• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the War in Ukraine about?

What is the War in Ukraine about?


  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
For one thing, at least you are calling it what it is, unlike Monte. And two, sort of hard to have a fair vote when you have Russian troops patrolling the streets don't you think? Or maybe you still think 100% of Iraqis really wanted Saddam in power...

It was annexation by referendum, never denied that. What I denied was your assertion, and that of others, that Russia is the aggressor. Russia IS NOT the aggressor, but responding to US intrigue in Ukraine. That's always been my position, and remains so. Stop misrepresenting it.
 
For one thing, at least you are calling it what it is, unlike Monte. And two, sort of hard to have a fair vote when you have Russian troops patrolling the streets don't you think? Or maybe you still think 100% of Iraqis really wanted Saddam in power...

As regards Saddam, I think 100% of the Bush's didn't want him in power. He had a stable cosmopolitan Country and, something easy to see in retrospect, he was the type of leader that could function in the ethno-politics of the Region. You'll never hear me call him a good guy, but you'll never hear me call Bush a good guy, either. Big Corporate wants Ukraine and we represent big Corporate a/k/a, the New World Order. Leadership by those new legal persons, the Corporations, via Citizens United.
 
It was annexation by referendum, never denied that. What I denied was your assertion, and that of others, that Russia is the aggressor. Russia IS NOT the aggressor, but responding to US intrigue in Ukraine. That's always been my position, and remains so. Stop misrepresenting it.
Do you consider militarily occupying part of a country without that country's consent to be an act of aggression?
 
This represents but a fraction of the examples that could be provided.

The 1954 Guatemalan coup d’état (18–27 June 1954) was a covert operation carried out by the United States Central Intelligence Agency that deposed President Jacobo Árbenz and installed a military regime in his place. The coup was codenamed "Operation PBSUCCESS."

Guatemala had been ruled since 1930 by the dictator General Jorge Ubico, supported by the United States government. His regime was one of the most brutally repressive military juntas in the history of Central America. In return for U.S. support he gave hundreds of thousands of hectares of highly fertile land to the American United Fruit Company (UFCO), as well as allowing the U.S. military to establish bases in Guatemala.[1][2][3][4][5] In 1944, Ubico's repressive policies resulted in a large popular revolt against him, led by students, intellectuals, and a progressive faction of the military. In what was later called the "October Revolution", Ubico was overthrown, resulting in Guatemala's first democratic election.[6]
Prior to the Russian Revolution, support for dictators was often based on furthering American economic and political priorities, such as opening foreign markets to American manufacturers.

1954 Guatemalan coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States has been involved in and assisted in the overthrow of foreign governments (more recently termed "regime change") without the overt use of U.S. military force. Often, such operations are tasked to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Regime change has been attempted through direct involvement of U.S. operatives, the funding and training of insurgency groups within these countries, anti-regime propaganda campaigns, coups d'état, and other activities usually conducted as operations by the CIA. The United States has also accomplished regime change by direct military action, such as following the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 and the U.S.-led military invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Some argue that non-transparent United States government agencies working in secret sometimes mislead or do not fully implement the decisions of elected civilian leaders and that this has been an important component of many such operations,[1] see plausible deniability. Some contend that the U.S. has supported more coups against democracies that it perceived as communist, becoming communist, or pro-communist.[1]

The U.S. has also covertly supported opposition groups in various countries without necessarily attempting to overthrow the government. For example, the CIA funded anti-communist political parties in countries such as Italy and Chile; it also armed Kurdish rebels fighting the Ba'athist government of Iraq in the Second Kurdish-Iraqi War prior to the Algiers Agreement.

Covert United States foreign regime change actions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks. I think it goes much further back tho.
 
You agree with a white pride website's take on what they see as a Jewish conspiracy?

Sorry about the source. I really did not notice it. It came up as a result of a search on Victoria Nuland. That said, is there anything inaccurate about the article that I posted? It appeared to be sound to me.
 
Sorry about the source. I really did not notice it. It came up as a result of a search on Victoria Nuland. That said, is there anything inaccurate about the article that I posted? It appeared to be sound to me.

