Russia Invades Ukraine

[Stay.Of.Execution]

2 hours ago, fantomas said:

*Fantomas hasn't been on the site for a while and figured he'd check to see if there were any details on a new album. Reads last two pages of this thread and promptly leaves again. Once more being reminded the internet is a cess pit.

Thanks to people like @Muddy and @kanecrescente who support raping and killing innocent women and children obviously 

2 minutes ago, ShadowOfTheWave said:

I never said they were equal. Just not to jump on one position 100% with no questions. Nothing is ever 100% black and white, that is the "uneducated", childish view. For example, for the past eight years there been many alleged atrocities committed against Russian minorities in the Donbass, which are ignored and dismissed by western media. When the reverse happens and Ukraine alleges Russian war crimes, the western media accepts this with no question.

Congrats on biting on the Putin Propaganda 

[SoulMonster]

It's a sad state of affairs when people decide to side with an imperialistic aggressor who invades and annexes part of a neighboring country out of partisan and tribal reasons and because they want to be "contrary". 

[Stay.Of.Execution]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It's a sad state of affairs when people decide to side with an imperialistic aggressor who invades and annexes part of a neighboring country out of partisan and tribal reasons and because they want to be "contrary". 

That's what trump told them to do. Always be opposed to so called "mainstream media". It's a good way of not having to think for yourself. 

[Shacklers Absolution]

Putin is a cuck.

[SoulMonster]

32 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Sometimes I wonder how many of those who have an opinion on the Ukraine war (especially non-Europeans) could even spot Ukraine on the map before 2022, let alone know any prior history of the area (except thinking that Russia and the USSR are the same thing).

That's a good question, but personally I take comfort in the fact that people with absolutely no knowledge of Ukraine, its history or location, would stand firmly on their side when they are invaded by a neighboring country who try to steal their territories. 

[Blackstar]

20 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

That's a good question, but personally I take comfort in the fact that people with absolutely no knowledge of Ukraine, its history or location, would stand firmly on their side when they are invaded by a neighboring country who try to steal their territories. 

Sure, as long as the same people have been consistent and have the same stance whenever and wherever something something similar happens (plus, trying to learn a little more never hurts).

[Sweersa]

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

Sometimes I wonder how many of those who have an opinion on the Ukraine war (especially non-Europeans) could even spot Ukraine on the map before 2022, let alone know any prior history of the area (except thinking that Russia and the USSR are the same thing).

Anyway, there's a thread on the war, in case you don't know:

 

As an American, I used to order a lot of cool stuff from Ukraine. Flags, metal flag toppers, AK parts, etc. Cool shit. They were nice people to deal with too. They sometimes included nice freebies like chocolates. I must say, Ukrainian chocolate was the best I ever tasted. 

[jamillos]

11 minutes ago, Sweersa said:

As an American, I used to order a lot of cool stuff from Ukraine. Flags, metal flag toppers, AK parts, etc. Cool shit. They were nice people to deal with too. They sometimes included nice freebies like chocolates. I must say, Ukrainian chocolate was the best I ever tasted. 

Wait, they send you chocolate with your orders for AK rifle parts? Holy crap, these are some wild assortment combinations! 

Edited October 5, 2022 by jamillos

[Sweersa]

3 minutes ago, jamillos said:

Wait, they send you chocolate with your orders of parts for an AK rifle? Holy crap, these are some wild assortment combinations! 

Ukrainians know how to party.

[ZoSoRose]

This is a blatant land grab. There’s no other way to decipher it. Even if Putin was worried about NATO expansion and angry at the west, attacking Ukraine does nothing. 

Putin and his pals should be sent to live on the sun. 

[Blackstar]

4 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

@Blackstar

If you don't want to explain yourself or just can't be bothered then no worries it's not like you're obligated. But just to be clear, I wasn't being sarcastic or anything I was genuinely asking and prepared to listen to your response. From what I've seen, I think of you as a straightshooter and I respect your opinion. Also, you're a Greek girl so I have to go easy anyway, should we disagree in some way, so that my precious Yiayia(aka La La) isn't spinning in her grave.

