By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Russian soldiers sent Olga Novikova, founder/director of Mariupol film festival video with her captured son demanding to pay 5000 Euro ransom for his life. If not they promised to send video of his execution. links in comments. pic.twitter.com/VBtauH45IZ
Two charming little actresses, Elizabeth and Sonya, of the city theatre of Mariupol. They both performed the role of Lucy in "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe".
This is a very good resource on the history of Ukraine and counters Putin's soundbite of it not being a nation.
“Ukraine is maybe the most important place in the world right now, and the fate of freedom writ large really does hang on what happens in Ukraine,†says historian @TimothyDSnyder, who’s teaching an open class on the history of Ukraine at Yale. pic.twitter.com/Rphpy5JgOB
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.
Let's just be clear about this:
- NATO deployed minimal defensive weapons to existing NATO countries near Russia. Countries who are scared for their safety given they have been previously invaded by Russia and given the Russian invasion of Crimea.
- NATO wasn't even close to admitting Ukraine.
On the other hand:
- Russia invaded Ukraine, a non-NATO member. - Russia invaded Crimea. - Russia has hit a NATO country with missiles. - Russia has repeatedly lied on the world stage.
There is no real provacation here, you're doing what you always do which is go for false equivalences and "but both sides" arguments which I think is pretty insulting to the millions of Ukrainians suffering due to this unprovoked war started purely on the basis of Putin paranoia.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:16 - Nov 15 with 5112 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:04 - Nov 15 by StokieBlue
Let's just be clear about this:
- NATO deployed minimal defensive weapons to existing NATO countries near Russia. Countries who are scared for their safety given they have been previously invaded by Russia and given the Russian invasion of Crimea.
- NATO wasn't even close to admitting Ukraine.
On the other hand:
- Russia invaded Ukraine, a non-NATO member. - Russia invaded Crimea. - Russia has hit a NATO country with missiles. - Russia has repeatedly lied on the world stage.
There is no real provacation here, you're doing what you always do which is go for false equivalences and "but both sides" arguments which I think is pretty insulting to the millions of Ukrainians suffering due to this unprovoked war started purely on the basis of Putin paranoia.
SB
There is little point in you listing things Russia have done when I have already said on this thread "The invasion was totally unjustified, barbaric and wrong" and "There is no justification for Russia's appalling behaviour". Even on the day after the invasion I wrote "They lie and lie and lie" on this board.
You cannot seem to understand that just because one side is in the wrong, that doesn't make the other side perfect. Whether Russia was provoked is a matter of opinion which can be debated. But you seem to be saying because Russia was wrong to invade, they cannot have been provoked by definition. That's just nonsensical. It's like identity politics again. Pick a side and everything the opponent says is wrong, not because they may be factually wrong, but because they are the opponent.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:16 - Nov 15 by Trequartista
There is little point in you listing things Russia have done when I have already said on this thread "The invasion was totally unjustified, barbaric and wrong" and "There is no justification for Russia's appalling behaviour". Even on the day after the invasion I wrote "They lie and lie and lie" on this board.
You cannot seem to understand that just because one side is in the wrong, that doesn't make the other side perfect. Whether Russia was provoked is a matter of opinion which can be debated. But you seem to be saying because Russia was wrong to invade, they cannot have been provoked by definition. That's just nonsensical. It's like identity politics again. Pick a side and everything the opponent says is wrong, not because they may be factually wrong, but because they are the opponent.
Please provide cases of provacation towards Russia.
They weren't provoked so I'm interested to see these examples of extreme provacation which required on a war on a country not even in the alliance allegedly doing the provacation.
The rest of your post is just confirming your "but both sides" narrative. It's fine for you to say they were provoked because you've said something bad about them which is nonsense.
SB
[Post edited 15 Nov 2022 20:26]
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:24 - Nov 15 with 5077 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:16 - Nov 15 by Trequartista
There is little point in you listing things Russia have done when I have already said on this thread "The invasion was totally unjustified, barbaric and wrong" and "There is no justification for Russia's appalling behaviour". Even on the day after the invasion I wrote "They lie and lie and lie" on this board.
You cannot seem to understand that just because one side is in the wrong, that doesn't make the other side perfect. Whether Russia was provoked is a matter of opinion which can be debated. But you seem to be saying because Russia was wrong to invade, they cannot have been provoked by definition. That's just nonsensical. It's like identity politics again. Pick a side and everything the opponent says is wrong, not because they may be factually wrong, but because they are the opponent.