Do you not understand what they mean by "family power ties?" They're asserting a Jewish cabal is engineering US foreign policy. What do you think "Our Permanent Government" is?
 
Big Oil and Big Profits as part of Russian Imperialism. The "ethnic" Russian speakers are just an excuse for Putin. It is also a part of the Russian Imperialism in that Russia wanted the Crimea and now they need a land bridge to protect that port which is the ONLY warm water port Russia has. Putin wants Russia to regain it's territory that was either given away or lost by the Czars and the Soviet Union. That's part of why you heard Putin refer to Novorussiya (New Russia) the other day.

This has a lot more to do with Imperialism and less to do with corporate profits, no matter what the anti-capitalists and conspiracy theorists believe. In Russia, the corporations are still pretty much the financial pipeline for the government.

More territory, more resources, more profits, more government, more military which can garner more territory. And thus the cycle continues. Imperialism...

This is the first time since WWII that one country seized part of another country by force. It started in the Crimea, has moved to the eastern provinces of the Ukraine, and next will be parts or the Balkans and parts of the Baltic states. If the latter happens, NATO will get involved. As for the Ukraine - Obama told them in his Estonia speech, that they are on their own, when he said that the Ukraine has no military answer. Ukraine is now Novorussiya - as Putin just declared.



It actually has all to do with imperialism..but not just that of Russia.

Since the end of the Soviet era, [and before of course] Ukraine, unlike Belarus, Poland etc., remained by choice in the Russian sphere of influence. It stayed that way with NATO now and then probing to see if there was support to extend their influence right up to Russia's border and deny Putin the Black Sea port of Crimea.
During the height of Bush's popularity there were reports trickling in here that the US was pressing Kiev.
Then, at a G-8 summit around 2005, Putin warned Bush publicly that he would "tear her apart" should the US try meddling in the Ukraine. Bush backed off.
Then, somewhere in the Obama administration, they started instigating unrest over alleged corruption in the duly elected government, unrest that become violent with protesters making walls of ice to barricade themselves.

That fifth column work by the CIA has been documented in a recording of a telephone conversation and led to the ouster of the elected government.
As soon as Putin was finished in Sochi, where he failed his nation in winning hockey gold to Canada [DO NOT underestimate the importance of that] Putin virtually invaded the Crimea and took it back and is now in the process of pulling off the largest land grab in eastern Europe since 1939 Poland....with impunity.

There is some oil there, some food too...but Ukraine is a very poor region. Economics are hard to justify, 'because he can" is more likely the real reason form Putin.
 
Do you not understand what they mean by "family power ties?" They're asserting a Jewish cabal is engineering US foreign policy. What do you think "Our Permanent Government" is?

I don't think the word "cabal" was used. However the article did say:

Intertwined Jewish power families are an important aspect of Jewish history, cementing business relationships by creating networks of close relatives who married only among themselves—e.g., the Court Jews of 17th- and 18th-century Europe. We see echoes of that in the contemporary world, as among the neocons.

I honestly don't think that is inaccurate. What about that assertion do you dispute?
 
Do you consider militarily occupying part of a country without that country's consent to be an act of aggression?

That's a dangerous question Mad, shall I list out for you the number of countries the US has occupied without "consent"??
 
Thanks. I think it goes much further back tho.

Well sure it does, that's why I said, its but a fraction of the examples that could be presented.
 
Sorry about the source. I really did not notice it. It came up as a result of a search on Victoria Nuland. That said, is there anything inaccurate about the article that I posted? It appeared to be sound to me.

There IS a powerful Jewish lobby in the US that has great influence on our policies, but they don't control everything. And considering the Nazi influence in the new Kiev government, I doubt Mrs. Nuland's Jewishness has anything to do with anything.
 
That's a dangerous question Mad, shall I list out for you the number of countries the US has occupied without "consent"??

