War in Ukraine

[McDad]

Imo there are only a handful of countries that could claim they are independent i.e. U.S. dollar world currency. The U.S. is able to control most countries through sanctions, cut access to SWIFT, and the global monetary system. Only a few countries could survive a full on attack there - the Ukraine isn't one of them.

The Ukraine is just a place where the world decided to take a dump. The last outhouse was closed - Afghanistan. Nobody cares about the Ukrainians, never did. The people crying out here are a strange but funny group.

The Russians will most likely have to destroy it all, or the alternative is this doesn't really get solved, imo.

Your answer is difficult to follow for me.

Ukraine was, or was not, independent in the early 90s after the fall of the USSR?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Your answer is difficult to follow for me.

Ukraine was, or was not, independent in the early 90s after the fall of the USSR?

Keep pressing. Soon you’ll be joining us on Cinderella’s ignore list for not accepting her idiotic hot takes at face value

 

[MontyPython]

I caught up on the thread over the weekend. There are a few posters who claim or imply the US is a fault for the war in Ukraine and that the US is fighting a proxy war using Ukraine as a pawn.
Can we discuss these ideas a bit.

Here is the first paragraph from Wiki:
Relations between Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) started in 1991 following Ukraine's independence after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.[1] Ukraine-NATO ties gradually strengthened during the 1990s and 2000s, and Ukraine aimed to eventually join the alliance. Although co-operating with NATO, Ukraine remained a neutral country. After it was attacked by Russia in 2014, Ukraine has increasingly sought NATO membership.

I see the macroscopic view this way:
- Ukraine is an independent / sovereign country.
- Ukraine sought a relationship with NATO.
- America doesn't control NATO.
- Russia invades an independent country.
- Ukraine (Ukrainians) have a right to defend themselves if they want to repel the invasion.

Also of note, the USSR requested to join NATO in 1954.

Thus, by Putin "logic", Russia should have attacked the rest of the countries comprising the USSR.

 

[McDad]

Keep pressing. Soon you’ll be joining us on Cinderella’s ignore list for not accepting her idiotic hot takes at face value

Nah, we've had our moments but generally get along in other threads.

The concept of independence without sovereignty is a mystery to me, though.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Nah, we've had our moments but generally get along in other threads.

The concept of independence without sovereignty is a mystery to me, though.

It’s a pretty basic concept yet there is a group in this thread clearly struggling with its fundamental applicability here when applied to a specific country or territory with defined, previously agreed upon borders.

 

[McDad]

It’s a pretty basic concept yet there is a group in this thread clearly struggling with its fundamental applicability here when applied to a specific country or territory with defined, previously agreed upon borders.

I agree. So I assume those who deny Ukraine's independence in the early 90s, are taking the position that it wasn't REAL independence. But if that were true, why would Russia sign agreements affirming Ukraine's independence (or borders)?

 

[BeardedVol]

Also of note, the USSR requested to join NATO in 1954.

Thus, by Putin "logic", Russia should have attacked the rest of the countries comprising the USSR.

View attachment 657220

It's always funny to see them harp on "WEST LIED ABOUT NATO EXPANSION" when Gorbachev is on video confirming that to be nonsense.



And, even Putin himself suggested that Russia get to bypass the process, and join NATO themselves.

Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule

George Robertson recalls Russian president did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’

www.theguardian.com

It's watching cognitive dissonance occur in real time.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I agree. So I assume those who deny Ukraine's independence in the early 90s, are taking the position that it wasn't REAL independence. But if that were true, why would Russia sign agreements affirming Ukraine's independence (or borders)?

Thus all the made up convoluted false nonsense contending Ukraine violated their agreements with Mother Russia and Russia is within their rights to do as they please. It’s downright idiotic.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Your answer is difficult to follow for me.

Ukraine was, or was not, independent in the early 90s after the fall of the USSR?

