Putin announces 'military operation' in Ukraine.

[mchughcb]

5 minutes ago, Mungler said:

This entirely.

And to suggest that diplomacy somehow broke down leans to suggest  that there was no alternative but to invade and start a war - which is of course pure nonsense.

And this is where the small details and the terminology is important; ‘special military operation’? There’s an old Denning case which paraphrases to ‘if it’s big, grey, got tusks, flappy ears and a trunk, it’s an elephant. You can call it what you like but it’s still an elephant’.

Here the repetition of a SMO (which we have been varying told was against Nazis, drug dealers or whatever) was always designed to hide an invasion and a war. I have always been critical of people that have propagated or over used SMO to define Putin’s invasion and a war because it shows they can be easily brainwashed into spreading an untruth. 

 

If the Minsk Accords II were not followed in 2015 for a ceasefire I'd say diplomacy broke down.

 

3 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

The day of the referendums.

To be clear I do not know the percentage myself and very much doubt anyone does. But I'm pretty certain it will not be the same as before 'operation Ukraini freedom', be it from deaths or evacuation of refugees.

You are probably right in the two western oblasts, and probably less right in the two eastern oblasts but I'll have to do some research.

[Dave-G]

6 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

The day of the referendums.

To be clear I do not know the percentage myself and very much doubt anyone does. But I'm pretty certain it will not be the same as before 'operation Ukraini freedom', be it from deaths or evacuation of refugees.

Quite - it'll be the ethnically cleansed result.

[welsh1]

14 minutes ago, mchughcb said:

 

However, what I'm seeing is that the fact they are in a civil war, there is a good chance they will want to join the federation for continued support. It is entirely possible that they don't join the Russian federation, the Russians withdraw military support and the civil war continues.

 

A civil war by definition is a war between people belonging to the same country.

Given that Putin crossed an internationally recognised land border separating Russia from Ukraine and started to kill the people of Ukraine means it's not a civil war but an act of aggression by another country against international law.

The sham referendum will only show the world that a desperate mad man is trying to defend his undefendable and murderous actions against another country that he has no lawful reason to be in.

 

At least this thread has shown us who the Russian bots are.

[Rem260]

9 hours ago, mchughcb said:

I'm not supporting anybody,  

Well Mr mchughski. Your posts would suggest otherwise.

[timps]

51 minutes ago, mchughcb said:

I'm not going to tell you want mainstream non free articles that are ripped off somewhere else you should get. You make up your own mind. What I am saying is if you want the Economist or the FT you are going to have to pay for it. Would I think that their analysis and reporting is a slightly better standard that MSN, probably yes. Would I say MSN is slightly better than the Daily Record, possibly.

Last time I looked the FT and the Economist were MSM (Main Stream Media).

You have posted MSN I keep saying MSM for Mainstream Media which is the Oxford dictionary accepted acronym for it.

Regardless the FT hasn’t wrote any articles stating the referendum is legit nor have they had journalists on the front line of snake island.

The FT’s reporting on Ukraine  tends to be (but not limited to) quoted sources where they post Russian sources then as balance Ukraine sources.

if an opinion piece was written in the FT condemning the referendum would you accept it ?

[henry d]

2 hours ago, mchughcb said:

The notion that some referendum must hold up to your ideals of procedures or otherwise the results are invalid is one way of looking at life. Another way is that two oblasts that have been bombed for 8 years because they refused to accept the coupe d' etat,  of their elected government and chose to revolt,  nor submit probably bodes probably means the majority will throw their lot in with Russia. The other two oblasts I'm not so sure.

Another would be that for 8 years there has been a destabilising of the democratically elected government helped along by Russia. If Russia wanted to take on the areas then they should have entered into talks and looked at a referendum years ago however they decided to go for the whole pie and not just a slice. 

Now we are back to referendums as a face saver for Putin. 

1 hour ago, mchughcb said:

Well war is the last course of action when all forms of diplomacy have broken down.

What diplomacy do you mean?

[oowee]

1 hour ago, mchughcb said:

Well war is the last course of action when all forms of diplomacy have broken down. To say there is no justification, ignoring the events that lead to the current situation is very strange.

Why is it strange? Russia invaded 2014. Ukraine has every right to take whatever actions it deems necessary to protect its country and citizens. There was only very limited and insincere negotiation with broken ceasefires and no external verification. Remember the russian troops pretending to be locals. Since 2014 russia has continued to attack the rest of Ukraine on a daily basis. Russia has refused to instigate a cease fire, or buffer zone. Russia has refused international mediation. 

