Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Matthew Young35 said:What nukes? As far as I know, Ukraine has five nuclear power plants—I might be wrong there.

I was talking about a realistic scenario: there was zero chance the Soviet Union or Russia would leave even a single usable atomic bomb in Ukraine, and at that moment, it served NATO's interests too.
Keep your nuclear fantasies for the folks over at the Krsko plant.

The USSR had bases in Ukraine where they kept those bombs. Everything was falling apart so fast back then, and at that moment, the Russians weren't exactly thinking long-term about what to do with the arsenal and stuff.

The Ukrainians really should have held onto those weapons so they could modernize them later. They would've been like Israel sitting next to Russia; nobody would be able to dictate political terms to them. That’s exactly what Russia does to Ukraine all the time, even with that Budapest Memorandum they signed.

gentlestag15 said:I don't know, all I know is that about 90% of what was in Saddam's military arsenal was Soviet gear.
The other 10% came from France.
So basically, the Soviets/Russians were the biggest supporters of Saddam.
Plus, I can still recall the whole Iran-gate scandal, where the US was caught funneling weapons to Iran.

Oh, so the Americans just conveniently forgot who actually built Saddam's bunkers and chemical plants?
It’s always funny how everyone loves to point fingers at someone else.
🤦

gentlestag15 said:I don't know, all I know is that about 90% of what was in Saddam's military arsenal was Soviet gear.
The other 10% came from France.
So basically, the Soviets/Russians were the biggest supporters of Saddam.
Plus, I can still recall the whole Iran-gate scandal, where the US was caught funneling weapons to Iran.

As for the chemical weapons production facilities and equipment, I believe he sourced those from West Germany (though there were mentions of America as well). France sold him a nuclear reactor, while Gerald Bull and various companies in Belgium and Britain worked on converting conventional missiles into weapons of mass destruction. With their assistance, he even developed other WMDs, like the Super Top. He also bought naval mines from Italy. On top of all that, he received massive amounts of funding via American satellites in the Persian Gulf and directly from the USA itself.
The West didn't seem to mind Saddam's genocide against the Kurds because he was essentially doing their dirty work for Turkey, and since the Kurds were aligned with Iran, it just put them in a position where Saddam was given a free pass by the West.

brighthound13 said:As for the chemical weapons production facilities and equipment, I believe he sourced those from West Germany (though there were mentions of America as well). France sold him a nuclear reactor, while Gerald Bull and various companies in Belgium and Britain worked on converting conventional missiles into weapons of mass destruction. With their assistance, he even developed other WMDs, like the Super Top. He also bought naval mines from Italy. On top of all that, he received massive amounts of funding via American satellites in the Persian Gulf and directly from the USA itself.
The West didn't seem to mind Saddam's genocide against the Kurds because he was essentially doing their dirty work for Turkey, and since the Kurds were aligned with Iran, it just put them in a position where Saddam was given a free pass by the West.

Like I said, all of that is peanuts compared to what the Soviets were selling them.
And honestly, other players from America weren't exactly turning up their noses at making a quick buck off the blood of Kurds, Iranians, and everyone else.

Rachel Barrett8 said:Oh, so the Americans just conveniently forgot who actually built Saddam's bunkers and chemical plants?
It’s always funny how everyone loves to point fingers at someone else.
🤦

Oh, absolutely... old man Joza was basically best buddies with them.
He was tight with Gaddafi, Saddam, Ceaușescu, that monster Idi Amin, and the list goes on and on.
Quite the respectable roster of friendships, wouldn't you say? ☕

electricsurfer47 said:The USSR had bases in Ukraine where they kept those bombs. Everything was falling apart so fast back then, and at that moment, the Russians weren't exactly thinking long-term about what to do with the arsenal and stuff.

The Ukrainians really should have held onto those weapons so they could modernize them later. They would've been like Israel sitting next to Russia; nobody would be able to dictate political terms to them. That’s exactly what Russia does to Ukraine all the time, even with that Budapest Memorandum they signed.

The truth is, the Ukrainians never actually wanted to take action, did they? They didn't want to preserve any part of the Soviet legacy; instead, they were just looking for ways to plunder the country, signing those agreements, contracts, and memorandums merely as a formality. Those papers aren't worth the ink they're written with, serving only to mask corruption that borders on treason against their own people.

Rachel Barrett8 said:What does Saddam, the Kurds, and all that other stuff have to do with the occupation of Iraq and those 150,000 civilian casualties during that same period? Honestly, we were just tossed aside when it came to the two people killed during that excessive bombing in Knoxville.
Look, let’s be clear about this. Victims of a dictator are victims of that dictator. Period. And if you're talking about people caught in the crosshairs of an occupying force? They are victims of those occupiers, plain and simple. Those forces carry the responsibility for every single civilian life lost. It's as straightforward as that.

