ALREADYANONEDITDUETONINJAS: In responce to Devastator's megapost:
Knit tie, the reasons I don't believe your statements and arguments are pretty simple.
Firstly, there are loads of things that just don't make sense. If all the donbass fighters are Ukranian rebels, and there was overwhelming support to join Russia, why have there been so many people fleeing into the Ukraine? There's been lots of people fleeing the area to both countries, but if >80% of the locals supported becoming part of Russia, why would those same people leave to join the rest of the Ukraine?
Because not all of Donbass' population supports the current conflict - in addition to pro-Ukrainians, there are bound to be people who honestly don't care about politics but would rather just see their families and themselves safe, and even if those people comprise just 20% of Donbass' population, that's still a large number. And even among those who do support Novorossiya, some simply don't have an option of fleeing into Russia, or instead have all their friends relatives to whom they might escape living in Ukraine, or just decide to run for the nearest border when the shells start flying, because most Ukrainians are quite moderate and are as willing to help Russian refugees as
most Russians are willing to help Ukrainian refugees.Secondly, regardless of your political views of an uprising, I don't see how putting boots on the ground by the thounsand, can be constituted anything other than an invasion. You could then argue if it's justified or not, but either way it remains an invasion. The United States definately invaded Iraq to remove Saddam, for instance, although there was quite a bit of political fluff trying to avoid that word. If they had done anything similar in Syria, for instance, I would definately expect to hear that as being an invasion.
Russia is not attacking Ukraine in the usual sense, like the USA attacked Iraq, it is instead merely supporting the Ukrainian Donbass rebels, who do all the fighting. That's an intervention, yes, but not an invasion.
What this has relevance to your arguments, is that I keep hearing repeated statements about how this is a Russian or how this is a Ukranian, interposed with other posts where you state that it is impossible to tell a Russian from a Ukrainian. You even had a picture of a guy in a Russian uniform, and you could somehow magically tell that he was not Russian at all. That's simply illogical.
Regarding those pictures, I said that wearing Russian uniform is not a decisive proof of a soldier being Russian, due to those uniforms being supplied to the Donbass rebels. And where was all the blood from the dead soldiers in those pictures? They might be staged, anyway. As for the difference between Russians and Ukrainians, it all depends on self-identification: if a person says they are Ukrainian, they are Ukrainian, if they say they are Russian, they are Russian. All other borders between the two peoples are extremely blurry, so I call people Ukrainians or Russians based on their own opinion in this matter.
Thirdly, some of these claims have been quite silly. It was a coup that removed Yanukovych from power. Tell me another one. It was also the second time he was removed from power. This time he was replaced by a weak government that was itself replaced several months later in new elections. That's not how coups work. When someone get's couped, there is a new man in power very quickly, and it is absolutely clear who is in charge.
It was clear who was in charge from the very beginning - Poroshenko. And also I'm afraid that coups don't guarantee a new strong man in charge by default: you can look up the fall of the Russian Empire to see how a coup may result in a weak, incompetent government.
He's also been very, very quiet about this whole thing. There was a flurry of the usual opposition-blaming and label throwing which happens to every ousted president, but he seems to be the single most ineffectual coup victim in the history of politics, standing by as his country gets invaded by a third party, which is what I'm going to have to take it as until he's been seen in the disputed area leading what Russia would claim to be his people.
I'm sorry, I don't see how Yanukovich being ultimately a weak ruler disproves the fact that there was a coup against him. You can oust weak leaders just fine, again, please look up the October Revolution to see that happen with Kerensky.
In the end, there's just too many stories. "It was vacationing soldiers, you can't possibly expect a nation to control it's servicemen!" "We're supporing the rebels against atrocities that were committed by people who look indisinguishable from our soldiers!" "We fail to recognize the existance of this country at all, therefore we cannot be invading a country that doesn't exist!" "They deserve it for oppressing our (again, indistinguishable) civilians who live in that country!" I'm exaggerating for effect, but not by all that much.
