Ukraine Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I need an update on the date and Putin's status regarding fascism please.

[Brenus]

"Where am I lying?" You bolt it and underlined it and then forget the "that we would only do it in case that we are absolutely certain that people that live in Crimea want it themselves." So Putin didn't launch the operation that day or date as you claimed, in: "Once again: Putin DECIDED on his Crimea operation on the night BETWEEN 22 and 23", but assessed (rightly) how the situation turned against Russia. So no "returning Crimea to motherland", but more kind of "it is turning nasty and we might will have to do something about it", according to the document (I watched only half of it at the moment, it is heavy staff).

[Brenus]

Can't stop to laugh.
http://newcoldwar.org/top-polish-mil...-ukraine-govt/

[Sarmatian]

Can't stop to laugh.
http://newcoldwar.org/top-polish-mil...-ukraine-govt/

Pathetic.

I understand that it is difficult to create nation after you've created a state, but venerating Nazi collaborators and henchmen is never a good way to start.

[Gilrandir]

You're taking a part of a larger speech and fixating on it, completely ignoring the rest where it is more clearly explained. In this case, Putin explained that he set certain tasks and outlined what needs to be done in case people who live in Crimea want it themselves.

This explanation was in case that you b) weren't fully aware of it. In case of a) you're doing it on purpose, there's not much I can do.

This is weaseling out, the same as with "Russian soldiers' backs". We heard Putin say crystall clear about his 7 a.m. decision. It means that he has been brooding on it for quite a time. Or do you think he had this idea at 6.59? It makes me laugh when you claim that Putin was ready to start annexation ONLY IF THE PEOPLE OF THE CRIMEA WANTED IT. This is what I agree with:
https://russianavos.wordpress.com/20...mea-admission/
Note the words of Girkin when he claimed that:
1. He was in the Crimea as early as February 21. Judging from what he has been doing in Slovyansk (where he by his another admission tried to emulate his Crimea blitzkrieg) he was there not to renovate antique bronze vessels. Evidently he was on a particular mission and as he was there on February 21, all Putin's babblings about asking what the Crimeans think are ridiculous.
2. He literally "goaded" Crimean deputies in to vote neccessary ordinances. A good way to discover what the Crimeans think.
Thus, Putin was bent on annexation long before the morning of 23. But even if he decided on it then, Yanukovych was still the president. Rescuing the president with one hand and starting the annexation with another hand is what Putin was doing. And then he (in the movie) confirmed it and Girkin's evidence corroborated it.

I understand that it is difficult to create nation after you've created a state, but venerating Nazi collaborators and henchmen is never a good way to start.

As I have said, at Nurnberg trial UPA was never mentioned as a collaborator.
But even if it had been one, EVERYBODY (starting from Western nations in Munich 1938 and including Soviet army dividing Poland with the Gemany and celebrating it with the Brest parade in 1939) was a collaborator. Why then should we venerate Great Britain and the USSR (now succedded by Russia) as winners? Everyone had his hands dirty in the war.

[Sarmatian]

This is weaseling out

Nope. You're now trying to switch the discussion to what you think happened in reality, which is not what we were talking about about. We were talking about what Putin said in the documentary.

It was an honest mistake, could have happened to anyone, but instead of owning up to it and moving on, you're using misdirection to try and steer the conversation in a different direction.

As I have said, at Nurnberg trial UPA was never mentioned as a collaborator.
But even if it had been one, EVERYBODY (starting from Western nations in Munich 1938 and including Soviet army dividing Poland with the Gemany and celebrating it with the Brest parade in 1939) was a collaborator. Why then should we venerate Great Britain and the USSR (now succedded by Russia) as winners? Everyone had his hands dirty in the war.

Kudos, then. Have fun celebrating UPA and Bandera. That's a great basis to build a free, democratic country on top of.

[Gilrandir]

Nope. You're now trying to switch the discussion to what you think happened in reality, which is not what we were talking about about. We were talking about what Putin said in the documentary.

It was an honest mistake, could have happened to anyone, but instead of owning up to it and moving on, you're using misdirection to try and steer the conversation in a different direction.

I may as well say it all of your standpoint and understaning of Putin's confessions. The only way to determine who is right is to put Putin on trial in the Hague. The court may eventually pass a verdict that will solve our dispute.

Kudos, then. Have fun celebrating UPA and Bandera. That's a great basis to build a free, democratic country on top of.

For me they are too controversial figures to celebrate, yet they did their bit in eventually fighting nazis. But you choose to forget that similar movements branded by Soviet propaganda as collaborators were "celebrated" in the Baltic states or in Croatia and their countries are free and democratic.