| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 16:20 - Nov 13 with 5446 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
"The battleline between good and evil runs through the heart of every man." Alexander Solzhenitsyn. As quoted in the Remembrance Service I attended this morning.
I think there is little doubt where his sympathies would lie on this conflict either.
If you are looking for a provocation line, then there would hardly be a country on the planet not at war with multiple others. |  |
|  |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 17:03 - Nov 13 with 5431 views | Trequartista |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 08:48 - Nov 12 by EdwardStone |
Nothing personal Mr T, just my general frustration at anyone who starts the whole
" Yeah, but.... "
line of justication foe Russia's appalling behaviour.
I tend not to deal in absolutes, but in the case of this invasion there literally is no "On the other hand...." |
Nothing personal taken.
There is no justification for Russia's appalling behaviour, that doesn't mean there wasn't provocation. Both can exist together. |  |
| |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 17:08 - Nov 13 with 5421 views | Kropotkin123 |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 04:59 - Nov 13 by TeHuia |
Kia ora e hoa
You perhaps speak of provocation as if there were degrees of it?
Many among us may have had cause to ask themselves how much provocation is enough before we react.
Wisely or unwisely.
I only wish to establish that provocation existed, or it did not.
NgÄ manaakitanga |
I only wish to establish that provocation existed, or it did not.
- Your original quote demonstrated the speaker had no idea what they were referring to - "perhaps somehow"
- Your original referenced organisation was incorrect
- Your corrected organisation's quotes demonstrated you didn't understand what you were reference
- Your next quote didn't talk about what you inferred from it.
You have no interest in establishing whether provocation existed. You scrape the internet for things that vaguely support you pre-established narrative.
You perhaps speak of provocation as if there were degrees of it?
Of course there are degrees of provocation. It is written into different countries legal systems.
Eg "The provocation must be a subjectively held belief that is reasonable. This requires: a wrongful act or insult of such a nature that it is sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control (objective)"
So, if I invaded your country, annexed your territory, and continued to supply people, arms, and finances to "separatists", it would be subjectively reasonable that you are provoked to take defensive actions such as:
- Trying to join a defensive military alliance
- Acquire defensive weapons
- Receive training from those supplying weapons on how to use them
- Reform my army to better respond to your current offensive actions and future threats.
It is not subjectively reasonable that I consider myself provoked if you take these defensive measures, caused by my offensive military actions, to launch and invasion of your country, and annex four more provinces within your nation.
It is clear you have no intention of reaching some sort of objective truth, you are just here to spread misinformation.
1. Ukraine is an independent sovereign nation
2. It defended its own territory
3. Ukraine's actions to defend it's own territory is not provocation
4. Russia has no legal basis to invade Ukraine
5. Russia has no legal basis to annex Ukrainian territory |  |
| |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 18:01 - Nov 13 with 5375 views | ChorleyBoy |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 16:20 - Nov 13 by Nthsuffolkblue |
"The battleline between good and evil runs through the heart of every man." Alexander Solzhenitsyn. As quoted in the Remembrance Service I attended this morning.
I think there is little doubt where his sympathies would lie on this conflict either.
If you are looking for a provocation line, then there would hardly be a country on the planet not at war with multiple others. |
"I think there is little doubt where his sympathies would lie on this conflict either."
I suspect you don't know enough about Solzhenitsyn then.
A good place to start is of course Gulag Archipelago - the abridged version of which is compulsory reading for all Russian school children - since 2010.
Trust me, you'll never read a more joyless book in your life.
Another good resource is the book Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile by English author Joseph Pearce.
https://www.amazon.com/Solzhenitsyn-Soul-Exile-Joseph-Pearce/dp/080101204X?pldnS
In the meantime - this article will give you a bit of balance to what you will find in the media at the moment:
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2022/03/solzhenitsyn-putin-joseph-pearce.
Finally, I must say that I am not a Putin/Russia fanboy - I am merely pointing out that there's a lot more nuance to this current conflict than either side cares to acknowledge. Unfortunately, a non-absolute position (like mine and a couple of others in this thread) is always seen by the majority as condoning the actions of, sympathising with or even supporting the wrong side.
