In Solidarity with Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
nickthetasmaniac said:
Seriously? RFF is about posting random Nazi photos now?
Click to expand...

Random?... No, I have more of the Ukrainian Nazi soldiers.
As the son of a Jew, who was a lot more fired up than me about this subject, I'll let you continue in your thinking blind.
Yes, I have no respect for the Ukrainian government, and couldn't care less what happens there.
You're too young and uneducated about what's happening there. So I'll let you slide. Cheers.
 
fireblade said:
Not even worth the effort to even respond to such rubbish......have a good day.
Click to expand...

Then Putin should have started from local football club in Moscow, not Ukraine:

https://www.google.fi/amp/s/www.rfer.../28973981.html

the world is full of ultra right, nazis, white supremacist… everywhere - in US, France, Italy. This is not a reason to start war. Ultra right in Ukraine is less popular than in France or Italy. Check the last election results.
 
Are you guys in the US not familiar with the Azov Battalion?

The Guardian here in the UK did a story about them back in 2014; they've been (relatively) well known and infamous in Europe for a while: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...aine-neo-nazis

Snopes did a more recent breakdown about their history and "relevance": https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/03/...zov-battalion/

I was talking about them with a friend in Poland yesterday. He was, similarly to some people in here, completely unaware of their existence. And yes, they're a fairly minor part of the Ukrainian military - but it doesn't show Ukraine in a good light when the Twitter account for Ukraine's National Guard tweets about Azov troops greasing bullets with pig fat to send their (largely Islamic) Chechen opponents to hell, even referring to them as "orcs": https://twitter.com/ng_ukraine/status/1497924614865002497

This is where the "Ukraine is full of Nazis" is coming from. Yes, that's hyperbole, and I don't think any rational person thinks the Ukrainian leadership are actually Nazis. As my friend in Poland put it, "the only reason they were not immediately disbanded is that they were useful". The problem is the Azov Battalion's continued existence is useful to both sides for very different reasons.
 
Coldkennels said:
This is where the "Ukraine is full of Nazis" is coming from. Yes, that's hyperbole, and I don't think any rational person thinks the Ukrainian leadership are actually Nazis. As my friend in Poland put it, "the only reason they were not immediately disbanded is that they were useful". The problem is the Azov Battalion's continued existence is useful to both sides for very different reasons.
Click to expand...

Not just the Azov Battalion, but the Banderites in general. Further readings about the remarkable life of Stepan Bandera, both a key figure in modern Ukrainian nationalism and a convicted Nazi collaborator. See his (and the Ukrainian collaborators') role in the Holocaust in Ukraine, during which more than 1 million Jews had been systematically murdered, and how he has been venerated in the nation post-1991, especially in the western regions, while statues of Lenin were being torn down.

Let's be clear that none of these can justify Russia's very decision to invade Ukraine, which is a sovereign nation. But they (and how all these information, while being readily available for years, managed to fly under the radar of general US public) can at least help you understand why sanctions alone cannot bring Putin down. Yes they're facing international headwinds. Yes they're having major economic difficulties. Yes there're protests going on in Russia against the war. But to many, Putin is fighting a war of justice while beating down western hypocrisy, a cause for which they can endure the hardship - and the Russians are no alien to hardships. This is also why the city of Mariupol, where the Azov Battalion is based, is under particularly heavy fire as the Russians are seeking revenge of the massacres ethnic Russians had suffered in the past years (while bolstering domestic support).

Also note how Israel (along with most of Middle East - it's not just India and China, for God's sake) has been relatively quiet on sanctioning Russia. They've been busy bombing Gaza and Syria though...

It's a murky world we're living in. I do believe though we're grown-ups that don't necessarily have to keep our eyes, ears and minds shut tight labeling every uncomfortable bits "disinformation" to maintain our cause for righteousness.
 