I didn't mean to ignore you. Like I said, I don't feel like posting much in this thread. Last I posted was in an O/T discussion in another thread that was later merged with this one and what I said wasn't going for you or necessarily anyone in particular.

But I'll try to answer later.

[action]

"blatant landgrab" I read here. I believe, this needs interpretation. 

what is a "landgrab"? You can not "grab" land. When a french king marries the british Queen, and suppose constitutional law indicates only men can become king, did the french king "grab" the UK, while marrying his british colleague? No, but still, "france" is now the boss in the UK, it has become a "personal union" in international law.

I suppose, by "grabbing land", people refer to a military invasion with tanks and guns, and installing a different government, and calling the territory "russia" in stead of "ukraine".

this remark means, if I read it correct, that offense is being taken from a "violation of national borders" (personally, I don't care about lines on a map)

the violation of national borders, could be a matter of international law. We need to investigate.

Technically, "landgrab" is incorrect, as land in itself is not protected by international law. Rather, it is the people living on the land, that are protected. International law speaks of "self-determination" of the people, it is a collective human rights issue. What this collective of "people" entails, is not juridically set. it is an evolving concept, based on language, culture and so on.

When did it "become" international law, this supposed anti -"blatant landrab" rule, or, as we have discovered: violation of the right of self-determination? And what interests are protected by this law? Who, or what, benefits from such a law? private interests? the interests of a country? What even is a country? What does it mean, to the people, "who" is the boss in your country?

The 14 points program (1918) from the american president Wilson was the first official declaration of a government that mentioned the right of self-determination.

Article 5 of the UN convention specifically mentions the principle of "self-determination" as one of the goals of international economic and social development.

So "right of self-determination" is the correct term here, which we shall use in stead of the incorrect term "blatant landgrab"

Next, we'll investigate if the ukrainian war is a violation of the right of self-determination. To this end, we need to look at previous wars.

Was the creation of the jewish state in 1947 a blatant landgrab? Some people said so, but most nations didn't.

A recent example of the right of self-determination of the people was the german referendum, where the DDR wanted to reunite with western-germany. This meant, that russia would lose a part of their territory. Nobody referred to this as a "landgrab", because it was the will of the people.

It's the people that have rights, not the "land" as such.

So referring to the ukrainian war as a blatant landgrab, is pretty pointless. First and foremost, you need to look at what the people (not zelensky), wants, as they themselves are the executers of their right of self-determination. That's what I would like to see qlarified here. What do the people want?

This, I wouldn't know, because the media doesn't seem to focus very much on this aspect.

So from now on, I'll speculate.

A state, is an abstract juridical concept. I'm not too sure, what difference it would make to the common people, when state A is invaded by state B, and a different government is installed. Certainly, I see nothing that warrants a particular "outcry" against such an invasion. The only thing I would take personal issue with, is asking your people to fight against their will (zelensky and putin both have mobilised their citizens). Because, then, you're starting to impact individual freedom. But that's just my opinion.

belgium for example, has a german king (van saxen-coburg).

the king of the UK, was of the same lineage as the belgian king and the russian tsar. they were distant cousins.

Do the people even care? hardly. In fact, this information I just gave you, will probably surprise some people.

The UK, at one point, had a french king. Who cares?

whoever is the boss, taxes you will pay.

would the life conditions of the people change? That's up for debate.

Do the russians have so much worse lives, than the ukrainians? I don't know, but I guess, they don't.

Rather than taking issue with a blatant landgrab, I would be taking issue with war crimes, when people are raped, houses burnt down etc. That's also a matter of international law, but it has nothing to do with violating borders as such. Borders are pretty meaningless, and ultimately it's the people's right to decide what "country" they want to be in.

Do I take issue with certain regions being taken by russia? Well, don't ask me, ask the ukrainians (and not zelensky).

However one thing is sure: "land borders" are not a juridical subject in international law, and other than in certain treaties enjoy no particular intenational protection. Borders can change over time, and there is no law that would be against that.