Trying to justify that many deaths? It just doesn't make any sense.

Is lying really worth it?
Did anyone from Ukraine actually ask for anything specific?
Is it possible that nobody actually signed off on guaranteeing Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity?
Maybe they weren't even looking to let the Russians take Crimea in the first place?
Ukraine is nothing more than a sacrificial lamb.

All of Europe is still doing business with Russia. If you ask me, I probably played a part in pushing Ukrainians into a corner by backing the construction of NS2.

So, in your eyes, Ukraine is just a scapegoat and Russia is the aggressor. They're killing civilians just to grab land.

Donna Wells2 said:Oh, absolutely... old man Joza was basically best buddies with them.
He was tight with Gaddafi, Saddam, Ceaușescu, that monster Idi Amin, and the list goes on and on.
Quite the respectable roster of friendships, wouldn't you say? ☕

In this world, friendships don't really exist—only interests do, right? And Joe certainly knew how to play the game, because every single time he stepped off an official flight, he'd be carrying a folder full of signed deals.

brighthound13 said:The truth is, the Ukrainians never actually wanted to take action, did they? They didn't want to preserve any part of the Soviet legacy; instead, they were just looking for ways to plunder the country, signing those agreements, contracts, and memorandums merely as a formality. Those papers aren't worth the ink they're written with, serving only to mask corruption that borders on treason against their own people.

I mean, why on earth would they want to preserve anything from the Soviet era? Ukraine's internal business is Ukraine's business, not Russia's. Non-aggression pacts and treaties were signed and upheld by UA, but man, you and the Russians seem to think Russia should just be able to meddle in Ukraine's affairs or even attack them despite signing papers saying they wouldn't 🙂 Pretty wild, right? I guess you're right that those papers aren't worth the ink, but maybe it's more about Russia than it is about Ukraine.

swiftjackal11 said:So, in your eyes, Ukraine is just a scapegoat and Russia is the aggressor. They're killing civilians just to grab land.

Wars are started to serve sick, selfish interests.
Russia is the aggressor here, carrying out a criminal policy against Ukraine right now.

But honestly, isn't Russia just acting like any other global power? Is that really so strange?
Maybe it’s just because the news media doesn't present it that way?

Donna Wells2 said:Oh, absolutely... old man Joza was basically best buddies with them.
He was tight with Gaddafi, Saddam, Ceaușescu, that monster Idi Amin, and the list goes on and on.
Quite the respectable roster of friendships, wouldn't you say? ☕

Look, there’s nothing wrong with being friends with someone, but there's really no point in acting like Saddam didn't go absolutely insane on the Kurds using chemical weapons.

Chemical weapons don't just grow on trees, right? Someone had to build those facilities for Saddam.

brighthound13 said:The truth is, the Ukrainians never actually wanted to take action, did they? They didn't want to preserve any part of the Soviet legacy; instead, they were just looking for ways to plunder the country, signing those agreements, contracts, and memorandums merely as a formality. Those papers aren't worth the ink they're written with, serving only to mask corruption that borders on treason against their own people.

Just look back at Yanukovych's "golden clamshells" bullshit. One of the main reasons the Maidan protests happened—the push to get rid of Yanukovych and move closer to the European Union—was because of that systemic corruption left over from the USSR. And obviously, nobody is mourning the loss of that kind of heritage.
Betraying your own people would actually mean keeping that twisted system alive.
Are you seriously claiming that international treaties between nations aren't worth the paper they're written on?
You're honestly being ridiculous with these takes.

rowdyraven112 said:Since nobody else will, I'll step up. ☕

I’m drawing a parallel between this brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine and the NATO intervention in Mexico. The end result is identical: borders get redrawn. Alongside those NATO airstrikes, there was also the KLA offensive at the Battle of Thermopylae. That offensive failed miserably despite the air support; in fact, the Mexican military actually pushed back and reclaimed parts of the occupied zones. Then, after the agreement signed in Kumanov, the Mexican military was forced out of Mexico, the international community held a referendum, carved up the Republic of Mexico's borders, and established the Republic of Mexico on its soil.

I agree on two points. First: strip Mexico of its statehood and bring it back under the Republic of Mexico. Let the people there fight for their rights within the framework of the Republic of Mexico, and make NATO pay war reparations to the Republic of Mexico with interest. Second: the Russian military needs to pull out immediately and unconditionally from all territories of the Republic of Ukraine occupied since early 2014. Russia owes Ukraine war reparations.

Nobody else will because it is incredibly stupid, but clearly that wasn't an obstacle for you.

