They also manned those separatists.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
For the war itself that's absolutely the question. It depends on the terms of the ceasefire, and what each nation envisions happening without that ceasefire, none of which I have any clue about so couldn't possibly evaluate.
For this thread, though, a question is why calling for a ceasefire makes Scholz laughable, a joke, weak, more weakness, a **** twice over, wasting his time, generally incompetent and a useful idiot.
Yet, when the US Secretary of Defense calls for a ceasefire, that's not even worthy of a reaction. Just psychologically observing the general pattern in this thread is absolutely fascinating.
A ceasefire + full Russian withdrawal I'm in support of. A ceasefire alone, nah. Happy for Ukraine to use the time to build up more reserves before breaking the ceasefire to thundercnut Russia out of their country.
If we went though all this trouble with giving economy and military aid to Ukraine just to give Russia what they wanted in the first place before the war, then the West has wasted a feckload of money and the leaders need to account for that.
Basically if Ukraine is surrendered in any way then I want my taxpayer money back, and I would suggest the UK stay the feck out of the next Russian confrontation (Moldova?) and let the EU sort it out themselves.
If we went though all this trouble with giving economy and military aid to Ukraine just to give Russia what they wanted in the first place before the war, then the West has wasted a feckload of money and the leaders need to account for that.
Basically if Ukraine is surrendered in any way then I want my taxpayer money back, and I would suggest the UK stay the feck out of the next Russian confrontation (Moldova?) and let the EU sort it out themselves.
Last edited:
I think it was the idea of asking the Ukrainian's to give up some sovereignty to allow Putin to climb down at this point which appears to be the terrible suggestion from Macron which starts the incredulity.
If you look at Germany's policy from the start until present date V the US policy, then people will understandably have more lee way for the US. We don't know any details about what a proposed cease fire would be designed to do. Aid Russian withdrawal to end the war quickly or stop the fighting at currently held positions which would help Russian forces consolidate. The suspicion will now always be that Germany is looking for a solution which ends the fighting as quickly as possible whatever the long term cost to Ukraine because that is what is best for Germany.
The US is seen as more supportive by pro Ukraine sympathizers. I think that is fair enough.
I hope we don't start to press Zelensky into anything. He has a incredible weight on his shoulders and needs to make any call on the war goals with the wests full support not weakness or falling into division.
This is a very good post.
Spot on.
Sadly I have to fully agree with this post.
Sure, but there's a reason I was talking about Scholz rather than Macron, and while what you're saying about the US vs Germany is obviously true that doesn't remove my fascination. I know that's the reason, but it's the explanation for the unreasonable responses rather than an explanation that makes the responses reasonable.The actions of Germany and the US do mean that it's reasonable to be more skeptical or wary of a German call for ceasefire than an American one, precicely because a ceasefire can mean different things. However, the reaction here, coupled with the non-reaction to Austin, is 100 % unreasonable. What should happen, if you find calls for ceasefire acceptable which people here obviously do, is a measured or wary response to Scholz or Germany. Dismissing it outright, and not only dismissing it but with the ridicule, makes no sense. It clearly shows that it's about US good Germany bad. It doesn't really matter what a German or an American says. We've seen a similar mechanism at play regarding the German reliance on Russian energy. It doesn't matter that Germany is far, far from the worst. People don't even know how much they rely on Russia compared to other European nations. It's just automatically accepted as really bad because Germany has lost trust from people here, the actual facts aren't important. We don't see condemnations of Finland or Greece or plenty other countries, because it's not actually about energy reliance. It's about dissatisfaction with Germany (for good reason, by all means).
Early Uni courses in social psychology are all about cognitive biases. A common example is that if a colleague you like fails to greet you properly in the morning, then it's because they're probably tired, busy, inattentive, or some other understandable reason. If it's someone you don't like, then it's because they're an asshole. The very same action is interpreted completely differently based on pre-existing feelings, even though you have no idea what's going on. If we needed new textbooks then this thread could provide great material.
The BBC reports:
"Russian forces withdraw far from Kharkiv, mayor tells BBC
The mayor of Kharkiv, Ihor Terekhov, has told the BBC that the Russians have withdrawn from the Kharkiv city area in the direction of the Russian border.
He says that Russian troops had only ever managed to enter a small part of the key north-eastern city once, and were not there for a long time.
"The Russians were constantly shelling Kharkiv because they were staying very close to the city. And due to the efforts of Kharkiv territorial defence and Ukrainian Armed Forces, the Russians have withdrawn out far from the city area in the direction of the Russian border,” he says.
"Now it is calm in Kharkiv and people are gradually coming back to the city. We provide water, gas and electricity supply to all the citizens. However, unfortunately, many residential buildings are destroyed or damaged. So, in the future we will have to do huge reconstruction.
"There was no shelling in the city for the last five days. There was only one attempt from Russians to hit the city with a missile rocket near Kharkiv airport, but the missile was eliminated by Ukrainian Air Defence."
"Russian forces withdraw far from Kharkiv, mayor tells BBC
The mayor of Kharkiv, Ihor Terekhov, has told the BBC that the Russians have withdrawn from the Kharkiv city area in the direction of the Russian border.
He says that Russian troops had only ever managed to enter a small part of the key north-eastern city once, and were not there for a long time.
"The Russians were constantly shelling Kharkiv because they were staying very close to the city. And due to the efforts of Kharkiv territorial defence and Ukrainian Armed Forces, the Russians have withdrawn out far from the city area in the direction of the Russian border,” he says.
"Now it is calm in Kharkiv and people are gradually coming back to the city. We provide water, gas and electricity supply to all the citizens. However, unfortunately, many residential buildings are destroyed or damaged. So, in the future we will have to do huge reconstruction.
"There was no shelling in the city for the last five days. There was only one attempt from Russians to hit the city with a missile rocket near Kharkiv airport, but the missile was eliminated by Ukrainian Air Defence."
It certainly was, just not in the name. They have occupied (regular army was present there from the beginning under the “russian volunteers” label, not in huge numbers but enough to organize the local criminals), once the job was done they gave the keys to local militas/criminals with full military and commanding support.
That's not occupation, in the name or not. But that's not even the point (because semantics set aside, we pretty much know what the situation was there). The way the Ukrainian governement was handling the situation in this area was simply not working and they'll have to handle the Azov/nationalist issue once the war is over. The compromise the made back in 2014 was just unsustainable and the "you'll commit war crimes i'll commit war crimes" situation isn't tolerable.
Just fecking give up this azov/nationalist issue, I’m amazed people in the west still buy into this blown out of proportion piece of russian propaganda. Can you at least not parrot this nonsense? Literally every military on earth will have an insignificant part that consists of ultra-nationalists but they don’t get the same attention from Russian propaganda.
Last edited:
It's not Russian propaganda. It's an obvious fact that everyone acknowledged pre war, but is now being white washed. There's a reason why the Azov battalion is so popular among non-Ukranian far right people.
Just because we're talking about a clearly unjust invasion where unthinkable war crimes are happening regularly doesn't mean that we have to willingly deny reality. Not everything is Russian propaganda. What's next, are we going to deny Azov's use of torture in Donbas as well?
This.
Several western NGO like Amnesty International pointed Azov's behaviour in the region (not saying the separatists were better but that's not the point). The UN also issued several reports about human rights violations. All of that years before this war.
So no, it's not just parroting russian propaganda. It's set aside for now because Russia's invasion is a far bigger problem but it won't magicaly disappear.
Yes, but we’re talking today, right? Azov of 2014 is not Azov of 2022? The issue has been dealt with by Ukraine gov., what point does it serve now using this as a stick?
The BBC reports:
"Ukraine launches counteroffensive in Izyum' - official
Ukrainian forces have launched a counteroffensive in Izyum, according to Oleh Synegubov, head of the Kharkiv Regional Military Administration.
Speaking in a video posted to telegram, he said that Russian forces were retreating in some directions.
The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has not confirmed the move.
Russia seized control of the city of Izyum on 1 April and has occupied it since.
Maxym Strelnik, an official at Izyum city council, previously told the BBC that he estimated 80% of the city had been destroyed.
Between 10,000 and 15,000 civilians remain in Izyum, he believes."
"Ukraine launches counteroffensive in Izyum' - official
Ukrainian forces have launched a counteroffensive in Izyum, according to Oleh Synegubov, head of the Kharkiv Regional Military Administration.
Speaking in a video posted to telegram, he said that Russian forces were retreating in some directions.
The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has not confirmed the move.
Russia seized control of the city of Izyum on 1 April and has occupied it since.
Maxym Strelnik, an official at Izyum city council, previously told the BBC that he estimated 80% of the city had been destroyed.
Between 10,000 and 15,000 civilians remain in Izyum, he believes."
It wasnt in 2014, some reports were far more recent pointed alleged crimes from 2016 or 2017.
And I'm not using it as a stick to justify Russia's behaviour, the separatists were probably as bad, I'm just saying that this issue won't magically disapear after the war over.
As in any war where country is fighting against a large aggressor which is trying to wipe your culture and nation away (funnily russia is acting as full on nazis in this case) it’s only natural that there will be a rise in nationalist views born out self-preservation. I don’t see your calls for russian denazification once the war is over, where most of the problems actually lie? There wouldn’t be a need for formation of nationalist views in an environment where you don’t have to constantly watch your back because your big neighbor is acting as a nazi state trying in every way to eradicate your cultural footprint?
Azov 2022 tries to recruit people in cooperation with neo-nazi parties all over Europe, that's a fact (and leads to curious situations like in Germany where one right wing party- Alternative for Germany - is close to Russia, while another - The Third Way - is actively recruiting fighters for Azov.
So going full way when Germany provides weapons for Ukraine some of it will go to Azov and some of that will go to German Neonazis. It's a very small number of people, but it's the truth, not Russian propaganda. It's still the right thing to do, but this does make some people uncomfortable. These active cooperations today aren't a wise PR move.
But I should add that the German left wing parties are so narrow minded in regard to political extremism that they focus far too much on the right wing and totally ignore everything else, to the point that even police statistics aren't really useful (if a radical islamist shouts "Death to Israel!" and is convicted for his anti-semitism, it will show up as radical right crime).
Nazism is an ideology, not an action. There are Nazi movements in Russia, they even have their own flavor of Nazism that is almost exclusive to Russian Nazis. They don't have much to do with the military, though, except indirectly via the Wagner group, and what the Russians are doing in Ukraine is no more motivated by Nazism than the invasion is motivated by liberating Ukraine from Nazi rule. I.e. not at all.
This Russia = nazis narrative is only a thing because of Azov. Because there is a need to whitewash and deflect. Which is curious in and of itself, because it's not like all of the far right people connected to Azov are Nazis. It's a collection of a lot of different versions of Nazism and fascism. What Russia is doing in Ukraine isn't made any better by it not being Nazism, it's still every bit as bad. Not every attempted genocide, cultural or body count wise, is perpetrated by Nazis. In fact almost none of them are. Ukraine isn't any less a victim in this war by acknowledging that they do in fact have a far right current. We don't have to lie about it.
Far-right in Ukraine is on the same level as in any other European country if not less, and spreading exaggerated information doesn’t help anyone either, mind you. They have 1 MP in the whole parliament (450 seats) from far-right parties, so stop this bs please as if they have some problems with far-right. https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/04...n-mariupol-with-its-misguided-azov-obsession/
I didn't think I'd need to to do a full presentation on my views about international politics everytime I post, sorry, this was just about Ukraine and was in no way a deflection of anything. I don't see how this whataboutism is helpful, there's obviously huge issues about Russia and its governement. Pointing issue with part of the ukrainian military and what could happen after the war isn't an endorsement of Russia's ridiculous "denazification" mission, it's an endorsement of facts.
