The war in Ukraine

[Stu Monty]

Was there any way to reply to your last post ? Your very fast with insults as usual, so when your calling other posters for "kids" the irony is there yes. 

 

Yes. There was:

 

"Oh yes, fair enough, killing people that talk smack is something that a lot of our allies do so me saying you were cheering for it is a bit immature and ignorant".

 

That would have done. Any sort of nod to the fact you were making hypocritical and not very solid points really. 

 

Or just a neg. Whichever.

[Funkasy]

Cheering was maybe a little over the top.

[Red Phoenix]

How many people lost their lives fighting Nazis? Without those people we would not fucking be here! This is absolutely as backwards as it can get. It's a true fucking disgrace to everyone that died fighting them. Why did they die? So that we can turn a blind eye today to what's happening in the Ukraine? So that our own governments can back neo-Nazis? This is fucking sickening.

 

Nobody wants to mention that Putin is having to deal with Nazis across the border. It's inconvenient. If Putin on the other hand, was actually into the Nazi stuff himself though, well, hahah, yeah.

 

I'm sure you can imagine what the situation would be like. We would never, ever hear the fucking end of it. The western world has gone fucking insane.

 

Just found this as well :

 

Number”18″ on a packet of Ariel detergent receives extensive coverage as a despicable symbol of “far-right ideology”, representing AH (Adolph Hitler).

 

Yet at the same time, on the same day, the Western media is not able to “decipher the atrocities” committed by Neo-Nazis in Ukraine.

 

Nor does it acknowledge the fact, amply documented, that the Right Sector and Svoboda militia in Ukraine are supported by Western governments, not to mention Special Forces within National Guard and Right Sector paramilitary ranks.

 

While Procter and Gamble apologizes for the “false Adolph Hitler associations” on the packet of Ariel detergent, as reported profusely in mainstream news tabloids (see list below), Western leaders including John Kerry, John McCain, Victoria Nuland and Catherine Ashton are not ready to say “sorry, we supported the Neo-Nazis who are killing innocent civilians, we made a really big mistake.”

 

A google news search for the Word “Nazi” on May 9 confirms the Western media’s self-denial of the role of neo-Nazism in Ukraine. The word is never mentioned in relation to Ukraine. Journalists and editors are instructed not to use the term.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-western-media-decyphers-the-neo-nazi-code/5381849

[Lee909]

Nobody died fighting Nazi's in WWI

[Red Phoenix]

Cognitive Dissonance and Propaganda : http://psychofwar2009.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/cognitive-dissonance-and-propaganda.html

[Red Phoenix]

Nobody died fighting Nazi's in WWI

Yes, I made a mistake as I'm kind of seriously pissed off at the moment with this retarded shit, sorry.

 

So I guess that cancels out the rest of the post then, and we can once again, ignore asking ourselves why we are supporting neo-Nazis in the Ukraine and blaming Russia for somehow being the bad guys.

 

The link I posted in the last post describes how cognitive dissonance can be used as propaganda, it takes like, 2 mins to read, and I think it explains a lot about what's going on in the west right now.

 

And in respect for everyone who died fighting Nazis, I'm going to repeat once more, even if it's ignored again : How many people lost their lives fighting Nazis? Why did they die? So that we can turn a blind eye today to what's happening in the Ukraine? So that our own governments can back neo-Nazis?

 

We have to confront this if we're going to get anywhere with this issue because it's completely mental. Do you accept that we're backing them but it's ok? Or not have a view on it? Or maybe you don't believe we're really backing them?

 

History will shit on the US, UK, and EU suits that played a part in this. It will shit on the lot of them.

[Red Phoenix]

Will chill out with this thread soon, apologies if I wound anyone up, I just think that these questions need to be answered by those that are really wanting to face the reality of what's going on here.

 

Have said since last year I was writing a book on various things and I've been continuously researching several different areas over recent weeks, to the point that it just enrages me from time to time. Will have to learn to deal with it, and am getting a site moving later today, so will just end up writing there mostly, and ranting on twitter from time to time maybe on a related account.

 

Here's to the hope that the suits see some sense in this eventually, and that the gathering of warmongering shills at the NATO summit can be made to change their minds somehow, because to be honest, that summit will be crowded with psychopaths, and they should really have a good think about what the consequences of their current planning could be.

[Red Phoenix]

One more and I'm off for a while.