I'll happily concede that Iraq, Grenada, Kosovo, and Vietnam were wars of aggression. If you believe that countries have no right to interfere in the affairs of other countries, as seems to be your position as regards the US, then what Russia has done is unquestionably an act of aggression.
 
I'll happily concede that Iraq, Grenada, Kosovo, and Vietnam were wars of aggression. If you believe that countries have no right to interfere in the affairs of other countries, as seems to be your position as regards the US, then what Russia has done is unquestionably an act of aggression.

What a truncated list! And no, in THIS case Russia is responding to Western aggression in Ukraine. As was Russian and Chinese response at the UN level over Syria.
 
I don't think the word "cabal" was used.
Not directly, but if you don't see that's what they were implying, I'd gloss over it again.

However the article did say:



I honestly don't think that is inaccurate. What about that assertion do you dispute?

Nothing, really. People in similar positions of power and with similar viewpoints tend to associate with each other. It has almost no meaning to me whatsoever.
 
What a truncated list! And no, in THIS case Russia is responding to Western aggression in Ukraine. As was Russian and Chinese response at the UN level over Syria.

Ha, well, I couldn't really fit all the Indian wars on there, could I?

What happened in Ukraine had nothing to do with Western intrigue, and Moscow knows this very well. Most powers respond to an illegitimate coup within their local sphere of influence by direct regime change - Grenada and Clinton's intervention in Haiti are good examples. But Yanukovych was hated by everyone, and his ousting was supported by at least around half the country. Armed thugs didn't run in and chuck him out of office, like they did in Crimea and Donbass; Parliament had slightly less than the needed majority to kick him out of office, and so he ran away. There was no coup and therefore no act of Western aggression that justified Russian expansionism.
 
Ha, well, I couldn't really fit all the Indian wars on there, could I?

What happened in Ukraine had nothing to do with Western intrigue, and Moscow knows this very well. Most powers respond to an illegitimate coup within their local sphere of influence by direct regime change - Grenada and Clinton's intervention in Haiti are good examples. But Yanukovych was hated by everyone, and his ousting was supported by at least around half the country. Armed thugs didn't run in and chuck him out of office, like they did in Crimea and Donbass; Parliament had slightly less than the needed majority to kick him out of office, and so he ran away. There was no coup and therefore no act of Western aggression that justified Russian expansionism.

The Indian wars weren't the end of it either. No aggression on the part of Russia, not in regards to Ukraine, none whatsoever.

The Worldwide control of humanity’s economic, social and political activities is under the helm of US corporate and military power. Underlying this process are various schemes of direct and indirect military intervention. These US sponsored strategies ultimately consist in a process of global subordination.

Where is the Threat?

The 2000 Global Report published in 1980 had outlined “the State of the World” by focusing on so-called “level of threats” which might negatively influence or undermine US interests.

Twenty years later, US strategists, in an attempt to justify their military interventions in different parts of the World, have conceptualized the greatest fraud in US history, namely “the Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT). The latter, using a fabricated pretext constitutes a global war against all those who oppose US hegemony. A modern form of slavery, instrumented through militarization and the “free market” has unfolded.
 
Last edited:
But Yanukovych was hated by everyone, and his ousting was supported by at least around half the country.
Yanukovych wasn't hated by everyone in a political sense, but he was indeed hated by almost everyone for his insatiable corruption.
 
Simpleχity;1063754574 said:
Yanukovych wasn't hated by everyone in a political sense, but he was indeed hated by almost everyone for his insatiable corruption.

There was a 50/50 split. Hardly justification for the coup. And there were not a million people in Maiden square, of a country with 45 million citizens. Self determination is supported by the US ONLY when the results favor US business interests.
 
The Indian wars weren't the end of it either. No aggression on the part of Russia, not in regards to Ukraine, none whatsoever.

Alright, let me ask you a hypothetical question.

