Havoc in Kiev: Snipers fire on protesters/opposition (NSFW)

[theeedude]

Is this a parody post? You appear to have uncritically swallowed the Russian narrative that has little if any evidence backing it. Why? Invasion and takeover by Ukraine? How do you explain the complete lack of mitary mobilization by the Ukraine until the Russian invasion? How do you explain how both the current AND the ousted Ukrainian presidents oppose this Russian aggression? How do you explain that the guy who called for Russian intervention got 4% of the vote in the last election?

All that goes without even mentioning Russia's atrocious record not only for self determination in Russia as a whole, but in the Crimea in particular. The idea that you are arguing for the ability of an area to engage in self determination supported by a state that purposefully engaged in an ethnic cleansing campaign there to make it more pro-Russian is a pretty vile endorsement of the political utility of crimes against humanity. To mate that with a high minded appeal to universal rights is either dangerously naive or again, a parody post.

That state would be USSR, same state that gave Crimea to Ukraine. So even if you want to repudiate USSR's actions relating to Ukraine, that still leaves it without Crimea.

 

[Jaskalas]

Is this a parody post? You appear to have uncritically swallowed the Russian narrative that has little if any evidence backing it. Why?

What narrative? I'm not following Russian media, I do not know what they say. I know what I'm seeing though. Divisions in Ukraine were spiraling into violence, a government was overthrown, a mob rules Kiev, and Russian people were at risk.

Invasion and takeover by Ukraine? How do you explain the complete lack of mitary mobilization by the Ukraine until the Russian invasion?

Crimea and Russia made the first move, before anything happened. Before it got worse. The Ukrainian government had only just changed. It takes time for Russians in Ukraine to revolt against the west. Takes time for the mob to turn its hatred towards the east and respond in kind.

Things were only getting started.

How do you explain how both the current AND the ousted Ukrainian presidents oppose this Russian aggression? How do you explain that the guy who called for Russian intervention got 4% of the vote in the last election?

I'm rather curious what the former President says but he does not speak for Crimea.

All that goes without even mentioning Russia's atrocious record not only for self determination in Russia as a whole, but in the Crimea in particular. The idea that you are arguing for the ability of an area to engage in self determination supported by a state that purposefully engaged in an ethnic cleansing campaign there to make it more pro-Russian is a pretty vile endorsement of the political utility of crimes against humanity. To mate that with a high minded appeal to universal rights is either dangerously naive or again, a parody post.

That ethnic cleansing is done. It occurred, what, 60 years ago? There are two things at play here that might upset you. 1: I give ownership of a land to those who are there NOW. The Crimea people today, who are largely Russian. 2: I give the Crimean people the final authority on who they are and who they want to side with. They have three choices to be part of Ukraine, part of Russia, or independent.

It is not for anyone else to tell them how to live.

Peace follows this mandate of mine, which is the simplest explanation for why I am inclined towards it. Death follows any objection which leads to war. These are your choices, does secession and self determination offend you so greatly that you'd kill to stop it? Like Lincoln did in our own bloodiest war?

Until I hear of Russia stopping Crimea from having an honest choice, I will not object to their presence. Until I know better I'm taking it at face value that they will protect Crimea from the mob in Kiev. It is entirely possible Russia has evil intentions to claim Crimea, by force. They are certainly in position to do it, and have in the past. Yet we are not living in the past. Is it a terrible thing to say, give peace a chance?

Not that I expect peace to follow. Ukraine / Kiev was seized by a mob. It's quite likely they will attack Russia to provoke a war. In order to draw us into their fight. Only way for Ukraine to win is to risk everything, and hope we follow.

What do you think of that, what should we do?

 

[Genx87]

Attack Russia where? Within Ukraine's borders? That would be called defense.

One question I have is why are these troops inserted by the Russians not under identification? Isn't that a violation of the geneva convention?

 

[fskimospy]

What narrative? I'm not following Russian media, I do not know what they say. I know what I'm seeing though. Divisions in Ukraine were spiraling into violence, a government was overthrown, a mob rules Kiev, and Russian people were at risk.



Crimea and Russia made the first move, before anything happened. Before it got worse. The Ukrainian government had only just changed. It takes time for Russians in Ukraine to revolt against the west. Takes time for the mob to turn its hatred towards the east and respond in kind.

Things were only getting started.



I'm rather curious what the former President says but he does not speak for Crimea.



That ethnic cleansing is done. It occurred, what, 60 years ago? There are two things at play here that might upset you. 1: I give ownership of a land to those who are there NOW. The Crimea people today, who are largely Russian. 2: I give the Crimean people the final authority on who they are and who they want to side with. They have three choices to be part of Ukraine, part of Russia, or independent.

It is not for anyone else to tell them how to live.

Peace follows this mandate of mine, which is the simplest explanation for why I am inclined towards it. Death follows any objection which leads to war. These are your choices, does secession and self determination offend you so greatly that you'd kill to stop it? Like Lincoln did in our own bloodiest war?

Until I hear of Russia stopping Crimea from having an honest choice, I will not object to their presence. Until I know better I'm taking it at face value that they will protect Crimea from the mob in Kiev. It is entirely possible Russia has evil intentions to claim Crimea, by force. They are certainly in position to do it, and have in the past. Yet we are not living in the past. Is it a terrible thing to say, give peace a chance?

Not that I expect peace to follow. Ukraine / Kiev was seized by a mob. It's quite likely they will attack Russia to provoke a war. In order to draw us into their fight. Only way for Ukraine to win is to risk everything, and hope we follow.

What do you think of that, what should we do?

It takes a frankly baffling level of doublethink to say that we should allow the illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation in order to "give peace a chance". Add on top of that the hilarious idea that a pre-emptive invasion was needed to protect people is about as sorry an excuse as they come. (As an interesting note, that is identical to Hitler's excuse for invading Poland. No, I'm not saying Putin is hitler. )

Maybe we should go occupy disaffected regions of Russia with our military. If they complain we will just tell them to give peace a chance. If they defend their country from our occupation it is their own fault.

 

[Nintendesert]

This is what happens when Russia wins the most medals at the Olympics.


Seriously though, I'm not sure how some of you are justifying this aggression by Russia. It really does bring many historical events into more perspective on how certain nations (Germany, Soviet Union, Japan, China etc.) were allowed to swallow up their neighbors without much opposition. People will find ways to justify any sort of aggression.

Under these rules the US should invade Quebec and make them part of Lousiana.