The thing is, all these historical claims arguments, either for or against, are bollocks. Pretty much everywhere used to belong to someone else and at the same time has an excellent argument for being exactly how it is. Every american idiot that buys into "ukraine used to be russian" without thinking about Alaska in the first instance and their entire 250 year old country after that. Will Britain be retaking the empire? Rome retaking London?
There's not much point in trying to defeat the detail of the argument because it's not a right or wrong argument, it's just a fatuous and pointless one. There's no date when suddenly if a country existed it's legitimate, no particular set of historic circumstances that validates it, not for Ukraine or anywhere else in the world.
(It's a bit of a conundrum that goes right the way back to local issues- like, all of the UK is owned, and if you go back far enough someone probably stole it or killed someone else for it,but try and steal it back now and you'll get in trouble. And for sure a lot of landowners are essentially squatters, they can't actually prove a legitimate ownership (partly because some pre-date that entire concept, partly because some were just more subtle about the stealing) Same thing on a different scale. I don't think anywhere has a really good answer for it but we can definitely see that some answers are utter horseshit.)
There’s not much point in trying to defeat the detail of the argument because it’s not a right or wrong argument, it’s just a fatuous and pointless one.
Well quite, otherwise **** it, France can have Algeria back as France has Nukes.
Worked out well last time...
A note on Chewkw- a few weeks ago he was providing coherent and well argued comments that added to the thread, for pretty much the first time in his posting history. That proved he can do it. So now, every time he doesn’t, you know for sure it’s shit stirring or trolling. If anyone ever gave him the benefit of the doubt it’s time to stop…
I disagree with the points chewkw is making, but we need to try and avoid playing the man. Seem to remember the mods wanted us to either stop it, or report it.
Putin’s attempts at revisionist historical claims to Ukraine are completely false, a blatant lie used to justify his empire building, a gross attempt to recreate Imperial Russia, by any means necessary.
I know that, you know that… just trying to work out if the other poster is telling us about Putin’s claims (yeah, thanks, we know), or genuinely believes/aligns with him.
I am trying to provide the Russian/Putin's perspective. Aligning to no one other than saying/ trying to say that we are on the right path to mutual destruction.
There’s not much point in trying to defeat the detail of the argument because it’s not a right or wrong argument, it’s just a fatuous and pointless one. There’s no date when suddenly if a country existed it’s legitimate, no particular set of historic circumstances that validates it, not for Ukraine or anywhere else in the world.
What is the solution? Continue fighting until one side gives in?
I have stated the possible solutions.
And there we go. Still no answer. Northwind has it.
The thing is, all these historical claims arguments, either for or against, are bollocks.
I was listening (for 2 hours) to one of the British Professor of History on the matter of Russia/Ukraine history on YouTube, who framed the issues from the moral perspective. i.e. immoral Russia/Putin etc. I find it interesting as he dismisses those viewing from political perspectives. But I disagree with him on the ground that one can have more moral justification over others.
I used to post on Bikemagic years ago. There was a fella on there called Dylan Turvey and chewkw reminds me of him. You could have a sensible discussion with him but more often that not it would descend into this. He would have a point to make, but either refused to say what it was or couldn't say what it was. He would make his "point" by increasingly rambling posts that sometimes made no sense, just the same thing repeated in different ways over and over again. We all thought this was just deliberate trolling.
Maybe I wasn't intelligent enough to understand him, but I am one of many that need things spelled out to me. If you have a point please make it so we can all understand what your position is.
I apologise in advance if this is "playing the man" but I have to say it
Slight distraction.
I apologise in advance if this is “playing the man” but I have to say it
I don't think anyone is "playing the man" to be honest. (nobody is playing the man "me" as far as I know or maybe I don't know)
The current situation is actually making the world a bit weird so it is expected that some will be more vocal/coherent than others. That's just normal.
