Russia has invaded Ukraine

[ohmymimi]

Not a shot fired. Putin outwits the West and who/what will stop him getting his way?

Yes, but you were attributingor appearing to attributethe lives lost under Stalin in the 30s/40s entirely to WW2. You appeared unaware of what he had done in the Ukraine before the war (that is, deliberately inflicting a famine on the area), and indeed to what else he did during his rule in the Ukraine and elsewhere. You also seem unaware that Stalin's anti-semiticism led its victims to a similar fate to those Hitler'sdeportation to camps and death in appalling circumstanceswe are not merely talking unpleasant literary references here. And the items on your list, while terrible, do not seem to relate to the Ukrain/USSR/Russia, which is what this thread is about.

the pro-Putin lobby on here who are in favour of Russia's invasion and occupation of the Ukraine, have put forward a lot of verbosity, and plenty of C&P, but the arguments boil down to few

a) the invasion and occupation do not exist

b) the invasion and occupation are justified because Ukrainians are nasty.

To this, they have added some non-arguments, which are simply dishonest debating tricks

c) someone who disagrees with me is a Nazi

d) People who criticise Russia's invasion and occupation only do it because they hate Russians

e) (A bad thing done many years ago by a non-Russian) is relevant, but (a bad thing done many years ago by a Russian) is not relevant.

f) It's OK to invade and occupy or commit crimes because other people do it too.

A military invasion is not the best way to win friends. PigletJohn, you are John Kerry and I claim my £5. :o

Abra1d:
Stalin was not anti-Semitic any more than he was anti Russian as a matter of policy. Everything he did related to his thirst for power, which he maintained by use of terror, which involved targeting of various identifiable groups or strata of society.

I am not unaware of the millions murdered by the Communist regime throughout its existence. I merely wondered why PigletJohn was keen to gloss over the war of annihilation brought upon the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany as evidenced by reluctance to address the issue of military casualties and collateral civilian deaths during that war, and insisting on focusing on the toll outside of war-related figures.

I mention the US in this context because you seem keen to jump on PigletJohn's bandwagon and see evil only arising in the east. It's all the same shit, just different buckets.

the items on your list, while terrible, do not seem to relate to the Ukrain/USSR/Russia
PigletJohn's problem here is the equation of USSR/Russia -- you have noticed the conflation of Russia and USSR but apparently you do not think this is a problem.

I merely wondered why PigletJohn was keen to gloss over the war of annihilation brought upon the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany as evidenced by reluctance to address the issue of military casualties and collateral civilian deaths during that war, and insisting on focusing on the toll outside of war-related figures.

because, of course, I was replying to you when you said

When you speak of 'contemporaneous crimes by the Russian-dominated Soviet Union' (during WW2) you imply some equivalence. Unfortunately you seem to have forgotten that Nazi crimes were committed in the course of a war of aggression declared on both eastern and western fronts whose aim was world domination and the extermination of Jews and Slavs alike (followed by everyone else).

please explain why you invented your allegation of "insisting"

besides which, I have glossed over nothing. I have however mentioned some things which you seem reluctant to accept, such as the genocide in Ukraine. I have not previously mentioned the extermination of a generation of educated Poles.

Did you want to discuss battle casualties?

It seems to me in light of your last reductio ad absurdum post there, PigletJohn (a lovely example of dodgy debating) that anyone who disagrees with you is some sort of bloodthirsty commie?

Hypocrisy is the problem here PigletJohn.
American bleating about democracy and territorial integrity in the wake of a coup organised and fully supported by the State Department comes across badly. A democratically elected president has been deposed and the US and EU have rushed to acknowledge the legitimacy of the successor, thrown up by the mob but carefully chosen by the US ahead of time. But all that matters is what Russia has done, which is to occupy a semi autonomous region that was never part of Ukraine historically. And in your view, this has been done in a vacuum and there is no context whatsoever to it.

Next time you disapprove of some Tory policy are you going to take to the streets and throw rocks at the police? Perhaps you favour closer ties with the EU and Tory vacillation on the matter is really irritating you?

Will I see you out waving a tricolour next Easter Monday in support of a united Ireland?

that's

f) It's OK to invade and occupy or commit crimes because other people do it too.

How about we focus on the ousting of a sitting president by mobs of dubious composition with the full support of the peace-and-democracy loving United States?

Before that, I would like to see your take on the event known as Operation Barbarossa.

Does the US see interference in the affairs of a sovereign state as a good way to make friends?

I can't speak for the US. I am not a US president or secretary of state.

However this thread is about Russia's invasion and occupation of its neighbour.