If you are telling the truth, you don't need to tell a dozen lies until you successfully cobble together a story that is currently difficult to disprove. If you truly believe what you say, there isno fear in the testing.
The absolute majority of everything Russia, Ukraine and the West say is lies and propaganda. I never denied that Russia is lying through its teeth about why it's supporting the Novorossiya, just like the USA is lying through its teeth about why it's supporting Kyiv.
If you want me.. and possibly others, to think that you are a Russian patriot, rather than a propaganda-touting shill, the best way to begin is by stating what kind of evidence would convince you that the opposing side is correct. This is something that can be applied to people from both sides.. someone disagreeing with you will be able to explain his beliefs, and list things that he would consider convincing evidence.
Well, to see myself as wrong about Donbass, I would like some evidence of the general Donbass populace being not predominantly anti-Ukrainian. This would absolutely cause my current understanding of the conflict to crumble. Evidence of most Crimeans, aside from the Tatar minority, being in favour of Ukrainian Crimea would also be devastating, as would be the evidence that Russia is planing the invasion of Poland and the Baltics.
I am willing to do this as well, and even am willing to go first.
I'd expect most of the remaining people in the Donbass region are putinists/russian supporters, simply due to the hazards of living in opposition territory for months, along with the population being fairly mobile. I will believe that the invasion has ended when Russia posts casulty lists, and has pensioned off family members. I will not believe that such things cannot be made, as there have been enough prisoners, and enough family members of MIA casulties, to make it impossible for me to believe there aren't any. In order to believe Russia has not invaded at all, there is a lot more that needs to be done. First, I'd need to see the prosecution of at least some of these deserters who are engaging in foreign wars. Secondly, I'd expect to see reparations paid by Russia in return for forgiving the actions of her citizens in a foreign country. Thirdly, I'd expect to see reasurrances and guarantees issued to other nations containing Russian populations, as well as protective measures put forth to prevent a repeat of these actions.
Again, my point is not that there aren't Russian soldiers in Donbass, it's that they aren't the ones doing the fighting after that Mariupol covert operation has ended. As for your peace negotiations plans, I'd say that they are rather sound. Putin would most likely agree to pay some pensions and some reparations and incarcerate a commander or two in exchange for Crimea recognition and a federalised Ukraine.
If Putin wants me to believe that he isn't, in fact, invading the Ukraine, he needs to go beyond 'deny, deny, deny', while offhandedly threatening other countries that the Soviets failed to finish exterminating the national identities of.
Also, if you care, I'm in the camp of 'Knit tie is simply a russian patriot', as I have met several others expounding similar views in person.
I'd also love you to find me a Kamchakan Ainu if it is true that Russia is now supporting non-russian minorities...
Putin is waging a hybrid war in Ukraine, I never denied that. As for the threatening, that's all just power posturing - nothing unusual, everybody does it, standard politician practice. As for the national minorities, Russia is not exactly supporting them, it's simply throwing money at the territories with large proportions of non-Russian minorities as a counter-separatism measure (which is wholly unnecessary outside of Caucasus, if you ask me).
Although I would like to ask: do you seriously believe that Russia will attempt to do anything with Poland and the Baltics, or do you see it as just a precaution for a possibility?
What Sheb said, basically. As long as there's a credible defence, that defence is not needed.
And this thread has made me realize something very odd about war: While I really like you guys (meaning the Russians/Belarussians), I'd probably have no trouble putting a bullet through your heads in combat...
That's just how war psychology works in general, Helgo. Honourable combat with a worthy opponent and all that.
Okay, that's not entirely true, that's one way war psychology works, another is simply not seeing your opponents as humans, a-la "burn the heretical filth." I personally prefer the honourable combat with a worthy opponent way.
Author
Topic: Russia Watch Thread/Ветка о России (Read 258270 times)