Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[VinDici]

Very sad what happened to the American journalist in Ukraine and very disappointing the American response to his imprisonment (Nothing). Fighting for democracy, what a joke.

I assume you mean youtuber Gonzalo Lira. Better to name the person so people can look up the whole story, rather than this misleading propaganda style phrasing.

I hear that the Russian Duma is passing a new law allowing the state to steal the property of anyone who has been critical of Russia's invasion and war on Ukraine. What do you think about this Riina?

[Riina]

Very sad what happened to the American journalist in Ukraine and very disappointing the American response to his imprisonment (Nothing). Fighting for democracy, what a joke.

[John Clayton]

I think they should fight on ... USA Support or lack thereof for Ukraine? Blame the politicians, not us.

So, what is the outcome you desire for the current war? Mine is that the 1991, internationally recognized and guaranteed, borders should be restored.

[Tiny 12]

1. For one thing it's their country. Who do you think you are to tell them to stop fighting for their homeland?

Oh, but you'll say, fine, let them fight on their own dime.

I think they should fight on YOUR dime. If you want to contribute to Ukrainian defenses, out of your own pocket, or go to Ukraine and fight, you should be allowed to. I do not agree with the Biden administration and neoconservatives from both USA parties, and many European leaders, that we must provide Zelensky with a blank check to push Russia out of Ukraine, no matter how long it takes, how many lives will be lost, or how much money it costs. And to the Biden Administration's credit, maybe it is finally starting to come around.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...raine-00133211

Well, no. Ukraine fighting is the best possible bargain for the West. Russia is already crippled both economically and militarily and as long as they're stuck in Ukraine, Europe and the world in whole are safER. Weakening Russia, making sure that it's not capable of launching new attacks against its neighbors is the smartest policy we should stick to.

The last thing we need is another cold war. This is the way USA Foreign and defense policy has operated for many, many years, and it comes back to bite us. Look at Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Zaire, Nicaragua -- there's a long list.

And Russia is not crippled economically or militarily. Its GDP, adjusted for inflation, is higher than it was before the invasion. They're ramping up production of armaments and have a much larger pool of young men than the Ukrainians that they can send to slaughter.

Unfortunately, there are always tens of Chamberlains for every Churchill, so as long as cowards and isolationists are ruling the world, the future of this existential fight is unclear.

Well, it's a damn good thing that the "cowards and isolationists" as you put it (I'd use very different words) now rule the world. There hasn't been a World War III. Since 1980, very, very little territory has been forcibly annexed through warfare compared to past periods. And as to existential fights, I hope the politicians you admire don't get us into one. Nobody wins a nuclear war.

2. Then there is your favorite argument about how Russia is rational and only wants to end this war.

Well, if you stopped ignoring what people familiar with Putin's biography and 23-year history of "Putinism" in Russia have told you many times over, you would have to drop this nonsense about making peace.

Or I don't know, maybe you too have this crazy, mind-blowing infatuation with Putin like most right-wingers. I mean, Trump did call him a genius, didn't he?

No, Putin is not rational. No, he's not pragmatic. For 20+ years he has been pillaging a huge country with impunity and almost no dissent from the obedient population. He's the richest man in the world. He had it so fucking good! So what does he do? He starts rebuilding the empire. He wages a full-scale war sending 100,000 troops to defeat a 40-million strong nation.

Now all his wealth will never matter. He will never be able to travel to any civilized country. He'll never be able to use his yachts, his jets and all his mansions in the West. In addition, he will very likely lose his country, presidency and his own head.

How rational is all that again?

Please make up your mind. I thought you were arguing that Putin would not use nuclear weapons because he prefers to stay alive and wealthy and powerful, that is, because he is rational.

Trump intuitively knew how to handle Putin, kiss his ass while being firm when it counts. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline wasn't going to go on stream while Trump was in power, and NATO countries upped their defense expenditures substantially.

3. Polls? In person? You have no idea what totalitarian regime means, do you? I don't care if they conducted their polls whispering -- people DO NOT tell what they think when it goes against the official occupiers policy.

And they sure as hell won't tell you the truth over the phone (ESPECIALLY over the phone).

Again, are there ethnic Russians who want to remain under Russia's control? Yes, absolutely!

Does the majority of people in Donbas and Crimea want to remain under Russia's control? We simply don't know. But we must assume that all the polls and surveys conducted after 2014 are complete and utter BS. Their referendums even more so.