Not really, it was only independent as far as what was agreed upon but its all an illusion anyway as the U.S. hold access to the global financial system. Back in those days the appearance that they were sovereign was easier to mask, the true reality is the U.S. controls the a good portion of the world if it really feels like it. The only thing that has happened is the U.S. has basically dropped the illusion.

Sovereignty is more or less an opinion, I would say its very obvious who is in charge and its not Ukrainians.

The cows I have back in the field are sovereign, they're back in their fence and are the lords of the field... but its all bullsh*t. The Ukraine is simply the toilet of the world, they let themselves be used.... now they will pay the price.

There isn't much to analyze here.

 

[McDad]

It's always funny to see them harp on "WEST LIED ABOUT NATO EXPANSION" when Gorbachev is on video confirming that to be nonsense.



And, even Putin himself suggested that Russia get to bypass the process, and join NATO themselves.

Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule

George Robertson recalls Russian president did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’

www.theguardian.com

It's watching cognitive dissonance occur in real time.

I read a news article from NPR which discussed the NATO expansion issue. There (again) are documents agreed to and signed by Russia's spokespeople and non-expansion of NATO is not in the document.

NATO always had and always will have a policy which adds new countries if those countries want to join and meet the criteria.

 

[McDad]

Not really, it was only independent as far as what was agreed upon but its all an illusion anyway as the U.S. hold access to the global financial system. Back in those days the appearance that they were sovereign was easier to mask, the true reality is the U.S. controls the a good portion of the world if it really feels like it. The only thing that has happened is the U.S. has basically dropped the illusion.

Sovereignty is more or less an opinion, I would say its very obvious who is in charge and its not Ukrainians.

You mentioned in an earlier reply there are true independent countries...it was the post where you said Ukraine isn't really independent.

What's the difference between true independence and the quasi-independence you see for Ukraine?

 

[NorthDallas40]

You mentioned in an earlier reply there are true independent countries...it was the post where you said Ukraine isn't really independent.

What's the difference between true independence and the quasi-independence you see for Ukraine?

 

[LSU-SIU]

You mentioned in an earlier reply there are true independent countries...it was the post where you said Ukraine isn't really independent.

What's the difference between true independence and the quasi-independence you see for Ukraine?

Well, look at Russia, all the sanctions, cutoff from global financial systems, etc and they seem to be operating fairly well... realistically they can function without someone telling them what to do - generally speaking. Most countries including the Ukraine couldn't do this. I mean the States of the United States are suppose to be sovereign except for the authority they gave the federal government. I look at in a similar way.

I mean countries agree to treaties, in effect they are giving up portions of their sovereignty.

At the end of the day, all of that is pretty meaningless though. Foreigners own that place at this point, well, whatever is left.

The Ukraine is simply the toilet of the world, if the Ukrainians want to sit in the toilet.... I guess its their choice.

 

[McDad]

Well, look at Russia, all the sanctions, cutoff from global financial systems, etc and they seem to be operating fairly well... realistically they can function without someone telling them what to do - generally speaking. Most countries including the Ukraine couldn't do this. I mean the States of the United States are suppose to be sovereign except for the authority they gave the federal government. I look at in a similar way.

I mean countries agree to treaties, in effect they are giving up portions of their sovereignty.

At the end of the day, all of that is pretty meaningless though. Foreigners own that place at this point, well, whatever is left.

The Ukraine is simply the toilet of the world, if the Ukrainians want to sit in the toilet.... I guess its their choice.

Let me make sure I understand.

A sovereign nation is a nation which can survive or thrive completely isolated and independent from other nations?

 

[LSU-SIU]

Let me make sure I understand.

A sovereign nation is a nation which can survive or thrive completely isolated and independent from other nations?

No, I said it was an opinion, that could be one thing that could change my opinion. You tell me what sovereign is? Doing what the U.S. tells you?

Let me make sure I understand.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Let me make sure I understand.

A sovereign nation is a nation which can survive or thrive completely isolated and independent from other nations?

His stance is the same as always. It’s circular psychobabble statements of “they are not sovereign because I offered up unsupported opinions stating they are not sovereign”. That is the gist of every position he takes in this forum.

