*** Official Putin Started Shootin' Thread ***

[OngBonga]

The whole problem here is the media has convinced people like Ong and a lot of others that it's France's responsibility to deal with our immigration issues.

They are in France! Anyone in France is the responsibility of France.

[OngBonga]

Poop seems to think that all a refugee needs to do is state their desired country, anywhere in the world, and that makes them the responsibility of that country. That is ludicrous.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't think poop ever said anything hinting at that.

At least he understands the law vis-a-vis asylum seekers more than most.

[Poopadoop]

People who want a better life in another country are not refugees. People who are fleeing for their lives are refugees.

My point was you keep bringing up economic migrants as if they're relevant to a discussion about refugees. They're not.

[Poopadoop]

They are in France! Anyone in France is the responsibility of France.

France is not mistreating them while they're in France afaik. They're being fed and housed.

[OngBonga]

I don't think poop ever said anything hinting at that.

Then why are non-British people in France the responsibility of the UK? Because they want to come here? That's my point. You don't just say "I'm a refugee and I want to go to the UK" and that makes that the UK's problem. But that's what poop appears to be suggesting is what should be happening, because he thinks we should be picking these people up from Calais, as though it's our problem and not France's.

They are in France. They are not British. The only thing that makes this relevant to the UK is that they want to come here.

What is poop saying if it's not that?

[OngBonga]

France is not mistreating them while they're in France afaik. They're being fed and housed.

Is that so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais_Jungle

[OngBonga]

And yes it was "was" and not "is"... that camp might not be anywhere near as large, but Calais is still a hotbed of migrants camps. Ukrainians turning up there are discovering this.

[OngBonga]

France is not mistreating them while they're in France afaik. They're being fed and housed.

Oh, and letting people sail off into the sunset on a boat not fit for the sea because you'd rather they fuck off to another country is mistreating them.

[Poopadoop]

Poop seems to think that all a refugee needs to do is state their desired country, anywhere in the world, and that makes them the responsibility of that country. That is ludicrous.

Et tu et bananas?

Let's put it a different way. Let's say a refugee comes from Syria and is currently in the UK. They've passed through a number of countries along the way, and their stated final destination is the USA where they claim to have family. Now they're in a refugee hostel in Bristol or Plymouth or wherever. What are the UK's responsibilities here?

I think we can agree that giving them food and shelter is on us while they're here, so no arguments about that.

But, do you also think the UK is responsible for determining whether this refugee's application for asylum will be approved by the USA before allowing them to leave the UK for the USA? Or is that for the USA to determine? And if we don't have a responsibility to determine if they're ok to leave the UK for the USA, who are we to decide how they choose to get there?

Do we make a law whereby they aren't allowed to leave for the USA until they can show a valid plane ticket or oceanliner ticket, as opposed to a leaky rowboat? And if so, how do we enforce it? By imprisoning them until they meet our criterion for leaving, iow by going against their human rights by falsely imprisoning them?

[OngBonga]

My point was you keep bringing up economic migrants as if they're relevant to a discussion about refugees. They're not.

Well if we're being pedantic about this, anyone in France is no longer a refugee, they are an economic migrant if they want to move on from France to the UK.

A refugee flees their country to a safe country. Once they are in a safe country, they are the responsibility of that country. France might be able to argue that they are Italy's problem and not France's, but it's got fuck all to do with the UK until they get here.

[Poopadoop]

Is that so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calais_Jungle

Reductio whatabismo. The topic here is how the UK is behaving towards refugees. If anything, the French treating them badly should make us more willing to help them, not less.

[Poopadoop]

Well if we're being pedantic about this, anyone in France is no longer a refugee, they are an economic migrant if they want to move on from France to the UK.

A refugee flees their country to a safe country. Once they are in a safe country, they are the responsibility of that country. France might be able to argue that they are Italy's problem and not France's, but it's got fuck all to do with the UK until they get here.

There's no law saying they have to stop in the first safe country they get to though. You want France to stop them from coming to the UK. It's neither their responsibility to do so, nor is it legal for them to do so according to intn'l law.

[OngBonga]

Now they're in a refugee hostel in Bristol or Plymouth or wherever. What are the UK's responsibilities here?

The same as any other asylum seeker in the country. Make sure they are safe, assist them with their application to go to USA, and if USA reject their application, it's the UK's problem. We can either deport them back to the country they arrived from, or take them in. Depends on their circumstances and the law.

I think we can agree that giving them food and shelter is on us while they're here, so no arguments about that.

Indeed, and we do provide food and shelter for refugees and migrants. Not a problem.

But, do you also think the UK is responsible for determining whether this refugee's application for asylum will be approved by the USA before allowing them to leave the UK for the USA?

Yes. We should not send them to USA without the USA approving of it.

who are we to decide how they choose to get there?

You understand we are obligated to feed and shelter them, yet to fail to recognise our obligation to ensure their safety. We should most certainly stop them from getting in a kayak and leaving the Cornish coast for the Atlantic. Do you think we should do nothing about that if it were happening?

And if so, how do we enforce it?

We patrol the waters, assuming there is a problem with people trying to leave the country like this. We have to do something, right? We can't do nothing. That is highly irresponsible.

[OngBonga]

There's no law saying they have to stop in the first safe country they get to though.

Are you sure about that? I suspect their refugee status changes when they reach their first safe country. I think international law states that refugees are the responsibility of the first safe country they arrive in. Prove me wrong, I can't be arsed to dig.

[Poopadoop]

Then why are non-British people in France the responsibility of the UK? Because they want to come here? That's my point. You don't just say "I'm a refugee and I want to go to the UK" and that makes that the UK's problem. But that's what poop appears to be suggesting is what should be happening, because he thinks we should be picking these people up from Calais, as though it's our problem and not France's.

