Europe Backdrop to the war in Ukraine

[Episode IV]

missed the movie reference you are trying to allude to.

Tch tch. Kids these days.

i have said earlier the smart way for putin to undermine ukraine (and no one would have done jack s**t about it) would be to fund and organise a counter coup to remove zelensky. that would likely have worked (his popularity was falling before the war was lauunched) and other countries would not have interefered. Putin was too greedy/ impatient/ stupid.

I know. That's what happens when a former actor/comedian with no political experience is placed in charge of a nation on populist grounds, if indeed that answers any question regarding where Zelensky actually "came from".
Certainly makes a good wartime leader though. Knows his lines, plays the role to perfection. Although he did have some practice beforehand of course.

I don't think the Russians are, or perhaps have ever been, as... sophisticated... as the USA politically. Note there that I'm using the word sophisticated only as a measure of difference, not as a general descriptor. Sophistication, in general, is in rather short supply.

 

[Zidane98]

Are their mothers hamsters, and do their fathers smell of elderberries?

It's hard, sometimes, to disagree with Putin's assessment of the wider conflict with the West as an existential one.
Particularly not when there are a plethora of shining examples of the products of that culture littered about anywhere one cares to look.

We're getting the sense that you find anything that Putin says hard to disagree with. I guess it's hard when the only options are to agree with him.



If Russia thinks that former Eastern Block states becoming democracies integrated within Europe (ala Poland) is an existential threat to Russia then yes there is a wider conflict with the west.


In reality those states should be free to pursue their own future. If Putin wants NATO to not expand he is doing the exact opposite. His completely unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the likes of not seen in Europe since Nazi Germany's many conquests simply results in those states wanting to join a defensive alliance like NATO. Putin has all but guaranteed Ukraine's accession to NATO with his invasion. If he pursued a relationship similar to the one he has with China that wouldn't have happened. What Putin is really afraid of is those countries thriving and Russians demanding a similar path.


Unfortunately for Russia (and yourself) Putin is simply a dinosaur stuck in the cold war era. He honestly believes in the "great Russian empire". It's a dangerous rhetoric set in the stone ages. A bit like European nations deciding they would like to expand their empires once again after the age of imperialism finished in the second half of the 20th century.


I really feel for you because Russia's only future with Putin and his cold war era dinosaurs at the helm is an international pariah state that counts its only allies as despots, dictators and warlords. For Russia with its 140 million plus people and land area that's a terrible result. Russia needs to get on well with the west to ensure it thrives into the future. Having cars with airbags, indoor toilets and an airline industry that is safe should be a basic human right for the average Russian. But it isn't and that's mostly down to Putin.

 

[jatz14]

We're entering the realm of the truly bizarre at this point.

This is a direct indictment on your comprehension and reading skills, to begin with. Something which has been apparent since fairly early on, but serves as a demonstration. During the course of this thread, I've come to distrust not only what you are saying, but your ability to comprehend anything said at all.
That sentence I've quoted above being the most recent example of something flying above your head.

The other day, I was in the middle of posting a rather lengthy response to your statements regarding Germany's supposed reduction on military spending, expressed as a variance in military spending as a percentage of GDP.
So of course, me being me, I thought to myself "I'll go and have a look at that", and I spent a considerable amount of time playing with all those wonderful, utterly absorbing, and free tables and charts the World Bank website gives us to play with based upon their data collection, placing as much trust in that data as I'm liable to do. GDP, GDP increases by nation, PPP, comparisons of military spending in relation to the preceding, all manner of things.
The results - and there were a few, based upon a number of permutations - were rather enlightening in terms of a more holistic outlook and just how misleading your little statement really was.

...and then the BF server went down.

All those little tables and charts lost. I was ropeable. Until the thought occurred, reinforced just now, that you wouldn't have understood a word of it anyway. I'm not sure if I were more disappointed or relieved at the thought.


I've read plenty of what Putin has to say, at least in the public sphere. Most of it consists of re-iterating the same points for over two decades at least, which apparently has been an exercise in futility on his part given the lack of engagement with those issues.
I read a lot of things, you see. I try to read them with an open a mind as possible for me to have, in order to consider all the evidence and come to a tentative verdict which, in the great scheme of things, matters not a jot to anyone here really.
Someone had the wisdom to remind me of that the other day, for which I am rather grateful - I got a few things done of much greater, or at the very least more immediate, importance.


Yes, they would be. If that were the case.

Let me get this straight here.
Are you asking me, after I have previously stated that I can not read minds, to demonstrate that I'm able to do so after all, in order to disprove a hypothetical situation you've ascribed to as a result of your claimed ability to read the mind of someone else?

Wow. Ok. I suppose I'll respond in the only way I can think of in order to bring clarity to that... ummm... question. Give it a shot, so to speak.

I very much doubt there is a single nation on the face of the planet which does not consider possible responses to the projection of hard or soft power, and to which that response is comprised of potential plans, including an armed response, to a multiplicity of scenarios. In Australia, an example of this is the White Paper, which is at least the official and publicly-available documentation of the planned framework under which any such response might take.

I'm not privy to any unofficial discussions or plans for any such response, or even who the official enemy is at any given moment, so I'm afraid I really can't help you there.

I don't know where any such documentation would be kept in the case of Russia. Nor do I know if any plans for aggression have been drawn up in the eventuality of a NATO withdrawal... although if I were to hazard a somewhat optimistic guess, I'd say there is the possibility that any such response might include something along the lines of "Phew! NATO is gone. Maybe now we can spend some money on getting our toilets working!", as opposed to the immediate invasion of Poland in the service of Empire.