He is now also entering his pissy state where he parrots your statements back at you. Keep pushing you’ll be in the club soon!

 

[BeardedVol]

No, I said it was an opinion, that could be one thing that could change my opinion. You tell me what sovereign is? Doing what the U.S. tells you?

Let me make sure I understand.

 

[McDad]

No, I said it was an opinion, that could be one thing that could change my opinion. You tell me what sovereign is? Doing what the U.S. tells you?

Let me make sure I understand.

Hold up. I am not attacking you. I am asking for clarity.

I missed the opinion part. Is the opinion about sovereignty in general, about Ukraine specifically, or some else entirely?

 

[LSU-SIU]

Hold up. I am not attacking you. I am asking for clarity.

I missed the opinion part. Is the opinion about sovereignty in general, about Ukraine specifically, or some else entirely?

I never said or implied you were attacking me.

You tell me what sovereignty is or isn't. I feel like I have already provided what you asked for.

 

[McDad]

His stance is the same as always. It’s circular psychobabble statements of “they are not sovereign because I offered up unsupported opinions stating they are not sovereign”. That is the gist of every position he takes in this forum.

He is now also entering his pissy state where he parrots your statements back at you. Keep pushing you’ll be in the club soon!

View attachment 657233

Yall aren't helping. I am not looking to be proven right. I am not looking for logical sequences in his thought. I am interested in how he came to the thoughts he has.

Whether I agree with those thoughts is another matter. If someone doesn't think Ukraine was ever independent and Russia simply agreed to let them act independently to a certain point, I can understand how someone would be more favorable to Russia in the war.

 

[McDad]

I never said or implied you were attacking me.

You tell me what sovereignty is or isn't. I feel like I have already provided what you asked for.

[deleted]

I am happy to explain what I think sovereignty is. The challenge is I don't understand your thoughts on it yet. Can you simplify, give examples, compare and contrast, or take another run at it for me?

Am I correct in that part of your judgement on sovereignty is when a nation can exist without relationships with other natiuons?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Yall aren't helping. I am not looking to be proven right. I am not looking for logical sequences in his thought. I am interested in how he came to the thoughts he has.

Whether I agree with those thoughts is another matter. If someone doesn't think Ukraine was ever independent and Russia simply agreed to let them act independently to a certain point, I can understand how someone would be more favorable to Russia in the war.

Sorry mcdaddio I’ll stop with the ongoing pundit commentary at least for now. I just can’t help myself when it comes to this particular smooth brain on pretty much any topic and any statement. He just goes round and round.

But bearded is right in his pic. Cinderella has no coherent reply to make and is thus trying to shift the burden to you. It’s a pretty standard response from him.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Now, come on. I am dealing with you in good faith here. You and everybody else saw you going down a path you've gone down before.

I am happy to explain what I think sovereignty is. The challenge is I don't understand your thoughts on it yet. Can you simplify, give examples, compare and contrast, or take another run at it for me?

Am I correct in that part of your judgement on sovereignty is when a nation can exist without relationships with other natiuons?

Well, you can answer the question than, what is it? I have asked you in good faith a few times now.

I would say its an opinion, what you have pinpointed is only one of many things I would look at... but maybe the most important one at this stage in history.

 

[McDad]

Sorry mcdaddio I’ll stop with the ongoing pundit commentary at least for now. I just can’t help myself when it comes to this particular smooth brain on pretty much any topic and any statement. He just goes round and round.

But bearded is right in his pic. Cinderella has no coherent reply to make and is thus trying to shift the burden to you. It’s a pretty standard response from him.

First, I have to grasp his version of sovereignty/independence. Then, relate that to how Ukraine is or was, conditionally independent/sovereign.

 

[LSU-SIU]

First, I have to grasp his version of sovereignty/independence. Then, relate that to how Ukraine is or was, conditionally independent/sovereign.

Well, maybe I can grasp yours and we can compare.

What is it?