Edited October 7, 2022 by action

[ZoSoRose]

39 minutes ago, action said:

"blatant landgrab" I read here. I believe, this needs interpretation. 

what is a "landgrab"? You can not "grab" land. When a french king marries the british Queen, and suppose constitutional law indicates only men can become king, did the french king "grab" the UK, while marrying his british colleague? No, but still, "france" is now the boss in the UK, it has become a "personal union" in international law.

I suppose, by "grabbing land", people refer to a military invasion with tanks and guns, and installing a different government, and calling the territory "russia" in stead of "ukraine".

this remark means, if I read it correct, that offense is being taken from a "violation of national borders" (personally, I don't care about lines on a map)

the violation of national borders, could be a matter of international law. We need to investigate.

Technically, "landgrab" is incorrect, as land in itself is not protected by international law. Rather, it is the people living on the land, that are protected. International law speaks of "self-determination" of the people, it is a collective human rights issue. What this collective of "people" entails, is not juridically set. it is an evolving concept, based on language, culture and so on.

When did it "become" international law, this supposed anti -"blatant landrab" rule, or, as we have discovered: violation of the right of self-determination? And what interests are protected by this law? Who, or what, benefits from such a law? private interests? the interests of a country? What even is a country? What does it mean, to the people, "who" is the boss in your country?

The 14 points program (1918) from the american president Wilson was the first official declaration of a government that mentioned the right of self-determination.

Article 5 of the UN convention specifically mentions the principle of "self-determination" as one of the goals of international economic and social development.

So "right of self-determination" is the correct term here, which we shall use in stead of the incorrect term "blatant landgrab"

Next, we'll investigate if the ukrainian war is a violation of the right of self-determination. To this end, we need to look at previous wars.

Was the creation of the jewish state in 1947 a blatant landgrab? Some people said so, but most nations didn't.

A recent example of the right of self-determination of the people was the german referendum, where the DDR wanted to reunite with western-germany. This meant, that russia would lose a part of their territory. Nobody referred to this as a "landgrab", because it was the will of the people.

It's the people that have rights, not the "land" as such.

So referring to the ukrainian war as a blatant landgrab, is pretty pointless. First and foremost, you need to look at what the people (not zelensky), wants, as they themselves are the executers of their right of self-determination. That's what I would like to see qlarified here. What do the people want?

This, I wouldn't know, because the media doesn't seem to focus very much on this aspect.

So from now on, I'll speculate.

A state, is an abstract juridical concept. I'm not too sure, what difference it would make to the common people, when state A is invaded by state B, and a different government is installed. Certainly, I see nothing that warrants a particular "outcry" against such an invasion. The only thing I would take personal issue with, is asking your people to fight against their will (zelensky and putin both have mobilised their citizens). Because, then, you're starting to impact individual freedom. But that's just my opinion.

belgium for example, has a german king (van saxen-coburg).

the king of the UK, was of the same lineage as the belgian king and the russian tsar. they were distant cousins.

Do the people even care? hardly. In fact, this information I just gave you, will probably surprise some people.

The UK, at one point, had a french king. Who cares?

whoever is the boss, taxes you will pay.

would the life conditions of the people change? That's up for debate.

Do the russians have so much worse lives, than the ukrainians? I don't know, but I guess, they don't.

Rather than taking issue with a blatant landgrab, I would be taking issue with war crimes, when people are raped, houses burnt down etc. That's also a matter of international law, but it has nothing to do with violating borders as such. Borders are pretty meaningless, and ultimately it's the people's right to decide what "country" they want to be in.

Do I take issue with certain regions being taken by russia? Well, don't ask me, ask the ukrainians (and not zelensky).

However one thing is sure: "land borders" are not a juridical subject in international law, and other than in certain treaties enjoy no particular intenational protection. Borders can change over time, and there is no law that would be against that.