I suppose the only real response I can make to this is to refer you to a comment I made earlier directed at, who was it, Zidane98 I think, which basically noted that "The intent, I assumed, was to discuss that backdrop and determine the effect past events had and have on the current situation", to which it appears you're now responding with "who gives a s**t".

That being the case, I'm going to say here that you could have saved me a lot of time and effort if you'd just said that to begin with, and then scuttled off back to the other thread, which has turned into little more than a mechanism for the proliferation of propaganda and unashamed flag-waving. It's a little disappointing to watch this one descend to something of a similar nature.

Speaks volumes as to the effectiveness of track 2 diplomacy I suppose. Also to some of the larger problems associated with democracy, which... oops. Best stay on topic.


And finally...
You know, I have had some difficulty deciding how to deal with this.

I think it perhaps best, despite my own desire to become as aggressive in response, to let it stand on its own merits, in silent witness to your ability to read minds. And to your base nature.

What a lot of waffle.

And from someone with a thing for logical fallacies no less.

I will respond to just one thing.

The rather laughable idea that because Putin has been talking about NATO expansion for a long time, this gives it an element of truth.

Putin is an autocrat, and what all autocrats need is an external bogeyman to point at and wave their sword at.

NATO is Putin's.

Putin has justified ramping up his military by pointing at NATO. Russian people have accepted shitty infrastructure and public spending because they have been convinced they need new tanks and fighter planes more than plumbing that works.

If it wasn't NATO, it would be the US, or Europe, or Germany, or the "West". Putin needs a bogeyman, he has needed a bogeyman for decades.

Him consistently pointing at NATO and calling it that just makes him consistent, not correct.

We know this.

We know this because if you genuinely believe NATO is a threat, being willing to neuter your own military, and place most of it in a neighbouring country, and stripping your borders with NATO elsewhere is the last thing you would do.

Putin didn't invade Ukraine because NATO worries him, he did it because it doesn't.

He didn't invade NATO to stop NATO expanding eastward, he did it to expand Russia westward.

What he says about it is akin to what a thief says when caught stealing.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jatz14]

We're getting the sense that you find anything that Putin says hard to disagree with. I guess it's hard when the only options are to agree with him.



If Russia thinks that former Eastern Block states becoming democracies integrated within Europe (ala Poland) is an existential threat to Russia then yes there is a wider conflict with the west.


In reality those states should be free to pursue their own future. If Putin wants NATO to not expand he is doing the exact opposite. His completely unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the likes of not seen in Europe since Nazi Germany's many conquests simply results in those states wanting to join a defensive alliance like NATO. Putin has all but guaranteed Ukraine's accession to NATO with his invasion. If he pursued a relationship similar to the one he has with China that wouldn't have happened. What Putin is really afraid of is those countries thriving and Russians demanding a similar path.


Unfortunately for Russia (and yourself) Putin is simply a dinosaur stuck in the cold war era. He honestly believes in the "great Russian empire". It's a dangerous rhetoric set in the stone ages. A bit like European nations deciding they would like to expand their empires once again after the age of imperialism finished in the second half of the 20th century.


I really feel for you because Russia's only future with Putin and his cold war era dinosaurs at the helm is an international pariah state that counts its only allies as despots, dictators and warlords. For Russia with its 140 million plus people and land area that's a terrible result. Russia needs to get on well with the west to ensure it thrives into the future. Having cars with airbags, indoor toilets and an airline industry that is safe should be a basic human right for the average Russian. But it isn't and that's mostly down to Putin.

Putin wants and needs the cold war.

Russia has earned vast amounts of money, and outside Moscow, a lot of people have seen none of it.

Endurable if your convinced your in a great struggle between empires.

Not so much if you realize your in a kleptocracy.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Episode IV]

Free will...

 

[bourbons]

Is it? do you have any means by which you're going to support that statement?

Gorbachev says so, I assume he'd know ¯\(ツ)/¯

Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says "No" | Brookings

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it well known his antipathy towards NATO, claiming the Alliance took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. Steven Pifer argues that no such promises were...

www.brookings.edu

Ukraine: the history behind Russia’s claim that Nato promised not to expand to the east

Russia insists that there was an agreement not to expand Nato eastwards after the end of the USSR. History begs to differ.

theconversation.com

Did The West Promise Moscow That NATO Would Not Expand? Well, It's Complicated.

Mikhail Gorbachev himself said the question of NATO's expansion didn't come up in discussions when he was Soviet leader. That hasn't stopped the assertion that NATO and the United States misled Moscow from becoming a central grievance for Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin.

www.rferl.org

‘There was no promise not to enlarge NATO’ - Harvard Law School

Robert Zoellick, the U.S. diplomat who helped negotiate the end of the Cold War, says Vladimir Putin’s claims about Ukraine are part of a disinformation campaign.

today.law.harvard.edu

Did NATO ‘betray’ Russia by expanding to the East?

The Kremlin claims the West broke a promise it made in the 1990s not to expand NATO, and is now using this claim to justify threats to invade Ukraine.

www.france24.com

Fact-checking claims that NATO broke agreement on expansion

Two days before Russia invaded Ukraine with an assault that intelligence officials had warned was coming, conservative c

www.politifact.com

Are you asking me?

lol, no I'm asking someone other than the person I'm directly replying to and quoting

C'arn, enough deflection - you stated "It's actually a subject popping up in public discourse quite regularly" re: NATO borders and why it wasn't a red line for Russia before Ukraine. So - links?

How so? Where? Details, lad.

