7 ms·

Anything coming from Kremlin is just noise, distraction and lies. Why bother listening when sooner or later all promises, agreements, treaties are just ignored

Anything coming from Kremlin is just noise, distraction and lies. Why bother listening when sooner or later all promises, agreements, treaties are just ignored and shat upon. Case in point, there was a humanitarian corridor and ceasefire agreed on two days. Not only was it not held, the road was mined and road was also bombed during by the russians.

sorokod 5y ago
Ukraine (and the world) can only make the price of the war unacceptable to Russia. There will be a treaty in the end. Hopefully sooner rather than latter.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Ukraine needs to do this mostly on their own [1]. If the west helps too much then in 50yr the next Russian despot will take another crack at it when they think the west won't help. [1] Barring the plausibly deniable arms shipments and clandestine training that the underdog in any sort of conflict like this gets. Nobody ever starts a war without their enemies sending aid to whoever they started it with. Anyone who's read their history already knows this.
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    Setting a precedent is bad because in a long time that precedent might not hold? That makes no sense.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      The idea of a "precedent" doesn't make any sense. Nation states don't do "precedents" when it comes to helping each other out. They do "what is good for me here and now and maybe on a future timeline I happen to care about". For democracies this timeline is short. For dictatorships and monarchies this timeline tends to be a little longer because nobody wants to leave a giant mess for their kid. Sending in green beret advisors or the FFL isn't a "precedent". And everybody knows it. It's a one off based on the political realities of the minute. The kind of political realities that lead to those sort of interventions are short lived decades long things at best. In contrast, "our country, fuck off" is a solution that will likely live as long as Ukraine maintains some sort of national identity. Nobody's invaded Afghanistan twice.
      - modo_mario 5y ago
        > Nobody's invaded Afghanistan twice. There's about 3 anglo-afghan wars and the more recent invasion and occupation involving Britain. There's earlier examples but I'm not sure if the place even fully existed as a concept back then.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        The Anglo-<pick a random group in that general area> wars are just the baggage that went with their colonization of the Indian subcontinent (including Pakistan) The idea of nation state borders didn't really work well in that part of the word in that century. In any case they sure aren't interested in wasting returning to the region. Pretty much all the other colonial powers have a similar "nope, not our problem any more" attitude toward meddling portions of their sphere or influence that they left because the locals made staying too expensive. Algeria is across the pond and the French want nothing to do with it. Contrast with Russia which is constantly poking and occasionally invading its former sphere of influence.
        ashwagary 5y ago
        >Pretty much all the other colonial powers have a similar "nope, not our problem any more" attitude >Algeria is across the pond and the French want nothing to do with it. The French are currently robbing the citizens of ~1/3 of all African countries through their central banks and they have assassinated 22 African presidents since ~1970. I don't think you are qualified to discuss this topic in any depth, most of your earlier claims are patently false. I only picked this one to tear apart due to time constaints.
      - long_time_gone 5y ago
        > Nation states don't do "precedents" when it comes to helping each other out. NATO is a nation state alliance built on mutual defense and strengthened by precedent. The precedent of defending allies is built into the NATO agreement. > For democracies this timeline is short. For dictatorships and monarchies this timeline tends to be a little longer because nobody wants to leave a giant mess for their kid. Great point on the different timelines, I have to disagree on the reason. Dictators/monarchies have a longer timeline because they tend to rule for much longer than leaders in democracies. By definition, democracies involve turning over the ideals and ideas of leadership every few years. Do you believe Putin is worried about leaving things to the daughters that he never mentions?
- drran 5y ago
  Russian Empire is known as «Prison of peoples» [0]. It's time to free peoples from the jail. RF is too big to form a proper liberal democracy. It's better to allow every nation inside RF to establish their own democracy instead, and join a union after that, when they will be ready. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_of_the_peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_of_the_peoples
  - sorokod 5y ago
    A small correction, was known. The quote is from an essay [1] by the future leader of Communist Russia - Lenin, describing the Czarist Russian empire on April, 1914. [1] Original in Russian: http://libelli.ru/works/25-5.htm http://libelli.ru/works/25-5.htm [2] Google translated: https://libelli-ru.translate.goog/works/25-5.htm?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://libelli-ru.translate.goog/works/25-5.htm?_x_tr_sch=h...
    - drran 5y ago
      Russian Federation is not created on free will, but on force. Nobody asked peoples is they want to become members of RF. IMHO, if an exit referendum will be allowed in RF (they are forbidden), then most nations will take opportunity and escape. Currently, escape is not possible. For example, Chechnya tried to escape the prison, so Russian used thousands of tons of explosives, FAE's (which is comparable to low yield nuclear weapons) to destroy independent Chechnya state, which was able to escape after first war. Russian FSB bombed their own citizens to provoke war with Chechnya.
      - sorokod 5y ago
