Ukraine War

[LINative]

Originally Posted by ukrkoz

The ONLY reasonable solution for Ukraine is reunion with Russia, as it was for centuries.

If Ukraine stays "independent", it will be decimated and seize to exist as meaningful country. It's nothing but a spare change in global politics. If it goes under Russia, it has chance of preserving its state and ethnicity.

The ONLY REASONABLE solution for Russia is stop behaving like a 19th century imperialist colonial empire that turns so many her neighbors against her. It is the only way Russia is going to maintain her independence and not become a shrunken Chinese satellite vassal state.

[Ken_N]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

No one here cares whether every Ukrainian dies. They're not pro-Ukraine, they're anti-Russia.

What are Russians dying for again? The ghost memory of an empire?

[Ken_N]

Originally Posted by ukrkoz

[…]
If Ukraine stays "independent", it will be decimated and seize to exist as meaningful country. It's nothing but a spare change in global politics. If it goes under Russia, it has chance of preserving its state and ethnicity.

Have you read the denazification plans? There won’t be any state or ethnicity anymore. “Ukraine” as a concept will be gone under Russian rule.

[erasure]

Here is the update on the latest news from one more Ukrainian blogger I follow.

Key takeaways ( I cross-reference the events/organizations he mentions as I go);

1. The "West" ( Pentagon et al,) gave Ukrainian troops permission by now, to strike Russian territories ( which was advised against earlier.)
Apparently this is happening because Ukrainian army is losing ground, plus the blogger says that there is opinion out there, that such new approach is something that will bring the war to a closure faster, and that's what *the West* wants.

So already yesterday Russian air defense shot down the Grom 2 rocket north of Kerch, which was most likely targeting that Crimean bridge and was sent from Zaporozhie region, from a distance approximately 290 km. Such location for Grom 2 is very convenient for Ukrainian troops, since it can reach the Crimean bridge, as well as the rear of the Russian positions in Zaporozhie and DNR.

According to the blogger, Grom 2 was designed on the basis of Soviet Tochka U, and has the range up to 500 KM.

If Grom 2 was moved to Zaporozhie region by Ukrainian army, it means that the testing phase of it is completed.

With the help of these new tactics ( stepping up the war effort,) the West hopes to put both Moscow and Zelensky at the negotiations table. Even though while Russia is determined to take over bigger part of Donbass, and Ukraine is still preparing the offensive, in order to destroy the land passage to Crimea.

Zelensky demands from Syrsky to keep on retaining Bakhmut until 9th of May, in order to not allow Russians to have the *psychological victory,* and to not to let the fighting spirit of Ukrainian troops down before the upcoming counter-offensive.

2. Prigozhin addressed Zelensky after these news ( regarding 9th of May,) saying that "we are not superstitious" and pointing to him at rebelling Ukrainian troops in Chasov Yar and Konstantinovka.

"They are putting down their weapons and leaving" - he said, "please allow your people to live longer, call them off from the front lines, don't kill thousands of Ukrainians with your own hands."

The "Der Spiegel" journalist, Eckhard Klein who visited Bakhmut, confirmed his words, writing about heavy losses of Ukrainian troops.

3. The issue of both Russian and Ukrainian "elites" and their children not willing to participate in this war is raised by both Ukrainians and Russians alike.

Prigozhin was particularly vocal about it, saying that back in Tzarist time it was not only the commoners, but the aristocracy and their children that were fighting on Russia's side, while today "Russia doesn't have aristocracy, but the well to do scum, that hides and protects their children, while someone else is dying on the front lines."

"If their children would have worked at least in the military headquarters, this would serve the purpose too, since coming home, they'd tell to their dads "what a mess up I saw at my place of work, and then" - continues Prigozhin, - this information hopefully would be delivered to the proper places."


4. After the recent meeting in Ramstein of the "contact group," the decision was made that the priority in helping Ukraine should be supplied air defense, and continued preparation of the tank crews and air defense operators.

Reminder; 25,000 Ukrainians are undergoing military training in Germany, with about 8,000 of them being already deployed back to Ukraine. In addition to that, the West has supplied Ukraine with 230 tanks and 1,500 other BMPs sufficient for 9 tank brigades.

As well, Ukraine received the green light for cooperating with the NSPA - NATO Support Procurement Agency, which confirms "that the "allies" are ready to support Ukraine as long as needed."
When asked to comment on the results of Ramstein 11 meeting and upcoming Ukrainian offensive, Prigozhin said the following;

"Let's go point by point;
a. The supply of anti-air defense is important for Ukraine - it's true, to protect their strategic points inside their country that we are targeting. Yes, the effectiveness of our strikes is pretty high, but they will try to organize self-defense.

b. The allies will continue the military training of Ukrainians, and judging by today's figure, they have 25,000 spots available, and they'll continue to supply this amount of trained people churning out up to 100, 000 in duration of 3-4 months probably... And that's a lot of people. 8,000 that accomplished training and were already returned to Ukraine is not bad, but it's not a significant number, since their losses today are very heavy.