My Russian speaking Ukrainian refugee is from Donbas which she fled post 2014 following the treatment of residents that did not support the invaders. She has lost everything. 

[henry d]

2 hours ago, mchughcb said:

Common sense that the earth is round, is actually not that intuitive at all, there were some thought experiments that had to occur before it was commonly accepted in the ancient world...  

...Would you like me to take the blue pill or the red pill?

2 hours ago, mchughcb said:

*ERROR * Again something went wrong...fat fingers

I like to take people on face value but the quotes are straight out of the conspiracy theorists handbook and when added to the use of yootube it all adds up. Unfortunately nothing anyone says here will convince you, so it's pointless anyone trying to give you a different view. 

[Mungler]

2 hours ago, henry d said:

I like to take people on face value but the quotes are straight out of the conspiracy theorists handbook and when added to the use of yootube it all adds up. Unfortunately nothing anyone says here will convince you, so it's pointless anyone trying to give you a different view. 

We are all arriving at that particular train station.

 

[Raja Clavata]

Surely he’s on a windup, I decided not to play along.

[mchughcb]

5 hours ago, timps said:

Last time I looked the FT and the Economist were MSM (Main Stream Media).

You have posted MSN I keep saying MSM for Mainstream Media which is the Oxford dictionary accepted acronym for it.

Regardless the FT hasn’t wrote any articles stating the referendum is legit nor have they had journalists on the front line of snake island.

The FT’s reporting on Ukraine  tends to be (but not limited to) quoted sources where they post Russian sources then as balance Ukraine sources.

if an opinion piece was written in the FT condemning the referendum would you accept it ?

Yes, sorry getting wires crossed. MSN Microsoft News vs MSM main stream media. The MSM is generally not free and have paywalls. MSN is whatever they want to post for free.

[mchughcb]

On 26/09/2022 at 00:04, Mungler said:

The silent majority slowly step forward and back into the thread having had enough of 100+ pages of Russian aggression loving nonsense 😆

Patrick Lancaster as the final straw - that fella is the modern day equivalent of Lord Haw Haw and anyone who punts him as factual or objective needs their bumps felt.

Interesting you have brought up Lord Haw Haw. The propagandist for the Nazis. The way I look at it today, Ukrainian and MSM have made the Nazis the good guys again. The praise the half jewish President gives the floor to the greek representative of the Azov Nazi battalion in Mariupol at Greek Parliament and it went down like a lead balloon.

 

 

 

 

[henry d]

40 minutes ago, mchughcb said:

The praise the half jewish President...

Which half? Top, bottom, left, right, front, back?

[GingerCat]

By christ this thread has gone on long enough. Stop feeding the trolls. 

[Mungler]

41 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

By christ this thread has gone on long enough. Stop feeding the trolls. 

It’s sort of run a nice natural course and with lots ventilated, various positions tested and narrowed down.

A couple of loonies unmasked 😆 although I hoped to hear more from Clangerman 😆

All standard forum stuff 😆👍

[Gordon R]

Quote

The praise the half jewish President

Prior to this, I was prepared to think that Darwin Dave was just one slice short of a full loaf. Now, I think he is nasty bit of work, who enjoys stirring. Just a bit of a sad individual.

[mchughcb]

13 hours ago, welsh1 said:

A civil war by definition is a war between people belonging to the same country.

Given that Putin crossed an internationally recognised land border separating Russia from Ukraine and started to kill the people of Ukraine means it's not a civil war but an act of aggression by another country against international law.

The sham referendum will only show the world that a desperate mad man is trying to defend his undefendable and murderous actions against another country that he has no lawful reason to be in.

 

At least this thread has shown us who the Russian bots are.

Maybe you are right in your own definition but history has shown foreign powers do get involved in civil wars. For example, in the recent past NATO, then the UK got involved in not one but two civil wars in Libya.

[Rim Fire]

12 hours ago, GingerCat said:

By christ this thread has gone on long enough. Stop feeding the trolls. 

THIS 👆

[henry d]

7 hours ago, mchughcb said:

Maybe you are right in your own definition but history has shown foreign powers do get involved in civil wars. For example, in the recent past NATO, then the UK got involved in not one but two civil wars in Libya.

HERE'S A LINK FOR THE DEFINITION OF CIVIL WAR

Instead of looking for a get out clause for Putin, have a think about what you are saying. 