Well its very simple - your first post about self determination was;

Determining their own status, yes. The thought occurs that someone, somewhere, has to define or identify who it is that has the right to determine their own status to begin with, and that military intervention (among other forms of intervention) is far from off the table in attempts to reinforce that right on the behalf of one party or another, but you know... I can't recall anyone saying they don't have that right. Perhaps you'll show me where I did, at least?

I then reminded you Russia is saying Ukraine doesn't have that right. You responded with this waffle;

This whole "Right to determine their own status" thing is something enforced arbitrarily and subjectively, usually when there is some sort of profit involved on the part of the one doing the enforcing. I get the impression the entire discussion serves mostly as a distraction. It's a nothing phrase. A dog whistle. Right up there with "rules based world order".

The only time the "Right to Self Determination" appears to be relevant is when the people controlling discussions seem to have decided it's a good way to get you onboard for the ride, or throw you off it.

How do you feel about the right to self determination for the Donbas? Afghanistan? Iran? Iraq? The Basques? Sudan? Oooh, what about the natives of Australia and the USA? South America?
Let me see. What about... hmm. Nope, better not get into that one.

I might think differently if it was regarded as a universal right, and applied universally, but it isn't.

ie. you pretty quickly abandoned your "I can't recall anyone saying they don't have that right" line and retreated to semantics and pseudo-intellectual w***ery.

Have another crack at it now if you like? Russia are saying (and enforcing) that Ukraine don't have a right to self determination, yes or no?

I don't feel any need to reassess. If anything, my presence here is for you to give me reasons to do so.

Feel free to step up.

lol I know you don't. Despite people doing the exact thing you've requested in explaining the reasoning to you.

There are none so blind as those that will not see I guess ¯\(ツ)/¯

 

[bourbons]

Putin explains how Finland, Sweden membership in NATO different from Ukraine's

Russian president says Moscow views Scandinavian nations' accession to NATO differently, unlike Ukraine, since it has no territorial disputes - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

Oh, its different coz Putin says so. Thats fine then, silly me

Never mind the fact there was absolutely no chance of Ukraine even joining NATO in the short to medium term precisely because of those territorial disputes - Putin invaded anyway.

 

[Saint]

Putin said he wasn't invading Ukraine. Then he said he was invading to rid it of Nazis, now it's because of NATO.

I'm not sure after all of the lies Putin has told that I'd choose now, while his army is attacking civilian targets, as the time to believe him.

 

[wannabejack]

Putin said he wasn't invading Ukraine. Then he said he was invading to rid it of Nazis, now it's because of NATO.

I'm not sure after all of the lies Putin has told that I'd choose now, while his army is attacking civilian targets, as the time to believe him.

Whatever reason Putin gives it has always been about genocide.

Putin's supporters call for the liquidation of Ukraine as 'genocidal rhetoric' swells

Prominent supporters of Russian President Vladimir Putin are using increasingly "genocidal rhetoric" when discussing and demonizing Ukraine, analysts note.

www.cnbc.com

‘Genocidal rhetoric’
Analysts agree that the widespread use of such language by pro-war commentators in Russia is tantamount to “genocidal rhetoric,” as analysts at the Institute for the Study of War noted Wednesday.

“This rhetoric is openly exterminatory and dehumanizing and calls for the conduct of a genocidal war against the Ukrainian state and its people, which notably has pervaded discourse in the highest levels of the Russian political mainstream.”

“As ISW has previously reported, Russian President Vladimir Putin has similarly employed such genocidal language in a way that is fundamentally incompatible with calls for negotiations.”

Using dehumanizing and animalistic descriptions of Ukrainians, and espousing baseless claims that they pose a threat and danger to Russians, is reminiscent of the language and debate seen in Nazi Germany prior to the Holocaust in which millions of Jews and other perceived “enemies” of Nazi Germany were murdered.

 

[Episode IV]

Gorbachev says so, I assume he'd know ¯\(ツ)/¯

Gorbachev has contradicted himself in that regard. I'm not prepared to take only one of his statements as a "final authority" on anything. I'd prefer to look at the entire conversation, or as much of it as I'm privy to and have evidence of.

Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says "No" | Brookings

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it well known his antipathy towards NATO, claiming the Alliance took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. Steven Pifer argues that no such promises were...

www.brookings.edu

Ukraine: the history behind Russia’s claim that Nato promised not to expand to the east

Russia insists that there was an agreement not to expand Nato eastwards after the end of the USSR. History begs to differ.

theconversation.com

Did The West Promise Moscow That NATO Would Not Expand? Well, It's Complicated.

Mikhail Gorbachev himself said the question of NATO's expansion didn't come up in discussions when he was Soviet leader. That hasn't stopped the assertion that NATO and the United States misled Moscow from becoming a central grievance for Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin.

www.rferl.org

‘There was no promise not to enlarge NATO’ - Harvard Law School

Robert Zoellick, the U.S. diplomat who helped negotiate the end of the Cold War, says Vladimir Putin’s claims about Ukraine are part of a disinformation campaign.

today.law.harvard.edu

Did NATO ‘betray’ Russia by expanding to the East?

The Kremlin claims the West broke a promise it made in the 1990s not to expand NATO, and is now using this claim to justify threats to invade Ukraine.

www.france24.com

Fact-checking claims that NATO broke agreement on expansion

Two days before Russia invaded Ukraine with an assault that intelligence officials had warned was coming, conservative c

www.politifact.com

Now, I'm going to say here I did make an effort to read all these, but I read the first two in detail and then ended up only scanning the rest of them really. They're all saying the same thing, I doubt the objectivity of the sources, and one of them is actually a repeat. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd still say I read more of them than most would, even if it did feel a little like watching a bad movie at times. So bad its good, in a "Team America" sort of way. I actually thought the use of puppets in that movie was a stroke of genius, considering it as a metaphor for the subject material... sorry. Rambling again.