(below is just my views btw, Mods have the authority)
I think it is individual rights to express how they feel and I accept them all. People have to let off steam of some sort. I rather the person express their views as they are because of who they are rather than telling them to change. Therefore, I welcome all regardless.
p/s: if people want to provide reference so be it but I am a bit lazy as they are just so much information online, at times I just sound incoherent I know. However, issue like Russia/Ukraine is all over and one can find all the suitable narratives for him/herself.
"What is the solution? Continue fighting until one side gives in?"
I think that's pretty much how war works. Eventually one side runs out of either soldiers, money or enthusiasm (or in the case of Japan, is flattened with a couple of nukes) and calls it a day.
I think that’s pretty much how war works. Eventually one side runs out of either soldiers, money or enthusiasm (or in the case of Japan, is flattened with a couple of nukes) and calls it a day.
I agree. It looks like the situation will get worst before it gets better.
p/s: interesting views from Historian David Starkey as well.
Starkey has lots of “interesting” views [some of them suggest to me that he’s a downright nasty piece of work]. Which of them are you referring to? Or is this just a new guessing game to play? Should we be looking in a book, a newspaper, a video?
I am trying to provide the Russian/Putin’s perspective.
But only the one that makes sense to you. Putin has quite clearly created different propaganda for home and abroad, He's invaded to get rid of the Nazis - Every one in the West dismisses that piece of propaganda because it's so obviously false - Zelensky being Jewish an' all, But it plays well at home, and so for the west he comes up with the NATO thing, and low, it works...Fits the narrative, feeds the fear. Amazing how many fall for it though.
he’s a downright nasty piece of work
think the phrase you're looking for is racist ****
Just because Chewkw isn’t looking at this from a moral perspective (right and wrong sort of thing) doesn’t make him a Putin apologist.
Sure, technically correct. What make's him a Putin apologist is constantly apologizing for Putin's war crimes.
This may have been asked of before, but I can’t search 7000 posts!!
How are the areas of Ukraine not directly affected by this awful conflict coping with the situation? At the moment the war is very generally directly affecting the East and South of the country. I know some missiles have been launched and landed in the Lviv area to the West, but Ukraine is a massive country. Roughly 900 miles East to West. What is happening in those areas in the centre and west. How are the populations conducting their lives? Is industry still working, is agriculture still in production, are children being educated? Or is the whole of those area’s not directly affected by the day to day conflict supporting those who are?
"Sure, technically correct. What make’s him a Putin apologist is constantly apologizing for Putin’s war crimes."
But he isn't doing that is he. God knows I've disagreed with / been trolled by Chewkw enough in the past but in this instance his observations have been pretty accurate and less governed by emotion and outrage (and the last thing we saw on telly) cthan most of us.
You could say he sees things in a dispassionate way and his posts may be lacking in empathy but does that mean he doesn't care? He offers a non Eurocentric perspective.
Someone up there posted that there's 'still no answer'. Part of the problem is that we think there is an answer, there isn't. There is no end of history and no permanent solutions to problems that linger for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Peace isn't some end goal to be achieved, it has always been something that needs to be maintained.
That's what politics is, managing or mismanaging the worse aspects of human nature and in this instance it's pretty hard not to conclude that the West has mismanaged Russia in general and misjudged Putin in particular.
It doesn't make us 'bad' like Putin but it does make us look a bit stupid in the eyes of much of the world.
He offers a non Eurocentric perspective.
Just a suggestion, but spend some time reading Chewks post and dont "listen" to what Chewk says but the "accent" Chewk uses.
It's quite interesting when having an off guard day.
is agriculture still in production
Someone said they'd lose 25% of their harvest this year, so I guess 75% is still in production?
What is happening in those areas in the centre and west.
I speak with no real authority on this. But I had a teams meeting earlier this week with someone from Lviv. It was basically ‘business as usual’ with the threat that she may have to leave the call if there was an air raid siren (or similar). It was a bit eery - if you only watched BBC news, you’d think that everyone had fled / been bombed / joined in the fighting. Whereas at least in her case she was just trying to get on with life.