Lol

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

On 10/2/2022 at 9:14 AM, downzy said:

The US has sent tens of, if not close to a hundred, billions of financial and military aid to Ukraine.  The US government does not own or operate oil companies.  Hundreds of millions of Americans have had to pay a lot more for gas since last February due to the conflict in Ukraine.

Please explain how the US is “winning” in this situation. 

I agree with you.

America is helping Ukraine as well as Europe.

We here in America have record breaking food and gas prices. We do understand we must help our allies. it sucks we are all suffering, but should we let Putin do whatever he wants to do? The world did that with Hitler and look what happened there.

I'm afraid that Putin might use his nuclear weapons since Russia seems to be losing this war and Putin doesn't like to lose. What will the world do then? WWIII?

North Korea is shooting off Missiles again. Should we ignore this? Iran's people are protesting for their freedom. Who knows how this will end?

The world is in a mess right now. Not sure how it'll end. There are too many countries with nuclear weapons and if one uses theirs then others will too. Another war won't be fought on the ground it'll be missiles going off at each other and many of us won't make it.

It makes sense that with all these nuclear weapons out there someone will use them. This scares the shit out of me because of my daughter. What a world we are leaving our kids!

But honestly it makes sense that man would be the one to destroy themselves. It's in our nature.

[grouse]

7 hours ago, action said:

"blatant landgrab" I read here. I believe, this needs interpretation. 

what is a "landgrab"? You can not "grab" land. When a french king marries the british Queen, and suppose constitutional law indicates only men can become king, did the french king "grab" the UK, while marrying his british colleague? No, but still, "france" is now the boss in the UK, it has become a "personal union" in international law.

I suppose, by "grabbing land", people refer to a military invasion with tanks and guns, and installing a different government, and calling the territory "russia" in stead of "ukraine".

this remark means, if I read it correct, that offense is being taken from a "violation of national borders" (personally, I don't care about lines on a map)

the violation of national borders, could be a matter of international law. We need to investigate.

Technically, "landgrab" is incorrect, as land in itself is not protected by international law. Rather, it is the people living on the land, that are protected. International law speaks of "self-determination" of the people, it is a collective human rights issue. What this collective of "people" entails, is not juridically set. it is an evolving concept, based on language, culture and so on.

When did it "become" international law, this supposed anti -"blatant landrab" rule, or, as we have discovered: violation of the right of self-determination? And what interests are protected by this law? Who, or what, benefits from such a law? private interests? the interests of a country? What even is a country? What does it mean, to the people, "who" is the boss in your country?

The 14 points program (1918) from the american president Wilson was the first official declaration of a government that mentioned the right of self-determination.

Article 5 of the UN convention specifically mentions the principle of "self-determination" as one of the goals of international economic and social development.

So "right of self-determination" is the correct term here, which we shall use in stead of the incorrect term "blatant landgrab"

Next, we'll investigate if the ukrainian war is a violation of the right of self-determination. To this end, we need to look at previous wars.

Was the creation of the jewish state in 1947 a blatant landgrab? Some people said so, but most nations didn't.

A recent example of the right of self-determination of the people was the german referendum, where the DDR wanted to reunite with western-germany. This meant, that russia would lose a part of their territory. Nobody referred to this as a "landgrab", because it was the will of the people.

It's the people that have rights, not the "land" as such.

So referring to the ukrainian war as a blatant landgrab, is pretty pointless. First and foremost, you need to look at what the people (not zelensky), wants, as they themselves are the executers of their right of self-determination. That's what I would like to see qlarified here. What do the people want?

This, I wouldn't know, because the media doesn't seem to focus very much on this aspect.

So from now on, I'll speculate.

A state, is an abstract juridical concept. I'm not too sure, what difference it would make to the common people, when state A is invaded by state B, and a different government is installed. Certainly, I see nothing that warrants a particular "outcry" against such an invasion. The only thing I would take personal issue with, is asking your people to fight against their will (zelensky and putin both have mobilised their citizens). Because, then, you're starting to impact individual freedom. But that's just my opinion.

belgium for example, has a german king (van saxen-coburg).

the king of the UK, was of the same lineage as the belgian king and the russian tsar. they were distant cousins.