Now, the first thing I'm going to say it it is quite obvious that, for most of you, the behind the scenes discussions and assurances are a nuance which, although directly affecting the willingness of the USSR and Russia to sign actual agreements (the spirit of the thing, good faith etc), are either utterly irrelevant or incomprehensible to you.
You are not really posting much in evidence that you understand anything beyond the "you didn't get it in writing, ya boo sucks to you" sort of argument. Some of you seem to be actually saying that nothing behind the scenes even existed, and then post links to contradict yourselves.

But there was one thing I noticed. It was buried in a link embedded in the second article. I'm not going to ask you what you think of it, because by this time I know what type of response I'm going to get and how considered it'll be. It's more for general information for those who can see beyond the rhetoric and make up their own minds on what levels of discussion were held behind the scenes, behind official statements and positions. And forum posturing.

Yeltsin to Clinton, 1993. Two years after the dissolution of the USSR and during a period in which Russia wasn't realistically able to challenge anyone, anywhere, hence the diplomatic and careful language... almost kowtowing, really, yet still articulating very real concerns.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/4390818/Document-04-Retranslation-of-Yeltsin-letter-on.pdf

I even find it interesting that the original caused enough discussion to require a second translation.

Do you know off the top of your head how many times Russia discussed the possibility of joining NATO? Do you why, under what circumstances those attempts were rejected, and by who? Have you considered even remotely that if those proposals had been given serious consideration, the world might be a little different today?
I'll give you a little hint. Read those links you and others have provided. Some of it is in there.

lol, no I'm asking someone other than the person I'm directly replying to and quoting

The full context, something you've avoided:

Links please to Russia threatening war over NATO borders with countries other than Ukraine.

To which I responded "Are you asking me?"

The reason for which was that I cannot recall actually having said anything about Russia threatening war over countries with borders other than Ukraine, other than to suggest the opposite. I remember mentioning something at some point about Russia considering Ukraine becoming a member of NATO a line in the sand... I might have said a bridge too far actually, in illustration of the impression I have that NATO (or the USA) have been acting like teenagers pushing boundaries with their parents for quite some time. The declassified documents that people have been posting so far have done little more than reinforce that impression, rather than supporting your position.
Question being, why are you asking me to provide links to support a statement I haven't made?

C'arn, enough deflection - you stated "It's actually a subject popping up in public discourse quite regularly" re: NATO borders and why it wasn't a red line for Russia before Ukraine. So - links?

As I said above, some of your cohorts have already provided them. I could go and find a few more, but I don't think you realise how tiring you are to respond to in any positive fashion. I can only surmise that they only read the headlines before posting them, if I'm to give them any credit for comprehension at all... which I think I've made clear I'm loathe to do. The difference between the headline and the subject matter is also something which has been noted in media and highlighted as an issue, the only real cure for which is to read and understand something before you post it in the belief that it supports your argument.

I'm going to have to suggest at this point that you didn't actually read them either, which is perhaps a little better than suggesting you can't comprehend anything you've read. The first suggests a lack of attention on your part; the second is suggesting you're an idiot. Neither is particularly complimentary, but for the sake of diplomacy, I'll go with the first.

Well its very simple - your first post about self determination was;

Determining their own status, yes. The thought occurs that someone, somewhere, has to define or identify who it is that has the right to determine their own status to begin with, and that military intervention (among other forms of intervention) is far from off the table in attempts to reinforce that right on the behalf of one party or another, but you know... I can't recall anyone saying they don't have that right. Perhaps you'll show me where I did, at least?

I then reminded you Russia is saying Ukraine doesn't have that right. You responded with this waffle;

This whole "Right to determine their own status" thing is something enforced arbitrarily and subjectively, usually when there is some sort of profit involved on the part of the one doing the enforcing. I get the impression the entire discussion serves mostly as a distraction. It's a nothing phrase. A dog whistle. Right up there with "rules based world order".

The only time the "Right to Self Determination" appears to be relevant is when the people controlling discussions seem to have decided it's a good way to get you onboard for the ride, or throw you off it.

How do you feel about the right to self determination for the Donbas? Afghanistan? Iran? Iraq? The Basques? Sudan? Oooh, what about the natives of Australia and the USA? South America?
Let me see. What about... hmm. Nope, better not get into that one.

I might think differently if it was regarded as a universal right, and applied universally, but it isn't.

I can't see how those two statements I made contradict themselves. The second may have been a bit waffly, certainly, but not contradictory.

ie. you pretty quickly abandoned your "I can't recall anyone saying they don't have that right" line and retreated to semantics and pseudo-intellectual w***ery.

With reference to anyone on this forum, with the further clarification (as it appears to be required) that all I said was that I don't remember anyone saying so. I'm fairly certain I didn't.
So, again, you were asked to tell me where I said they didn't. Are you able to?

And with specific reference to the last part, I realise you consider anything you aren't able to understand "semantics and pseudo-intellectual witchery", but I don't really understand why you feel it necessary to prove it.

Have another crack at it now if you like? Russia are saying (and enforcing) that Ukraine don't have a right to self determination, yes or no?

I've already answered that question. My personal feelings on whether or not Ukraine has the right to self-determination are irrelevant.
My point was that either your policy based upon your ideals is applied universally, or you don't have one... and I'm not buying it until it is.

I'll ask you a question in return, being a method by which I might gain some sort of clarification on your position.
On what basis should self-determination be made, who is entitled to self determination, and who has the authority to enforce it on what grounds?

lol I know you don't. Despite people doing the exact thing you've requested in explaining the reasoning to you.