And now, after they've been grabbing men off the streets of Donbas and Crimea cities, sending them to their deaths without any training and sufficient weapons -- you can be sure as hell that this support has evaporated.

Actually in addition to the Donbas poll, the Gallup and Pew polls in Crimea were also person-to-person. I'm not sure about the others. Putin doesn't control unbiased pollsters in Russia, or Crimea or Donbas. If he did, we wouldn't be reading about very low Russian support for the war right now, around 12%. Or that 50% of Russians want the war to end in 2024. I imagine many young men in both countries who are being conscripted just want the war to end.

BTW, on the subject of polls, support for territorial concessions to Russia in Ukraine is way up from past levels, although still only around 20%. And will go up a lot more in years to come if this senseless carnage continues.

I don't know what Paulie thinks, but here is my take. Moldova will definitely, fall. 100%. It's very weak and would be an easy prey for Russia.

The "rest of Ukraine" will very likely be attacked when Russia gets stronger. Of course, if Ukraine also gets stronger, Russia might not dare, just like they decided not to finish off Finland in 1940's. Finland, however, paid a heavy price for their independence, and I find it highly unlikely that Ukraine will be willing to pay it too.

The Baltics maybe. In the very least, the Russians will be poking and provoking until the NATO has to get involved. What happens then is everyone's guess.

Poland -- probably not. It has a relatively strong army even without the NATO umbrella.

Then there is Georgia that might also be attacked if their Parliament loses its pro-Russian majority.

Putin and Russia have most likely learned their lesson. They will continue to try to promote pro-Russian governments in Georgia, Moldova, and for that matter the USA. Any military incursion in a non-FSU country is very unlikely.

In any case, undefeated Russia will be a major source of instability for Europe for decades to come, and tens of thousands more (at least) will have to die, just because you and Elvis would rather save a few rubles.

Come on Xpartan. You think Elvis and I have anything to do with USA Support or lack thereof for Ukraine? Blame the politicians, not us.

[Xpartan]

I never said and don't believe that Russia's takeover of Ukrainian territory was legal or justified or right. I believe the opposite. And yes, in the 1990's, and before Russian occupation, a smaller percentage of residents of Crimea and Donbas would have preferred to be part of Russia compared to the percentage in, say, 2019.

That doesn't change the reality of the here and now.

Hundreds of thousands of people are being killed or maimed while the two countries slug it out. Neither side will win. They'll both end up losers. So why not just stop fighting? The point is that the majority of the people who live in the occupied areas didn't even want to be part of Ukraine just prior to when hostilities broke out in 2022. If there's a ceasefire that becomes permanent, along existing battle lines, you're not creating a new Kurdistan or whatever.

1. For one thing it's their country. Who do you think you are to tell them to stop fighting for their homeland?

Oh, but you'll say, fine, let them fight on their own dime.

Well, no. Ukraine fighting is the best possible bargain for the West. Russia is already crippled both economically and militarily and as long as they're stuck in Ukraine, Europe and the world in whole are safER. Weakening Russia, making sure that it's not capable of launching new attacks against its neighbors is the smartest policy we should stick to.

Unfortunately, there are always tens of Chamberlains for every Churchill, so as long as cowards and isolationists are ruling the world, the future of this existential fight is unclear.

2. Then there is your favorite argument about how Russia is rational and only wants to end this war.

Well, if you stopped ignoring what people familiar with Putin's biography and 23-year history of "Putinism" in Russia have told you many times over, you would have to drop this nonsense about making peace.

Or I don't know, maybe you too have this crazy, mind-blowing infatuation with Putin like most right-wingers. I mean, Trump did call him a genius, didn't he?

No, Putin is not rational. No, he's not pragmatic. For 20+ years he has been pillaging a huge country with impunity and almost no dissent from the obedient population. He's the richest man in the world. He had it so fucking good! So what does he do? He starts rebuilding the empire. He wages a full-scale war sending 100,000 troops to defeat a 40-million strong nation.

Now all his wealth will never matter. He will never be able to travel to any civilized country. He'll never be able to use his yachts, his jets and all his mansions in the West. In addition, he will very likely lose his country, presidency and his own head.

How rational is all that again?

You're not stupid either Xpartan. The Dzerkalo Tyzhnia / Ukrainian Institute of the Future poll was conducted in person, and there's no reason why telephone interviews conducted by Gallup, Pew Research, or GfK would reflect Russian government views instead of reality either.

You realize there's a big difference between a poll conducted by a Ukrainian or Western organization and a staged referendum. The fact that the voting percentages for the referendums in Kherson or Zaporozhia don't accurately reflect reality doesn't mean the same is true of polls.

3. Polls? In person? You have no idea what totalitarian regime means, do you? I don't care if they conducted their polls whispering -- people DO NOT tell what they think when it goes against the official occupiers policy.

And they sure as hell won't tell you the truth over the phone (ESPECIALLY over the phone).

Again, are there ethnic Russians who want to remain under Russia's control? Yes, absolutely!

Does the majority of people in Donbas and Crimea want to remain under Russia's control? We simply don't know. But we must assume that all the polls and surveys conducted after 2014 are complete and utter BS. Their referendums even more so.

And now, after they've been grabbing men off the streets of Donbas and Crimea cities, sending them to their deaths without any training and sufficient weapons -- you can be sure as hell that this support has evaporated.

So why do you think the rest of Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltic Republics and Eastern Europe will be the next to fall if there's a ceasefire along the current lines of control?

I don't know what Paulie thinks, but here is my take. Moldova will definitely, fall. 100%. It's very weak and would be an easy prey for Russia.

The "rest of Ukraine" will very likely be attacked when Russia gets stronger. Of course, if Ukraine also gets stronger, Russia might not dare, just like they decided not to finish off Finland in 1940's. Finland, however, paid a heavy price for their independence, and I find it highly unlikely that Ukraine will be willing to pay it too.

The Baltics maybe. In the very least, the Russians will be poking and provoking until the NATO has to get involved. What happens then is everyone's guess.

Poland -- probably not. It has a relatively strong army even without the NATO umbrella.

Then there is Georgia that might also be attacked if their Parliament loses its pro-Russian majority.

In any case, undefeated Russia will be a major source of instability for Europe for decades to come, and tens of thousands more (at least) will have to die, just because you and Elvis would rather save a few rubles.

[Elvis 2008]

With all his posts having appeared within the last week? I'd say "based" is a presumption, not fact.

Besides, why would it matter? Some members posting blatant Kremlin propaganda here play in OAE, others in South America. Those people aren't just voicing their opinions; they repeat and repost Russian lies.

The reason I call you guys Democratic douches is because of posts like this.

Do you understand the POV that our tax dollars could be better spent on health care, education, rebuilding Maui after the fires, on our infrastructure, securing the border, or keeping that money in our fucking pockets ETC versus this war in Ukraine where millions are dying and now is in a stalemate?

Do you understand that the domino theory, the rationale for fighting in Ukraine (first it is Ukraine, then Poland, then the rest of Europe) is the SAME fucking rationale that was used in Vietnam?

Do you get that when a person says that they think money could be better spent elsewhere or kept in their pocket, that does not mean they are spewing Russian propaganda or want to suck Putin's dick or want Ukraine over run?

Do you understand that President Obama said that the USA had no vital interests in Ukraine and was not going to defend it versus Russian aggression?

Because I do not think you understand any of it. I understand Democratic positions. I do not agree with most of them, but I understand them. I have no issue with people who vote Democrats whether it is based on feeling or fact.

What I DO have a problem with is the arrogant Democratic douche who swears up and down whenever anyone disagrees with them that person is stupid, ill informed, wants to suck Putin's dick and could give a fuck about dead Ukrainians and Democracy.

I saw this arrogance on display with Covid, with the vaccine, and now with Ukraine. What amazes me so much right now is you Democratic douches have literally picked out a guy who cannot walk right, who tried to shake the hand of a person who was not there, who cannot even remember what day of the week it is and say, "This guy knows what he is doing, and you are stupid if you do not trust him. ".

Do you think maybe, just maybe others have a point or are you 100% sure you are right about everything?

[Blood Red]

So why do you think the rest of Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltic Republics and Eastern Europe will be the next to fall if there's a ceasefire along the current lines of control?

LOL. Exactly. On one hand the collective west says Putin and Russia have already lost the war because they didn't take Kiev, that the Russian army is incompetent, they are running out of ammo, morale is low, blah blah blah. But then they say Putin won't stop with Ukraine and will go for Poland and the Baltic states. Make up your mind please.