They are in France. They are not British. The only thing that makes this relevant to the UK is that they want to come here.

What is poop saying if it's not that?

I'm saying helping them get here is a lot better than letting them sit forever in Calais, or riding in a dinghy to get here. Your answer seems to be that France should both a) feed and house them indefinitely; and b) Keep them from trying to get here when it's here that they want to go to.

[Poopadoop]

Are you sure about that? I suspect their refugee status changes when they reach their first safe country. I think international law states that refugees are the responsibility of the first safe country they arrive in. Prove me wrong, I can't be arsed to dig.

Yes I'm sure. I just read it today, and I've seen it before as well. I'm sure you can use your google machine just as well as I can.

[OngBonga]

I'm saying helping them get here is a lot better than letting them sit forever in Calais

I agree. Not by ferrying them undocumented though. Rather, by having an immigration office in France to assist them, and those who are approved we do ferry in safely.

Your answer seems to be that France should both a) feed and house them indefinitely; and b) Keep them from trying to get here when it's here that they want to go to.

a) certainly. We just agreed that the UK has a responsibility to feed and house migrants in the UK. That should remain the case as long as they are in the UK and not supporting themselves.

b) partly, France should only stop them putting themselves at serious risk of harm. Of course France need to also enforce normal border controls at ports and tunnel train stations, for their own national security and ours, just like we check who's leaving our country for France.

[Poopadoop]

The same as any other asylum seeker in the country. Make sure they are safe, assist them with their application to go to USA, and if USA reject their application, it's the UK's problem.

They can't apply for asylum in the USA until they are physically in the USA. How are we supposed to assist them with an application here?

Yes. We should not send them to USA without the USA approving of it.

They're not cattle, they're people. If they chose to go to the USA, that's not the same as us "sending" them.

We should most certainly stop them from getting in a kayak and leaving the Cornish coast for the Atlantic. Do you think we should do nothing about that if it were happening?

What if there's a large number of them trying to do it all the time? What if they're setting off in the middle of the night? Should we turn our beaches into an armed camp to stop them, or is it enough that we just stop the ones we can catch?

We patrol the waters, assuming there is a problem with people trying to leave the country like this. We have to do something, right? We can't do nothing. That is highly irresponsible.

Is patrolling the waters going to stop 100% of them from getting out to sea?

And btw, do you think France just emptied the English channel of any French ships? Or do you think that they patrol it, but if they see a dinghy crossing they wave it through?

[Poopadoop]

Of course France need to also enforce normal border controls at ports and tunnel train stations, for their own national security and ours, just like we check who's leaving our country for France.

Pretty sure they're doing this already.

[Poopadoop]

I agree. Not by ferrying them undocumented though. Rather, by having an immigration office in France to assist them, and those who are approved we do ferry in safely.

I guess I'll just keep saying this until it sinks in, or you go find it out for yourself.

They cannot apply for asylum in the UK until they're physically in the UK. You cannot therefore decide on their UK asylum status while they're in another country. So having a UK offiical in Calais checking asylum seekers' documents is pointless (and probably illegal).

[OngBonga]

https://fullfact.org/immigration/ref...-safe-country/

Not sure this is proof, but this is what I'm reading.

Refugees are not obligated to apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter. However, the UK is not obligated to consider asylum application even if they are in the UK.

That said, there is some UK domestic law which allows the government to refuse to consider an asylum application if it is judged that the person could have claimed asylum elsewhere.

Also

Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

Article 31 doesn't apply because they are not fleeing for their lives or freedom from France.

And none of this article deals with the problem of boats arriving at the English coast.

Those that succeed in getting here like this, well they're here, we have to take care of them, but we should be discouraging this method of arrival because it's extremely dangerous and unnecessary. There are better ways to apply for asylum in the UK.

[Poopadoop]

assist them with their application to go to USA, and if USA reject their application, it's the UK's problem.

Can you see why this perfectly illustrates why the law is that people have to be physically in the country they're seeking asylum in before they can apply for asylum?

[OngBonga]

They can't apply for asylum in the USA until they are physically in the USA.

Sure they can. I've just read an article that makes it clear people can apply for asylum for the UK from outside of the UK.

If they chose to go to the USA, that's not the same as us "sending" them.

By "send" I mean "transport". No need to be nitpicky.

What if there's a large number of them trying to do it all the time? What if they're setting off in the middle of the night? Should we turn our beaches into an armed camp to stop them, or is it enough that we just stop the ones we can catch?

What do you think we should do? Fuck all? Just leave them to it? Have a nice cup of tea and watch?

Is patrolling the waters going to stop 100% of them from getting out to sea?

No.

And btw, do you think France just emptied the English channel of any French ships? Or do you think that they patrol it, but if they see a dinghy crossing they wave it through?

The Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. It's not the Atlantic Ocean. They should monitor their coats.

Can they stop everything? No. But they should be doing everything they can to stop as many as possible.

[OngBonga]

I guess I'll just keep saying this until it sinks in, or you go find it out for yourself.

They cannot apply for asylum in the UK until they're physically in the UK. You cannot therefore decide on their UK asylum status while they're in another country. So having a UK offiical in Calais checking asylum seekers' documents is pointless (and probably illegal).

I think you're wrong. UK law states that we can refuse asylum if it can be shown they could have applied from another country. Why would UK law say this if it's not possible for asylum to be applied for in another country?

[OngBonga]

Can you see why this perfectly illustrates why the law is that people have to be physically in the country they're seeking asylum in before they can apply for asylum?

But they don't have to be. You're going to have to show me some actual law instead of just saying it over and over again.

What I just read directly contradicts you. Now what I read is an article, not law, so maybe you're right, but you're word isn't as good as that article I just read. Link above in previous post.

