Putin announces 'military operation' in Ukraine.

[timps]

29 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

8 years, no end in sight, how long would you give it ?

My point was, that without Russian involvement I don’t think it would have been 8 years.

30 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Russia sat still for 8 years and tried to fix the problem, WE stirred the pot.

This I have to laugh at…

Seriously, does sitting still fixing the problem include shelling Ukrainian positions from inside the Russian border in 2014.

 https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/02/17/origin-of-artillery-attacks/ ?

And even Russia themselves don't deny there where ‘military specialists’ in the Donbas region, hardly sitting still I would aver.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/12054164/Vladimir-Putins-annual-press-conference-2015-live.html

https://www.interpretermag.com/day-968/#15291

Would the above count as a proxy war in your definition or is it sitting still fixing the problem, my definition is direct involvement with troops and artillery and fixing the problem with military involvement.  

 

  

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, Mungler said:

A proxy war is defined as (and I quote) “a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved”.

Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine asked the world for support. The US has predictably tripped over itself to lend a hand to an invaded and set upon sovereign nation. 

When England was isolated in WW2 and fuelled, fed and armed by US shipping and supplies, was that the US’ proxy war on Germany?

Its amusing how youre now scrabbling to defend your previous denials.

Point one , definition .
A proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors, one or both of which act at the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities.[1] In order for a conflict to be considered a proxy war, there must be a direct, long-term relationship between external actors and the belligerents involved.[2] The aforementioned relationship usually takes the form of funding, military training, arms, or other forms of material assistance which assist a belligerent party in sustaining its war effort.

So thats your first excuse blown out the water.

Point 2  . Invasion

The 'World' but more like the US/UK was 'falling over itself' long before Russia invaded.
Ukraine was involved in NATO training exercises, on Ukrainian soil , long before there was any threat of a full scale Russian invasion.
What makes this all the more bizarre, is that the west had no real relationship with Ukraine prior to 2014, its only after the coup that all of the main interest in it began.
They MADE  Ukraine into a strategic western partner, could you imagine Mexico or Venezula becoming a strategic Russian partner, how would the US react to that, look at Cuba, they tried (unsuccessfully ) to invade , and have been working on assassinations and regime change ever since.

Point 3 , the UK in WW2

Interesting you bought this up (again) as some kind of distraction to the thought of proxy war.
No , it wasnt a proxy war, because the US didnt want war with Germany, it supplied us with materiel, but it was also supplying Germany with vehicles and raw materials, it was literally happy to supply both sides for profit !
Did they like us better than Germany, maybe , but they really didnt like Japan, and Japan was allied to Germany, and once Pearl harbour happened , Germanys fate was sealed.
Interestingly enough , the one they REALLY didnt like was Russia, and were more than happy to see them steamrollered, but in a strange twist their enemies enemy became their friend, until Russia pretty much won the European front for them , then it was back to being playground rivals again.

 

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, timps said:

This I have to laugh at…

Seriously, does sitting still fixing the problem include shelling Ukrainian positions from inside the Russian border in 2014.

 https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/02/17/origin-of-artillery-attacks/ ?

Aah Bellingcat , pure conjecture and a healthy dose of drivel , look at the ? on the end , a kind of non committal mud sling, from a NATO funded , citizen journalist site, that strangely , only does stories about nasty Russians , from their bedrooms.

 

6 minutes ago, timps said:

And even Russia themselves don't deny there where ‘military specialists’ in the Donbas region, hardly sitting still I would aver.

Id be surprised if they werent, just like Id be surprised if theyre arent any NATO staff in Ukraine right now , except they arent going to admit it 

 

8 minutes ago, timps said:

https://www.interpretermag.com/day-968/#15291

Would the above count as a proxy war in your definition or is it sitting still fixing the problem, my definition is direct involvement with troops and artillery and fixing the problem with military involvement.  

You would do well to read that link more carefully, its quite illuminating, no lizards though.

[timps]

41 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Aah Bellingcat , pure conjecture and a healthy dose of drivel , look at the ? on the end , a kind of non committal mud sling, from a NATO funded , citizen journalist site, that strangely , only does stories about nasty Russians , from their bedrooms.

That was my ? at the end as I was asking a question they have not used it, the link is.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/02/17/origin-of-artillery-attacks/

no question mark but nice try.

Would you rather it be a YouTube link funded by the Russians ?

41 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Id be surprised if they werent, just like Id be surprised if theyre arent any NATO staff in Ukraine right now , except they arent going to admit it 

When you wrote “Russia sat still for 8 years and tried to fix the problem,” this was something you admit you knew was wrong when you posted it then or admit that it was wrong now?

Or is Russian military personal on active duties in a foreign country not stirring the pot and just sitting still?

41 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

You would do well to read that link more carefully, its quite illuminating, no lizards though.

Oh I have read the link it’s quoting Putin verbatim so obviously there is some bonkers content from him but it shows from his own words that he did not sit still in Donbass as you claim.

 

Edited October 7, 2022 by timps

[Rewulf]

Just now, timps said:

Would you rather it be a YouTube link funded by the Russians ?

Id rather it be an unbiased objective opinion with no agenda behind it.
What would you prefer , something that confirms what you already think ?

 

3 minutes ago, timps said:

Or is Russian military personal on active duties in a foreign country not stirring the pot and just sitting still?

You seem to think it extrapolates to an invasion, but hey , whatever you say.
How many 'active military personal' do you think the US has in foreign countries 😄
I would bet my last rouble its a lot more than Russia 

3 minutes ago, timps said:

When you wrote “Russia sat still for 8 years and tried to fix the problem,” this was something you admit you knew was wrong when you posted it then or admit that it was wrong now?

It was fairly obvious what I meant by sat still, they did not fully commit their military to Donbass, despite the likes of CNN and Bellingcat photoshopping Russian tanks crossing the border

3 minutes ago, timps said:

Oh I have read the link it’s quoting Putin verbatim so obviously there is some bonkers content from him but it shows from his own words that he did not sit still in Donbass as you claim.

Got to be bonkers if Putins talking hasnt it right ?
Should have just left the ethnic Russians to the Azovs, and let the US site some 'defensive missiles' right on the Russian border ?
Because thats what the peaceful Americans would have done if the roles were reversed right 

[henry d]

5 hours ago, Stonepark said:

Putin is not wanting to take and hold the whole of Ukraine....

Really, why then did he advance from Belarus in the north, from Donetsk, and from Crimea in the south at the start of the war? If he wanted to "liberate" the Eastern oblasts surely he would have come from the areas closest?

[henry d]

1 hour ago, Newbie to this said:

Short answer yes.

It's well documented that Churchill went cap in hand to the US to get involved, and was told there was no appetite for another European war amongst the US population, even though the government were ready for war. Best they could do was arm us, at a cost of course.

There are those that believe that Pearl harbour was allowed to happen (we warned them well in advance), so the appetite would be there for war with Japan and by association Germany.

Some might say yes Proxy war.

Well in that case Chile helped us during the Falklands war, proxy?

Strange but true that they also supported Argentinian claims to the Falklands too.

[Newbie to this]

3 minutes ago, henry d said:

Well in that case Chile helped us during the Falklands war, proxy?

Strange but true that they also supported Argentinian claims to the Falklands too.

If you say so, I have no idea on Chile's involvement in the Falklands.

[henry d]

Even let us insert special forces into Argentina via Chile. 

[timps]

@Rewulf 

You do go off at a tangent, I simply stated that the civil war in Donbass would have either not started or be over by now if BOTH Russia and NATO stayed out of it.

You then tried to infer the civil war had gone on for 8 years so this would not be the case and Russia sat still for 8 years and tried to fix the problem so didn’t prolong it.

My response to that was Russia did not sit still they were actively involved and without that involvement the civil war would have been over.

To which I get your straw man argument of:-

“How many 'active military personal' do you think the US has in foreign countries”

 “peaceful Americans would have done if the roles were reversed right”

That is nothing to do with my point at all, this is about Russia’s involvement in Donbass, they have actively prolonged the civil war in the region with military support.

Stating the USA is worse and would have done exactly the same does not alter that fact or excuse Russia’s involvement hence the straw man argument.

My original point still stands the civil war would have been over by now without the involvement of NATO OR Russia. But some on here just think NATO should be blamed.

[Mungler]

38 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

He got there in the end , after denial after denial about it being a proxy war, hes finally gone quiet on that bit.
All he needs to do now to complete the circle , is realise the whole shebang was a constructed affair.

First denial, then acceptance, after that will come justification, where he explains how Russia needed to be stopped, as Putin was a global security threat, and Ukraine was where it needed to happen , at the expense of the Ukrainian people.

Meanwhile in China *LOLs in Mandarin*

My definition is when a power , uses another state to conduct warfare on its rival power.
There are many scenarios , including supplying weapons to a state that is already involved in a conflict, conducting political manipulation to create unrest or antagonism to its rival, false flag operations and false information or propaganda.
The sticky fingers of the US intelligence services are evident in many central American countries , Syria, Libya and Ukraine, and likely many other countries that have not born the desired results ..Yet.
I would imagine Belarus , Georgia and other Caucus nations will feature on this list.
If you watched  the Wild card video I posted earlier, many Turks , including Erdogan believe the recent coup there was backed by the US.
Make your own mind up whether you believe Ukraine is one such constructed proxy , designed to tackle Russian energy power expansion.
But make no mistake , the US has a long history of similar operations along these lines.

Still babbling on about a proxy war?

Check the dictionary definition and ask who kicked this off by invading whom?

Russia opened the door, the US obliged and walked through it.

Putin is a master tactician of course 

[Rewulf]

30 minutes ago, timps said:

You do go off at a tangent, I simply stated that the civil war in Donbass would have either not started or be over by now if BOTH Russia and NATO stayed out of it.

Oh dear , another one who seems to skim over what people say, then make up what they believe was said.
Do pay attention.

 

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

2 hours ago, timps said:

A question to those that hold NATO in such distain, what will be the outcome if either of these scenarios were to ever happen?

1) Russia and NATO pull all support and allow it to become a civil war?

2) Russia removes troops on the ground and just offer equipment support?

In both cases I see a Ukrainian victory, the only way Russia can control this is with troops on the ground, an army of liberation tends to be become an army of occupation in a very short period of time and countless conflicts throughout the age have proved this.

Expand  

Agreed , weight of numbers would win on its own...

 

[timps]

33 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Oh dear , another one who seems to skim over what people say, then make up what they believe was said.
Do pay attention.

 

Oh Dear taking my posts out of context again and not reading them I see.

Yes, you agreed to that part of my post you quoted hence why I never replied to that part of your post as we both agree Ukraine would win.

However, I said  “ I simply stated that the civil war in Donbass would have either not started or be over by now”

Which were the points you were specifically replying to in the original post listed below: -

“Those that continue to blame NATO while excusing Russia forget that if neither side had got involved this conflict would have probably been over by now or never started in the first place.”

 And

“Those in Ukraine wanting independence would never have got anywhere without Russian supplies and Russian troops masquerading as separatist Militia in the first place.

Civil wars are never pretty or nice, however, full scale invasions of other countries tend to be even worse.”

That’s what you quoted and disagreed with after agreeing with the first bit of my post, you can’t agree and disagree with the entirety of a whole post at the same time it’s not Schrodinger’s forum.

From your posts you stated you agreed Ukraine would win (as you have posted and I haven't mentioned since) but disagreed the civil war in Donbass would be over by now and that Russia had not prolonged the Civil war.

If you weren't disagreeing then why quote them?

 

 

[Rewulf]

15 minutes ago, timps said:

Oh Dear taking my posts out of context again and not reading them I see.

Yes, you agreed to that part of my post you quoted hence why I never replied to that part of your post as we both agree Ukraine would win.

However, I said  “ I simply stated that the civil war in Donbass would have either not started or be over by now”

Which were the points you were specifically replying to in the original post listed below: -

“Those that continue to blame NATO while excusing Russia forget that if neither side had got involved this conflict would have probably been over by now or never started in the first place.”

Scrabbling for justification for you mistake is never a good look Im afraid, but then you go one better....

 

15 minutes ago, timps said:

“Those in Ukraine wanting independence would never have got anywhere without Russian supplies and Russian troops masquerading as separatist Militia in the first place.

Is that one of those straw man arguments you talk about ?

Heres a better one then while we have a straw man 'free fire zone'
If the Yanks hadnt backed the Maidan coup , and then made Ukraine a pro western , prospective NATO member , then why , by jove, none of this would have happened 

15 minutes ago, timps said:

 And

“Those in Ukraine wanting independence would never have got anywhere without Russian supplies and Russian troops masquerading as separatist Militia in the first place.

Civil wars are never pretty or nice, however, full scale invasions of other countries tend to be even worse.”

That’s what you quoted and disagreed with after agreeing with the first bit of my post, you can’t agree and disagree with the entirety of a whole post at the same time it’s not Schrodinger’s forum.

From your posts you stated you agreed Ukraine would win (as you have posted and I haven't mentioned since) but disagreed the civil war in Donbass would be over by now and that Russia had not prolonged the Civil war.

If you weren't disagreeing then why quote them?

I see, Ive just gone back and re read my replies, and , as I thought, I didnt disagree with them at all.
So youve done it yet again , read what Ive put , and changed the context , meaning , and inserted a word into them I didnt even use !
Well done.
I added some thoughts of my own for context , and where I am on the matter, quoted your text , so there was some continuity, but I never disagreed with those particular parts.

So crack and try again.

[timps]

36 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Scrabbling for justification for you mistake is never a good look Im afraid, but then you go one better....

What the heck are you going on about?
 

 

37 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I see, Ive just gone back and re read my replies, and , as I thought, I didnt disagree with them at all.

Really ?

So you quoted them and wrote your own thoughts that were at odds with what was written but this is not disagreeing?  How does that work?

You have just quoted the one above and called it a straw man argument how can that be considered agreeing with it?
Are you now disagreeing with it ?

Very confusing style of posting, it is very difficult to understand you as you seem to disagree and agree with a post at the same time.

But to answer your question I keep saying BOTH NATO and Russia NOT involved, it would only be a straw man argument if I say Russia alone. But since we completely agree on it why are we discussing it? Or don’t we agree now? 
 
Or do we put it in a box where it can be right and a straw man argument at the same time.

 

And what word have I inserted?

to be honest I’m not really bothered as it’s getting near no rules Friday pub time and this is only the internet. 

[12gauge82]

5 hours ago, mchughcb said:

Because one day people who are supporting him are going to run out of money or support to give him that money. At some point they will walk away or ask him to negotiate. As he has ruled out the latter then the former applies. As the various leaders are all tanking in the polls or have been given the boot, those filling their shoes may not be full of the bravado of support.

 

 

 

 

And why won't Russia run out of money and equipment? So far russia appears to be fairing alot worse than the west in that department at the moment. 

[12gauge82]

6 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

No certainly not, but Austria and Czechoslovakia were acceptable.

I don’t remember the UK being invaded, my history could be wrong though.