I don’t get you, Ukraine doesn’t have far-right current any larger than in other countries, why this constant need to point this out then? They have to deal with it in the same way as any other nation as we don’t want that in Europe or anywhere in the world for that matter but it’s strange to see such a small minority to get such an attention. I can only conclude that Russian propaganda have made a very good job of it. You likely gonna get a higher concentration of these far right extremists during some football games across Europe than in the Azov.
Last edited:
Your constant whataboutism and comments about posters here being brainwashed by by russian propaganda are a bit tiring.
Why more attention?
1) this is a thread about the ukrainian invasion
2) Azov is fighting a critical battle in Dombass and their name is all over the news
3) The ukrainian government praise them pretty often
4) It's letigimate to wonder what will happen if russia withdraw from Dombass
I don't know why but your brain weirdly process any criticism about part of the ukrainian army as an endorsement of the russian invasion. It's not, so no, you can't "only conclude". I personnally didn't even mention their neonazi members in the 1st place, only the fact that the conflict in Dombass caused thousands of death, either among ciivlians or in both armies and that it will need adressing even if russia withraws its troops.
Last edited:
I just think it’s a high ground to criticize Ukraine for incredibly small minority of right-wing group when Le Pen collects 40+% of votes in a presidential election. What point does it serve?
The only "need" to go on about it is because of how visceral people like you react. Like your claim that the government dealt with the elements in Azov so it's no longer an issue, a stance that is extremely controversial and convenient. As if there's no connection between the Azov battalion and the wider Azov movement, or National Corps. As if they don't still advertise targeting the far right, as if there's no overlap socially or politically.
In the context of this war it's such a minor issue, and if you weren't screaming Russian propaganda this conversation would have been over yesterday. You're the one keeping it alive, I'd have no reason to post about it if it wasn't for you. It's not like it's important right now in the grand scheme of things. It's a topic Ukraine hopefully deals with after the war, though no need to according to some so we'll see.
@Oly Francis @NotThatSoph Apologies for overreacting here, it’s just tiring to still see arguments that somehow try placing any kind of blame here on Ukrainian side beginning from 2014. No deaths or Azovs happen if Russia doesn’t invade the Ukraine in 2014. That’s the bottom line.
So what? Once you've said that (which is probably true), you've said absolutely nothing relevant to this conversation. The fact that the separatist movement was fueled by russia after the fall of Ianoukovitch doesn't change the fact that the issue is still goig to be there even if russia removes its army and that the ukrainian governement will have to find a way to deal with it.
Which issue? It will continue to live freely as before? Or you think Azov is going to go on a rampage? If not for Russia no armed criminals take control of the region, so if you remove Russia from equation there won’t be any on-going armed conflict.
No, but even without "azov going on a rampage", the conflct killed thousands of civilians since 2014. You do realize that you're not going to "remove russia from equation" by snapping your fingers right? The border will still be there, unless there's a new government in Russia that decides to stop everything, nothing will prevent them from restarting their independist sponsorship.
That’s why Ukraine’s new war target is to liberate all territories from occupation, including pre-2022. It doesn’t want another frozen war.
Mitch McConnell visits Kyiv with delegation of Republican US senators:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...nnell-visits-kyiv-ukraine-republican-senators
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...nnell-visits-kyiv-ukraine-republican-senators
Kinell. Will you two take that nazi/azov
talk to another thread, or preferably another forum?
talk to another thread, or preferably another forum?
My understanding is that what happened since 2014 was in massive part possible, because Ukrainian army was in a completely derelict state. They had to take every help they were offered and even then Russia didn't have to allocate massive resources (especially in current context) to regularly gain ground.
I don't really see how those tactics would result in anything but a meat grinder for Russia now.
And that's obviously ignoring that sentiments in Ukraine are completely different to the ones that were there in 2014 and international community will probably be less lenient with accepting Russian bullshit as excuses. I'm not sure if restarting is a viable option for Russia at all.
This.
The Russians could win a few redemption points if they found a way to take that feckin lizard out.