Archlich said:
Not just the Azov Battalion, but the Banderites in general. Further readings about the remarkable life of Stepan Bandera, both a key figure in modern Ukrainian nationalism and a convicted Nazi collaborator. See his (and the Ukrainian collaborators') role in the Holocaust in Ukraine, during which more than 1 million Jews had been systematically murdered, and how he has been venerated in the nation post-1991, especially in the western regions, while statues of Lenin were being torn down.

Let's be clear that none of these can justify Russia's very decision to invade Ukraine, which is a sovereign nation. But they (and how all these information, while being readily available for years, managed to fly under the radar of general US public) can at least help you understand why sanctions alone cannot bring Putin down. Yes they're facing international headwinds. Yes they're having major economic difficulties. Yes there're protests going on in Russia against the war. But to many, Putin is fighting a war of justice while beating down western hypocrisy, a cause for which they can endure the hardship - and the Russians are no alien to hardships. This is also why the city of Mariupol, where the Azov Battalion is based, is under particularly heavy fire as the Russians are seeking revenge of the massacres ethnic Russians had suffered in the past years (while bolstering domestic support).
Click to expand...

Yes, there are some hard-core über-nasties in the East, including but not limited to Nazi fanboys and fanatic Chechen Islamists making a last stand at Mariupol. Ukraine has a checkered and at times, shameful past but this does not condemn the present generation to suffer for the sins of their fathers.

Look at Justin Trudeau's key advisor, Chrystia Freeland. Her grandfather, Mykhailo Khomiak was a bona fidé Nazi collaborationist sought after by post-war Polish authorities for his crimes. While Ms Freeland may be execrable in her own right, does she bear the guilt of her grandfather?

No.

Archlich said:
Also note how Israel (along with most of Middle East - it's not just India and China, for God's sake) has been relatively quiet on sanctioning Russia. They've been busy bombing Gaza and Syria though...
Click to expand...

Knew we'd get there sooner or later.
Russia, as you may recall, has been riding roughshod over Syria since the beginning of the Civil War a decade ago despite endless Euro hand-wringing and American declared uncrossable 'Red Lines' that weren't actually red (maybe Obama is color-blind?); Israel has had to keep the Iranians (Putin's erstwhile ally) and their client militias (including Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in SW Syria) in check, but often only with the consent of Russia who controls the airspace; so the point of them NOT keeping their heads down is what, precisely?

And as one of the few remaining interlocutors between Putin and Zelenskiyy, openly taking sides closes that channel.
 
There's a lot of gaslighting from useful idiots here.

The far right had a smaller proportion of the vote in Ukraine than they did in France. Presumably the apologists think Putin should invade France.

Putin is not averse to using anti-semitism against Zelensky, or against Israel for that matter. His is the right-wing government which wraps itself in the flag of nationalism - and, incidentally, also targets Ukraine as being pro gay rights while his siloviki, cronies, as part of their moral 'crusade' claim the EU will soon approve zoophilia and marriage with animals. They are nuts, and they're not a fringe group, they are the ones with their hands on the levers of power.

We know very well the gaslighting of Russians' useful idiots because that's exactly what they did under Stalin. They smeared, for instance, the Poles who fought the Germans as Nazis; while their policy was to hire collaborators to rule in Poland, as they were more susceptible to blackmail. Similarly we had the so-called Left in the UK, defending persecution of Jews in the Doctors plot and Slansky trial.

So, defend Putin all you want but there's no escaping you're defending ethno-nationalism, a kleptocracy, a shackled press, where you disappear if you don't toe the media line, where gays are persecuted, and where Ukrainians are labelled 'non human.'

Finally, again there's the gaslighting over Ukrainian provocation for joining NATO and how threatening this is. Because Putin is exactly as set on prizing the Ukraine away from the EU. But of course, his despotism is the best advert for the freedoms of the EU, while his brutal but incompetent army are the best possible advert for NATO, to which Sweden and Finland are playing close attention, while of course Germany has now significantly changed course and will upgrade its commitment to NATO.
 