You have forgotten that my comment was in response to a pro-Russian poster foolishly saying "Without the politicians and extreme nationalists steering trouble, people in Ukraine seem to get along quite well, judging by TV reports" so I pointed out that invasion and occupation can be expected to cause ill-feeling.

Are you Ukrainian then?

I do not think it is controversial to assert that Ukrainian politicians and ultranationalists have sought to drive wedges between various groups according to their perceptions of where their interests lie. (The Tories have after all done pretty well in UK politics using a similar approach.) Ukrainian politics is a winner takes all game inflicted on the people by an unscrupulous political class that manages to enrich itself above all else, while reneging on debt and playing east against west in excellent cute hoor fashion. Ukrainians have been played against each other for a long time, and bitter historical memories have contributed to rigid factionalism in political life.

I know you love C&Ping. This one is about the stability of the international system and elements that threaten it:
'...the most appropriate answer to the dangers inherent in an era of interdependence and turbulence is domestic resilience: hardened and redundant networks of information and energy, an emphasis on local or regional self-sufficiency to reduce the cascading effects of systemic shocks, improved domestic emergency-response and cybersecurity capacities, sufficient investments in pandemic response, and so forth. Equally important is a resilient mindset, one that treats perturbations as inevitable rather than calamitous and resists the urge to overreact.'
From this interesting article.

PigletJohn, you and the US seem to have the same blind spot when it comes to any activity on the world stage that involves Russia.

You do not seem able to grasp that events in Ukraine are not happening in a vacuum, or maybe your pro US bias keeps you from acknowledging the role of the US in foolishly encouraging regime change in a sovereign state by means of mob action.

add

g) someone who disagrees with me is a US stooge

Are you not though?

Would you care to comment on US support for Yats?

Why do you support the Russian invasion and occupation of the Ukraine?

Would you care to comment on the opinion of money (in the shape of Forbes Mag) on Yats and Ukrainian prospects?

Yats has already been proved massively wrong on at least one aspect of future relations with Russia. How wrong do you think he may be about other elements of Ukraine's future?

mathanxiety, I have just come across this very interesting audio interview with Professor Stephen Cohen of New York University, who is a Russian studies expert, in the Nation magazine.

He argues that the West's policy towards Russia has been a reckless policy which is in effect almost a march to Moscow type thinking and a Brzezinski Russia is evil, winner take all policy.

He says something interesting which mathanxiety alluded to earlier on in terms of German policy i.e. that it could weaken Germany and strengthen Poland. He says that Klitschko was Merkel's man for President, but Nuland in the "fuck the EU" leaked phone call said that Klitschko is not ready for President and that Yats is the man.

Cohen says that Poland is worried by Germany's increasing dominance in Europe and that Ukraine would act as a bit of a balance if under Polish influence. He mentionss that Anne Applebaum is married to Polish Foreign Minister, Sikorski.

The interview was made one day before the Sochi Olympics ended, but it is still very interesting and insightful. It is long - about 50 minutes.

www.thenation.com/blog/178511/cohen-audio?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=onsite

Why do you insist on calling it an invasion and occupation of Ukraine?

And Professor Stephen Cohen is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which every self-respecting conspiracy theorist knows is a very influential organisation.

In Ukrainian opinion polling, (see Forbes article) Yats trailed both Klitschko and Tyahnybok (of the right wing Svoboda party.)

Brzezinski has always been Washington's foot in the Polish door and has actively pushed close ties including military ties between the US and Poland despite Poland's accession to the EU (an institution Brzezinski has little time for as it is not run by the State Department), so of course whoever will end up friendlier to Poland would win his vote. In the case of right wing parties in Ukraine aligning with Polish conservatism or nationalism he would probably support them too. Same goes for supporting any eastern bloc within the EU that 'balanced' western dominance even if it was dominated by right wingers. Ultimately he would like to see Germany either firmly onside or crushed by eastern European + US interests, as positive Russo-German relations are anathema to his cold war paradigm.

Clearly Russian intervention in Crimea has tested the relationship between Germany and Russia, but perhaps it has not yet done damage to the extent that the US may have hoped its provocation would cause. I suspect both Germany and Russia would accept a compromise of Crimea going to Russia as long as that removes the crisis from boiling point.

Because 'nationalism' in the context of Eastern Europe means 'anti-Russian' and the US is nothing if not anti-Russian (and recklessly so).

(And therefore 'Fuck the EU')

Yes, good analysis. Divide and conquer is the strategy that maintains US hegemony.

max: 'Why do you insist on calling it an invasion and occupation of Ukraine?'

Why wouldn't you call it that?