I'm aware that quite a few of you have been responding to that request.
I have not yet seen much in the way of reasoning in those responses. I suppose we just a different standard or definition of reason.

Actually, the arguments you and your friends here are making seem to rely more on quantity than quality... how very (stereotypically) soviet of you.

There are none so blind as those that will not see I guess ¯\(ツ)/¯

I agree completely.

 

[Episode IV]

Using dehumanizing and animalistic descriptions of Ukrainians, and espousing baseless claims that they pose a threat and danger to Russians, is reminiscent of the language and debate seen in Nazi Germany prior to the Holocaust in which millions of Jews and other perceived “enemies” of Nazi Germany were murdered.

Hahaha.
Priceless.

 

[bourbons]

Now, the first thing I'm going to say it it is quite obvious that, for most of you, the behind the scenes discussions and assurances are a nuance which, although directly affecting the willingness of the USSR and Russia to sign actual agreements (the spirit of the thing, good faith etc), are either utterly irrelevant or incomprehensible to you.
You are not really posting much in evidence that you understand anything beyond the "you didn't get it in writing, ya boo sucks to you" sort of argument. Some of you seem to be actually saying that nothing behind the scenes even existed, and then post links to contradict yourselves.

But there was one thing I noticed. It was buried in a link embedded in the second article. I'm not going to ask you what you think of it, because by this time I know what type of response I'm going to get and how considered it'll be. It's more for general information for those who can see beyond the rhetoric and make up their own minds on what levels of discussion were held behind the scenes, behind official statements and positions. And forum posturing.

Of course there was nuance. But you've hit on it, fact remains there was no written formal agreement - unlike, for example, the ones Russia have broken.

The reason for which was that I cannot recall actually having said anything about Russia threatening war over countries with borders other than Ukraine, other than to suggest the opposite.

Oh no, of course not - you just said "It has been a problem for thirty years. It's actually a subject popping up in public discourse quite regularly".

What I'm trying to get to the bottom of and what you are diligently avoiding is why only a Ukraine NATO border is a red line for Russia and not other NATO borders. Oh sorry, you did address that didn't you - its coz Putin says so

So, again, you were asked to tell me where I said they didn't. Are you able to?

lol, no mate - I simply asked you to acknowledge the fact that Russia is denying Ukraine their right to self determination. Something you still can't bring yourself to do, why is that I wonder?

I've already answered that question.

Ha, you might even truly believe that. Just a hint if you want to have another crack, its a yes or no question.

My personal feelings on whether or not Ukraine has the right to self-determination are irrelevant.

Agreed. I'm asking you what Russia's feelings on it are.

 

[Chief]

Hahaha.
Priceless.

Tell us about this feeling.

 

[faible]

Goodness me, Episode IV is still going with this drivel.

 

[jatz14]

Hahaha.
Priceless.

So, calling them scum and stating they should be nuked, Kiev wiped out, exterminated.

Funny.

Got it,

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[bourbons]

So, calling them scum and stating they should be nuked, Kiev wiped out, exterminated.

Funny.

Got it,

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

I think he's angling at the comparative naming of Russians as Orcs, vatniks etc.

Nuance related to Russia being the belligerent invading force and distasteful animalistic descriptions of Ukrainians being a sanctioned, endorsed and continual feature of Russian state media will have no doubt escaped him.

 

[Episode IV]

Tell us about this feeling.

Amusement?
Takes many forms, Chief. In this instance, was the sort causing a mild snort into my coffee, enough to just slightly disturb the surface.
Perhaps overstated in the way that some express amusement online by saying ROFLMAO while doing little more than smiling... and not actually rolling about on the floor.

 

[Zidane98]

Goodness me, Episode IV is still going with this drivel.

Wait till Episode V gets going.

 

[Episode IV]

Wait till Episode V gets going.

The one where Luke spends a fair amount of time in a swamp complaining about everything?

Hmm. Now I'm contemplating a name change.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Putin said he wasn't invading Ukraine. Then he said he was invading to rid it of Nazis, now it's because of NATO.

I'm not sure after all of the lies Putin has told that I'd choose now, while his army is attacking civilian targets, as the time to believe him.

Putin trying do justify his illegal invasion of Ukraine, for his ego
Little man syndrome its called and a majority of little men suffer from it, and women as well

 

[Saint]

How the ambitions of a small country's US-backed leader launched the current confrontation between Russia and the West

Ambitions of Georgian President Saakashvili launched the five day war in 2008 and flywheel of confrontation between Russia and the West.

www.rt.com

Is it just me, or is this article about as critical of Putin as you can get without being openly critical.

The article is criticising a Soviet state for dreaming of re-incorporating a breakaway republic back into it's state.

Just read this last para (especially the bolded sentence):

"The key takeaway from the Five-Day War is that opportunism and recklessness can do more harm than scheming. The clueless pursuit of a single man’s ambition cost hundreds of lives. Those deaths could have been avoided had the politicians shown just a little more restraint and wisdom at the right time."

 

[Episode IV]

How the ambitions of a small country's US-backed leader launched the current confrontation between Russia and the West

Ambitions of Georgian President Saakashvili launched the five day war in 2008 and flywheel of confrontation between Russia and the West.

www.rt.com

Is it just me, or is this article about as critical of Putin as you can get without being openly critical.

The article is criticising a Soviet state for dreaming of re-incorporating a breakaway republic back into it's state.

Just read this last para (especially the bolded sentence):

"The key takeaway from the Five-Day War is that opportunism and recklessness can do more harm than scheming. The clueless pursuit of a single man’s ambition cost hundreds of lives. Those deaths could have been avoided had the politicians shown just a little more restraint and wisdom at the right time."

It's just you.

Georgia in 2008 was not a Soviet state, it was very much pro-western. Had been for years. South Ossetia broke away from Georgia (formally), along with a couple of other regions.

A quick summary, non-complex BF style:

South Ossetia (and some other autonomous regions) declares its independence from Georgia in '91. Georgian leader at the time calls them trash.
Georgia tries to get it back a couple of times, fails. There are only 50 thousand or so South Ossetians, but dang can they fight.
Russia is blamed by the Georgians for interfering in their attempts to reintegrate South Ossetia, and by the South Ossetians for not helping against Georgia. Damned if you do, damned if you don't I suppose.
Russia says sorry we weren't there for you, and stations a couple of thousand men with armed with blunderbusses to help make sure it doesn't happen again. Naughty naughty, Georgia.
Diplomacy wins.

Georgia, feeling rejected and a little embarrassed, says "Hey, can we join NATO"? NATO says ooh, that's not a bad idea, we'll think about it.
Bush discusses the Membership action plan for the admission of Georgia (and Ukraine) into NATO
France and Germany: "We don't think this is a good idea, Russia isn't going to like that, and why do we care about Georgia anyway?"
America: "Hey, pipe down in front. Who's in charge here anyway? Speaking of pipes, there's one you'll be very interested in, goes right through Georgia...".
France and Germany: "Ohhhh, now we get it. That's why we care, Hahaha."
More diplomacy.

Putin: "Hey, why haven't we been asked? If everyone was in NATO, none of us would be able to attack each other, and then we could all have working toilets! Sound good?"
America: "Ask nicely, you arrogant twat".
Putin: "I'm the arrogant twat? F you! and F NATO. Didn't want to be in it anyway. And don't come any closer!"
NATO: "weeee woooon't... (don't put that in writing, Scheffer)"
Diplomacy wins again.

Georgia builds up its military, increasing military spending to over 9% of GDP and gets NATO to train it. That'll do the trick, says Georgia. Got 'em this time for sure.
South Ossetia: "hey wait, this doesn't look good... they're gonna have another go aren't they, and this time the Americans are helping!"
America: "move along, nothing to see here, its just an exercise"
South Ossetia: "Hey, uh, Russia, give us a hand? Those Georgians are coming back again"
Russia: "oh for...trying to fix our damned toilets here, what is it this time? Oh, the Georgians are back. Ok."
Russia reinforces their peacekeeping forces. With some more really crappy equipment. Good soldiers though, apparently.
Georgia's NATO trained army runs away despite outnumbering the Russians and their broken down tanks. "South Ossetia? What do we want that for, they're not even Georgian! And now the Russians are shooting at us! We're going home".
Russia picks up all the rifles Georgia threw away, so now they have some better ones and can get rid of the blunderbusses.
Russian soldier says "Hey. Didn't we make these anyway?"
Russian sergeant says "Export value, son, export value. More money to be made selling it to everyone else. Like Australian Lamb."

A couple of Russian jets (there was supposed to be a whole squadron, but only a couple could get in the air) do a Tom Cruise over Tbilisi, Top Gun style. NATO chokes on its coffee.

End of 2008 war. Photos of happy South Ossetians praising Russia - obviously doctored though, pay no attention.
The West criticizes Russia's "disproportionate" response (there was no need to make the Georgian army s**t itself like that, and that flyby was just. too. much.)
Russia says something about South Ossetia's Right to Self Determination.
America mumbles something about where Russia can stick its right to self determination and turns its attention to Ukraine.
Russia says "You never bloody learn, do you? So over this s**t. Can't you just let us fix our damned toilets in peace?"

Some years later in Ukraine...
Yanukovych decides Ukraine would be better off staying aligned with Russia. Russia's economy is going gangbusters anyway, and the EU are a bit... pushy.
People start to complain a bit, and get rid of Yanukovich. In the West, anyway. In the East, some other people were going "hey, wtf... we don't want anything to do with you mob, we like Russia... hey Russia, give us a hand here? They stormed parliament and got rid of the President!"
Little green men start to appear. Russia takes Crimea. Ukraine says "Fine! never liked the place anyway, it's full of Cossacks and tourists and... Russians! But this ain't over, no sir...Look, we'll sign these agreements. No cheating!"
And the two Ukraines glare at each other over coffee. NATO and Russia glare at each other over... head.
Diplomacy wins again.

More time passes...

An actor/comedian finds himself in charge of a country, somehow. Wants to be more Western. Hey, Ronnie did it.
Starts getting all cozy with an American President or two. It's a family thing.

Russia: "Oh, that's it. For real this time" and invades Ukraine. Says it'll only take a few days.

A few days later
NATO: "Oh, no you don't. Hey, Ukraine, have some guns! (we'll talk about the price later)"
Germany sends some helmets.
Ukraine:: Woohoo!
Russia:: "but... we thought we'd only have to deal with NATO trained soldiers, not...the whole friggin'... industrial military complex!"
America chuckles quietly.

More months pass. Ukraine says "Hey. NATO. Those big guns aren't enough, they still occupy a quarter of the country and we're running out of men".
NATO:: "Here's some bigger guns. (we'll talk about the price later)".
Germany send some more helmets, and some body armour too. America says it really should do its bit and send tanks. Germany says no.
A pipeline blows up. Germany says "oh, Daaamn! It's really cold now. Are you sure it was the Russians blew it up?"
America nods. Sweden says, "well... we think we know who..."
NATO leaders direct pointed looks at Sweden. No one says anything.
Germany: "... Alright, we'll send some tanks. It is really, really cold".
Russia: "wellp... lucky we're used to being out in the cold I suppose".
And diplomacy wins again.