[Poopadoop]

https://fullfact.org/immigration/ref...-safe-country/

Not sure this is proof, but this is what I'm reading.

Refugees are not obligated to apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter. However, the UK is not obligated to consider asylum application even if they are in the UK.



Also



Article 31 doesn't apply because they are not fleeing for their lives or freedom from France.

And none of this article deals with the problem of boats arriving at the English coast.

Those that succeed in getting here like this, well they're here, we have to take care of them, but we should be discouraging this method of arrival because it's extremely dangerous and unnecessary. There are better ways to apply for asylum in the UK.

You left off the bit after your second quotation there:

A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK.

However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere.

This means people can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries. Once in the UK it is then up to the authorities to review that application.

Also, you don't know if Article 31 applies or not because you can't know that they are safe where they are. That's what the asylum application process is for.

[OngBonga]

I might be just reading it in the wrong context.

[OngBonga]

Also, you don't know if Article 31 applies or not because you can't know that they are safe where they are.

Of course you can. This refers to the country they are coming from, not if some random guy just tried to rob them.

France is a safe country. Some people still get robbed there.

[Poopadoop]

But they don't have to be. You're going to have to show me some actual law instead of just saying it over and over again.

What I just read directly contradicts you. Now what I read is an article, not law, so maybe you're right, but you're word isn't as good as that article I just read. Link above in previous post.

Reductivo passivo-aggresso

Google: Do you need to physically be in the UK to seek asylum in the UK?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Do+y..._AUoAHoECAEQAA

[Poopadoop]

Of course you can. This refers to the country they are coming from, not if some random guy just tried to rob them.

France is a safe country. Some people still get robbed there.

From the same article you quoted above:

For example, the European Court of Human Rights has previously found an EU country (Greece) to pose a risk to an Afghan refugee, therefore upholding the refugee’s right to seek asylum elsewhere (Belgium).

[OngBonga]

Reductivo passivo-aggresso

Google: Do you need to physically be in the UK to seek asylum in the UK?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Do+y..._AUoAHoECAEQAA

Ok you're right.

This is the root of the problem. This needs to change. By not allowing people to apply for asylum in the UK from another country, this encourages people to make a highly dangerous sea crossing.

We have to try and stop this from happening, you surely agree with me on that much, right?

[OngBonga]

Going back to your previous comment about just going to Calais to pick them up... this is a ludicrous solution that does not solve the problem. More people just come to Calais and demand the UK comes to collect them. Why should the UK do this?

[OngBonga]

The solution seems to me to change the law.

[MadMojoMonkey]

[...]if it is judged that the person could have claimed asylum elsewhere.

I didn't read that to imply that they could have applied for asylum in the UK from elsewhere.
Only that they could have claimed asylum somewhere else that is not the UK.

*shrug*

[Poopadoop]

Going back to your previous comment about just going to Calais to pick them up... this is a ludicrous solution that does not solve the problem. More people just come to Calais and demand the UK comes to collect them. Why should the UK do this?

You're right, treating refugees humanely will only encourage more to come. It would solve the dinghy problem though.

The solution seems to me to change the law.

That's going to be a bit tricky I think. It's an international agreement that's been around a long time.

[OngBonga]

[...]if it is judged that the person could have claimed asylum elsewhere.

I didn't read that to imply that they could have applied for asylum in the UK from elsewhere.
Only that they could have claimed asylum somewhere else that is not the UK.

*shrug*

I was speed reading, but yeah this is where I lost context.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Going back to your previous comment about just going to Calais to pick them up... this is a ludicrous solution that does not solve the problem. More people just come to Calais and demand the UK comes to collect them. Why should the UK do this?

I mean...

Because the UK is awesome?

Because those people you're picking up want to be UK citizens and contribute to UK society and culture more than a shitload of actual people born and living in the UK? They got their pick of the EU for countries to seek asylum and they picked yours. They fucking like you. They want to be you.

Because they know the value of their freedom and the cost of said freedom, and will be patriotic and grateful to the UK for helping them in their darkest hour?

Because it's hugely economically +EV to have an influx of workers who will accept lower than average wages for the mere opportunity to do honest work and thank the nation that saved them?


IDK.

Pick one.

Immigration is such a massive net + to economics that arguments against need to be considered against that.
There's always pros and cons. Good and bad. From every national policy. There will always be unintended consequences and people who the system abandons.

Focusing only on the short-term negative consequences in ignorance of the long-term positive consequences seems like not the best adulting, IMO.

[OngBonga]

That's going to be a bit tricky I think. It's an international agreement that's been around a long time.

yeah I wondered if it was international law rather than British law.

Surely you see that this is the problem though?

You're right, treating refugees humanely will only encourage more to come. It would solve the dinghy problem though.

Temporarily. How long can this go on for? How many people can the UK bring like this? This is an open border policy, just to stop people from taking ludicrous risks coming to the UK from a safe country. It would be an ever increasing flow of people, until one day we say "enough" and we're back to square one.

If I threaten to swim to USA< should they come and collect me?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I was speed reading, but yeah this is where I lost context.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If I threaten to swim to USA< should they come and collect me?

You know I'd come get you, honey bee.

[OngBonga]

I mean...

Because the UK is awesome?

Because those people you're picking up want to be UK citizens and contribute to UK society and culture more than a shitload of actual people born and living in the UK? They got their pick of the EU for countries to seek asylum and they picked yours. They fucking like you. They want to be you.

Because they know the value of their freedom and the cost of said freedom, and will be patriotic and grateful to the UK for helping them in their darkest hour?

Because it's hugely economically +EV to have an influx of workers who will accept lower than average wages for the mere opportunity to do honest work and thank the nation that saved them?