Paul T. said:
So, defend Putin all you want but there's no escaping you're defending ethno-nationalism, a kleptocracy, a shackled press, where you disappear if you don't toe the media line, where gays are persecuted, and where Ukrainians are labelled 'non human.'
Click to expand...

Let me be very clear: I, at least, am in no way defending Putin. Not one bit. I'm aware of the utter mess that is Russian politics, and I am no fan of Putin or his actions, both historically and now, in the present day. What I have tried to say in my few posts here is along the lines of what I believe Archlich was also trying to do: make what Putin is doing make sense. Understanding the context of his actions is the only way for anyone to hope to stop them. If we as a society/culture just write him (or Stalin, or Hitler, or any other despot/dictator) off as a "lunatic", we risk not learning the lessons needed to avoid this sort of madness from happening again.

For the record, I also agree with what james.liam is saying; we can't all carry the weight of our forefather's actions. Heaven knows, as a Brit, my nation has been responsible for a lot of truly awful history across the world (we invented concentration camps and starved millions to death in India, for god's sake). Historical hatred towards Ukrainian actions is no justification for current events, but it does help us understand the mentality that might lead to any support Putin has from his "electorate" (and also understand the resistance towards the anti-war protests).

Where do that leave us (by which I mean the "West", or more precisely, our "Western" leaders)? I don't know. I honestly don't. We're still back at square one: we can't really actively send troops, because then we risk escalating the situation to nuclear war. We also can't do nothing, as not only will countless more Ukrainians die, but Putin will only feel emboldened and continue to push NATO further back from Russian borders (via more invasions); appeasement didn't work against Hitler, and it won't work here at this point. That ship has sailed.

I would imagine the only real hope would be a propaganda war, but a) Russia has more than a bit of a headstart on that front, and b) that's not something we can win without understanding the context and the mentality of the "opposition".
 
Sadly, I think the only thing that will "send a message" to Putin is actual military defeat. The Russian army has to be driven out of Ukraine. That will not happen with sanctions alone, and I don't think Ukraine's armed forces can do it on their own. It is no answer to say, as I hear said by pundits, that Putin can capture Ukraine but he can't hold Ukraine. So in other words, conceding a Russian occupation. One need only look at the countries occupied by Nazi Germany during WW II to see how that works out. I am distressed by the dithering I see in the West, and the fear of directly engaging with Russia. I think that has to happen. Yes, I am aware of the threat of nuclear and biological weapons. Putin is counting on the West's reluctance in light of these threats. Need to call his bluff.

Very easy for me to sit here and opine, of course. But I will be watching Zelenskyy's address to Congress tomorrow.
 
fireblade said:
Not even worth the effort to even respond to such rubbish......have a good day.

Click to expand...


that's incredible!! we just find out ukranians are not all good boys!!!

I can sadly find similar images from my country (Italy), but I hope France will not bomb us for this reason.
 
KoNickon said:
Yes, I am aware of the threat of nuclear and biological weapons. Putin is counting on the West's reluctance in light of these threats. Need to call his bluff.

KoNikon
Click to expand...
I apologize for the formatting, but I can’t get the quote function to work most days.

After months of rebuffed diplomatic proposals to the U.S. and Ukraine, Lavrov explained in February that if those were not listened to and taken seriously, the next step would be “military and technical” methods. What Clausewitz termed, “diplomacy by other means”. The West made a huge mistake in believing that Russia was bluffing., which is why Ukrainians are being fed into the meat grinder now.