That is a shame. |  | | |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 18:30 - Nov 13 with 5355 views | jeera |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 18:01 - Nov 13 by ChorleyBoy |
"I think there is little doubt where his sympathies would lie on this conflict either."
I suspect you don't know enough about Solzhenitsyn then.
A good place to start is of course Gulag Archipelago - the abridged version of which is compulsory reading for all Russian school children - since 2010.
Trust me, you'll never read a more joyless book in your life.
Another good resource is the book Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile by English author Joseph Pearce.
https://www.amazon.com/Solzhenitsyn-Soul-Exile-Joseph-Pearce/dp/080101204X?pldnS
In the meantime - this article will give you a bit of balance to what you will find in the media at the moment:
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2022/03/solzhenitsyn-putin-joseph-pearce.
Finally, I must say that I am not a Putin/Russia fanboy - I am merely pointing out that there's a lot more nuance to this current conflict than either side cares to acknowledge. Unfortunately, a non-absolute position (like mine and a couple of others in this thread) is always seen by the majority as condoning the actions of, sympathising with or even supporting the wrong side.
That is a shame. |
On a human level it's hard to care about nuance when we see children such as those pictured above murdered, sometimes raped first, by grown men.
Homes and lives destroyed.
There is no provocation for that behaviour on any level, in any way. None.
So yes, anything else sounds apologist. |  |
| |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 19:24 - Nov 13 with 5322 views | ChorleyBoy |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 18:30 - Nov 13 by jeera |
On a human level it's hard to care about nuance when we see children such as those pictured above murdered, sometimes raped first, by grown men.
Homes and lives destroyed.
There is no provocation for that behaviour on any level, in any way. None.
So yes, anything else sounds apologist. |
Have you seen any of the images / videos of atrocities done to the other side - the people of the Donbass? They are equally sickening.
We are all sickened by the atrocities inflicted on innocents in war - as good people, we are hard wired to be.
Your argument, which is a good one, is being used by the other side - probably on football forums but just in a different language.
There are probably posters like me there too, offering balance and being shot down for being a NATO apologist. | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) (n/t) on 20:06 - Nov 13 with 5296 views | ChorleyBoy |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 18:30 - Nov 13 by jeera |
On a human level it's hard to care about nuance when we see children such as those pictured above murdered, sometimes raped first, by grown men.
Homes and lives destroyed.
There is no provocation for that behaviour on any level, in any way. None.
So yes, anything else sounds apologist. |
[Post edited 13 Nov 2022 20:10]
| | | |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 22:27 - Nov 13 with 5246 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 18:01 - Nov 13 by ChorleyBoy |
"I think there is little doubt where his sympathies would lie on this conflict either."
I suspect you don't know enough about Solzhenitsyn then.
A good place to start is of course Gulag Archipelago - the abridged version of which is compulsory reading for all Russian school children - since 2010.
Trust me, you'll never read a more joyless book in your life.
Another good resource is the book Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile by English author Joseph Pearce.
https://www.amazon.com/Solzhenitsyn-Soul-Exile-Joseph-Pearce/dp/080101204X?pldnS
In the meantime - this article will give you a bit of balance to what you will find in the media at the moment:
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2022/03/solzhenitsyn-putin-joseph-pearce.
Finally, I must say that I am not a Putin/Russia fanboy - I am merely pointing out that there's a lot more nuance to this current conflict than either side cares to acknowledge. Unfortunately, a non-absolute position (like mine and a couple of others in this thread) is always seen by the majority as condoning the actions of, sympathising with or even supporting the wrong side.
That is a shame. |
You are right that I know little about Solzhenitsyn. I should read more of his literature. However, I am not sure why someone who was a fierce critic of communism and the Russian state would side with them invading Ukraine. Just because the abridged version of one of his books is now compulsory reading in Russian schools, I am not sure that would make him favourably disposed to Putin's actions. Of course, the current Russian regime is not the same as the one he openly opposed, but I don't see any reason to suggest he would support the annexation of Ukraine. Maybe you know more and do see there is doubt over whether he would support the invasion.