IDK.

Pick one.

Immigration is such a massive net + to economics that arguments against need to be considered against that.
There's always pros and cons. Good and bad. From every national policy. There will always be unintended consequences and people who the system abandons.

Focusing only on the short-term negative consequences in ignorance of the long-term positive consequences seems like not the best adulting, IMO.

I'm not anti-immigration. I oppose open border immigration. I understand the benefits of immigration. But it has to be controlled, because we have to adapt our services like education and health. We also have to remember the UK is more densely populated than most of Europe, so our capacity to accept immigrants is not as high as other countries.

We have to have control. What poop is suggesting is giving up that control.

[OngBonga]

You know I'd come get you, honey bee.

x

[OngBonga]

I mean, we could just go and collect everyone from Calais, take them to a secure location in England, process their applications, and then deport those who fail back to France. That would solve the problem. It would require France's cooperation though.

[OngBonga]

And it wouldn't solve the problem indefinitely, because these secure processing centres would quickly fill up. So it would likely result in a bottleneck in Calais.

[Poopadoop]

yeah I wondered if it was international law rather than British law.

Surely you see that this is the problem though?

I guess it's a problem if you don't want to help refugees yeah.

I think the idea of being physically in the country you're applying for asylum is to keep countries from setting up an embassy in a country neighboring the refugee country, insisting applications come through there, and then the neighboring country having to look after the refugees while the target country processes their applications, which they could arguably then delay indefinitely.

This is an open border policy, just to stop people from taking ludicrous risks coming to the UK from a safe country. It would be an ever increasing flow of people, until one day we say "enough" and we're back to square one.

It's not open-border, that implies you approve all the applications. No-one is suggesting that, it's just about giving the opportunity to apply.

You don't know it would be ever-increasing. All you know is it would be more than we're taking now. There's not an infinite number of people trying to get into the UK.

If I threaten to swim to USA< should they come and collect me?

That's up to them really. If we're talking about a 2 hour ferry ride, that's different to me than a cross-ocean ride.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not anti-immigration. I oppose open border immigration. I understand the benefits of immigration. But it has to be controlled, because we have to adapt our services like education and health. We also have to remember the UK is more densely populated than most of Europe, so our capacity to accept immigrants is not as high as other countries.

We have to have control. What poop is suggesting is giving up that control.

lol, we're not "full," we have shortages of manual farm labour, hospitality workers, etc.. Ignoring the humanitarian aspect of it, if ever there was a time for letting a lot of young immigrants in, it's now.

[oskar]

Moscow now reporting 500 dead soldiers makes me believe the Ukrainian number of 2000 russians dead was lowballing it.

[OngBonga]

https://twitter.com/PatrykJaki/statu...46080104775680

Just Poland being outraged with the EU. They accuse the EU of funding Putin's war (Euro 600 a day), while sanctioning Poland for not accepting enough "refugees", which of course actually means migrants in "humiliating camps". Meanwhile, Poland of course bears the brunt of the refugee flow from Ukraine, and isn't complaining about it. Yet the EU still sanction them.

[OngBonga]

What a fucking gang. Hard to decide which one is the most corrupt bastard here.

I believe this is, left to right...
Bono, Tony Blair, Putin, Bob Geldof.



Bono is probably the least tedious wanker here, and that really is saying something.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Bono is probably the least tedious wanker here, and that really is saying something.

[OngBonga]

Russian claims of them fighting Nazis is complete bollocks.

Oh wait...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

The Azov Special Operations Detachment, also known as the Azov Detachment, Azov Regiment, Azov Battalion (until September 2014), or simply Azov, is a right-wing extremist, neo-Nazi, formerly paramilitary unit of the National Guard of Ukraine. Azov initially formed as a volunteer militia in May 2014 and has since been fighting Russian separatist forces in the Donbas War. On 12November 2014, Azov was incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine, and since then all members have been official soldiers serving in the National Guard.

I could keep quoting from this article. Better to just read it if you want to know who we're arming and training in Ukraine. Canada apparently have sent $2b, yes that's a b, in aid to these people, though cannot find reliable source.

Yes, lots of countries have problems with right wing extremism, including the UK, but the UK does not incorporate racist paramilitary groups into the army. Ukraine does. This is a matter of documented fact. It's not like they hide it.

There is video evidence, apparently, of Avoz Battalion crucifying Chechen Muslims in 2014. I'm not going to watch it, let alone post such videos.

Ukraine voted for a Jewish president, and right-wing groups perform poorly in elections. Ukrainian citizens are not, for the most part, Nazis. But actual Nazis are involved in their military and in the fight against Russia. We're arming the military, not the citizens. We're arming Nazis.

Russia claim that the bombing of the maternity hospital was due to the fact that Azov Battalion were using it as a base. Whether that's true or not, I don't know, and wouldn't know who to believe anyway.

btw, there's evidence Russia also has problems with Nazis. We're not arming the Russians though.

[OngBonga]

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ukraine has problems with nazi groups that operate in Ukraine near the Russian border.

This is well established.

IDK who you're preaching at with this, right now.


It doesn't give any nation the right to invade.

[OngBonga]

Ukraine has problems with nazi groups that operate in Ukraine near the Russian border.

This isn't a social problem, it's a military problem. And we're arming their military. Doesn't that concern you?

We armed Al Qaeda and ISIS. How did that work out?

It doesn't give any nation the right to invade.

I'm not attempting to justify the invasion. I'm expressing deep concern about who we're supporting.

[OngBonga]

I mean if I were going to attempt to justify the invasion, I'd point out that Ukraine is a relatively new country occupying land that was once owned by Poland and the Soviets. Maybe if Ukraine don't want to give Crimea and Donbas to Russia, they should give back the west to Poland.