If Russia thinks that having Ukraine becoming a NATO state on its border is an existential threat, and it does think that, it doesn’t matter what the U.S State Department, or Zelensky, or I or anyone else thinks about how peaceful we are. Russia doesn’t generally have any reason to believe that, given its history.
There is no more reason to think that Putin might be bluffing now with regard to nuclear weapons, than there was reason to think they were bluffing last month about “military and technical “ means. There is no example of Russia making a crystal clear idle threat in the last 20 years, if ever. They do not bluff. The desire of one nuclear power to call another nuclear power’s “bluff”, as if this were some game of chicken, is incredibly dangerous. (Not referring to you, Nick, but to the powers involved.) The State department said in the last 48 hours that if any bit of weaponry fell on “even an inch” of NATO territory, it would result in “the full force” of a NATO response. Which even the slowest of idiots knows means nuclear. So, it’s already escalated that far. People believing that awful things are beyond the pale, often learn that they aren’t. All the grandstanding and chest thumping needs to be tamped down. There is a diplomatic solution on the table, as there has been. That can either be pursued or ignored again, but the gamble of ignoring diplomacy is now more dangerous than it was in December. And we’ve found out how dangerous that was.
 
Thanks, Larry -- the quote comes through as italics, which looks very good I think!

I think what I can't buy with Putin is his position that NATO is some sort of existential threat to Russia. Yes, I am well aware of 1941 (and Stalin was apparently as paranoid, if not more so, than Putin.) Given the USSR's grievous losses in WW II one can understand that another invasion, or the threat of one, is probably their biggest fear. But NATO is a defensive organization, established to protect against Soviet aggression. When has it attacked anyone? Putin famously stated that the breakup of the Soviet Union was the biggest tragedy (or was it disaster? Don't recall) of the 20th century. To which I reply -- maybe to Putin and those who long for the "good old days" of the USSR. So his intention has been clear, that he wants to restore the glory (and lands) of the Soviet Union. That doesn't mean he gets to do it! Times change -- the Soviet Union is in the past. Empires rise and fall. His rhetoric mirrors that of Hitler -- grievances against the West, keeping his country down (the Soviets and then the oligarchs did that quite well without any help); restoration of former glory.

What is ironic, and maybe this is what makes him so obsessed with Ukraine, is that it's Ukraine, not Muscovy, that is the cradle of Russia. Founded by Vikings, as one of the earlier posters mentioned. The "Kievan Rus," as I learned in history class. So Russia is nothing without Ukraine. But that doesn't mean Russia gets to have it. As I said, nations and empires come and go. Russia is rather a third world country these days, with an evidently poorly trained military.
 
Whether NATO is defensive or aggressive matters not a wit to Vlad. The Baltics as NATO is grating enough but a NATO Ukraine poking deep into the Russian underbelly is more that he could stomach. Understanding why he did what he did is a far cry from being his apologist. This is key to knowing how to undo what’s done.
Understanding the deep scars WWII left on succeeding generations gives an insight to the ‘paranoia”’. His decisions are calculated, clear-headed and exceedingly rational. Almost predictable…..for a 17th century Czar.
Any paradigm more modern is a waste of the observer’s time.
Stalin once famously quipped that, “quantity has a quality all its own”. If the Russians can send wave after wave of armour and expendable cannon-fodder to man the juggernaut, an opponent eventually runs low on ammo. For argument’s sake, if the west hands over, say, 1000 Javelins and the Russians field 3000 tanks and another 2000 APC and self-propelled artillery, it’s simple math. He’s betting on attrition as he did in Chechnya and Syria and as Stalin did against Germany.
 
Nick,

Does it really matter if we think NATO is a threat to Russia? It would seem like what would matter in the current situation is if Russia sees it that way. We may comfortably say that NATO is a defensive organization, and it was established to protect against Soviet aggression, or more specifically as a counterweight to the Warsaw Pact countries which banded together to protect against western aggression. The Warsaw Pact is gone, so Russia wonders why NATO, which was formed against them, is still around. Russian suspicions that NATO is not a neutral player were confirmed when NATO rebuffed their overtures for membership decades ago. If NATO just exists as a neutral security force, one for all, and all for one, in a spirit of mutual cooperation, then why can’t we join? Russia understands why, and they understand that NATO isn’t neutral. The Soviet Union is gone, but the entity birthed to fight it militarily is still around.
NATO says it is a “defensive” organization, but it’s both defensive and offensive. Which countries has NATO attacked ? Or, more to the point, which countries who have not attacked a NATO country, been pre emptively attacked by NATO forces? Attacked without any real fear of any real repercussions, after the world became a unipolar world, revolving around one superpower, not two. Russia understands the hubris that comes from knowing there is no one left in the world who can “beat you up.”