EDIT: I have just read the last article you link. It appears to show Solzhenitsyn as someone prepared to criticise Putin but who had his ear too. Clearly he saw improvements from what came before. I see nothing that would suggest he would be anything but against the invasion ... and that is a clearly far from unbiased publication trying to paint Solzhenitsyn as a Putin fan.
From the article: "Nor did Putin escape his wrath, whom he criticized for making several “political mistakes”," and "According to Russian press reports, the two men discussed Solzhenitsyn’s ideas about the political situation in contemporary Russia at some length." ... "Among the many aspects of modern Russia with which her husband “by no means agrees” were the party-dominated nature of the legislature, the absence of meaningful local self-government and the rampant corruption that continues to plague Russian society." ... "Solzhenitsyn adamantly opposes every identification of Russian patriotism with Soviet-style imperialism" - If this invasion is not Soviet-style imperialism, then I am not sure what it is! ... "In accepting the award I expressed the hope that the bitter Russian experience, which I have been studying and describing all my life, will be for us a lesson that keeps us from new disastrous breakdowns." - I doubt Solzhenitsyn would see this war as anything other than that! [Post edited 14 Nov 2022 0:26]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 23:55 - Nov 13 with 5197 views | Churchman |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 22:27 - Nov 13 by Nthsuffolkblue |
You are right that I know little about Solzhenitsyn. I should read more of his literature. However, I am not sure why someone who was a fierce critic of communism and the Russian state would side with them invading Ukraine. Just because the abridged version of one of his books is now compulsory reading in Russian schools, I am not sure that would make him favourably disposed to Putin's actions. Of course, the current Russian regime is not the same as the one he openly opposed, but I don't see any reason to suggest he would support the annexation of Ukraine. Maybe you know more and do see there is doubt over whether he would support the invasion.
EDIT: I have just read the last article you link. It appears to show Solzhenitsyn as someone prepared to criticise Putin but who had his ear too. Clearly he saw improvements from what came before. I see nothing that would suggest he would be anything but against the invasion ... and that is a clearly far from unbiased publication trying to paint Solzhenitsyn as a Putin fan.
From the article: "Nor did Putin escape his wrath, whom he criticized for making several “political mistakes”," and "According to Russian press reports, the two men discussed Solzhenitsyn’s ideas about the political situation in contemporary Russia at some length." ... "Among the many aspects of modern Russia with which her husband “by no means agrees” were the party-dominated nature of the legislature, the absence of meaningful local self-government and the rampant corruption that continues to plague Russian society." ... "Solzhenitsyn adamantly opposes every identification of Russian patriotism with Soviet-style imperialism" - If this invasion is not Soviet-style imperialism, then I am not sure what it is! ... "In accepting the award I expressed the hope that the bitter Russian experience, which I have been studying and describing all my life, will be for us a lesson that keeps us from new disastrous breakdowns." - I doubt Solzhenitsyn would see this war as anything other than that! [Post edited 14 Nov 2022 0:26]
|
There really isn’t any nuance to this conflict. It’s about as simple as any conflict can be. Just as Putin is as simple as any of his miserable worthless like could ever be.
Lucky that in this country people are still free to express their views, whatever they are.
I have read Solzhenitsyn. |  | | |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 11:11 - Nov 14 with 5110 views | ChorleyBoy |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 22:27 - Nov 13 by Nthsuffolkblue |
You are right that I know little about Solzhenitsyn. I should read more of his literature. However, I am not sure why someone who was a fierce critic of communism and the Russian state would side with them invading Ukraine. Just because the abridged version of one of his books is now compulsory reading in Russian schools, I am not sure that would make him favourably disposed to Putin's actions. Of course, the current Russian regime is not the same as the one he openly opposed, but I don't see any reason to suggest he would support the annexation of Ukraine. Maybe you know more and do see there is doubt over whether he would support the invasion.
EDIT: I have just read the last article you link. It appears to show Solzhenitsyn as someone prepared to criticise Putin but who had his ear too. Clearly he saw improvements from what came before. I see nothing that would suggest he would be anything but against the invasion ... and that is a clearly far from unbiased publication trying to paint Solzhenitsyn as a Putin fan.