Let's rephrase the question.
What was NATO's provocation that could even begin to justify military action by Russia? If there was no justification for the Russian invasion, then there was no provocation as provocation would be some justification.
There was no provocation - not even from Ukraine where explosions in the occupied Donbas region are no more provocation than any country owning a weapon at all is provocation to war.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 19:31 - Nov 15 by Eireannach_gorm
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.
And right on cue this statement from the BBC live feed at 20:07
'Russia has denied statements from Polish media outlets and officials that Russian missiles fell on the Polish village of Przewodó near the Ukrainian border.
The Russian ministry of defence posted on its Telegram, calling the reports "a deliberate provocation in order to escalate the situation".'
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:24 - Nov 15 by StokieBlue
Please provide cases of provacation towards Russia.
They weren't provoked so I'm interested to see these examples of extreme provacation which required on a war on a country not even in the alliance allegedly doing the provacation.
The rest of your post is just confirming your "but both sides" narrative. It's fine for you to say they were provoked because you've said something bad about them which is nonsense.
SB
[Post edited 15 Nov 2022 20:26]
I don't see how you are actually reading what i write now if you think my position is that the provocation required a war. If that was my position, I would say it was a justified invasion, which of course is the opposite of what i said.
The rest of my post you haven't actually countered the detail at all, you've just repeated a "both sides" claim without explaining in any detail what that might mean.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:24 - Nov 15 by Nthsuffolkblue
Let's rephrase the question.
What was NATO's provocation that could even begin to justify military action by Russia? If there was no justification for the Russian invasion, then there was no provocation as provocation would be some justification.
There was no provocation - not even from Ukraine where explosions in the occupied Donbas region are no more provocation than any country owning a weapon at all is provocation to war.
I disagree with the premise that provocation automatically justifies invasion.
If i call someone an idiot in the street and they murder me, the provocation didn't justify the attack. (Perhaps some may argue it did though )
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:33 - Nov 15 by Trequartista
I don't see how you are actually reading what i write now if you think my position is that the provocation required a war. If that was my position, I would say it was a justified invasion, which of course is the opposite of what i said.
The rest of my post you haven't actually countered the detail at all, you've just repeated a "both sides" claim without explaining in any detail what that might mean.
You've not provided any evidence for your assertion that Russia was provoked. I've not said you said it justified the war, I've said there was no provacation in the first place.
Everything else you've posted is just waffle in an attempt to avoid having to provide evidence.
Please post the evidence that Russia was provoked.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:46 - Nov 15 with 5053 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:24 - Nov 15 by Nthsuffolkblue
Let's rephrase the question.
What was NATO's provocation that could even begin to justify military action by Russia? If there was no justification for the Russian invasion, then there was no provocation as provocation would be some justification.
There was no provocation - not even from Ukraine where explosions in the occupied Donbas region are no more provocation than any country owning a weapon at all is provocation to war.
The provocation was that they found natural gas off Crimea that would have made it the 15th biggest supplier in the world and a direct economic competitor to Russia for European energy markets. Russia was therefore provoked into annexing Crimea as it was a threat to their economic survival and consequent power.
The Ukrainian Energy Ministry said at the time "Ukraine has lost 80% of oil and gas deposits in the Black Sea and a significant part of the port infrastructure due to the annexation of Crimea.”
After Crimea was annexed, Ukraine provoked Russia by cutting off natural resources (such as water) to Crimea. It then got weapons to defend itself, trained to defend itself, and wanted to join NATO to defend itself. This provoked Russia into attacking a second time.
That, and Putin never recognized Ukraine as a sovereign nation. So Ukraine's existence was a provocation.
So, provocation is clearly nonsense. You can't provoke someone who is motivated by access to your resources and doesn't recognize your right to exist as a nation. Promoting provocation just underlines a lack of understanding, a lack of critical thinking, or a willful bias.
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:37 - Nov 15 by StokieBlue
You've not provided any evidence for your assertion that Russia was provoked. I've not said you said it justified the war, I've said there was no provacation in the first place.
Everything else you've posted is just waffle in an attempt to avoid having to provide evidence.
Please post the evidence that Russia was provoked.
SB
"Just waffle" lol. How convenient.
