Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

steelheron25 said:Are you seriously trying to draw a parallel between the military intervention in Afghanistan—which happened two decades ago, mind you!—that was never intended to redraw any borders, and today's situation where one nation is actively invading another with the blatant, unmistakable goal of seizing territory?
I have to hand it to you, 🙏Nancy Gomez26.

No, I'm not comparing military interventions. I'm comparing Russian policy to Western politics.

And what did we actually get out of twenty years of war in Afghanistan?
What happened in Syria, and where did all that "moderate opposition" we were arming end up?
And what about Libya?

Russia doesn't like the regime in Ukraine, just like the West doesn't like certain regimes in Africa or Asia.

Rachel Barrett8 said:No, I'm not comparing military interventions. I'm comparing Russian policy to Western politics.

And what did we actually get out of twenty years of war in Afghanistan?
What happened in Syria, and where did all that "moderate opposition" we were arming end up?
And what about Libya?

Russia doesn't like the regime in Ukraine, just like the West doesn't like certain regimes in Africa or Asia.

Russia expanded its influence in Libya.

Nancy Gomez26 said:And in his desperate attempts to micromanage foreign affairs, Putin seems to have adopted the exact coaching methods of Miti Sadomazođubrilović.

What makes you say that?
Is it because you're watching the news and seeing Russians bombing civilian targets with massive casualties?
We all know those kinds of actions are blatant war crimes, but unfortunately, nobody ever really answers for them.

But are you basing your entire worldview on media coverage? Is that how you felt about the roughly 150,000 civilian deaths during the Iraq War?
Soft power?
Smart bombs?
Seriously?

boldmarlin32 said:Russia expanded its influence in Libya.

And I’m talking about the entire African continent here.
Out of all 54 African states, not a single one has imposed sanctions on Russia.

When you deal with leaders who are self-important and view everyone else as "lesser beings," this is exactly the kind of outcome you get.

Rachel Barrett8 said:What makes you say that?
Is it because you're watching the news and seeing Russians bombing civilian targets with massive casualties?
We all know those kinds of actions are blatant war crimes, but unfortunately, nobody ever really answers for them.

But are you basing your entire worldview on media coverage? Is that how you felt about the roughly 150,000 civilian deaths during the Iraq War?
Soft power?
Smart bombs?
Seriously?

There were victims in Iraq, and you know all about the Hussein brothers. That Iraqi dictator didn't just support terrorism; his whole regime was built on it. Just last month marked the fourteenth anniversary of the massacre where thousands of men, women, and children—mostly Kurds—were killed in the town of Halabja. They were wiped out by mustard gas and other deadly chemical weapons dropped on them by Iraqi forces under Saddam Hussein's orders. Around ten thousand civilians were wounded in that horrific attack alone. And that wasn't even an isolated incident. Halabja was just one of about 250 villages targeted by the Iraqi regime between April 1987 and August 1988.

Rachel Barrett8 said:What makes you say that?
Is it because you're watching the news and seeing Russians bombing civilian targets with massive casualties?
We all know those kinds of actions are blatant war crimes, but unfortunately, nobody ever really answers for them.

But are you basing your entire worldview on media coverage? Is that how you felt about the roughly 150,000 civilian deaths during the Iraq War?
Soft power?
Smart bombs?
Seriously?

In Iraq, the objective was to find weapons of mass destruction, yet they were nowhere to be found. I suppose Saddam just hid them exceptionally well.

Rachel Barrett8 said:It wasn't just the Majdan that set everything in motion.
The wheels were already turning long before the Majdan, driven by unrealistic and dangerous demands from the EU toward Ukraine—demands that actually triggered the Majdan in the first place.
Viktor Yanukovych couldn't just accept those EU requirements, much like any sane politician wouldn't (specifically regarding cutting trade ties with Russia), so he turned them down, and that's when the Majdan kicked off.

It wasn't just Russia stirring the pot; the EU practically pushed Ukraine straight into the flames.

Look, if you're gonna lie to people's faces, at least try to make it believable. All of Europe was trading with Russia back then, and they still are. Nobody in Ukraine asked for any of that.

Nancy Gomez26 said:In Iraq, the objective was to find weapons of mass destruction, yet they were nowhere to be found. I suppose Saddam just hid them exceptionally well.

Iraq attacked Iran, which cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and then they moved in on Kuwait
and once again, hundreds of thousands died.
That’s basically how it should go for any aggressor nation trying to snatch territory from their neighbors.
I'm certainly not shedding any tears over what happened to Saddam.
Let's just hope Putin follows right in his footsteps.

Rachel Barrett8 said:And I’m talking about the entire African continent here.
Out of all 54 African states, not a single one has imposed sanctions on Russia.

When you deal with leaders who are self-important and view everyone else as "lesser beings," this is exactly the kind of outcome you get.

Even before this conflict began, African nations had higher trade volumes with Russia than the EU and the USA combined—the very entities that slapped on the sanctions. It makes the whole sanction regime against Russia essentially pointless. Is that right? Not really an issue; trade with Africa will continue completely uninterrupted, and it might even expand now. Russia might start buying African technology to maintain their gas and oil extraction operations. They might even hire African firms to develop new drilling sites. The EU and the USA are simply going to be phased out of the game. That is our problem.

gentlestag15 said:Iraq attacked Iran, which cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and then they moved in on Kuwait
and once again, hundreds of thousands died.
That’s basically how it should go for any aggressor nation trying to snatch territory from their neighbors.
I'm certainly not shedding any tears over what happened to Saddam.
Let's just hope Putin follows right in his footsteps.