The West passed them 230 tanks and 1,500 BMPs, which is a significant number to help resisting our troops. The green light for purchases through the NSPA means that they can borrow as much as they like and America will be paying for all of it. So this readiness (from the West) to support them, doesn't spell anything good for us.

The announcement that all NATO members expect Ukraine to be part of NATO - I don't see anything good in it either. It means we have to get our claws out - the jokes are over. We have to dig in in such way, that it would be possible to extract us only together with the dead hands of the enemy.

c. When will the Ukrainian offensive take place? Ukraine constantly bags us with this upcoming event "at any moment" - it keeps on reminding us about it on a daily basis, so that we would lose our guard.

Today the offensive is not taking place for obvious reasons - the ground is too muddy. Even the regular vehicles have hard time making through it. So when they will decide to attack, it's up to them - they won't notify me, I'm sure. But they will attack, that's for sure, and we have to be ready, so that we wouldn't be taken by surprise as back in 1941."


Recently, few Turkish media outlets reported that Russia supposedly can make a deal with the US and to get out of the conflict, curbing Wagner's activities in Ukraine and elsewhere.

When these media outlets asked Prigozhin to comment, he didn't respond.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIU5WkBduD0

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by Ken_N

What are Russians dying for again? The ghost memory of an empire?

Their Russian-speaking compatriots in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine who overwhelmingly wanted free of Kiev rule, and who were being killed and abused by Kiev for eight years.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Their Russian-speaking compatriots in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine who overwhelmingly wanted free of Kiev rule, and who were being killed and abused by Kiev for eight years.

AND to prevent NATO from admitting Ukraine there, and letting the West using Ukraine for its own purpose against Russia - be that military or economic purpose.

[Pryvete]

Originally Posted by erasure

AND to prevent NATO from admitting Ukraine there, and letting the West using Ukraine for its own purpose against Russia - be that military or economic purpose.

Anyone who says that Russia shouldn't have gone in, I ask them what they believe the alternative solution should have been and how it should have been carried out. For years now you had frivolous efforts at negotiations that went nowhere. We all know darn well what the likely fate of ethnic and linguistic Russian like peoples would have been in the event that this extremist influenced government had been allowed to militarily subjugate the Donbass. If people think that this should have been resolved differently I ask where the UN was. Why wasn't a peacekeeping force sent in to maintain a ceasefire? Heck! Why would you trust a government that openly venerates Stepan Bandera and votes against a UN resolutions that was pursuing the blacklisting of Neo-Nazi veneration? Nothing good would have come of that and I doubt anyone in Europe and America would have given a darn about it.

Besides that you have the precedent set by the United States itself in preemptive collective defence in the Caroline Test to prescribe legal validity to this engagement.

[Adhom]

Originally Posted by Pryvete

Anyone who says that Russia shouldn't have gone in, I ask them what they believe the alternative solution should have been and how it should have been carried out. For years now you had frivolous efforts at negotiations that went nowhere. We all know darn well what the likely fate of ethnic and linguistic Russian like peoples would have been in the event that this extremist influenced government had been allowed to militarily subjugate the Donbass. If people think that this should have been resolved differently I ask where the UN was. Why wasn't a peacekeeping force sent in to maintain a ceasefire? Heck! Why would you trust a government that openly venerates Stepan Bandera and votes against a UN resolutions that was pursuing the blacklisting of Neo-Nazi veneration? Nothing good would have come of that and I doubt anyone in Europe and America would have given a darn about it.

Besides that you have the precedent set by the United States itself in preemptive collective defence in the Caroline Test to prescribe legal validity to this engagement.

Maybe ask your fellow Russian speaking people why they so easily side with the West. And why this did not happen with all the other people the US had a much more active role in trying to win to our side.

Russians are like that drunk husband who beats his wife and can't understand why she left him.

[Pryvete]

Originally Posted by Adhom

Maybe ask your fellow Russian speaking people why they so easily side with the West. And why this did not happen with all the other people the US had a much more active role in trying to win to our side.

Russians are like that drunk husband who beats his wife and can't understand why she left him.

I don't speak Russian and the United States has had an adversarial relationship with the nation of Russia going back 100 years; even after the collapse of the Soviet Union though that deconstructive negative dynamic has persisted. You can see the kind of Russia that the USA wants in the broken, exploitable mess that was the 1990s under Yelstin.

You might be surprised at the sentiments given about the prospect of a restructured ensemble of statelets comprised of the former Russian Federation that would see it carved up and rendered exploitable by the USA. Dick Cheney was one of those individuals who expressed support for it, if I'm not mistaken.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

What the Peace of Westphalia did was establish the concept of territorial integrity/territorial sovereignty. Which created the foundations for the modern nation-state and international law. Putin is in clear violation of the principles set forth by the Peace of Westphalia. Russia does not respect territorial integrity or territorial sovereignty.

I don't believe that it's exactly the case ( the way you've put it.)
Because if you look at the post-Westphalia's agreement map of Europe, you will notice that the "nations-states" didn't look anything they looked even couple of centuries later, since their borders were redrawn many times for whatever reasons (but mostly following wars I would think.)
And that means that the rulers ( and population possibly) were not agreeing to the existing borders any longer - they wanted these borders to be redrawn (but not abolished all together, and thus still adhering to the concept of "nation-states.")

Which, in turn, would benefit SOME countries/rulers, while putting in disadvantage the other.

So something of this kind is going on with Putin as well.

That means he is not questioning "territorial integrity" of France or Germany for example.

But he sees "territorial integrity of Russia" differently now, comparably to 30 years ago, and it became a pressuring matter to him. Because he realized that the borders, the way they were outlined 30 years ago, benefits specifically the "Western" block and not Russia.

And that's what he wants to change.

Which, in turn, challenges the West and the current "world order."

I would describe the Peace of Westphalia in far more negative terms than you do. The principle it actually established was, "I will let you oppress your people if you let me oppress mine." Which is the true foundation for the modern world. It was this respect for territorial integrity that allowed greater centralization of the state and the forced-assimilation of the masses.

Yes, probably.

So if I'll put it in biblical terms - the oppression of some by others is set in place as the "order of things".
And that's where " the poor will be always with us" mentioned by Jesus, comes in play. It's something preordained.

This is precisely what the Kiev government is trying to do in Ukraine, and would have succeeded given enough time.

The Peace of Westphalia allowed the European Atlantic powers to focus on colonizing the world instead of fighting wars with each other. Almost all of the wars until the Napoleonic Wars were fought over colonies and trade rights, not European territory.

I am not sure what you refer to as "Atlantic powers."
Because when it comes to the colonization of the Latin America by the Spaniards for example, these were not the same people that moved the industrial revolution ( or came up with all the technological innovations,) so the results of their colonization was very different from, say, colonization by the Britons.
Therefore lumping them all together as the "Atlantic powers" doesn't make much sense.

In any case, it was the relative political stability of the Atlantic powers, combined with the abundant resources of the "New World" that subsidized the growth of European industry. And it was Western Europe's advantageous position along the key trade routes that gave them access to markets around the world.

Again - "European industry" is not something "unified."
In fact - European countries are so different in their nature, that it doesn't even make sense to lump them all together; Europe is clearly divided within "Latin" and "Germanic" lines, ( with France being notably its own thing kinda.)

What you need to understand is, the reason I support Russia in this war is because I despise territorial integrity and territorial sovereignty. I despise the Peace of Westphalia. These cancerous principles are what create mass-migration and cultural genocide.

Yet another "huh"
You will need to elaborate on it a bit pls.

Communism is stateless. Socialism is the system you're referring to, and socialism is a derivative of capitalism. The whole point of capitalism/socialism is to make the peasants dependent and thus subservient.

I used "communism" instead of "socialism" because.. er.. that's how everyone around here refers to the Soviet system. Me, being personally part of it - I am not confused for a second, what kind of system I lived under)))

In capitalism the peasants are dependent on their employers/customers. In socialism they are dependent on the state. In both cases dependency strips them of their freedom.

The problem is - if peasants were not stripped of their freedom during Soviet times, if they were left up to their own devices to do what they were pleased to do, the whole country wouldn't have been able to industrialize by the time of WWII and would have been wiped out.

The whole society was lagging behind in its development, but this was not Stalin's fault, it was fault of the Tzarist Empire, and Stalin had to fix this problem in the most brutal and efficient way, because Russia was running out of time. And that's why peasants were the first ones to suffer. In fact, Stalin hated them as class it seems; they were standing on the way of his grand plans to industrialize the society.

You would love this video by G. Edward Griffin.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4vTHwvioZ4

I will watch it, thank you.

Individualism is just capitalism, and the power of money has never been limited. I personally think collectivism is good, but the collectivism of strangers is tyranny and exploitation by the ruling classes. These articles explain how the west became individualistic.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...d-family-ties/

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...sion-with-ince

Again - this comes across as some typical American writing, as some specifically American outlook, and not some "Western" writing.

Because really - there is no such thing as "unanimous West."

Europe is quite different from US in many ways, and even "Europe" itself greatly varies.

200 years together is in reference to the Jews.

Yeah I looked it up, and as I expected ( judging by the reviews) - "It's all Jews fault"- that's the main theme of the book, coming from any typical Orthodox Slavophile that Solzhenitsyn was.
Even though I would be the first one to acknowledge that Jews for example played big role in creating the disaster that the post-Soviet Russia was ( because of their extensive ties in the banking sector,) but still - if it were not for the upper echelon of the Soviet officials (ethnic Russians first of all,) that allowed all this to happen, the Jews wouldn't have had any chance to do what they did.

I have watched it, but I didn't say the Soviet Union = Russia, I said the Soviet Union != Russia.

!= means "not equal" in most programming languages. In some programming languages not equal is =

Oh my bad.

This thingy ~ would have alerted me that I am dealing with some type of coding, but not the exclamation mark.

Not good enough to catch my attention)))