Let's say that the current President of Mexico was extremely corrupt. He had been voted into office on order to integrate economically with Venezuela and Cuba, but he reneged on his promises due to American bribes and instead expanded NAFTA. When almost half of the country opposes this policy, and hundreds of thousands of Mexicans protest peacefully in the capital, he deploys snipers and militarized police to quell the protests, and institutes laws restricting free speech and association. The situation becomes so bad that even his own party abandons him and he's removed by the Mexican Congress with less than the required vote. After granting this man asylum, the US then invades Yucatan (using a BS referendum to justify it) and funds cartels and militias to destabilize Ukraine.

Would you consider the US' actions to be aggressive?
 
There was a 50/50 split. Hardly justification for the coup. And there were not a million people in Maiden square, of a country with 45 million citizens. Self determination is supported by the US ONLY when the results favor US business interests.
Spent a number of years living in Ukraine. Was there just recently. A vast and largely beautiful country. Quite addictive.
 
Simpleχity;1063755361 said:
Spent a number of years living in Ukraine. Was there just recently. A vast and largely beautiful country. Quite addictive.

Interesting, thanks for sharing that!
 
Alright, let me ask you a hypothetical question.

Let's say that the current President of Mexico was extremely corrupt. He had been voted into office on order to integrate economically with Venezuela and Cuba, but he reneged on his promises due to American bribes and instead expanded NAFTA. When almost half of the country opposes this policy, and hundreds of thousands of Mexicans protest peacefully in the capital, he deploys snipers and militarized police to quell the protests, and institutes laws restricting free speech and association. The situation becomes so bad that even his own party abandons him and he's removed by the Mexican Congress with less than the required vote. After granting this man asylum, the US then invades Yucatan (using a BS referendum to justify it) and funds cartels and militias to destabilize Ukraine.

Would you consider the US' actions to be aggressive?



That's a completely invalid comparison and wrong on so many levels....

You failed to mention the example government was duly elected. You fail, like most Americans, to mention the corruption is "alleged" and unproven in any court of law. You failed to mention that he took extreme measures AFTER CIA backed unrest had become an issue. You fail to mention that no one asked for the CIA involvement.

You fail to mention that more than half the population of the sample country identify as Russian and that the CIA engaged in filth column activities contrary to a host of treaties. And you fail to mention the CIA ramped this up during the Olympics when they thought their scary boogie man Putin wasn't looking.

In Russia, they compare this to Canada, where corruption is alleged by Russia, used as an excuse to instigate unrest and drive out the duly elected government in favor of a pro-Russian puppet, like so much American "regime change".

The US would not hesitate to send tanks into Canada in that situation.

You all forget Ukraine and Crimea where signatories to various eastern bloc treaties, just like Canada is a member of NATO, NAFTA etc. The US tried to change that and failed.
 
That's a completely invalid comparison and wrong on so many levels....

You failed to mention the example government was duly elected. You fail, like most Americans, to mention the corruption is "alleged" and unproven in any court of law. You failed to mention that he took extreme measures AFTER CIA backed unrest had become an issue. You fail to mention that no one asked for the CIA involvement.

You fail to mention that more than half the population of the sample country identify as Russian and that the CIA engaged in filth column activities contrary to a host of treaties. And you fail to mention the CIA ramped this up during the Olympics when they thought their scary boogie man Putin wasn't looking.

In Russia, they compare this to Canada, where corruption is alleged by Russia, used as an excuse to instigate unrest and drive out the duly elected government in favor of a pro-Russian puppet, like so much American "regime change".

The US would not hesitate to send tanks into Canada in that situation.

You all forget Ukraine and Crimea where signatories to various eastern bloc treaties, just like Canada is a member of NATO, NAFTA etc. The US tried to change that and failed.

1. You forget that there is not one shred of evidence of CIA involvement in Ukraine.

2. You forget that a leader doesn't need to actually be convicted in a court of law to be driven out of office.

3. You forget that nothing that occurs in Ukrainian internal politics serves as justification for the de facto conquest of internationally recognized Ukrainian territory.

4. You forget that actual coup governments tend to be overthrown by the regional hegemon, a la Grenada. If this was actually a coup rather than a revolution, Russia would most likely have intervened directly rather than forcibly annexing Crimea and funding insurgents in Donbass.
 
Back
Top Bottom