Nah, didn't think so.

Borders change throughout history. We're witnessing it happening right now. Donbas is lost, it's de facto Russian now, just like Crimea. Not our business. We can sit here and judge if we want, but we've waged wars of aggression. We sit back and do nothing while Israel expands its borders at Palestine's expense. Are we really well placed to judge Russia? While I despise war like any person with a conscience, I can understand from a geopolitical pov why this is so important to Russia, just like I can understand from a geopolitical pov why the British and American aren't in any hurry to correct the ethnic cleansing of the Chagos Islands. In order for great powers to project their influence, they need to control the highly strategic islands, capes and archipelagos. A great power becomes great by controlling these places.

The reason we're trying to stop Russia is because we want control of these strategic locations. Crimea in NATO hands would be a game changer for Russia, it would be checkmate. They rely on the Black Sea for a great deal of their trade. If we could blockade Russian ships in the Black Sea, they are finished. You can have all the oil you want, but it's useless if you can't ship it to buyers. It's not that we'd do it, but it's incredible leverage. Russia will no longer be able to challenge the West. Maybe that's not a bad thing, but then again maybe it is. Maybe we need a balance of power, rather than a dominant power. I'm not going to pretend I know which is better.

What I'm also not going to pretend is that this is a matter of morality for the West. It's not. It's a matter of geopolitics. And in that context, I can understand why Russia is doing what it's doing.

That's not the same as taking their side. Anyone who wages a war of aggression is a bad guy. We can only hope these psychopaths have enough restraint to not unleash nuclear, biological and chemical hell on the human race. Can't say I'm all that optimistic right now.

idk, what really irks me is the public reaction to media. I know that sounds like a petty thing to be worried about right now, but if we weren't so fucking gullible as a society, we'd have more control. The majority of people are not psychopaths. But those in power are. It should be the non-psychopath majority that run the world. Why is that not the case? Because the psychopaths are smart, and know how to control the masses with divisive politics and propaganda.

Honestly, I haven't got a fucking clue how the world really works. All I know is it's not how the vast majority of people think it works. For example, I'm almost certain that we're advanced enough to get all of our energy needs from renewable sources, but the psychopaths in charge won't let it happen because oil is such a powerful weapon. Maybe I'm wrong, idk, but it seems likely to me that the kind of people who send kids by the thousands to die in battlefields would rather cling onto their source of income and power than to allow humanity to evolve into something worth cherishing. What we have now isn't, all we really have is hope that one day we'll be a better species than we are now.

I'm not sure we're gonna make it.

That got a bit deep.

[Poopadoop]

During WWII, the West sent thousands of tons of supplies to the USSR. Without these the Nazis probably would have conquered them. We could have just let the USSR fall, but then we would have been faced with an even harder task in defeating Hitler, if it would have even been possible all. Ultimately, the West decided that given a choice between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, the latter was the lesser of two evils.

If the choice now is between supporting Ukraine, even though they have some Neo-Nazis in their army, versus letting Putin's Russia overrun them, I'll take the former, and it's not even close.

[Poopadoop]

EU Eurolibtards fast-tracking Ukraine's application to join.

https://twitter.com/GitanasNauseda/s...03582337871874

Remember when Brexit was going to lead to a domino effect of countries leaving the EU? It's been six years, that never happened, and now the EU is looking to grow even more.

[OngBonga]

Without these the Nazis probably would have conquered them.

I'm really not sure about this. Russia is nearly impossible to conquer, certainly by land invasion. They just set fire to their own cites and retreat into the countryside, leaving the enemy in the bitter winter with no supplies. I'm sure we helped, but I doubt very much it won the war. This is obviously a matter of debate though, we can never know.

If the choice now is between supporting Ukraine, even though they have some Neo-Nazis in their army, versus letting Putin's Russia overrun them, I'll take the former, and it's not even close.

If we're going to help Nazis win a war by arming them, then we've got no right to sit here and use that word as a negative. And can they even win the war, even with our help? The best I think we can do is help to create a stalemate by keeping them armed. Ukraine are not going to reclaim Crimea, the best they can hope for is a Russian retreat from Ukrainian-controlled regions. That's not a win, it's basically a draw. A win would be for Ukraine to reclaim all of its territory. I don't see that happening unless NATO get involved, which they seem to be very keen to avoid.

So what are we even doing? Just negotiate. Let Russia claim the Russian-speaking provinces in the east. Give them the assurances they need with regards Ukrainian geopolitical neutrality. That probably ends the war right there.

Instead, we're allowing a dispute between Russia and Ukraine destroy the global economy. Is it really worth it? When the morality of the whole issue is questionable from both sides, I'm not sure it is worth it.

[Poopadoop]

I'm really not sure about this. Russia is nearly impossible to conquer, certainly by land invasion. They just set fire to their own cites and retreat into the countryside, leaving the enemy in the bitter winter with no supplies. I'm sure we helped, but I doubt very much it won the war. This is obviously a matter of debate though, we can never know.

Don't think you appreciate how close WWII was. Germany had a very very good army. Don't believe the war movies where one US or UK soldier kills dozens of Nazis without even breaking a sweat. In any fight where the numbers were even, they could beat anyone.

Germany had the USSR on the ropes for two years. Without our aid, if they weren't conquered, they certainly would have been emasculated and powerless to do anything to Germany. Germany could have ended up with a big slice of the USSR, a trade deal guaranteeing them oil supplies, sent all their armies West and we'd have never set foot in mainland Europe after that.

If we're going to help Nazis win a war by arming them,

As you know, we're not only sending arms to the minority of Nazi regiments in the Ukrainian armed forces, we're sending it to the whole country's armed forces, most of whom aren't Nazis.

So what are we even doing? Just negotiate. Let Russia claim the Russian-speaking provinces in the east. Give them the assurances they need with regards Ukrainian geopolitical neutrality. That probably ends the war right there.

Whoa whoa whoa Mujombo. Let Russia gain territory in an aggressive war? You think that's going to encourage Putin to keep the peace? He's just going to see we caved, wait a couple of years, come up with another excuse, and go back and take another chunk out of Ukraine, or maybe the rest of it. Then you'll come on and say we should give him what he wants again so we can have peace. Rinse and repeat.

Instead, we're allowing a dispute between Russia and Ukraine destroy the global economy. Is it really worth it? When the morality of the whole issue is questionable from both sides, I'm not sure it is worth it.

It's not destroying the global economy.

The morality of the issue isn't questioned by anyone but you afaik.

[Poopadoop]

Putin and Lukashenko meet Zelensky on the subway.

Edit: stupid youtube won't share video link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtF_PxbYw

[OngBonga]

Don't think you appreciate how close WWII was. Germany had a very very good army.

I don't think you appreciate how vast Russia is, and how hardy their people are. Sure Germany had a very good army, but no army in the world is defeating Russia by invading. Not then, not now. It would require non-conventional warfare to defeat them. Like Japan in WWII, only Russia are ten times the military power Japan were.

There's a reason we chose to nuke Japan instead of invade. That too is an impossible country to invade, it's just too mountainous.

Geography matters more than the size and skill of an army.

As you know, we're not only sending arms to the minority of Nazi regiments in the Ukrainian armed forces, we're sending it to the whole country's armed forces, most of whom aren't Nazis.

Oh there's only a few of them, that's ok then.

No it's not ok. This "minority" are responsible for crucifictions of Muslims. And we don't even know how much of a "minority" we're talking about. I've shown one battalion, you think that's the extent of the problem? I don't.

Whoa whoa whoa Mujombo. Let Russia gain territory in an aggressive war?

Why not? We let Israel get away with it. We wage aggressive wars ourselves in the name of geopolitics. What right have we got to tell Russia they can't do it? This isn't our fight. If we're going to stop Russia, then we should stop everyone who tries to gain territory. It doesn't seem logical to pick and choose who we allow to expand. Unless, of course, we have our own geopolitical interests, which is of course precisely why we oppose Russia but not Israel.

He's just going to see we caved, wait a couple of years, come up with another excuse, and go back and take another chunk out of Ukraine, or maybe the rest of it.

I think Putin is finding out right now that taking Ukraine will not happen. The eastern regions might want Russian influence, but the west doesn't. They won't accept it. It will require constant troops on the ground, and it will be a long war. Nobody wants that, not Ukraine, not Russia, nobody.

It's not destroying the global economy.

I guess you haven't been to the petrol pumps in a few days.

The morality of the issue isn't questioned by anyone but you afaik.

I'm not the only person who has a moral problem arming Nazis. And I'm not the only person who has a moral problem with the West's hypocrisy.

[OngBonga]

About the economy... if this continues, it's not just oil and gas that's a global problem. Wheat and potash are an even bigger problem. The longer this goes on, the more likely we are to see famine. Maybe not here in the UK or USA, but in third world countries not allied to Russia.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Whoa there.
To the extent you're objectively comparing and contrasting the US's history in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. to gain perspective, that's great.

If you're getting to the point of drawing direct parallels, then you're no longer objective.

Don't forget to contrast as well as compare.
Try not to ignore the differences just because everyone else is ignoring the similarities.




This (biased, obv) video makes a pretty good point that does acknowledge a lot of what you're saying ong.
It also puts some of that into a better perspective.

[MadMojoMonkey]

And yeah. This hit to the global economy is not localized to Russia. We're all taking shots to the left foot in effort to put all our shots together on Russia's right foot. Or something. Get it?

We were making loads of money trading with Russia. They were making loads trading with us. Now no one's making nuffink.
Except China, of course.

China stands to sit pleasantly in the middle of all this and mediate all trade through Russia, getting it's processing fees to boot, I imagine.


My Chinese friend is infuriatingly a bit gloaty about it. She's all, "I mean, hey, it's good for China, so I don't care."
and I'm all, "You know you're a monster, right? Like... the world of suffering caused around this and you're just chill 'cause you'll make a buck?"
And she's, "Haha yeah. Sucks to be you. I bet I can help you get Chinese citizenship if you want."

[MadMojoMonkey]

No one should be comfortable with the idea of arming Nazis.

Your proposed alternative to just ignore this and let Ukraine or parts of Ukraine fall to a terrible tyrant who rules with lies and oppression is just untenable. Not simply to me, but to the vast majority of countries.

If you have any other ideas, keep them coming.

[CoccoBill]

I mean if I were going to attempt to justify the invasion, I'd point out that Ukraine is a relatively new country occupying land that was once owned by Poland and the Soviets. Maybe if Ukraine don't want to give Crimea and Donbas to Russia, they should give back the west to Poland.

Both Poland and Ukraine geographically have been contested so many time over the centuries that I'd say it's pretty hard for anyone to call dibs. Slavs have inhabited Poland periodically since 450BC and Ukraine since 600somethingBC. Go back enough, and no country can claim any piece of land their "own", it's always just what current consensus says. Russia has/had no legitimate claim on Crimea or Donbas.

We can sit here and judge if we want, but we've waged wars of aggression. We sit back and do nothing while Israel expands its borders at Palestine's expense. Are we really well placed to judge Russia?

Hm has Canada? I don't recall. Anyhoo, I for one strongly condemn (and have done so for decades) what the Israeli are doing. Stop the whataboutism.

