganda.

Just out of interest how are the planes from the invading army doing now that the new Ukrainian air defense has been deployed?

From what I've gathered, they've lost 3 today. At least one, though, was downed by a friendly.

[VinDici]

I guess the imminent arrival of F-16's prompted this influx of Z propaganda.

Just out of interest how are the planes from the invading army doing now that the new Ukrainian air defense has been deployed?