From the article: "Nor did Putin escape his wrath, whom he criticized for making several “political mistakes”," and "According to Russian press reports, the two men discussed Solzhenitsyn’s ideas about the political situation in contemporary Russia at some length." ... "Among the many aspects of modern Russia with which her husband “by no means agrees” were the party-dominated nature of the legislature, the absence of meaningful local self-government and the rampant corruption that continues to plague Russian society." ... "Solzhenitsyn adamantly opposes every identification of Russian patriotism with Soviet-style imperialism" - If this invasion is not Soviet-style imperialism, then I am not sure what it is! ... "In accepting the award I expressed the hope that the bitter Russian experience, which I have been studying and describing all my life, will be for us a lesson that keeps us from new disastrous breakdowns." - I doubt Solzhenitsyn would see this war as anything other than that! [Post edited 14 Nov 2022 0:26]
|
"I am not sure why someone who was a fierce critic of communism and the Russian state would side with them invading Ukraine."
To say he was a fierce critic of the Russian state is too simplistic - he wasn't always.
I was questioning your original comment "I think there is little doubt where his sympathies would lie on this conflict either." I think there is every reason to be unsure of where his sympathies would lie in this conflict. I personally doubt very much that he would have such a polarised view on the matter.
"Just because the abridged version of one of his books is now compulsory reading in Russian schools, I am not sure that would make him favourably disposed to Putin's actions."
Me neither. I never said anything was "just because". Like I keep saying, there's plenty of nuance here and such over-simplification is pointless unless you you want to do a George Bush "you're with us, or you're against us". This attitude is not a good starting point for trying to achieve peace, which is what everybody wants, right?
"If this invasion is not Soviet-style imperialism, then I am not sure what it is! "
I don't think there are Soviet-style imperialism aims here - though I accept to the casual observer with access to one sided news - it would look like it. A huge country the size of Russia with a small population is not going to forcibly acquire land containing a population which hates them. FWIW, I think Russia probably learned a lot from its failed Soviet era history and has no intention of making similar mistakes again.
FWIW, I'm not going to be drawn into being completely black and white on this issue. I know where you and most others who have contributed to this thread stand regarding this conflict. My view is that Russia is wrong to be waging the war, but also so is NATO's continued weaponising of the Ukrainians. This might make sense to protect Ukraine, but at what expense? The death of two generations of their male population.
And before you ask - I'm sorry, I don't know what the solution is. | | | |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 15:53 - Nov 14 with 5040 views | Eireannach_gorm |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 11:11 - Nov 14 by ChorleyBoy |
"I am not sure why someone who was a fierce critic of communism and the Russian state would side with them invading Ukraine."
To say he was a fierce critic of the Russian state is too simplistic - he wasn't always.
I was questioning your original comment "I think there is little doubt where his sympathies would lie on this conflict either." I think there is every reason to be unsure of where his sympathies would lie in this conflict. I personally doubt very much that he would have such a polarised view on the matter.
"Just because the abridged version of one of his books is now compulsory reading in Russian schools, I am not sure that would make him favourably disposed to Putin's actions."
Me neither. I never said anything was "just because". Like I keep saying, there's plenty of nuance here and such over-simplification is pointless unless you you want to do a George Bush "you're with us, or you're against us". This attitude is not a good starting point for trying to achieve peace, which is what everybody wants, right?
"If this invasion is not Soviet-style imperialism, then I am not sure what it is! "
I don't think there are Soviet-style imperialism aims here - though I accept to the casual observer with access to one sided news - it would look like it. A huge country the size of Russia with a small population is not going to forcibly acquire land containing a population which hates them. FWIW, I think Russia probably learned a lot from its failed Soviet era history and has no intention of making similar mistakes again.
FWIW, I'm not going to be drawn into being completely black and white on this issue. I know where you and most others who have contributed to this thread stand regarding this conflict. My view is that Russia is wrong to be waging the war, but also so is NATO's continued weaponising of the Ukrainians. This might make sense to protect Ukraine, but at what expense? The death of two generations of their male population.
And before you ask - I'm sorry, I don't know what the solution is. |
My view is that Russia is wrong to be waging the war, but also so is NATO's continued weaponising of the Ukrainians.