Ukraine: "but... we're running out of men. And... bricks. Hey, I know. Can we join NATO?"
NATO: "No. Not while the Russians are there."
Ukraine: "But they're there because we were going to join NATO, so how about it? Then, you can get your guys in here with us and..."
NATO: "Oh hell no. You think we're gonna get our guys killed? Here. Have some bigger guns. (We'll talk about the price later)"
Ukraine: "but..."
NATO: "Sssh. After the war. We'll have to talk about your debts anyway, might as well kill two birds with one stone. This place is a dump anyway, nothing works anymore, it's all blown to s**t, and the Russians have stolen all your toilets. Except in Crimea. I was thinking of taking the fam there for a holiday when all this blows over."

Prighozin: "Hey, Putin, it's alright for you in your nice warm office, and I know you keep talking about being left out in the cold but we're out the cold for real".
Putin: "shut up and fight, you wuss".
Prigozhin: "to hell with that" and advances on Moscow.
Putin: "Heeey... settle down, I've got a much warmer place for you to fight, lots of money to be made..."
Prighozin: "You mean... Africa? hmm. Had a bit of fun with the frogs last time... yeah alright".
Putin: "Have a break in Belarus first. But don't start anything!"
Poland: "erm... There's an army on our border. It's making us nervous".
NATO: "Don't worry, it's just camping there in case... It's only there to... oh. I see... Hmm. That's a bit nerve wracking".
Poland: "yeah, can sort of see Putin's point, really, now that..."
NATO:: "Shut. UP. Poland. You're going to ruin everything!".

 

[Saint]

It's just you.

Georgia in 2008 was not a Soviet state, it was very much pro-western. Had been for years. South Ossetia broke away from Georgia (formally), along with a couple of other regions.

A quick summary, non-complex BF style:

South Ossetia (and some other autonomous regions) declares its independence from Georgia in '91. Georgian leader at the time calls them trash.
Georgia tries to get it back a couple of times, fails. There are only 50 thousand or so South Ossetians, but dang can they fight.
Russia is blamed by the Georgians for interfering in their attempts to reintegrate South Ossetia, and by the South Ossetians for not helping against Georgia. Damned if you do, damned if you don't I suppose.
Russia says sorry we weren't there for you, and stations a couple of thousand men with armed with blunderbusses to help make sure it doesn't happen again. Naughty naughty, Georgia.
Diplomacy wins.

Georgia, feeling rejected and a little embarrassed, says "Hey, can we join NATO"? NATO says ooh, that's not a bad idea, we'll think about it.
Bush discusses the Membership action plan for the admission of Georgia (and Ukraine) into NATO
France and Germany: "We don't think this is a good idea, Russia isn't going to like that, and why do we care about Georgia anyway?"
America: "Hey, pipe down in front. Who's in charge here anyway? Speaking of pipes, there's one you'll be very interested in, goes right through Georgia...".
France and Germany: "Ohhhh, now we get it. That's why we care, Hahaha."
More diplomacy.

Putin: "Hey, why haven't we been asked? If everyone was in NATO, none of us would be able to attack each other, and then we could all have working toilets! Sound good?"
America: "Ask nicely, you arrogant twat".
Putin: "I'm the arrogant twat? F you! and F NATO. Didn't want to be in it anyway. And don't come any closer!"
NATO: "weeee woooon't... (don't put that in writing, Scheffer)"
Diplomacy wins again.

Georgia builds up its military, increasing military spending to over 9% of GDP and gets NATO to train it. That'll do the trick, says Georgia. Got 'em this time for sure.
South Ossetia: "hey wait, this doesn't look good... they're gonna have another go aren't they, and this time the Americans are helping!"
America: "move along, nothing to see here, its just an exercise"
South Ossetia: "Hey, uh, Russia, give us a hand? Those Georgians are coming back again"
Russia: "oh for...trying to fix our damned toilets here, what is it this time? Oh, the Georgians are back. Ok."
Russia reinforces their peacekeeping forces. With some more really crappy equipment. Good soldiers though, apparently.
Georgia's NATO trained army runs away despite outnumbering the Russians and their broken down tanks. "South Ossetia? What do we want that for, they're not even Georgian! And now the Russians are shooting at us! We're going home".
Russia picks up all the rifles Georgia threw away, so now they have some better ones and can get rid of the blunderbusses.
Russian soldier says "Hey. Didn't we make these anyway?"
Russian sergeant says "Export value, son, export value. More money to be made selling it to everyone else. Like Australian Lamb."

A couple of Russian jets (there was supposed to be a whole squadron, but only a couple could get in the air) do a Tom Cruise over Tbilisi, Top Gun style. NATO chokes on its coffee.

End of 2008 war. Photos of happy South Ossetians praising Russia - obviously doctored though, pay no attention.
The West criticizes Russia's "disproportionate" response (there was no need to make the Georgian army s**t itself like that, and that flyby was just. too. much.)
Russia says something about South Ossetia's Right to Self Determination.
America mumbles something about where Russia can stick its right to self determination and turns its attention to Ukraine.
Russia says "You never bloody learn, do you? So over this s**t. Can't you just let us fix our damned toilets in peace?"

Some years later in Ukraine...
Yanukovych decides Ukraine would be better off staying aligned with Russia. Russia's economy is going gangbusters anyway, and the EU are a bit... pushy.
People start to complain a bit, and get rid of Yanukovich. In the West, anyway. In the East, some other people were going "hey, wtf... we don't want anything to do with you mob, we like Russia... hey Russia, give us a hand here? They stormed parliament and got rid of the President!"
Little green men start to appear. Russia takes Crimea. Ukraine says "Fine! never liked the place anyway, it's full of Cossacks and tourists and... Russians! But this ain't over, no sir...Look, we'll sign these agreements. No cheating!"
And the two Ukraines glare at each other over coffee. NATO and Russia glare at each other over... head.
Diplomacy wins again.