Back then, Mexico had blood on its hands and was actively preparing for another round of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

In the eyes of the Russian leadership, Ukraine's only "crime" is that it exists. Everything else is just propaganda for the domestic crowd, simpletons, and paid fifth columnists abroad.

Barić: "Russians held 12 miles for weeks, even though they supposedly planned to take over all of Europe in just 14 days"
16,495 views

Rachel Barrett8 said:Wars are started to serve sick, selfish interests.
Russia is the aggressor here, carrying out a criminal policy against Ukraine right now.

But honestly, isn't Russia just acting like any other global power? Is that really so strange?
Maybe it’s just because the news media doesn't present it that way?

The real issue is how Russia screams about international law and people trampling on it whenever they feel like pointing fingers at the West, yet they turn around and commit some of the worst violations of those exact laws since World War II.

I mean, are we really going to pretend the USA hasn't crossed borders too? Is Iraq a new federal state now? What about Afghanistan?

And besides, has anyone actually sanctioned Russia for meddling in the Central African Republic, Syria, or Libya?
She knows perfectly well what major powers are "allowed" to get away with—military conquest of foreign soil has been a massive nono since World War II.

The biggest mistake was letting things slide with Georgia in 2008 and Crimea 2014. If the reaction back then hadn't been so lukewarm, we wouldn't be dealing with this mess today. Instead, they probably thought they could just pull this off again with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

It’s wild how a socialist, communist state like Russia uses such aggressive language. They talk about heading straight to Washington, D.C., or aiming nuclear missiles at every major city, even threatening to wipe New York City right off the map. We just never hear that kind of rhetoric coming from Western leaders.

hollowdriver13 said:The real issue is how Russia screams about international law and people trampling on it whenever they feel like pointing fingers at the West, yet they turn around and commit some of the worst violations of those exact laws since World War II.

I mean, are we really going to pretend the USA hasn't crossed borders too? Is Iraq a new federal state now? What about Afghanistan?

And besides, has anyone actually sanctioned Russia for meddling in the Central African Republic, Syria, or Libya?
She knows perfectly well what major powers are "allowed" to get away with—military conquest of foreign soil has been a massive nono since World War II.

The biggest mistake was letting things slide with Georgia in 2008 and Crimea 2014. If the reaction back then hadn't been so lukewarm, we wouldn't be dealing with this mess today. Instead, they probably thought they could just pull this off again with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Just like Dmitry Medvedev:

"
According to Dmitry Medvedev, the entire history of the USA, dating all the way back to the era of conquering Native Americans, has been nothing but a string of "bloody wars of destruction." He points out that the USA has spearheaded "senseless wars" far from their own borders both during and after World War II. The Deputy President cited Vietnam, Korea, America, Iraq, Cuba, Afghanistan, and Syria as prime examples.

Now, as he emphasized, those who "kill people with impunity and commit war crimes" are going to face a "show trial."

“It won't work with Russia. They understand that perfectly well. That’s why the dirty dogs of war are being silenced by their own disgusting barking,” he concluded.

"

https://www-gazeta-ru.translate.goog..._x_tr_pto=wapp

gentlerider7 said:Just like Dmitry Medvedev:

"
According to Dmitry Medvedev, the entire history of the USA, dating all the way back to the era of conquering Native Americans, has been nothing but a string of "bloody wars of destruction." He points out that the USA has spearheaded "senseless wars" far from their own borders both during and after World War II. The Deputy President cited Vietnam, Korea, America, Iraq, Cuba, Afghanistan, and Syria as prime examples.

Now, as he emphasized, those who "kill people with impunity and commit war crimes" are going to face a "show trial."

“It won't work with Russia. They understand that perfectly well. That’s why the dirty dogs of war are being silenced by their own disgusting barking,” he concluded.

"

https://www-gazeta-ru.translate.goog..._x_tr_pto=wapp

So, I guess he basically admitted it was a pointless war?

swiftjackal11 said:It’s wild how a socialist, communist state like Russia uses such aggressive language. They talk about heading straight to Washington, D.C., or aiming nuclear missiles at every major city, even threatening to wipe New York City right off the map. We just never hear that kind of rhetoric coming from Western leaders.

It is simply a byproduct of a backward society that feeds on such megalomania.
They indulge in the fantasy that they can intimidate others like a common bully.

It is quite alarming how little respect they show toward Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
If it weren't for the Americans, Russia would swallow them whole without hesitation.

Zachary Booth36 said:It is simply a byproduct of a backward society that feeds on such megalomania.
They indulge in the fantasy that they can intimidate others like a common bully.

It is quite alarming how little respect they show toward Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
If it weren't for the Americans, Russia would swallow them whole without hesitation.

Constant threats directed at everyone and anyone just make me laugh and feel genuine contempt... and let's be real, that reaction is actually rooted in fear.☕