[Tiny 12]

After 9 years of war Russia still only controls 17% of Ukrainian territory. That's pretty sad for a super power, isn't it? While they are dealing with a neighbor, right next door.

So why do you think the rest of Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltic Republics and Eastern Europe will be the next to fall if there's a ceasefire along the current lines of control?

[Tiny 12]

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.

Every good lie has bits of truth mixed in. It is true that many ethnic Russians in Crimea and Donbas cheered on the occupiers when they orchestrated the coups in 2014. Being as it is, you're not dumb. You simply can't not understand that any polls and / or referendums that took place under the threat of violence from an occupying army can't be taken seriously. You'd have to be completely detached from reality to believe that any honest polling is possible under these circumstances.

In addition, today the Russians are occupying much more than Crimea and Donbas. How do you like the "referendums" in Kherson and Zaporozhia? Genuine, you think?

That's not even mentioning that even if there is a local majority anywhere in the world, they can't just decide to secede from the state because they feel like it. Ask the Kurds, the Catalans, the Basques, the Flemish, the Cypriots, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh and probably dozens of more separatist movements around the world or simply go back to Abe Lincoln, if you don't believe me.

I never said and don't believe that Russia's takeover of Ukrainian territory was legal or justified or right. I believe the opposite. And yes, in the 1990's, and before Russian occupation, a smaller percentage of residents of Crimea and Donbas would have preferred to be part of Russia compared to the percentage in, say, 2019.

That doesn't change the reality of the here and now.

Hundreds of thousands of people are being killed or maimed while the two countries slug it out. Neither side will win. They'll both end up losers. So why not just stop fighting? The point is that the majority of the people who live in the occupied areas didn't even want to be part of Ukraine just prior to when hostilities broke out in 2022. If there's a ceasefire that becomes permanent, along existing battle lines, you're not creating a new Kurdistan or whatever.

You're not stupid either Xpartan. The Dzerkalo Tyzhnia / Ukrainian Institute of the Future poll was conducted in person, and there's no reason why telephone interviews conducted by Gallup, Pew Research, or GfK would reflect Russian government views instead of reality either.

You realize there's a big difference between a poll conducted by a Ukrainian or Western organization and a staged referendum. The fact that the voting percentages for the referendums in Kherson or Zaporozhia don't accurately reflect reality doesn't mean the same is true of polls.

Given that you're retired now Paulie, you should have plenty of time to try to debunk the poll results described in Wikipedia. Just go to the references. Don't expect me to do your work for you. Google translate is your friend. And your link purportedly showing that 80% of Donetsk and Luhansk wanted to be part of Ukraine in 1991 doesn't work. Nor do your NPR and Chicago Tribune links. It must be those Russian trolls, up to no good.

[Xpartan]

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.

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/



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.

Every good lie has bits of truth mixed in. It is true that many ethnic Russians in Crimea and Donbas cheered on the occupiers when they orchestrated the coups in 2014. Being as it is, you're not dumb. You simply can't not understand that any polls and / or referendums that took place under the threat of violence from an occupying army can't be taken seriously. You'd have to be completely detached from reality to believe that any honest polling is possible under these circumstances.

In addition, today the Russians are occupying much more than Crimea and Donbas. How do you like the "referendums" in Kherson and Zaporozhia? Genuine, you think?

That's not even mentioning that even if there is a local majority anywhere in the world, they can't just decide to secede from the state because they feel like it. Ask the Kurds, the Catalans, the Basques, the Flemish, the Cypriots, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh and probably dozens of more separatist movements around the world or simply go back to Abe Lincoln, if you don't believe me.

Fortunately, I know you ain't dumb. You're just stubborn.

[Xpartan]

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

With all his posts having appeared within the last week? I'd say "based" is a presumption, not fact.

Besides, why would it matter? Some members posting blatant Kremlin propaganda here play in OAE, others in South America. Those people aren't just voicing their opinions; they repeat and repost Russian lies.

Quite honestly, when someone posts pure BS bits of propaganda from a hostile government on a mongering forum, I just can't help wondering why.

[Paulie97]

After 9 years of war Russia still only controls 17% of Ukrainian territory. That's pretty sad for a super power, isn't it? While they are dealing with a neighbor, right next door.

[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.