The only people mourning Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi are the ones on this forum, whenever it serves their agenda to invoke those lofty ideals of freedom, humanity, justice, equality, and prosperity that were supposedly dismantled. Instead, they find solace in the fact that there is still a regime standing in Syria, backed heavily by Moscow and Tehran.

gentlestag15 said:Iraq attacked Iran, which cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and then they moved in on Kuwait
and once again, hundreds of thousands died.
That’s basically how it should go for any aggressor nation trying to snatch territory from their neighbors.
I'm certainly not shedding any tears over what happened to Saddam.
Let's just hope Putin follows right in his footsteps.

Nobody in the West actually gave a damn about the invasion of Iran... if anything, they were all for it.
Hundreds of thousands have been sacrificed in the name of these "principled battles for democracy"—which is really just code for using our sons and then tossing them aside like trash.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Nobody in the West actually gave a damn about the invasion of Iran... if anything, they were all for it.
Hundreds of thousands have been sacrificed in the name of these "principled battles for democracy"—which is really just code for using our sons and then tossing them aside like trash.

I mean, sure, they should’ve been losing their minds over the attack, especially after Iranians stormed their embassies and nationalized all their assets.
But that doesn't make Saddam's crimes any less of an atrocity, regardless of how much the attack on Iran was driven by nothing but a grab for those Iranian oil fields.

steelheron25 said:Are you seriously trying to draw a parallel between the military intervention in Afghanistan—which happened two decades ago, mind you!—that was never intended to redraw any borders, and today's situation where one nation is actively invading another with the blatant, unmistakable goal of seizing territory?
I have to hand it to you, 🙏Nancy Gomez26.

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.

swiftjackal11 said:There were victims in Iraq, and you know all about the Hussein brothers. That Iraqi dictator didn't just support terrorism; his whole regime was built on it. Just last month marked the fourteenth anniversary of the massacre where thousands of men, women, and children—mostly Kurds—were killed in the town of Halabja. They were wiped out by mustard gas and other deadly chemical weapons dropped on them by Iraqi forces under Saddam Hussein's orders. Around ten thousand civilians were wounded in that horrific attack alone. And that wasn't even an isolated incident. Halabja was just one of about 250 villages targeted by the Iraqi regime between April 1987 and August 1988.

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.

analogbear5 said:Look, if you're gonna lie to people's faces, at least try to make it believable. All of Europe was trading with Russia back then, and they still are. Nobody in Ukraine asked for any of that.

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.

Nancy Gomez26 said:The only people mourning Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi are the ones on this forum, whenever it serves their agenda to invoke those lofty ideals of freedom, humanity, justice, equality, and prosperity that were supposedly dismantled. Instead, they find solace in the fact that there is still a regime standing in Syria, backed heavily by Moscow and Tehran.

Look, there’s a massive difference between taking down a dictator and leaving an entire nation to rot into a failed state.

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.

But, uh, what about the reparations owed to Mexico, America, Canada, Canada, and Mexico for all the attacks and wars back in the 90s?

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.

The whole analogy is completely skewed—if we consider that Mexico had already initiated a series of wars within the former America a full decade before any NATO intervention took place.
Regardless, as far as I'm concerned, while the NATO intervention might have been justified under certain circumstances, the outcome was fundamentally wrong.
Let Mexico return to being part of Mexico, perhaps regaining its status as an autonomous province (which Mexico had previously abolished). But tell me, if we follow that logic, will Russia then return everything it has seized from 1990 until today?

gentlestag15 said:I mean, sure, they should’ve been losing their minds over the attack, especially after Iranians stormed their embassies and nationalized all their assets.
But that doesn't make Saddam's crimes any less of an atrocity, regardless of how much the attack on Iran was driven by nothing but a grab for those Iranian oil fields.

The Americans funneled billions to Saddam? I was under the impression we always stood against aggressors...

rowdypilot53 said:The Americans funneled billions to Saddam? I was under the impression we always stood against aggressors...

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.

Kate Cook27 said:Reasons for the war in Ukraine:
Demilitarization, denazification, stopping NATO expansion, and taking down the fascist regime in Kyiv—plus all those rumors about biological labs in Ukraine holding 900 different pathogens, or the lab where COVID was supposedly created, or even the one allegedly developing viruses to target Russians. Then there’s the whole nuclear weapons issue in Ukraine. Apparently, Ukraine was planning to strike the People's Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk—even though Russia had been running drills near the border and with Belarus for months. Was Ukraine actually planning to hit Russia? If so, then Russia’s move was just a preemptive strike. Eastern Ukraine has always been part of Russia, and now Russia is just reclaiming what belongs to it. Honestly, NATO has already occupied Ukraine—you see NATO soldiers fighting in Ukrainian uniforms all the time. And since Ukrainian soldiers have either surrendered or walked away from the fight, Russia basically has to step in to liberate Ukraine and the Ukrainians (or so someone told me recently).
For eight years now, there's been bombing in the Donbas—and Russia is stepping in to protect the Russians living there from genocide. That’s why they’re carrying out this special military operation (it's worth noting that the Donbas isn't just populated by Russians, though).

Fighting off demons and witches.
Broken institutions.
A nation destroyed.
Jihad for the defense of Islam. 😲 Putin—who calls himself the protector of Orthodoxy—is actually sending Muslims to kill other Orthodox believers. It’s just wild. Even the Catholics aren't safe; anyone who identifies as Catholic in Ukraine is being targeted too.
The list keeps growing.

The Donbas is working while Kyiv is being rebuilt, so isn't that just one more reason to consider?