        Chechen wars (both of them), deserve to be known more widely in the west. My comment was specific to your quote.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      I think it's worth noting that the USSR (intentionally) did a heck of a lot to negate that and build a (more or less Russian less christian influence) national identity by re-settling minority groups that didn't like them. This kind of worked, somewhat, and not for reasons they were anticipating. Turns out that forcibly resettling people doesn't make them like you but it does make them tolerate each other a little bit better because they all now have one thing in common: shared adversity under the USSR. However, in the places where it didn't work it created bigger problems. Places (Chechnya) that could have been clean breakaway republics didn't do so because they had a ethnic Russian minority holding them in and in cases where those nations did break you have the Russian group trying to lean politically into Russia and the non-Russian group leaning away and that causes its own problems (Georgia, Ukrainian breakaway provinces, etc) Russia is far more unified across ethnic lines than people give it credit for. It's not going to pull a Yugoslavia and erupt into genocide as soon as Putin croaks. That said, it's nowhere near as unified as the US (where you can basically count on any immigrant group becoming functionally "American" in 2 generations).
jansen555 5y ago
yks 5y ago
Yep, Ukraine has already been neutral before and then Russians took Crimea. And now they don’t mind committing war crimes and terrorizing civilians to achieve the annexation of Ukraine so why would they care about any new agreements. They would just wait until pro-Russian figures take over the Western governments and attack again.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  I am by no means justifying the armed Russian aggression, but Ukraine was not neutral. There was a forceful overthrow of the democratically elected government in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity and Ukraine has been forming deep military ties to the NATO states since then. This move to alignment with the West is popularly supported in Ukraine mind you, but the reaction it would elicit has been anticipated and warned about for years.
  - ianhawes 5y ago
    Democratically elected and populous forceful overthrow are the same thing. I think Russia has a point to be worried and concerned about a Ukraine in NATO or the EU, however they went about it in a terrible fashion. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Not to mention, they moved to annex Crimea and supported civil war in other parts of the country. What did Russia expect?
    - logifail 5y ago
      > Democratically elected and populous forceful overthrow are the same thing Does that also apply if the "populous forceful overthrow" is being directed by foreign powers?[0][1][2] [0] It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2014/04/16/why-cia-director-brennan-visited-kiev-in-ukraine-the-covert-war-has-begun/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2014/04/16/why-cia-... [2] How William Hague Deceived the House of Commons on Ukraine https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-morrison/ukraine-willliam-hague_b_4933177.html https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-morrison/ukraine-will...
tootie 5y ago
This press release might be true because their terms are effectively that they won't kill Zelensky if he unconditionally surrenders his country
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
You have to be aware that a war is going on, and there is propaganda from all sides. Hiding a few soldiers in an evacuation group, attacking russians from a group of civilians, and then blaming russians for shooting at those civilians is just one of many nasty war tactics. What really happened, we will probably never know.
- mickotron 5y ago
  Where's your evidence they his soldiers in evacuation groups? You can't drop that in there without backing it up.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    Where's your evidence the russians were firing on the civilians? We both have just mainstream media reporting what they want us to believe, which might or might not be true. Soldiers hiding in refugee groups is a thing that has happened before, and whatever they do, it makes the other side look bad, when they shoot back.
    - _djo_ 5y ago
      There are videos from multiple different media outlets showing ordinary civilian refugees being shelled. None are armed. Your claim makes no sense. Why would Ukraine want to hide soldiers in refugees leaving the country? Even if they did, then being unarmed and leaving means they’re not legitimate targets.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
logifail 5y ago
> Why bother listening when sooner or later all promises, agreements, treaties are just ignored and shat upon We shouldn't forget that there are a lot of places across the world where people could say exactly that about the west. Heck, there are a growing number of people[0] in the west who say that about their own leaders/governments. [0] Public Trust in Government: 1958-2021 https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust-in-government-1958-2021/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust...
- taylodl 5y ago
  Here's the key difference between the West and Russia - when people in the West peacefully protest the actions of their government they're not typically jailed. No one is arguing the West is perfect, however the West adopted something akin to the scientific method so that things can get better. Case in point - we're talking about this. Many in the West are looking at this situation and asking what would we do if the roles were reversed or what are we doing that may appear to be similar to what Russia is doing. Free countries have the freedom to improve.
  - sdfgdf 5y ago
  - _nalply 5y ago
    > Case in point - we're talking about this. Are you really sure? There are things people in the West don't talk about.
iisaev 5y ago
Why, do you think, russians may want to block these corridors? Because they're just evil (as all the western media told you)? If there were no peaceful people in Mariupol, we'll just turn it into ashes with all the Azov nazis. Don't you think it is kinda logical for Azov to just not let peaceful citizens go, because now they're like a shield for them?

sorokod 5y ago

Ukraine (and the world) can only make the price of the war unacceptable to Russia. There will be a treaty in the end. Hopefully sooner rather than latter.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Ukraine needs to do this mostly on their own [1]. If the west helps too much then in 50yr the next Russian despot will take another crack at it when they think the west won't help. [1] Barring the plausibly deniable arms shipments and clandestine training that the underdog in any sort of conflict like this gets. Nobody ever starts a war without their enemies sending aid to whoever they started it with. Anyone who's read their history already knows this.
- oneoff786 5y ago
  Setting a precedent is bad because in a long time that precedent might not hold? That makes no sense.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    The idea of a "precedent" doesn't make any sense. Nation states don't do "precedents" when it comes to helping each other out. They do "what is good for me here and now and maybe on a future timeline I happen to care about". For democracies this timeline is short. For dictatorships and monarchies this timeline tends to be a little longer because nobody wants to leave a giant mess for their kid. Sending in green beret advisors or the FFL isn't a "precedent". And everybody knows it. It's a one off based on the political realities of the minute. The kind of political realities that lead to those sort of interventions are short lived decades long things at best. In contrast, "our country, fuck off" is a solution that will likely live as long as Ukraine maintains some sort of national identity. Nobody's invaded Afghanistan twice.
    - modo_mario 5y ago
      > Nobody's invaded Afghanistan twice. There's about 3 anglo-afghan wars and the more recent invasion and occupation involving Britain. There's earlier examples but I'm not sure if the place even fully existed as a concept back then.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        The Anglo-<pick a random group in that general area> wars are just the baggage that went with their colonization of the Indian subcontinent (including Pakistan) The idea of nation state borders didn't really work well in that part of the word in that century. In any case they sure aren't interested in wasting returning to the region. Pretty much all the other colonial powers have a similar "nope, not our problem any more" attitude toward meddling portions of their sphere or influence that they left because the locals made staying too expensive. Algeria is across the pond and the French want nothing to do with it. Contrast with Russia which is constantly poking and occasionally invading its former sphere of influence.
        ashwagary 5y ago
        >Pretty much all the other colonial powers have a similar "nope, not our problem any more" attitude >Algeria is across the pond and the French want nothing to do with it. The French are currently robbing the citizens of ~1/3 of all African countries through their central banks and they have assassinated 22 African presidents since ~1970. I don't think you are qualified to discuss this topic in any depth, most of your earlier claims are patently false. I only picked this one to tear apart due to time constaints.
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      > Nation states don't do "precedents" when it comes to helping each other out. NATO is a nation state alliance built on mutual defense and strengthened by precedent. The precedent of defending allies is built into the NATO agreement. > For democracies this timeline is short. For dictatorships and monarchies this timeline tends to be a little longer because nobody wants to leave a giant mess for their kid. Great point on the different timelines, I have to disagree on the reason. Dictators/monarchies have a longer timeline because they tend to rule for much longer than leaders in democracies. By definition, democracies involve turning over the ideals and ideas of leadership every few years. Do you believe Putin is worried about leaving things to the daughters that he never mentions?
drran 5y ago
Russian Empire is known as «Prison of peoples» [0]. It's time to free peoples from the jail. RF is too big to form a proper liberal democracy. It's better to allow every nation inside RF to establish their own democracy instead, and join a union after that, when they will be ready. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_of_the_peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_of_the_peoples
- sorokod 5y ago
  A small correction, was known. The quote is from an essay [1] by the future leader of Communist Russia - Lenin, describing the Czarist Russian empire on April, 1914. [1] Original in Russian: http://libelli.ru/works/25-5.htm http://libelli.ru/works/25-5.htm [2] Google translated: https://libelli-ru.translate.goog/works/25-5.htm?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://libelli-ru.translate.goog/works/25-5.htm?_x_tr_sch=h...
  - drran 5y ago
    Russian Federation is not created on free will, but on force. Nobody asked peoples is they want to become members of RF. IMHO, if an exit referendum will be allowed in RF (they are forbidden), then most nations will take opportunity and escape. Currently, escape is not possible. For example, Chechnya tried to escape the prison, so Russian used thousands of tons of explosives, FAE's (which is comparable to low yield nuclear weapons) to destroy independent Chechnya state, which was able to escape after first war. Russian FSB bombed their own citizens to provoke war with Chechnya.
    - sorokod 5y ago
      Chechen wars (both of them), deserve to be known more widely in the west. My comment was specific to your quote.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    I think it's worth noting that the USSR (intentionally) did a heck of a lot to negate that and build a (more or less Russian less christian influence) national identity by re-settling minority groups that didn't like them. This kind of worked, somewhat, and not for reasons they were anticipating. Turns out that forcibly resettling people doesn't make them like you but it does make them tolerate each other a little bit better because they all now have one thing in common: shared adversity under the USSR. However, in the places where it didn't work it created bigger problems. Places (Chechnya) that could have been clean breakaway republics didn't do so because they had a ethnic Russian minority holding them in and in cases where those nations did break you have the Russian group trying to lean politically into Russia and the non-Russian group leaning away and that causes its own problems (Georgia, Ukrainian breakaway provinces, etc) Russia is far more unified across ethnic lines than people give it credit for. It's not going to pull a Yugoslavia and erupt into genocide as soon as Putin croaks. That said, it's nowhere near as unified as the US (where you can basically count on any immigrant group becoming functionally "American" in 2 generations).