The March 2011 US-NATO attack on Libya. . In the opening hours of the attack, American and British war ships and submarines fired scores of cruise missiles which, by 21 March 2011, had wiped out Gaddafi’s entire strategic air defence system along the Libyan coastline. US B-2 spirit bombers destroyed Libya’s largest airport, in the capital Tripoli, while Tornado aircraft launched Storm Shadow missiles at numerous strategic targets. Libya was thrown into civil war as a consequence from which it has never really recovered. Gadaffi may have been a nut, but he posed no real threat to anyone except those who had to sit through his hour long comedy routines at the U.N. every year. The point being, that Libya had not attacked a NATO nation, nor did it seem on the verge of doing so. It was just an attack on a nation that the U.S. thought was dangerous, even though Libya had given up its nuclear weapons program out of fear of such an attack. NATO bombed Gadaffi’s house in a targeted assassination, which is supposedly illegal under international law, and missed.

In 1999, Serbia, which was then part of Yugoslavia was attacked by NATO, again, as a U.S. led operation under Bill Clinton, and again pre-emptively, just because it could, not because Yugoslavia had attacked a NATO country, which it hadn’t.

So no, NATO has proven itself, since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact to not be a defensive organization, but an organization of militaries which will do whatever it justifies itself as doing to whomever it thinks it is justified in attacking, for whatever reason if it thinks it can get away with it. People are free to look up the backstories on those two wars, and decide whether they were moral, or not, but there is a lot of feeling in some quarters that both of those attacks were both unjustified and “illegal”. My point is, regardless of the backstories and ostensible reasons for the attacks, they were not remotely defensive in nature, and NATO can no longer in good faith claim to be a purely defensive organization. Again, Russia is acutely aware of this, even if most Americans are not.


“Putin famously stated that the breakup of the Soviet Union was the biggest tragedy of the 20th century.” Yes, he did state that, and it is now “famously” because it has been burned into the Western consciousness ever since. What is less famous, because his remarks were removed from their context, is what he said following that, which was that “but no one wants to go back to the Soviet Union.” Why don’t Americans know, as Paul Harvey used to say, “the rest of the story.” Perhaps, because it conflicts with the narrative. People can look it up; you can find it if you look hard enough.

Putin does want to “restore former glory” you are quite right, but it’s pre-Revolutionary Russia he wants to restore, the Russia of Tolstoy and Pushkin, not the Soviet Union. If he wanted to restore the Soviet Union he wouldn’t be rebuilding and reopening the churches that the Bolsheviks shuttered.
Look, I’ve already been accused of being a shill for Putin, and what I just said won’t quiet that down among those who are so convinced they understand Russia completely, and I’m merely stupid, or a “useful idiot.” I get that.

Well meaning people are always saying that we must look at the world through the eyes of “the other” in order to make a better world, but westerners generally, in my lifetime, have always refused to do that when it comes to Russians, no matter which governing ideology was ruling the Russian people. Like the McCartheyites, we are still finding Russkie stooges under every bed. There are two sides to this. (There are not two sides to whether war is bad, but there are two sides to understanding how the world got here. IMO) And to me, it’s obvious that we got here simply because one side refused to listen to concerns that the other side legitimately had. If people won’t let themselves even contemplate that possibility, well, okay.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
And to me, it’s obvious that we got here simply because one side refused to listen to concerns that the other side legitimately had
Click to expand...

Agreed.
But now we have to return to the point where Putin started to force sovereign countries to follow his sights with military aggression.
This is not "legitimately".
Ukraine is just the last one in a row.
Maybe just the current one and we are talking about other countries tomorrow.
This can never be a role model for the future and a modern world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom