They're actually much better prepared than you might think. They have 200,000 men under arms and are quite well equipped.That's certainly a significant deterrent. I do think it is provocative to be arming them though.
That's certainly a significant deterrent. I do think it is provocative to be arming them though.
We should just leave them swinging in the wind?We should send Bibles to Russia, maybe load the anti tank guns with them.
We should send Bibles to Russia, maybe load the anti tank guns with them.Really? I think sending them Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy would be better. At least they would be entertained and maybe distracted. All the smiting in the bible is just as likely to be provocative.
We should send Bibles to Russia, maybe load the anti tank guns with them.
We should send Bibles to Russia, maybe load the anti tank guns with them.
I do think it is provocative to be arming them though.
Because Putin being propped up by the Russian Orthodoxy isn't too much religious interference already?I've thought about the unhappy attitude toward mass humanity in some parts of Orthodox society. I wondered if it was to do with a vagueness in their Doctrine of judgment, sin and salvation as opposed to the thorough going pessimism about the fall of humanity, Damnation and it's consequences and the seriousness of them in western theology.
The provocation is Putin loading the border with tank brigades so soon after his last invasion of Ukraine, and then making demands not just that other countries don't make alliances with each other that he doesn't like, but that they walk back on agreements already made. Arming a potential ally, who sits on the border of an aggressively expansionist authoritarian with a vested interest in dismantling our alliances, who has already been implicated in a number of destablising events in the region, and with interference in foreign elections is not 'provocation', it's a proportionate (possibly slightly insufficient) response.
O.
And the ABofC, iirc?
'Brother Andrew' beat you to it.
Really? I think sending them Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy would be better. At least they would be entertained and maybe distracted. All the smiting in the bible is just as likely to be provocative.Yes I should have said New Testaments
it's a proportionate (possibly slightly insufficient) response.I get that there's a lot of historical baggage underlying the situation. Assuming Russia is going to attack, my main concern is that we are doing what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan - training and equipimg the defenders who in this case are certain to lose, unless the West assists with the actual fighting.
O.
I get that there's a lot of historical baggage underlying the situation. Assuming Russia is going to attack, my main concern is that we are doing what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan - training and equipimg the defenders who in this case are certain to lose, unless the West assists with the actual fighting.
Interesting depiction of the situation summarising at least part of a Russian perspective in the Guardian today -Thanks, an interesting read there. While I can believe the good intentions of Estonia, USA, Britain etc I fall back on Luke 14:28-32 which advises against biting off more than one can chew. In this kind of situation it advises the weaker country to ask the stronger one for terms of peace.
....
O.
In this kind of situation it advises the weaker country to send ask the stronger one for terms of peace.
Does that usually turn out well for the weaker country?The weaker country has to give up something, like autonomy or land, and in return its inhabitants stay alive. So on balance, yes. In this context, it would mean Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO, and autonomy for Russian-speaking regions. I guess it's a reality check for Ukraine in that they have to understand that joining NATO would be provocative to its non-NATO neighbour. It seems to me that NATO also needs a reality check: the more countries that join then the stronger it becomes, but that can appear aggressive in itself.
The weaker country has to give up something, like autonomy or land, and in return its inhabitants stay alive. So on balance, yes. In this context, it would mean Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO, and autonomy for Russian-speaking regions. I guess it's a reality check for Ukraine in that they have to understand that joining NATO would be provocative to its non-NATO neighbour. It seems to me that NATO also needs a reality check: the more countries that join then the stronger it becomes, but that can appear aggressive in itself.Let's be clear: the aggressor in this case is Putin. The reason he's doing it is because Russia's economy is in a hole and his people are suffering. He needs to distract them so they don't turn against him.
The weaker country has to give up something, like autonomy or land, and in return its inhabitants stay alive. So on balance, yes. In this context, it would mean Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO, and autonomy for Russian-speaking regions. I guess it's a reality check for Ukraine in that they have to understand that joining NATO would be provocative to its non-NATO neighbour. It seems to me that NATO also needs a reality check: the more countries that join then the stronger it becomes, but that can appear aggressive in itself.
At the risk of getting a bit deep, though, which is the 'weaker' nation? Russia has tanks and ammunition, but limited funds to deploy them for any length of time and innumerable other financial issues in the background; Ukraine has questionable but strong 'allies' (at least temporarily), but knows that depending on those allies is just putting off paying the bill that will become due for a time. Russia isn't really competing against Ukraine in this, it's targeting the US and NATO, who are strong enough not to be the 'weaker' country militarily, but might lack the political and moral willpower to make a stand, just as they failed to do so when Russia invaded the Crimea.Well probably Nato is stronger, but if it doesn't 'go in' to defend Ukraine then its strength is irrelevant. However much ammo they give them, it won't be enough to stop Russia. It will be wasted and lead to increased loss of life.
O.
Well probably Nato is stronger, but if it doesn't 'go in' to defend Ukraine then its strength is irrelevant. However much ammo they give them, it won't be enough to stop Russia. It will be wasted and lead to increased loss of life.If Russia goes in to war, they won't win. They may take some territory but it'll end up in some sort of stalemate that bleeds the economies of both countries dry.