It really made me aware of how comfortable my existence is.
Just a suggestion, but spend some time reading Chewks post and dont “listen” to what Chewk says but the “accent” Chewk uses.
It’s quite interesting when having an off guard day.
Yep. Varies a lot. Vocabulary and syntax wildly changes. My clever mate Rachel wrote a bit of software that identified posters via textural consistencies and also suspected sock puppets faking new identities.
She did it for more serious stuff but had fun on forums with it.
Starkey has lots of “interesting” views [some of them suggest to me that he’s a downright nasty piece of work]. Which of them are you referring to? Or is this just a new guessing game to play? Should we be looking in a book, a newspaper, a video?
think the phrase you’re looking for is racist ****
Mostly from YouTube. Starkey is just using the language as it is. I doubt he is racist.
Someone said they’d lose 25% of their harvest this year, so I guess 75% is still in production?
We have not entered the full scale nuke war yet production has reduced by 25%. As I said if all hell break loose, post hell, there will be mass starvation (no one to farm and land contaminated). Winning is empty. I always wonder how UK is going to sustain themselves? Polytunnels may not be enough?
What is happening in those areas in the centre and west. How are the populations conducting their lives?
I think the West is not affected that much as Ukraine is a big country as you say. PM BoJo even visited today so must be relatively safe?
nickc
I am trying to provide the Russian/Putin’s perspective.
But only the one that makes sense to you. Putin has quite clearly created different propaganda for home and abroad, He’s invaded to get rid of the Nazis – Every one in the West dismisses that piece of propaganda because it’s so obviously false – Zelensky being Jewish an’ all, But it plays well at home, and so for the west he comes up with the NATO thing, and low, it works…Fits the narrative, feeds the fear. Amazing how many fall for it though.
Plenty of political commentators refer to them as nationalistic from both sides. Both sides seem to have plenty of "right wingers".
Yep. Varies a lot. Vocabulary and syntax wildly changes. My clever mate Rachel wrote a bit of software that identified posters via textural consistencies and also suspected sock puppets faking new identities.
She did it for more serious stuff but had fun on forums with it.
Nahh ... definitely me. What's the point of pretending to someone/thing I am not. Waste of time and I am lazy. Just to wind people up? Life is too short.
I have to translate my thinking into English expression (as in English you can understand not my English) so it can a hit or miss situation sometimes. Have you been to Singapore? Try speaking English to a Singaporean using Singlish. Yes, they are speaking "English" but you may not understand what they say or mean at all. For example, Singlish expression: "Why you say like that?". "Don't be like that lah". (they even have a song for it! LOL!) I think you mate Rachel will have a hard time trying to understand the "English" from that region.
I found this article very interesting, info about the author is at the very end. I almost never post here but thought it's worth sharing
https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine
this is all totally normal
the nazi line isnt enough any more, now its a war against satan
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1512834235937267716
Is he angling to be a televangelist?
Maybe after nazis and devils they will be calling people zombie maggots.
Found this quite interesting, DW interview with a former Russian Deputy Foreign Minister (who also felt it needed saying the city with the train station rocket attack was quite Russian)
He gets asked some very direct questions
He seems to acknowledge there is going to be a very real, worst case scenario where Ukraine will end up hating (as the interviewer puts it) Russia for a long time.
kimbers
the nazi line isnt enough any more, now its a war against satan
Actually, that is common knowledge in other parts of the world where religion is way of life. They consider NATO/US/West as satan in disguise. Therefore, NATO/US/West is not really welcome in that part of the world but they just tolerate them for now. The biggest atheists or agnostics country is actually China.