 

From Walter Rockler, former Nuremberg prosecutor, whilst speaking about NATO's illegal bombing of Yugoslavia :

 

As a primary source of international law, the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal in the 1945-1946 case of the major Nazi war criminals is plain and clear. American and British leaders often rhetorically invoke and praise that judgment, but obviously have not read it. The International Court declared:

 

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

 

At Nuremberg, the United States and Britain pressed the prosecution of Nazi leaders for planning and initiating aggressive war as the ultimate crime. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the head of the American prosecution staff, asserted "that launching a war of aggression is a crime and that no political or economic situation can justify it."

 

The United Nations Charter views aggression similarly. Article 2(4) and (7) prohibit threats of force or the use of force by one state against another and interventions in the domestic jurisdiction of any country. The General Assembly of the UN in Resolution 2131, a "Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention," reinforced the view that a forceful military intervention in any country is aggression and a crime without justification.

 

Putting a "NATO" label on aggressive policy and conduct does not give that conduct any sanctity. This is simply a perversion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, formed originally as a defensive alliance under the UN Charter. The North Atlantic Treaty at its outset pledged its signatories to refrain from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, and it explicitly recognized the primary responsibility of the Security Council (of the United Nations) for the maintenance of international peace and security.

http://www.justiceyugoslavia.org/rockler.htm

[Stu Monty]

It is being reported that about four out of every five people leaving eastern Ukraine after being displaced is heading towards Russia, not heading towards Ukraine.

 

Suggesting that it may not be nonsense to suggest they consider themselves pro-Russia.

[Strontium]

If they like Russia so much, they're more than welcome to fuck off and live there.

[polymerpunkah]

If heading west meant going through a war front, including heading through the lines of a pro-Russia militia, manned by Russian soldiers, who might not be too happy to see them, that's not too surprising.

 

Why would the Russians let their hostages/human shields leave?

[Red Phoenix]

If they like Russia so much, they're more than welcome to fuck off and live there.

 

 

 

 

You should get over there Stronts and test this theory out!

 

edit : if you do get slapped like this, we need a vine of it.

[xerxes]

Here's to the hope that the suits see some sense in this eventually, and that the gathering of warmongering shills at the NATO summit can be made to change their minds somehow, because to be honest, that summit will be crowded with psychopaths, and they should really have a good think about what the consequences of their current planning could be.

The charge of NATO being warmongering is far fetched. Beyond Yugoslavia and Libya, two interventions in seventy years, the usual criticism of NATO is that it has done too little, not too much.

 

Russia has legitimate ethnic interests in Ukraine, as it had legitimate security interests in Crimea with the black sea Fleet.

[Red Phoenix]

The charge of NATO being warmongering is far fetched.

 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. You said two interventions in seventy years, I'd say that even one was too much. They're supposed to be a defence force and I think that there's no excuse at all for anything else. It's been corrupted as far as I can see, and it'd take a shitload of convincing at this stage to make me think otherwise. I think that they're an offence and an utter fucking disgrace to millions that lost their lives in previous world wars.

 

You say "beyond Yugoslavia and Libya", there should be no beyond at all. I think they're a criminal organization that's been corrupted by the arms industry and think tanks like the Bilderberg group, Council on Foreign Relations, etc.

 

If you were to convince me somehow that they shouldn't be disbanded, I'd be fucking amazed.

[Stu Monty]

If they like Russia so much, they're more than welcome to fuck off and live there.

 

Thanks for that wonderful contribution.

 

It added to much to the discussion.

[Stu Monty]

If heading west meant going through a war front, including heading through the lines of a pro-Russia militia, manned by Russian soldiers, who might not be too happy to see them, that's not too surprising.

 

Why would the Russians let their hostages/human shields leave?

 

I can very much see the merit of your point. 

 

Do you not question whether the assertion that a people being invaded running towards their invader and away from their "homeland" might not be a bit of a stretch when you're talking 80% of the people? Are there many other conflicts where that happens?

 

Some will definitely come under the situation you describe but that many? There seems a lot of people very much set against a historically Russian aligned area feeling it wants to be aligned with Russia here. Presumably because that makes them feel uncomfortable when aligning themselves with Ukraine.

[Arl arse]

The UN has accused the Ukrainian military in the deaths of civilians

Representatives of the office of the UN high Commissioner for human rights presented to the public a report which accused the Ukrainian military in the deaths of civilians.

In urban areas controlled by armed groups and exposed to intensive shelling of the Ukrainian armed forces, responsible for at least part of human casualties and damage to civilian objects lying on the Ukrainian armed forces, the document reads.

According to them, only from July 16 to August 17 as a result of clashes in the East of Ukraine has lost more than 1.2 thousand people. The total number of victims has reached 2.2 thousand.