 

 

No the UK wasn't invaded, but they attempted to bomb us out of existence in civilian areas and had they won the battle of Britain I'm sure it would have been on the cards. The point remains that we absolutely should not have agreed to give up parts of our country and neither should Ukraine, just because a bulling neighbour wants their country. 

[Rewulf]

56 minutes ago, timps said:

Really ?

So you quoted them and wrote your own thoughts that were at odds with what was written but this is not disagreeing?  How does that work?

They werent at odds IMHO, so they werent disagreeing , simple really.

You said I disagreed, that was untrue, but rather than point out where you thought we differed , you went on a several hundred word rant of what you thought I said, and why I was wrong
I honestly dont know why you bother, you sound like a bloke who could fall out with someone in an empty field 

Post what you like , but no more essays please, its interfering with valuable shilling time.

[timps]

43 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

You said I disagreed, that was untrue, but rather than point out where you thought we differed ...

That made me laugh out loud, so we didn’t disagree but we differed.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/differed

maybe I should get a new dictionary or is that dictionary too mainstream or not Russian enough for you😄

Edit to add: if you agree with everything I said then there shouldn't be anything to point out. I did point it out in the other posts but you disagreed with my points therefore you disagree. 

As I said in a previous post if you quote me I will respond and you again did quote me with a rather lengthy post of errr differences, if you don't want me to reply to you, then as I said before don't quote me and disa...sorry I mean with differences.😁 If you don't want to read  my posts then don't.

I haven’t fallen out with anyone, least of all you, I might not agree with you but I could quite happily have a pint with you.

To me you sound like this bloke

https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ

But I find it funny. 

 

Edited October 7, 2022 by timps

[Rewulf]

17 minutes ago, timps said:

That made me laugh out loud, so we didn’t disagree but we differed.

I'm sure you can envisage a place where one can broadly agree with someone with the odd caveat? 

That is what I meant by differ, anyway, as I've said before, nothing wrong with a good healthy debate, you always learn something, and it's fairly certain that if everyone agreed on everything, it would be a boring old forum? 

21 minutes ago, timps said:

I haven’t fallen out with anyone, least of all you, I might not agree with you but I could quite happily have a pint with you.

Good, but I only drink vodka. 

Russian vodka 🙊😂

[Jaymo]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

 

Good, but I only drink vodka. 

Russian vodka 🙊😂

No you don’t. We had strawberry daiquiri‘s with little pink umbrellas the last time we went out. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Flying Fantasist flies again.

[timps]

11 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I’m sure you can envisage a place where one can broadly agree with someone with the odd caveat? 

 

Of course, unless that caveat goes against whole ethos of the post. 
 

I read your post and mine and saw conflicting views which  I felt that both couldn’t be true at the same time and you didn’t. Simple enough to explain but not simple to agree on the differences. 

I never fall out on the internet life’s too short.  Although I might come across as sarcastic   and flippant on the internet  I’m like that in real life too so it’s tough.  

 

[Rewulf]

20 minutes ago, Jaymo said:

No you don’t. We had strawberry daiquiri‘s with little pink umbrellas the last time we went out. 

I must confess, my secret intelligence mission to kefalonia last month did involve such beverages, purely for cover purposes 😏

Wouldn't want anyone to think I was a Russian agent by slamming neat vodkas down me. 

Although the amount of Russians there slamming neat vodkas down them , I could so easily have blended in 😂

3 minutes ago, timps said:

I never fall out on the internet life’s too short.  Although I might come across as sarcastic   and flippant on the internet  I’m like that in real life too so it’s tough

We shall have to agree to err differ then 👍

[henry d]

11 hours ago, Stonepark said:

I would recommend that everyone should keep their eyes and ears open and make sure you have as much information as possible before drawing conclusions.....

OK, just watched the news and the Russian foreign minister stated that they started the special operations (war) because of NATO intervention in Ukraine. So I suppose that gets rid of anything to do with the Eastern oblasts. 

Can we now drop that as an excuse as it comes directly from official Russian sources!