jansen555 5y ago

yks 5y ago

Yep, Ukraine has already been neutral before and then Russians took Crimea. And now they don’t mind committing war crimes and terrorizing civilians to achieve the annexation of Ukraine so why would they care about any new agreements. They would just wait until pro-Russian figures take over the Western governments and attack again.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
I am by no means justifying the armed Russian aggression, but Ukraine was not neutral. There was a forceful overthrow of the democratically elected government in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity and Ukraine has been forming deep military ties to the NATO states since then. This move to alignment with the West is popularly supported in Ukraine mind you, but the reaction it would elicit has been anticipated and warned about for years.
- ianhawes 5y ago
  Democratically elected and populous forceful overthrow are the same thing. I think Russia has a point to be worried and concerned about a Ukraine in NATO or the EU, however they went about it in a terrible fashion. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Not to mention, they moved to annex Crimea and supported civil war in other parts of the country. What did Russia expect?
  - logifail 5y ago
    > Democratically elected and populous forceful overthrow are the same thing Does that also apply if the "populous forceful overthrow" is being directed by foreign powers?[0][1][2] [0] It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2014/04/16/why-cia-director-brennan-visited-kiev-in-ukraine-the-covert-war-has-begun/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2014/04/16/why-cia-... [2] How William Hague Deceived the House of Commons on Ukraine https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-morrison/ukraine-willliam-hague_b_4933177.html https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-morrison/ukraine-will...

tootie 5y ago

This press release might be true because their terms are effectively that they won't kill Zelensky if he unconditionally surrenders his country

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

You have to be aware that a war is going on, and there is propaganda from all sides. Hiding a few soldiers in an evacuation group, attacking russians from a group of civilians, and then blaming russians for shooting at those civilians is just one of many nasty war tactics. What really happened, we will probably never know.

mickotron 5y ago
Where's your evidence they his soldiers in evacuation groups? You can't drop that in there without backing it up.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  Where's your evidence the russians were firing on the civilians? We both have just mainstream media reporting what they want us to believe, which might or might not be true. Soldiers hiding in refugee groups is a thing that has happened before, and whatever they do, it makes the other side look bad, when they shoot back.
  - _djo_ 5y ago
    There are videos from multiple different media outlets showing ordinary civilian refugees being shelled. None are armed. Your claim makes no sense. Why would Ukraine want to hide soldiers in refugees leaving the country? Even if they did, then being unarmed and leaving means they’re not legitimate targets.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

logifail 5y ago

> Why bother listening when sooner or later all promises, agreements, treaties are just ignored and shat upon We shouldn't forget that there are a lot of places across the world where people could say exactly that about the west. Heck, there are a growing number of people[0] in the west who say that about their own leaders/governments. [0] Public Trust in Government: 1958-2021 https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust-in-government-1958-2021/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust...

taylodl 5y ago
Here's the key difference between the West and Russia - when people in the West peacefully protest the actions of their government they're not typically jailed. No one is arguing the West is perfect, however the West adopted something akin to the scientific method so that things can get better. Case in point - we're talking about this. Many in the West are looking at this situation and asking what would we do if the roles were reversed or what are we doing that may appear to be similar to what Russia is doing. Free countries have the freedom to improve.
- sdfgdf 5y ago
- _nalply 5y ago
  > Case in point - we're talking about this. Are you really sure? There are things people in the West don't talk about.

iisaev 5y ago

Why, do you think, russians may want to block these corridors? Because they're just evil (as all the western media told you)? If there were no peaceful people in Mariupol, we'll just turn it into ashes with all the Azov nazis. Don't you think it is kinda logical for Azov to just not let peaceful citizens go, because now they're like a shield for them?