Do the people even care? hardly. In fact, this information I just gave you, will probably surprise some people.

The UK, at one point, had a french king. Who cares?

whoever is the boss, taxes you will pay.

would the life conditions of the people change? That's up for debate.

Do the russians have so much worse lives, than the ukrainians? I don't know, but I guess, they don't.

Rather than taking issue with a blatant landgrab, I would be taking issue with war crimes, when people are raped, houses burnt down etc. That's also a matter of international law, but it has nothing to do with violating borders as such. Borders are pretty meaningless, and ultimately it's the people's right to decide what "country" they want to be in.

Do I take issue with certain regions being taken by russia? Well, don't ask me, ask the ukrainians (and not zelensky).

However one thing is sure: "land borders" are not a juridical subject in international law, and other than in certain treaties enjoy no particular intenational protection. Borders can change over time, and there is no law that would be against that.

Friday night check, alcohol consumption is probable, leading to Dutch courage. You know what the wonderfull thing about forums like this is? You good man will end up arguing with yourself since more and more people will be putting you on their ignore list. You are on mine now.

[-Jaro-]

Happy birthday mr pesident. Guess fireworks went out of control... 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/08/crimea-kerch-bridge-explosions-russia-ukraine

[gavgnr]

So, Biden has compared the war in Ukraine to the Cuban Missile Crisis. WW3 was avoided in 1962 through Government back channels and a deal which allowed both the US and Russia to save face. Biden has already stated that a route will need to be found for Putin to walk away from his SMO whilst appearing ‘victorious.’ If that route isn’t found, I sadly fear where events may lead us. If even a single tactical nuke is used, the rate of escalation into full blown thermonuclear war could be lightening quick.

 

[-Jaro-]

Saving face?

If that face can be saved in anyones eyes, it speeks more of observers than of Putin and Russia...

Current air-raid siren map of Ukraine:

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

Can't imagine the fear these people are feeling everyday. Their world is being destroyed each and every hour.

I knew Putin wouldn't give up. He won't give up until Ukraine is his.  Very sad to take away people's freedoms for your own gain.

[grouse]

In light of recent posts let's just not invade a sovereign country. I honestly thought we would've moved passed that by now. People are literally dying over pieces of dirt. Come on now.

[gavgnr]

On 10/11/2022 at 9:03 AM, -Jaro- said:

Saving face?

If that face can be saved in anyones eyes, it speeks more of observers than of Putin and Russia...

Current air-raid siren map of Ukraine:

I hear what you’re saying, and in no way was my post meant to make light of the tragic situation in Ukraine. Unfortunately, in the political area, I fear that saving face is more important to many politicians than saving lives. Russia needs an off ramp.

[Sweersa]

On 10/8/2022 at 3:54 PM, gavgnr said:

Biden has already stated that a route will need to be found for Putin to walk away from his SMO whilst appearing ‘victorious.’

If Biden felt that worked, I doubt he would have told the world. No doubt Putin and his associates are constantly scanning American media, so they are now aware of Biden's method. Not sure if Biden's handlers are actually planning anything of the sort, but if they had any intelligence, they wouldn't tell the world about how they plan on dealing with or manipulating Putin into thinking he will come out on top or even.

Sort of like when someone blabbed off to the media about a plan on bringing in over 100 American POWs still being held in Vietnam... before the mission was completed. Those men all died as a result.

[gavgnr]

5 hours ago, Sweersa said:

but if they had any intelligence, they wouldn't tell the world about how they plan on dealing with or manipulating Putin into thinking he will come out on top or even.

Maybe they figure Putin is so hellbent on his goal (or crazy) that spelling out to him a way out of this mess (that could avert WW3) is the only solution 

[Ace Nova]

..

 

 

Edited October 16, 2022 by Ace Nova

[-Jaro-]

So, Russian army in Belarus (including MIG-29s, trains with tanks and other armoured vehicles, Belarus deployed extra "security" on boarders with Ukraine to "prevent anything from the other side"...