Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Petro Poroshenko

5 (29.4%)

Yulia Tymoshenko

2 (11.8%)

Oleg Lyashko

2 (11.8%)

Anatoly Hrytsenko

2 (11.8%)

Serhiy Tihipko

0 (0%)

Mykhailo Dobkin

0 (0%)

Other

6 (35.3%)

Total Members Voted: 17

[mainiac]

Why is Russia so obsessed with trying to portray that it's soldiers aren't in Ukraine?

[Knit tie]

Many, many Russian tanks.

It's funny how the article is in Russian (or Ukranian), but the image details are in English. Also, three tanks do not equal many.

You know, I keep wondering, why is Ukrainian government so obsessed with trying to portray the separatists as predominantly Russian soldiers, while they are mostly Donbassian volunteers? One of the reasons may as well be that it's too embarassed to admit that a bunch of militiamen can win against the Ukrainian army.

They did have some embarassing blunders like that group that tried to go into Donetsk (I forget what city actually, maybe it was SLavyansk) with some APCs and pratically surrendered without a fight.

Or the Illovaysk cauldron, that one was downright silly.

Why is Russia so obsessed with trying to portray that it's soldiers aren't in Ukraine?

Because politics, mostly. Why was the US so obsessed with trying to portray all those coloured revolutions and regime changes as completely unrelated to the actions of the CIA?

But the fact is, the absolute majority of separatists are armed locals, and Ukrainian claims that the Ukrainian army is fighting 100% regular Russian soldier formations 100% of the time are at least an order of magnitude wrong.

Or maybe it's because they have to prove to the world again and again that they're fighting Russia? After all, yourself refused to believe russians soldiers were involved until recently.

Everybody and their mother knows that Ukraine is fighting Russia, it's all over the western press. The problem is that Ukraine is also fighting a popular uprising, the volunteers of which comprise the majority of Ukrainian army's enemies. The image of valiant Ukrainian army heroically holding its ground against the Russian advance is pure propaganda, especially considering that Kremlin is the main reason why the war hasn't spilled outside of Donbass.

[Sheb]

What's that article?

[Knit tie]

What's that article?

An interview with the rebel commander "Batman", where he repeatedly bashes the Kremlin-demanded Minsk agreement as being absolutely disastrous to the rebel war effort.

In other news: Töte der katsapische Untermensch!

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Because politics, mostly. Why was the US so obsessed with trying to portray all those coloured revolutions and regime changes as completely unrelated to the actions of the CIA?

[It might be because that's a conspiracy theory]

[Helgoland]

Siding with Mict on that one. I guess Prague 1968 was the CIA as well?

[Knit tie]

Because politics, mostly. Why was the US so obsessed with trying to portray all those coloured revolutions and regime changes as completely unrelated to the actions of the CIA?

[It might be because that's a conspiracy theory]

USA totally didn't install the Pinochet regime, no sir-ee! That's just a conspiracy theory. Because the USA is the land of freedom that can never do wrong.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Lol. Yep.

[Sheb]

Are you drunk Knit Tie? You're less coherent than normally.

[Baffler]

I dunno. Only an idiot would deny that CIA operatives ever entered the Soviet Union, and it makes an awful lot of sense to try to push things in 'the right direction' to check off Russia's power in those countries while the people and the connections are there. I'm not saying that the CIA was the reason for those movements. Only that they were certainly keeping an eye on them and quite possibly (but not necessarily) helping the people they like. To what extent we may never know. The endless CIA meddling in South America and to a lesser extent the Middle East and Southeast Asia shows that they're willing to do things of that nature. I'd say it's not nearly as far fetched and unbelievable as people here seem to think it is.

[Knit tie]

Lol. Yep.

Also, the USA totally couldn't bring itself to end the democracy in Iran in 1953. And the CIA obviously couldn't use the success of the completely un-CIA-backed coup to increase its influence in the USA government circles. And when it admitted to supporting the Shah, it was obviously joking!

Are you drunk Knit Tie? You're less coherent than normally.

Nah, I'm just enjoying a good ol' whataboutism session between firmly entrenched political opponens who will never seriously consider their opponent's viewpoints.

[Helgoland]

Because politics, mostly. Why was the US so obsessed with trying to portray all those coloured revolutions and regime changes as completely unrelated to the actions of the CIA?

[It might be because that's a conspiracy theory]

USA totally didn't install the Pinochet regime, no sir-ee! That's just a conspiracy theory. Because the USA is the land of freedom that can never do wrong.

No one's denying that, Knit. The only whataboutist here is you...

I guess it's highly probable that the CIA helped the color revolutionaries. But claiming the CIA was 'behind' these revolutions is claiming that the CIA instigated them, that they not only couldn't have succeeded but that they couldn't have come into being without CIA help. And that is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

[Knit tie]

But claiming the CIA was 'behind' these revolutions is claiming that the CIA instigated them, that they not only couldn't have succeeded but that they couldn't have come into being without CIA help. And that is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

I never claimed that. I said that the USA wanted to portray "all those colour revolutions and regime changes as unrelated to the actions of the USA," i.e. that the CIA was not involved in such things at all.

Because politics, mostly. Why was the US so obsessed with trying to portray all those coloured revolutions and regime changes as completely unrelated to the actions of the CIA?

[It might be because that's a conspiracy theory]

USA totally didn't install the Pinochet regime, no sir-ee! That's just a conspiracy theory. Because the USA is the land of freedom that can never do wrong.

No one's denying that, Knit. The only whataboutist here is you...

So if you are not denying that the CIA was behind the regime change in Chile, you are admitting that the CIA involvement in stuff like that is not just baseless conspiracy theories?

and

You know, I keep wondering, why is Ukrainian government so obsessed with trying to portray the separatists as predominantly Russian soldiers, while they are mostly Donbassian volunteers?

Why is Russia so obsessed with trying to portray that it's soldiers aren't in Ukraine?

How's than not whataboutism?

EDIT: I think I used the term "colour revolution" wrong. It means a "minority uprising", right?

[smjjames]

Just because the CIA was behind one doesn't neccesarily mean that they're behind ALL of them.

And now with the title change, I'm wondering if you really are drunk.

[Helgoland]

It's not whataboutism because it merely shows that the same motive is at work in both behaviours: The desire to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the global community.
And your phrasing, and especially your later whataboutisms, made it abundantly clear that you were talking about a decisive role played by the CIA: If any CIA participation is sufficient for you, you'll have to call me the reason for Merkel's continued reign since I voted for the SPD.