The second part of this sentence is not an argument for continuing the war even if it were true. Assisting weaker countries against larger countries aggression is perfectly valid and moral stance. I don't believe that Australia is part of NATO and they are contributing hugely to the Ukrainians military.
Much like the 'provoked' false flag, the 'NATO aggression' line is quite weak. I could say that I do not like what you are saying about the Ukrainian war and that you provoked me and replied to you in an insulting or aggressive manner. The provocation line is difficult to challenge because by its nature it is different for everyone. What defines too much or even what is provocation?
The NATO threat is also circular because the threat of aggression has driven countries to join the alliance.
Of course the excuses for the war have changed with the seasons, first it was protecting Russian speakers, then it was removing Nazis, now I believe it is a religious war.
Maybe the non Russian speaking Nazi atheists should not have provoked Russia by requesting that Ukraine join NATO. |  | | |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 16:40 - Nov 14 with 5027 views | Churchman |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 11:11 - Nov 14 by ChorleyBoy |
"I am not sure why someone who was a fierce critic of communism and the Russian state would side with them invading Ukraine."
To say he was a fierce critic of the Russian state is too simplistic - he wasn't always.
I was questioning your original comment "I think there is little doubt where his sympathies would lie on this conflict either." I think there is every reason to be unsure of where his sympathies would lie in this conflict. I personally doubt very much that he would have such a polarised view on the matter.
"Just because the abridged version of one of his books is now compulsory reading in Russian schools, I am not sure that would make him favourably disposed to Putin's actions."
Me neither. I never said anything was "just because". Like I keep saying, there's plenty of nuance here and such over-simplification is pointless unless you you want to do a George Bush "you're with us, or you're against us". This attitude is not a good starting point for trying to achieve peace, which is what everybody wants, right?
"If this invasion is not Soviet-style imperialism, then I am not sure what it is! "
I don't think there are Soviet-style imperialism aims here - though I accept to the casual observer with access to one sided news - it would look like it. A huge country the size of Russia with a small population is not going to forcibly acquire land containing a population which hates them. FWIW, I think Russia probably learned a lot from its failed Soviet era history and has no intention of making similar mistakes again.
FWIW, I'm not going to be drawn into being completely black and white on this issue. I know where you and most others who have contributed to this thread stand regarding this conflict. My view is that Russia is wrong to be waging the war, but also so is NATO's continued weaponising of the Ukrainians. This might make sense to protect Ukraine, but at what expense? The death of two generations of their male population.
And before you ask - I'm sorry, I don't know what the solution is. |
Your second to last paragraph provides the solution, doesn’t it?
If NATO stops ‘weaponising’ Ukraine, Russia will take Ukraine. Peace in our time. It’s surely your solution isn’t it? Peace at any price, precious lives saved? Let’s face it, why bankrupt economies and leave people starving around the world for a country that isn’t really a country? Being even handed about it, what is Ukraine? Vlad says it’s really Russia and as he’s Russian who is to say he’s wrong?
I do. Ukraine is an independent country fighting for its life. The west is not ‘weaponising’. That term implies the west is tooling up an aggressor. It isn’t. It’s supplying materiel and expertise to help a smaller, weaker sovereign state try and defend itself against an aggressor that wants its territory and resources. What is immoral or wrong about that, unless you support Russia or you just want the problem to go away?
There is good reason why the states around Russia are supplying help in the volumes they are. They’re next and know it. It’s dead simple. Stop Putin or face all this again further down the line. | | | |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 17:04 - Nov 14 with 5004 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 11:11 - Nov 14 by ChorleyBoy |
"I am not sure why someone who was a fierce critic of communism and the Russian state would side with them invading Ukraine."
To say he was a fierce critic of the Russian state is too simplistic - he wasn't always.
I was questioning your original comment "I think there is little doubt where his sympathies would lie on this conflict either." I think there is every reason to be unsure of where his sympathies would lie in this conflict. I personally doubt very much that he would have such a polarised view on the matter.
"Just because the abridged version of one of his books is now compulsory reading in Russian schools, I am not sure that would make him favourably disposed to Putin's actions."