Putin never said that he was sending troops in to a civil war, he tried and failed to go straight for the centre of government, his fall back was to give the veneer that it is about disputed ideas of sovereignty. 

[Mungler]

14 minutes ago, henry d said:

HERE'S A LINK FOR THE DEFINITION OF CIVIL WAR

Instead of looking for a get out clause for Putin, have a think about what you are saying. 

Putin never said that he was sending troops in to a civil war, he tried and failed to go straight for the centre of government, his fall back was to give the veneer that it is about disputed ideas of sovereignty. 

Spot on.

And… At the start of this thread we were told by the shills that it was a failure on the part of the West and NATO for not progressing negotiations and diplomacy.

But we’ve now been told that because the Minsk Accords were not followed, diplomacy failed - and what, an invasion was inevitable or the only possible or logical outcome / solution? What utter rubbish on all accounts. 

It’s like arguing with a 12 year old over the colour of orange juice.

In other news it looks like greater criticism of Putin is coming from within Russia than from some on here. On the BBC (if you want to believe it eh and don’t think it’s been staged by NATO 😆) - people fleeing the country, roads and flights clogged. Tells you all you need to know about that lovely place and regime.

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

HERE'S A LINK FOR THE DEFINITION OF CIVIL WAR

Instead of looking for a get out clause for Putin, have a think about what you are saying. 

Putin never said that he was sending troops in to a civil war, he tried and failed to go straight for the centre of government, his fall back was to give the veneer that it is about disputed ideas of sovereignty. 

Never thought I'd say this..... 

 

Henry your spot on 😳

[mchughcb]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

HERE'S A LINK FOR THE DEFINITION OF CIVIL WAR

Instead of looking for a get out clause for Putin, have a think about what you are saying. 

Putin never said that he was sending troops in to a civil war, he tried and failed to go straight for the centre of government, his fall back was to give the veneer that it is about disputed ideas of sovereignty. 

Thanks for that Henry. From a legal stand point I understand putin didn't formally enter into the conflict until he recognised the oblasts as republics and then they asked for military assistance. 

With regards to going for regime change, I'd say that NATO and the USA have enforced regime change under the power of UN resolutions. 

I don't need to remind everyone under GW Bush on the war on terror and the axis of evil they could pre-emptively strike any state they deemed a threat.

[welsh1]

26 minutes ago, mchughcb said:

Thanks for that Henry. From a legal stand point I understand putin didn't formally enter into the conflict until he recognised the oblasts as republics and then they asked for military assistance. 

 

Sometimes some people open their mouth and confirm what you actually thought of them.

In what universe do you think it's acceptable to invade a country just because a region or regions were in dispute with the rest of the country, did putin just go into those regions? or did he invade the whole country.
He had no legal standing, he invaded another country with no provocation or legal standing and killed and is still killing the people of that country he illegally invaded.

This is my last comment on this because it's quite obvious what you are,, let's hope you are not being paid in rubles.

[mchughcb]

4 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Sometimes some people open their mouth and confirm what you actually thought of them.

In what universe do you think it's acceptable to invade a country just because a region or regions were in dispute with the rest of the country, did putin just go into those regions? or did he invade the whole country.
He had no legal standing, he invaded another country with no provocation or legal standing and killed and is still killing the people of that country he illegally invaded.

This is my last comment on this because it's quite obvious what you are,, let's hope you are not being paid in rubles.

Be polite, write diplomatically; even in a declaration of war one observes the rules of politeness.

Otto von Bismark.

[JohnfromUK]

6 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

He had no legal standing, he invaded another country with no provocation or legal standing and killed and is still killing the people of that country he illegally invaded.

There are several very sad things about this whole war (because that is what it is, not some 'special military operation).

• A lot of people - including many wholly innocent have been killed and injured
• Huge damage has been done to (mainly Ukraine, but also a bit in Russia) infrastructure
• The whole world is suffering economic penalties, with Europe affected more than most, but Russia itself affected most of all

One man is responsible for all of this - Putin.    In the future (probably years yet), the world and Europe will recover, re-arrange their energy supplies etc.  and markets will settle in to a (slightly different) new balance - largely without Russia.

However Russia will be largely excluded for decades and will suffer FAR more long term economic damage and hardship, because no one will trust them in future.  Sadly ordinary Russians will be paying the price for Putin's unwarranted aggression against his neighbour for decades to come.