I see you've given up on trying to counter every point except the only bit I didn't reply to in your post, training all your fire on that. But why didn't I comment on it? Because I'd already given examples with the placement of NATO missiles getting closer to Russia's borders and US backed ousting of the pro-Russian president of Ukraine. Whether this consitutes provocation is a matter of opinion on which we differ, and that's fine, but i'm not hounding you for having that opinion as you are me.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:28 - Nov 15 by WeWereZombies
And right on cue this statement from the BBC live feed at 20:07
'Russia has denied statements from Polish media outlets and officials that Russian missiles fell on the Polish village of Przewodó near the Ukrainian border.
The Russian ministry of defence posted on its Telegram, calling the reports "a deliberate provocation in order to escalate the situation".'
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:52 - Nov 15 by Kropotkin123
So you are making the point that Ukraine has taken actions that Russia didn't like that in no way justify Russia invading Ukraine...
I'm glad we spent all that time on something so insightful.
Pretty much.
I am spending lots of time repeating that position, not because it is so insightful, but because people are getting cross with it and i'm having to re-explain it over and over.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:51 - Nov 15 by Trequartista
"Just waffle" lol. How convenient.
I see you've given up on trying to counter every point except the only bit I didn't reply to in your post, training all your fire on that. But why didn't I comment on it? Because I'd already given examples with the placement of NATO missiles getting closer to Russia's borders and US backed ousting of the pro-Russian president of Ukraine. Whether this consitutes provocation is a matter of opinion on which we differ, and that's fine, but i'm not hounding you for having that opinion as you are me.
So, on the missiles:
- The majority of missiles closest to Russia are located in Romania which isn't really that close and they are purely for defensive purposes. They are kinetic missiles which can only hit targets in the air and contain no explosives so it is impossible for them to be a threat to Russia.
- The defensive forces which included defensive missiles in the Baltic countries were only placed there in 2016 as a response to the Russian invasion of Crimea (one could make a better argument that NATO were provoked rather than Russia). NATO invited the Russians to regularly come and examine the forces to prove they were defensive and had no offensive capability, something the Russians actually did until it no longer suited their narrative.
This would seem to totally refute your argument on NATO missiles near the Russian border being any form of provocation.
On the election in the Ukraine, people will have different interpretations of that but even if you see it as provocation then the invasion of Crimea after that election was surely the action to counter that. It can't really be held as a provocation for another war 8 years later unless you're trying really hard to look for a provocation.
It seems you have lapped up the Russian propaganda with regards to provocation, I still think your examples are extremely flawed and would appreciate some clearer evidence which preferably contains factual information rather than a line of your thoughts.
SB
[Post edited 15 Nov 2022 21:14]
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
1
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 21:21 - Nov 15 with 4968 views
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
Actually, I only originally said "to a certain extent" and "you could still cite provocations", I seem to have been dragged into an "it's either black or white" battle over it.
My point is not that they were provoked. My point is it is possible for there to be things that provoke AND for the reaction to be unjustified - not just here but in general in any hypothetical situation such as me being killed in the street.
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
Actually, I only originally said "to a certain extent" and "you could still cite provocations", I seem to have been dragged into an "it's either black or white" battle over it.
My point is not that they were provoked. My point is it is possible for there to be things that provoke AND for the reaction to be unjustified - not just here but in general in any hypothetical situation such as me being killed in the street.
Which "NATO countries on their borders" have installed weapons that can be compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis?
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 21:23 - Nov 15 by Nthsuffolkblue
Which "NATO countries on their borders" have installed weapons that can be compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis?
I have already answered this elsewhere today. I have not claimed there are nuclear weapons in bordering states and that the details are the same - if I were saying the situations were the same then i would be advocating Russia would be justified in threatening nuclear war if they were not removed, which I am not.
I mentioned the Cuban Missile Crisis as a comparison to illustrate the point that actions in neighbouring countries cannot just be dismissed as non-provocative on the basis that a sovereign country can do what it wants. We won't go into other invasions or interventions the US has made since then.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 21:02 - Nov 15 by Trequartista
Pretty much.
I am spending lots of time repeating that position, not because it is so insightful, but because people are getting cross with it and i'm having to re-explain it over and over.
Then I think provocation is the wrong choice of word. Amongst a significant portion of readers it will infer some sort of responsibility on the part of Ukraine for the actions that have been taken against it.
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 21:37 - Nov 15 by Trequartista
I have already answered this elsewhere today. I have not claimed there are nuclear weapons in bordering states and that the details are the same - if I were saying the situations were the same then i would be advocating Russia would be justified in threatening nuclear war if they were not removed, which I am not.
I mentioned the Cuban Missile Crisis as a comparison to illustrate the point that actions in neighbouring countries cannot just be dismissed as non-provocative on the basis that a sovereign country can do what it wants. We won't go into other invasions or interventions the US has made since then.