While I despise war like any person with a conscience, I can understand from a geopolitical pov why this is so important to Russia

Oh for sure, Ukraine is strategically, politically ands economically almost a necessity to win. If they start leaning more west and get more prosperous, that's a really bad look for Kremlin (anyone else find it funny how close that sounds to Gremlins?), and Ukraine has massive amounts of minerals, they're the 2nd largest producer of wheat in the world, they used to have all of the major ports in the black sea etc. Plenty of reasons. A NATO threat on Russia's western border probably didn't make top10 even in the most paranoid of Russian minds.

The reason we're trying to stop Russia is because we want control of these strategic locations. Crimea in NATO hands would be a game changer for Russia, it would be checkmate. They rely on the Black Sea for a great deal of their trade. If we could blockade Russian ships in the Black Sea, they are finished. You can have all the oil you want, but it's useless if you can't ship it to buyers. It's not that we'd do it, but it's incredible leverage. Russia will no longer be able to challenge the West. Maybe that's not a bad thing, but then again maybe it is. Maybe we need a balance of power, rather than a dominant power. I'm not going to pretend I know which is better.

What moves exactly have you seen NATO make to achieve these goals?

What I'm also not going to pretend is that this is a matter of morality for the West. It's not. It's a matter of geopolitics. And in that context, I can understand why Russia is doing what it's doing.

IF at the moment Russia invaded, Zelensky had fled, the Ukraine army and people had surrendered and greeted them as liberators, yeah, I could understand it. He gambled stacks and lost. Then again, now after two weeks of bombing civilians, hospitals and maternity clinics, threatening the use of nuclear and chemical weapons, and northkoreaing Russia, my understanding is at a significantly lower level.

Anyone who wages a war of aggression is a bad guy. We can only hope these psychopaths have enough restraint to not unleash nuclear, biological and chemical hell on the human race. Can't say I'm all that optimistic right now.

Yup, agreed.

idk, what really irks me is the public reaction to media. I know that sounds like a petty thing to be worried about right now, but if we weren't so fucking gullible as a society, we'd have more control. The majority of people are not psychopaths. But those in power are. It should be the non-psychopath majority that run the world. Why is that not the case? Because the psychopaths are smart, and know how to control the masses with divisive politics and propaganda.

I try to remain a little less cynical, though it isn't easy. I know for a fact that many if not most people getting into politics mean well. A lot of them actually do care, and aren't or at least don't start off ass complete dicks. However, politics is messy, and power corrupts. Some people get sick of it and drop out, others succumb to it or get drunk on the power they're entrusted with. Politicians aren't a different breed, they're just people. There are things we could do to weed out some of the most outrageous shit and incentivize good behavior, but change isn't easy.

Honestly, I haven't got a fucking clue how the world really works. All I know is it's not how the vast majority of people think it works. For example, I'm almost certain that we're advanced enough to get all of our energy needs from renewable sources, but the psychopaths in charge won't let it happen because oil is such a powerful weapon. Maybe I'm wrong, idk, but it seems likely to me that the kind of people who send kids by the thousands to die in battlefields would rather cling onto their source of income and power than to allow humanity to evolve into something worth cherishing. What we have now isn't, all we really have is hope that one day we'll be a better species than we are now.

People on average are very risk and change averse. Just remember the amount of people that used to say how internet/smart phones/every new technological advancement is stupid and useless, until they can't live without it. Changing things on a societal level is hard, and typically takes a generational change. My grandparents, like most of their generation were totally fucked up by the wars, and I'm maybe the first generation that is starting to get over the trauma. Ukraine and Russia both will be fucked for at least a couple generations due to what's going on. It breaks my heart. I don't know if it's the great filter, but our inability to cooperate and have empathy sure seems like one.

I'm not sure we're gonna make it.

Sad to say but my thoughts exactly, or even if we should.

[CoccoBill]

My Chinese friend is infuriatingly a bit gloaty about it. She's all, "I mean, hey, it's good for China, so I don't care."
and I'm all, "You know you're a monster, right? Like... the world of suffering caused around this and you're just chill 'cause you'll make a buck?"
And she's, "Haha yeah. Sucks to be you. I bet I can help you get Chinese citizenship if you want."

Genuinely human, genuinely relatable and genuinely sad.

[Poopadoop]

I don't think you appreciate how vast Russia is, and how hardy their people are. Sure Germany had a very good army, but no army in the world is defeating Russia by invading.

I mean I don't really want to get in a debate with a guy who doesn't know who fought on which side when in most wars, but yeah I do appreciate how vast Russia is. I also know about 70% of it is tundra and frozen forests. You don't win a war by holding onto tundra.

Germany came close to taking the USSR's three biggest cities in WWII. They seiged Leningrad for three years, they got to the outskirts of Moscow, they occupied 90% of Stalingrand. We were basically throwing them life preservers of supplies the whole time. They wouldn't have made it without our help, guaranteed.

In b4 you complain that we were hypocrites because the USSR army committed war crimes.

Not then, not now. It would require non-conventional warfare to defeat them. Like Japan in WWII, only Russia are ten times the military power Japan were.

Japan was the second greatest naval power in WWII after the USA, Russia was the second greatest land power after Germany. So they had different strengths, but they were both great powers then.

There's a reason we chose to nuke Japan instead of invade. That too is an impossible country to invade, it's just too mountainous.

Geography matters more than the size and skill of an army.

[Insert list of mountainous countries Germany rolled over in days in WWII.]

Yes, geography matters. But you eventually have to fight the other side to win. You can hope they forget to pack their winter boots but that isn't usually a good strategy.

Oh there's only a few of them, that's ok then.

No it's not ok. This "minority" are responsible for crucifictions of Muslims. And we don't even know how much of a "minority" we're talking about. I've shown one battalion, you think that's the extent of the problem? I don't.