More time passes...

An actor/comedian finds himself in charge of a country, somehow. Wants to be more Western. Hey, Ronnie did it.
Starts getting all cozy with an American President or two. It's a family thing.

Russia: "Oh, that's it. For real this time" and invades Ukraine. Says it'll only take a few days.

A few days later
NATO: "Oh, no you don't. Hey, Ukraine, have some guns! (we'll talk about the price later)"
Germany sends some helmets.
Ukraine:: Woohoo!
Russia:: "but... we thought we'd only have to deal with NATO trained soldiers, not...the whole friggin'... industrial military complex!"
America chuckles quietly.

More months pass. Ukraine says "Hey. NATO. Those big guns aren't enough, they still occupy a quarter of the country and we're running out of men".
NATO:: "Here's some bigger guns. (we'll talk about the price later)".
Germany send some more helmets, and some body armour too. America says it really should do its bit and send tanks. Germany says no.
A pipeline blows up. Germany says "oh, Daaamn! It's really cold now. Are you sure it was the Russians blew it up?"
America nods. Sweden says, "well... we think we know who..."
NATO leaders direct pointed looks at Sweden. No one says anything.
Germany: "... Alright, we'll send some tanks. It is really, really cold".
Russia: "wellp... lucky we're used to being out in the cold I suppose".
And diplomacy wins again.

Ukraine: "but... we're running out of men. And... bricks. Hey, I know. Can we join NATO?"
NATO: "No. Not while the Russians are there."
Ukraine: "But they're there because we were going to join NATO, so how about it? Then, you can get your guys in here with us and..."
NATO: "Oh hell no. You think we're gonna get our guys killed? Here. Have some bigger guns. (We'll talk about the price later)"
Ukraine: "but..."
NATO: "Sssh. After the war. We'll have to talk about your debts anyway, might as well kill two birds with one stone. This place is a dump anyway, nothing works anymore, it's all blown to s**t, and the Russians have stolen all your toilets. Except in Crimea. I was thinking of taking the fam there for a holiday when all this blows over."

Prighozin: "Hey, Putin, it's alright for you in your nice warm office, and I know you keep talking about being left out in the cold but we're out the cold for real".
Putin: "shut up and fight, you wuss".
Prigozhin: "to hell with that" and advances on Moscow.
Putin: "Heeey... settle down, I've got a much warmer place for you to fight, lots of money to be made..."
Prighozin: "You mean... Africa? hmm. Had a bit of fun with the frogs last time... yeah alright".
Putin: "Have a break in Belarus first. But don't start anything!"
Poland: "erm... There's an army on our border. It's making us nervous".
NATO: "Don't worry, it's just camping there in case... It's only there to... oh. I see... Hmm. That's a bit nerve wracking".
Poland: "yeah, can sort of see Putin's point, really, now that..."
NATO:: "Shut. UP. Poland. You're going to ruin everything!".

I obviously didn't read all that, and I'd already read the article (written by RT contributor) so don't need your further warped history lesson.

I still think, after reading the story, that Putin sounds more like the Georgian President, trying to salvage something which is long past and that the people don't want. I wonder if both North and South Ossetia would rather be an independent nation than tied to either Russia or Georgia.

And I still think the author was trying to hint at that point, the last para could have been written very differently, but seemed targeted far more at Putin than at Zelensky.

 

[Zidane98]

The similarities are eerie. Can't see a future for Russia under Putin & his USSR era gang.

 

[Episode IV]

I obviously didn't read all that,

Obviously.

and I'd already read the article (written by RT contributor) so don't need your further warped history lesson.

That article didn't even come close to covering all the history. Neither did my post, incidentally, there was so much more I could have had fun with if it were worth the time and effort. I thought of two more humorous references before I went to sleep, and another one this morning.
Too late now, though, and it isn't like I was trying to write a political novel, or a screen play for "The Mouse that Roared" or anything like that.

I still think, after reading the story, that Putin sounds more like the Georgian President, trying to salvage something which is long past and that the people don't want.

You might even be right regarding the author's intention... although, given the reams of anti-Putin material floating about already, I'm not sure why you'd need to be reading between the lines on this one in particular.
The author was Russian though. I suppose that when one finds oneself in a hostile environment, one must be rather careful about what one says. Assuming he lives in Russia.

But you really should pay more attention to the world outside your comfort zone. There are quite a few people on the planet (pretty much everyone who isn't the West, actually) who don't buy into the whole Western (American) notion that ethnicity means nothing, and that any argument for self determination along those lines isn't relevant. Until it is. When the actual reason needs to be disguised as something else.

I wonder if both North and South Ossetia would rather be an independent nation than tied to either Russia or Georgia.

Oh, definitely.
I wouldn't go about talking about it, though. Bourbons should be along shortly to set you straight on what he thinks of the creation or rebellions of independent states along ethnic lines. Or maybe not. He seems to spend more time quoting me out of context than actually thinking about any of his own beliefs, and one must be careful, after all, to maintain the façade of solidarity.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, Stoicism is a bit passe at this point in history.

So when it comes to answering questions regarding the right of self determination, who has the right, along what lines, who gets to enforce it... and wotnot.
Maybe you can answer for him?
That's if you can concentrate with all those propaganda pictures Zidane finds down his rabbit holes in your face.