Me neither. I never said anything was "just because". Like I keep saying, there's plenty of nuance here and such over-simplification is pointless unless you you want to do a George Bush "you're with us, or you're against us". This attitude is not a good starting point for trying to achieve peace, which is what everybody wants, right?
"If this invasion is not Soviet-style imperialism, then I am not sure what it is! "
I don't think there are Soviet-style imperialism aims here - though I accept to the casual observer with access to one sided news - it would look like it. A huge country the size of Russia with a small population is not going to forcibly acquire land containing a population which hates them. FWIW, I think Russia probably learned a lot from its failed Soviet era history and has no intention of making similar mistakes again.
FWIW, I'm not going to be drawn into being completely black and white on this issue. I know where you and most others who have contributed to this thread stand regarding this conflict. My view is that Russia is wrong to be waging the war, but also so is NATO's continued weaponising of the Ukrainians. This might make sense to protect Ukraine, but at what expense? The death of two generations of their male population.
And before you ask - I'm sorry, I don't know what the solution is. |
"I don't think there are Soviet-style imperialism aims here - though I accept to the casual observer with access to one sided news - it would look like it. A huge country the size of Russia with a small population is not going to forcibly acquire land containing a population which hates them. FWIW, I think Russia probably learned a lot from its failed Soviet era history and has no intention of making similar mistakes again."
So, why is Russia invading Ukraine? Because it wants to keep NATO at bay because it fears NATO will invade Russia? You might not think this is Soviet-style imperialism, but until you can give a credible alternate reason for the war, you have no grounds for not thinking it. | |
| |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 17:08 - Nov 14 with 4999 views | jeera |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 16:40 - Nov 14 by Churchman |
Your second to last paragraph provides the solution, doesn’t it?
If NATO stops ‘weaponising’ Ukraine, Russia will take Ukraine. Peace in our time. It’s surely your solution isn’t it? Peace at any price, precious lives saved? Let’s face it, why bankrupt economies and leave people starving around the world for a country that isn’t really a country? Being even handed about it, what is Ukraine? Vlad says it’s really Russia and as he’s Russian who is to say he’s wrong?
I do. Ukraine is an independent country fighting for its life. The west is not ‘weaponising’. That term implies the west is tooling up an aggressor. It isn’t. It’s supplying materiel and expertise to help a smaller, weaker sovereign state try and defend itself against an aggressor that wants its territory and resources. What is immoral or wrong about that, unless you support Russia or you just want the problem to go away?
There is good reason why the states around Russia are supplying help in the volumes they are. They’re next and know it. It’s dead simple. Stop Putin or face all this again further down the line. |
The USA prolonged WW2 by selling arms to countries like the UK.
If our country and other European nations were unable to protect themselves then the war would have been over far quicker.
Obvious when you think about it. It's your own fault for defending yourselves. | |
| |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 17:29 - Nov 14 with 4985 views | Churchman |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 17:08 - Nov 14 by jeera |
The USA prolonged WW2 by selling arms to countries like the UK.
If our country and other European nations were unable to protect themselves then the war would have been over far quicker.
Obvious when you think about it. It's your own fault for defending yourselves. |
Or the support provided by Britain and the US to Russia to help defend itself against Hitler. Without it, the Germans might well have defeated the soviets and the war would have been over there with far less loss of life.
In conclusion, if any country refrained from defending themselves against an aggressor, far fewer lives would be lost. | | | |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:01 - Nov 14 with 4950 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 17:08 - Nov 14 by jeera |
The USA prolonged WW2 by selling arms to countries like the UK.
If our country and other European nations were unable to protect themselves then the war would have been over far quicker.
Obvious when you think about it. It's your own fault for defending yourselves. |
And Chamberlain's appeasement worked so well to maintain the peace too, didn't it? | |
| |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:29 - Nov 14 with 4924 views | Churchman |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:01 - Nov 14 by Nthsuffolkblue |
And Chamberlain's appeasement worked so well to maintain the peace too, didn't it? |
Indeed. Selling Czechoslovakia down the river and leaving them defenceless really went well. After all, it was only a little bit of land they were giving up for peace in our time. Edvard Benes wasn’t even in the room when the deal was done. Saved any complications or nastiness I suppose. | | | |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 14:41 - Nov 15 with 4756 views | Churchman |
So elephants ballbag face Lavrov had the brass neck to park his fat rear end in a chair at the G20 just as his people were about to launch 70 missiles and counting at civilian infrastructure. He laughed in their faces.