That article was riddled with falsehoods
eg, Putin suplying arms and tanks is pretty well doccumented
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27849437
and there have been a lot of exampes of russias involement in the seperatist republics
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/25/russia-ukraine-soldier
the idea that russia only invaded ukraine because ukraine started to attack and that Puin never intended to replace zelensky was laughable-
and the author is a known conspiracy theorist/ putin fan
he even claimed that the skripals 'probably had food poisoning'
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Baud
and the author is a known conspiracy theorist/ putin fan
Quite the most depressing site I’ve read in a long time. Did you have a scan of the other stories on there? Quite a collection.
Oh ok, will look into that. Can you point out the falsehoods?
Can you point out the falsehoods?
Well off the top of my head I would say the characterisation of the Donbas conflict in 2014 being a spontaneous uprising with no encouragement/military assistance from Russia is a major distortion of the truth. Most of the article is full of half-truths & distortions that have an element of truth but which present an inaccurate picture of the situation.
vooomvooom
I found this article very interesting, info about the author is at the very end. I almost never post here but thought it’s worth sharing
I only had a quick scan (quick scan! Not reading in details as I only look at the reasons behind the conflict/war whatever not the rest) of the article but the article is rather consistent with many of the views from the political commentators (Professors of IR).
a quick google showed up these
eg, Putin suplying arms and tanks is pretty well doccumented
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27849437
and there have been a lot of exampes of russias involement in the seperatist republics
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/25/russia-ukraine-soldier
This was the whole reason why Putin said that Russia wasnt bound by the Minsk agreement- because he had no part in the war
the idea that russia only invaded ukraine because ukraine started to attack and that Puin never intended to replace zelensky was laughable- ill find the link but putin had a team in place to replace him https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-crisis/russia-brings-ex-ukraine-prez-to-minsk-talks-putin-wants-him-to-replace-zelensky-reports-articleshow.html
one of Yanukovihs aides was on twitter having to leave ukraine hed arrived as part of the invasion force, thinking itd be over in a few days
and the author is a known conspiracy theorist/ putin fan
he even claimed that the skripals ‘probably had food poisoning’
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Baud
eg, Putin suplying arms and tanks is pretty well doccumented
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27849437
and there have been a lot of exampes of russias involement in the seperatist republics
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/25/russia-ukraine-soldier
/blockquote>I won't trust these source at all other than looking at they in the way they frame information.
Same here...BBC and the guardian lied about Iraq and to think they are saying the truth now would be very naive.
I won’t trust these source at all other than looking at they they frame information.
Same here…BBC and the guardian lied about Iraq and to think they are saying the truth now would be very naive.
then your closed mimdedness will keep you ignorant
heres some more, maybe youll bother to educate yourself, maybe youll preferto only read stuff that re-enforces your biases
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2016/09/06/russian-combat-medals-put-lie-to-putins-claim-of-no-russian-troops-in-ukraine/
then your closed mimdedness will keep you ignorant
heres some more, maybe youll bother to educate yourself, maybe youll preferto only read stuff that re-enforces your biases
Generally speaking I only read them as a source of information but I know that they are Not impartial. Hence, I also get my information from other sources to have a complete picture.
amazing you wont trust bbc or the guardian
but happily parrot Putins very obvious lies?
what sources do you trust , voomvoom too
Well, I guess because if those manistream sources of information lied about a major war (Iraq, just one example) were a lot of people died - then how am I to believe them now? Does that show closed midedness?
which lies about iraq in particular?
Mainstream source is just information nothing else.
ahh so mainstream = bad
what is good then?
and surely informations is exacty what you want from a source
kimbers
Full Member
no words
I was hoping that was propaganda but it seems it isn't.
Ukraine will never give up fighting and will hate it's neighbour for generations after atrocities such as this.
I would too. How could you not?
I was hoping that was propaganda but it seems it isn’t.
putin dehumanizing ukranians as nazis (ironically considering what the nazis actually did) makes these kind of attrocities more likely
@vooomvooom im still waiting for the roof of this?
BBC and the guardian lied about Iraq and to think they are saying the truth now would be very naive