In the end, the UN concluded that these facts contradict the statements of Kiev that "the Ukrainian armed forces never attacked areas with high population densities", transfers ITAR-TASS.

Earlier, representatives of the militia said that for four days the Ukrainian army lost more than 750 people. The President assessed the situation in the South-East as extremely difficult.

 

http://translate.yandex.net/tr-url/ru-en.en/www.novorosinform.org/news/id/7249

 

At the risk of grossly oversimplifying two very different conflicts, read this New York Times summary of a U.N. human rights report on the fighting in Ukraine and tell us it doesn’t sound familiar:

 

Ukraine’s military had to bear responsibility for “at least some” of the heavy loss of civilian life and for extensive damage to property resulting from the use of heavy weapons, including tanks and artillery, in densely populated areas, the report said. But armed rebels were faulted for positioning their heavy weapons in densely populated areas and for launching attacks from them, putting civilians at risk and violating international law.

 

Even the death toll, which is conservatively estimated at 2,220, is very close to the loss of life suffered in Israel’s latest war with Hamas.

Of course the conflict in Ukraine bears many dissimilarities to the one in Gaza, but there is at least one way in which they resemble each other: the reckless disregard for civilian life.

 

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/shades_of_gaza_in_ukraine_20140829#.VAFNhkHhpno.twitter

 

Both sides in the Ukraine conflict come under U.N. criticism for civilian deaths. It has become all too commonplace for armies around the world to put the responsibility on innocent bystanders to get out of the way.

 

 

 

Bombshell stuff that video, but our government just want what's best for us. Nothing to do with funding the military industrial complex.

[Strontium]

Thanks for that wonderful contribution.

 

It added to much to the discussion.

 

There's a discussion going on?

[polymerpunkah]

What I think is that Putin has already invaded and annexed part of an independent sovereign nation.

 

Now he is fomenting a civil war, killing hundreds if not thousands of innocents, in order to annex more of that nation.

 

If he believes so much in the right to self-determination, he should introduce the concept in his own country. How many people has he killed in order to prevent them exercising that right to self-determination?

 

Anyone who thinks he is some sort of freedom fighter, helping to free oppressed masses from their chains is either a fool or disingenuous.

 

And it's no answer to say "well, the west does the same thing".

 

I'm opposed to that as well, whether in Iraq, Israel, Chile, Viet Nam, Lebanon, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc.

[VladimirIlyich]

If they like Russia so much, they're more than welcome to fuck off and live there.

Absolutely brilliant post.

If you dont like whats going on in your homeland you can just fuck off somewhere else.

Shame the Palestinians dont have that option.

[Jairzinho]

Absolutely brilliant post.

If you dont like whats going on in your homeland you can just fuck off somewhere else.

Shame the Palestinians dont have that option.

 

Shame the Israelis don't take it up.

[Strontium]

Absolutely brilliant post.

If you dont like whats going on in your homeland you can just fuck off somewhere else.

Shame the Palestinians dont have that option.

 

I'm already well aware of the double standard you employ wrt Ukraine and Palestine.

 

The irony that those bits of Ukraine only contain lots of pro-Russians because the Russians deliberately settled ethnic Russians there is obviously not lost on me. Of course, we could similarly find large areas of the Palestinian territories which are overwhelmingly pro-Israel, for exactly the same reason.

 

But let's just call the double standard what it is: kneejerk anti-Americanism.

[VladimirIlyich]

I'm already well aware of the double standard you employ wrt Ukraine and Palestine.

 

The irony that those bits of Ukraine only contain lots of pro-Russians because the Russians deliberately settled ethnic Russians there is obviously not lost on me. Of course, we could similarly find large areas of the Palestinian territories which are overwhelmingly pro-Israel, for exactly the same reason.

 

But let's just call the double standard what it is: kneejerk anti-Americanism.

What double standards are they? Please explain as I dont know what you are talking about.

[Spy Bee]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/03/nato-peace-threat-ukraine-military-conflict

 

Far from keeping the peace, Nato is a threat to it

It was the prospect of Ukraine being drawn into the western military alliance that triggered conflict in the first place

 

For the west's masters of war, it's a good time to be in Wales. A military alliance that has struggled for years to explain why it still exists has got a packed agenda for its Newport summit. Nato may not be at the centre of Barack Obama and David Cameron's plans to ramp up intervention in the Middle East and wipe the so-called Islamic state "out of existence". But after 13 years of bloody occupation of Afghanistan and a calamitous intervention in Libya, the western alliance has got an enemy that at last seems to fit its bill. Swinging through the former Soviet republic of Estonia today, the US president declared that Nato was ready to defend Europe from "Russian aggression".