It is your own words you are arguing against here.
The short version is "there was no provocation".
There were no actions in neighbouring countries that cannot just be dismissed.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 21:44 - Nov 15 by Kropotkin123
Then I think provocation is the wrong choice of word. Amongst a significant portion of readers it will infer some sort of responsibility on the part of Ukraine for the actions that have been taken against it.
I disagree that provocation infers responsibility. I agree with your earlier comment that this is essentially a resource war...isn't it always? There will be more.
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
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.
TÄ“nÄ koutou
"They’re next and know it. It’s dead simple."
The Domino Theory? You're kidding right?
"Stop Putin or face all this again further down the line."
To quote from a summary of The Basic Principles of War Propaganda, (Anne Morelli, 2001).
Commandment no.3. Our adversary's leader is inherently evil and resembles the devil:
"You can not hate a group of people altogether, not even as your enemies. It is therefore more effective to direct the hatred to the leading personality of the enemy country. This way, "the enemy" will have a face, and this face will naturally become the object of hatred.
The enemy camp is most certainly run by a maniac, a monster (Milosevic, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein), which challenges us and from which one must free humanity.
The first step in the process of demonization, according to Morelli, is the reduction of a whole country to a single person, as if nobody lived in Iraq, except Saddam Hussein with his "scary" Republican guards and his "frightful" weapons of mass destruction. The opponent is characterized by all conceivable ills and evils."
A handy argument indeed should anyone wish to "spare themselves the more difficult confrontation with the discourses of a political person and "refute" him on the basis of moral judgments".
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?
Commandment no.4. We are defending a noble cause, not our particular interests!:
Morelli analyzes that the economic and geopolitical goals of war must be masked by an ideal, by moral and legitimate values,
"It is necessary to persuade public opinion that we, unlike our enemies, go to war for infinitely honorable motives."
"For the Yugoslav war, we find the same deviation of the official goals from the unacknowledged goals of the conflict."
"NATO officially intervenes in order to preserve the multi-ethnic nature of Kosovo and in order to prevent minorities from being abused, in order to establish democracy and thus in order to end the rule of a dictator. It is in the defense of the sacred concerns of human rights.
But at the end of this war you can see that none of these goals have been achieved, you have moved remarkably far away from a multi - ethnic society, you realize that economic and geopolitical goals have been achieved that have never been never spoken of."
"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."
Morelli adds: "The principle has a complement: that the enemy is a bloodthirsty monster representing a barbaric society."
Ka kite anÅ
0
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 22:37 - Nov 15 with 4828 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 20:56 - Nov 15 by Kropotkin123
They should take Königsberg. It is the only solution after such provocation.
^ This guy.
Maybe wait to establish some facts before you start WWIII?
So what crashed in the village of Przewodów, Poland today?
With the cooperation of @blueboy1969 we analyzed the available photos of fragments and came to a clear conclusion that they belong to the 48D6 motor of the 5V55-series missile of the S-300 AD system- a Ukrainian one. pic.twitter.com/f0Ex3USLN8
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 22:37 - Nov 15 by TeHuia
^ This guy.
Maybe wait to establish some facts before you start WWIII?
So what crashed in the village of Przewodów, Poland today?
With the cooperation of @blueboy1969 we analyzed the available photos of fragments and came to a clear conclusion that they belong to the 48D6 motor of the 5V55-series missile of the S-300 AD system- a Ukrainian one. pic.twitter.com/f0Ex3USLN8
How about you engage with one of my real posts, if you want facts. You've spent the last two weeks dodging them because you can't offer a legitimate rebuttal.
Edit: The reason you are a moron is because I was taking the **** out of you, because you referenced missiles being fired within Ukrainian territory as provoking Russia to invade Ukraine.
Yet your reaction to Poland taking action against Russia isn't "but they were provoked". It was "This guy... Maybe wait to establish some facts before you start WWIII?". Russia was invading Ukraine within days, with an army that it had built up over months. You're a disingenuous hypocrite.
Furthermore, I was taking the **** out of Russia, as annexing Königsberg was a meme that Czechia started and Poland and Germany got involved in. Czechia were talking about establishing Beer Stream II.
Russian news sites cried about the memes, calling the people "provocateurs." You know, the same pathetic disingenuous reason you give for the start of the war. The same accusation that is made for any action Russia doesn't agree with.
[Post edited 16 Nov 2022 3:23]
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
) 