What is a "crucifiction," is that like pretending to crucify someone, or is it a fake news story about crucifixion?

No-one is saying let's promote Nazism in Ukraine. There's some bad guys in their army. There's some bad guys in every army. What kind of teddy bears do you think volunteer to go to war?

Unless, of course, we have our own geopolitical interests, which is of course precisely why we oppose Russia but not Israel.

But you're saying we shouldn't try to defend those interests "because nazis."

I think Putin is finding out right now that taking Ukraine will not happen. The eastern regions might want Russian influence, but the west doesn't. They won't accept it. It will require constant troops on the ground, and it will be a long war. Nobody wants that, not Ukraine, not Russia, nobody.

I'd be surprised if he ever thought it was going to be easy. It seems more like he's throwing an escalating hissy fit than managing a well-planned out campaign. I didn't even think he would invade because he only had a fraction of his army on their border. He did anyways. It hasn't gone well, and either he should have known that but is crazy, or he did know that and doesn't care.

Even generals in other countries are scratching their heads. The first thing he should have done if he wanted to blitzkreig Ukraine is establish air supremacy. That makes the land war so much easier. He had the planes to do it. Instead he barely committed enough to contest the U air force.

I guess you haven't been to the petrol pumps in a few days.

I have. The amount i spend on gas has gone from £60 to £70 a fill. I may have to sell my house.

I'm not the only person who has a moral problem arming Nazis. And I'm not the only person who has a moral problem with the West's hypocrisy.

You're the only person I know who sees a moral equivalence between an invading army and one that has some assholes in it.

[Poopadoop]

Genuinely human, genuinely relatable and genuinely sad.

I lived in America for a year and talking shit to your friends is obligatory. I wouldn't take what she says seriously.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Even generals in other countries are scratching their heads. The first thing he should have done if he wanted to blitzkreig Ukraine is establish air supremacy. That makes the land war so much easier. He had the planes to do it. Instead he barely committed enough to contest the U air force.

Not had, but has.

It's been 2 weeks and he still hasn't done it.

WTF is that?

[OngBonga]

I mean there's so much bad faith argument there from poop I'm not even sure I have the energy to respond to that.

[OngBonga]

Try not to ignore the differences just because everyone else is ignoring the similarities.

This is a really good comment, and something I'll try to take on board.

Your proposed alternative to just ignore this and let Ukraine or parts of Ukraine fall to a terrible tyrant who rules with lies and oppression is just untenable. Not simply to me, but to the vast majority of countries.

The things is, my proposal is to let him have Donbas and Crimea. The people of these regions are culturally Russian, not Ukrainian. It's not like I'm suggesting we let him take regions where only outright oppression will keep them in tow. Russia most certainly should not be allowed to take Kyiv, not as long term territory at least. Ok in war cities get captured, but that's to force capitulation, if Russia take Kyiv it should definitely be returned upon their surrender.

I realise that the people of Crimea haven't always been pro-Russian, but that doesn't change the fact that right now, they are people and Crimea is their home. It's impossible to do right in these situations. I mean, should we give the Falklands to Argentina? Of course not, the people there don't want that to happen. Why should we ignore them and cave into the political demands of people who don't live there? That doesn't change the fact that the Falklands is a colony and perhaps we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. But it's now, not then.

[Poopadoop]

Not had, but has.

It's been 2 weeks and he still hasn't done it.

WTF is that?

Maybe he knew the price of gas was going up and wanted to save money.

[OngBonga]

Both Poland and Ukraine geographically have been contested so many time over the centuries that I'd say it's pretty hard for anyone to call dibs. Slavs have inhabited Poland periodically since 450BC and Ukraine since 600somethingBC. Go back enough, and no country can claim any piece of land their "own", it's always just what current consensus says. Russia has/had no legitimate claim on Crimea or Donbas.

I agree with all this except the last sentence. Russia totally have a legitimate claim on these regions. The people want it. We can argue about where these people should have self determination or not, but I firmly believe they should. They are culturally different to the people they share a country with. They want to be part of a country they are culturally closer to. Who are we to say they can't have that? Ukraine was never going to let them have a referendum, and in the case of Crimea, where Russia basically took it without going to war, I can get behind that. Granted, it started a war in the east, perhaps Russia should just have occupied these regions at the same time in the hope it prevents a future war.

Hm has Canada? I don't recall. Anyhoo, I for one strongly condemn (and have done so for decades) what the Israeli are doing. Stop the whataboutism.

I mean people seem to say "whataboutism" in an attempt to not discuss the awkward truths. How we behave on the world stage has relevance. And how we morally respond to world events should be related to our own behaviour. We can't ignore the Iraq and Syria situations. They are relevant. Especially Syria, since it was Putin who basically came along and stopped us doing the same to Syria what we did to Iraq and Libya... get their leaders killed.

I read somewhere that when Putin saw footage of Gadaffi being assraped by a gun after the French captured him, he was actually shocked. Imagine shocking a man like Putin, a former KGB mafia thug. This was Western regime change in action. And the West dare to take moral high ground in geopolitical affairs.

And now we're arming crucifiers in an attempt to stop him from claiming land occupied by Russian speaking people.

This is why I can't take sides when it comes to Russia vs the West. We're both as bad as each other. We just go about things differently. Both sides are ruled by psychopaths. And frankly I feel like Putin is the more intelligent out of the world leaders of great powers. I dunno if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

What moves exactly have you seen NATO make to achieve these goals?

Watch that video mojo linked above. NATO have acted in bad faith when it comes to Russia.

Politicians aren't a different breed, they're just people.

Maybe in Finland those in power are just normal people who want to live in a world of happiness and peace. Stay out of NATO for your own sanity, because the company you'll be keeping is psychopaths.