Nato's secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen – who insisted as Danish prime minister in 2003 that "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction … we know" – has released satellite images supposed to demonstrate Russia has invaded Ukraine. Not to be outdone, the British prime minister has compared Vladimir Putin to Hitler.

 

The summit is planning a rapid reaction force to be deployed across eastern Europe to deter Moscow. Britain is sending troops to Ukraine for exercises. In Washington, Congress hawks are squealing appeasement and demanding action to give Ukraine "a more capable fighting force to resist" Russia.

 

Any hope that today's talk of a ceasefire agreement by Ukraine's president might signal an end to the conflict was sunk when his prime minister, Arseny Yatseniuk – an American favourite in Kiev – described Russia as a "terrorist state" and, encouraged by Rasmussen, demanded that Ukraine be allowed to join Nato. It was precisely the threat that Ukraine would be drawn into a military alliance hostile to Russia, despite the opposition of most Ukrainians and its then elected government, that triggered this crisis in the first place. Instead of keeping the peace, Nato has been the cause of escalating tension and war.

 

Which is how it's been since Nato was founded in 1949, at the height of the cold war, six years before the Warsaw pact, supposedly as a defensive treaty against a Soviet threat. It's often claimed the alliance maintained peace in Europe for 40 years, when in fact there is not the slightest evidence the Soviet Union ever intended to attack.

 

After the USSR collapsed, the Warsaw Pact was duly dissolved. But Nato was not, despite having lost the ostensible reason for its existence. If peace had been the aim, it could have usefully been turned into a collective security arrangement including Russia, under the auspices of the United Nations.

Instead, it gave itself a new "out of area" mandate to wage unilateral war, from Yugoslavia to Afghanistan and Libya, as the advance guard of a US-dominated new world order. In Europe it laid the ground for war in Ukraine by breaking a US pledge to Moscow and relentlessly expanding eastwards: first into ex-Warsaw Pact states, then into the former Soviet Union itself.

 

But the "biggest prize", as the head of US-funded National Endowment for Democracy put it last year, was ethnically divided Ukraine. After the EU made its military-linked association agreement with Ukraine exclusive of a Russian deal – and Ukraine's corrupt but elected president, who refused to sign it, was overthrown in a US-backed coup by any other name – it was scarcely paranoid for Russia to see the takeover of the neighbouring state as a threat to its core interests.

Six months on, Moscow-backed eastern Ukrainian resistance to the Nato-backed nationalists in Kiev has become full-scale war. Thousands have died and human rights abuses have multiplied on both sides, as government troops and their irregular auxiliaries bombard civilian areas and abduct, detain and torture suspected separatists on a mass scale.

The Ukrainian forces backed by western governments include groupssuch as the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, whose symbol is the wartime Nazi stormtroopers' wolf's hook. The increasingly repressive Kiev regime is now attempting to ban the Ukrainian communist party, which won 13% of the vote at the last parliamentary elections.

 

But then Nato, whose members have often included fascist governments in the past, has never been too fussy about democracy. Evidence for its claims that Russian troops have invaded eastern Ukraine is also thin on the ground. Arms supplies and covert intervention in support of the Donbass rebels – including special forces and state-backed irregulars – are another matter.

 

But that's exactly what Nato powers such as the US, Britain and France have been busy doing all over the world for years, from Nicaragua to Syria and Somalia. The idea that Russia has invented a new form of "hybrid warfare" in Ukraine is bizarre.

 

That's not to say the proxy war between Nato and Russia in Ukraine isn't ugly and dangerous. But it's not necessary to have any sympathy for Putin's oligarchic authoritarianism to recognise that Nato and the EU, not Russia, sparked this crisis – and that it's the western powers that are resisting the negotiated settlement that is the only way out, for fear of appearing weak.

 

That settlement will have to include federal autonomy, equal rights for minorities and military neutrality as a minimum – in other words, no Nato. With the scale of bloodshed and the centre of political gravity in Kiev shifting to the right as Ukraine's economy implodes, only its western sponsors can make that stick. The alternative, after Crimea, is escalation and disintegration.

 

Nato likes to see itself as the international community. In reality it's an interventionist and expansionist military club of rich-world states and their satellites used to enforce western strategic and economic interests. As Ukraine shows, far from keeping the peace, Nato is a threat to it.

 

Twitter: @SeumasMilne

[Section_31]

We're building tanks again. Bet the generals are made up!