They were always going to hit out after their latest defeat. Of course, to some that agree with Russia that Ukraine has no right to exist, including key supporters in India, China and Iran, it is right that Russia responds to the disgraceful provocation of invading what is now Russian land.
Nuance seems to be a favoured word on here, but I’m struggling to find any in this or any justification in ‘negotiating’ with these animals. | | | |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 16:57 - Nov 15 with 4717 views | StokieBlue |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 18:18 - Nov 11 by Trequartista |
I think they were to a certain extent.
The invasion was totally unjustified, barbaric and wrong, Putin has always been a tyrant, and Russia lie and lie about everything.
But you could still cite provocations of having NATO countries on their borders installing weapons that can be compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and you could still say that Viktor Yanukovych was deposed in what amount to a US-backed putsch rather than fairly voted out of office.
It's not one or the other, you can hold all of those views simultaneously [Post edited 11 Nov 2022 18:19]
|
The comparison to the Cuban missile crisis is a false one in my opinion.
It's hugely different having offensive nuclear missiles installed minutes flight from your border to mainly defensive and non-nuclear weapons being installed on countries you invaded previously.
This war isn't about NATO provocation, it's about Putin being holed up in the Kremlin basement all covid looking at historic maps and yearning for the old days.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 19:05 - Nov 15 with 4678 views | Trequartista |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 16:57 - Nov 15 by StokieBlue |
The comparison to the Cuban missile crisis is a false one in my opinion.
It's hugely different having offensive nuclear missiles installed minutes flight from your border to mainly defensive and non-nuclear weapons being installed on countries you invaded previously.
This war isn't about NATO provocation, it's about Putin being holed up in the Kremlin basement all covid looking at historic maps and yearning for the old days.
SB |
The exact details may not be the same, but the principle holds that the Cuban missiles were a provocation, and not something the USA was prepared to ignore.
Imagine Scotland leaving the UK, joining a military alliance that wasn't NATO, and started pointing weapons at England. We wouldn't have it.
Putin annexed Crimea way before covid, I don't think his mindset has changed. | |
| |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 19:11 - Nov 15 with 4661 views | StokieBlue |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 19:05 - Nov 15 by Trequartista |
The exact details may not be the same, but the principle holds that the Cuban missiles were a provocation, and not something the USA was prepared to ignore.
Imagine Scotland leaving the UK, joining a military alliance that wasn't NATO, and started pointing weapons at England. We wouldn't have it.
Putin annexed Crimea way before covid, I don't think his mindset has changed. |
I'm not sure it is the same, you've ignored the context which is the destructive power of the weapons and the limited time the new location gives the defender to respond.
Two people killed in Poland but stray Russian missiles today.
Would you consider that a Russian provocation of NATO?
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 19:20 - Nov 15 with 4643 views | Trequartista |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 19:11 - Nov 15 by StokieBlue |
I'm not sure it is the same, you've ignored the context which is the destructive power of the weapons and the limited time the new location gives the defender to respond.
Two people killed in Poland but stray Russian missiles today.
Would you consider that a Russian provocation of NATO?
SB |
I've already said the situations are not the same, but there is still enough in both to be regarded as provocative.
I have just seen the news, that is quite frightening now regarding escalation of the war, so I would say that is a provocation, albeit probably accidental. | |
| |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 19:31 - Nov 15 with 4622 views | Eireannach_gorm |
| The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 19:20 - Nov 15 by Trequartista |
I've already said the situations are not the same, but there is still enough in both to be regarded as provocative.
I have just seen the news, that is quite frightening now regarding escalation of the war, so I would say that is a provocation, albeit probably accidental. |
does that mean there is a difference between accidental provocation and common or garden provocation? Who decides the accidental bit? Is it now acceptable for NATO to attack Russia as they have been provoked?
This is the problem with the provocation argument, it is majorly subjective and if you already have an agenda everything is provocative. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