If Russia goes in to war, they won't win. They may take some territory but it'll end up in some sort of stalemate that bleeds the economies of both countries dry.
You have to understand that Russia, for all its size, is not a strong country. Its GDP is about half of ours. How does it afford all that military hardware then? The answer is that it doesn't. It's all badly maintained and falling to pieces. Factor in that most of the Russian army is conscripted and none of its soldiers want to fight for Putin's vanity project whereas the Ukrainians are fighting an existential crisis and you'll see the Russians cannot win a war in the Ukraine. Putin knows this and he's only doing it as a "hey look a squirrel" moment to distract from his domestic problems.
Russia has the hardware and the manpower to take significant sections of Ukraine, and enough local support to disrupt Ukraine's attempts to keep or retake it. Russia doesn't have the power to take on 'the West', but any invasion will be undertaken if and when Putin thinks that there isn't the political will to take a stand, exactly as was the case when he invaded Crimea.
O.
If Russia goes in to war, they won't win. They may take some territory but it'll end up in some sort of stalemate that bleeds the economies of both countries dry.This squirrel was definitely a distraction when I came across it last year.
You have to understand that Russia, for all its size, is not a strong country. Its GDP is about half of ours. How does it afford all that military hardware then? The answer is that it doesn't. It's all badly maintained and falling to pieces. Factor in that most of the Russian army is conscripted and none of its soldiers want to fight for Putin's vanity project whereas the Ukrainians are fighting an existential crisis and you'll see the Russians cannot win a war in the Ukraine. Putin knows this and he's only doing it as a "hey look a squirrel" moment to distract from his domestic problems.
There should be a photo of a squirrel attached to the previous post. It has appeared when I view the page on my phone but not when on a tablet.
Looking at it on my PC and Tufty is showing on that.Great! Quite cute hey?
Yesterday at a press conference Putin was concerned that after joining Nato, Ukraine would try and get Crimea back which could mean invoking article 5 of the treaty. He said that would force Russia to use nuclear weapons. So although that is a hypothetical scenario, it makes sense not to allow Ukraine to join Nato so that any situation like that is avoided.That's a lovely house you have, it would be a shame if it was burnt to the ground...
That's a lovely house you have, it would be a shame if it was burnt to the ground...If I don't join your alliance that isn't likely to happen.
If I don't join your alliance that isn't likely to happen.said the Mafia boss.
We can't import a pre-existing conflict into Nato, said the Radio 4 presenter to Ben Wallace.That's a non sequitur
That's a non sequiturSorry about that, have edited the post.
Perhaps Russia is putin troops near the border in order to make Nato think there is a conflict with Ukraine and thus decreasing further the likelihood of them joining the alliance.
The reason he's doing it is to distract from domestic troubles. He's exploiting the deep seated fear in Russia of invasion from the West for his own political ends.
The reason he's doing it is to distract from domestic troubles. He's exploiting the deep seated fear in Russia of invasion from the West for his own political ends.I can see how that could be the case, given the German invasion, but don't see much evidence of it. Russians must realize that Nato is a defence alliance?
I can see how that could be the case, given the German invasion, but don't see much evidence of it. Russians must realize that Nato is a defence alliance?
To an extent, but he can point to the likes of Afghanistan and the Gulf Wars and suggest quite plausibly that it's stretching the 'defence of Western European nations' claim to justify NATO involvement in those arenas. It's a grey area, and my personal take is that intervention of some sort (perhaps not the particulars of all operations) was justifiable, but I'd accept the criticism that it was at best a stretch of the NATO charter, if not an outright breach of it.Would you agree that Ukraine and Russia's problems seem to stem from strong ties left over from the Soviet era now being threatened, and it's those issues that need to be sorted out between the leaders of the two countries. I feel that our role ought be to mediate rather than get involved militarily.
O.
Would you agree that Ukraine and Russia's problems seem to stem from strong ties left over from the Soviet era now being threatened, and it's those issues that need to be sorted out between the leaders of the two countries.
I feel that our role ought be to mediate rather than get involved militarily.
Also, Russia might also point to the presence of about 80,000 US troops in Eastern Europe as justification for its current actions.
I can see how that could be the case, given the German invasionGermany in WW1 and WW2. France in the early 1800's.
, but don't see much evidence of it.Evidence of what? The deep seated fear or Putin's motive?
Evidence of what? The deep seated fear or Putin's motive?Fear of invasion by the West.
Ukraine could keep Russia at bay by itself for a while but it can't last and would be likely to turn into another Afghanistan.I don't think that's a good comparison as they are able to supply and re-supply directly from the border, without those nasty mountains in the way.
I don't think that's a good comparison as they are able to supply and re-supply directly from the border, without those nasty mountains in the way.Russia can do the same though.
It may be his game plan to seek a change in government which supports Russia without resorting to a long drawn out campaign whilst keeping control of the regions they have invaded. He's got form for this.Judging by Syria, I think he will keep it focused on Donetsk and Luhansk and any other regions which seek independence.This was quite predictable, I think the masses of Russian forces are there in case Ukraine attempts to take them back. The only time I can recall us arming a group actually working was the Kurds against Isis, who were a relatively small army and also up against Nato and Russia.
I don't think that's a good comparison as they are able to supply and re-supply directly from the border, without those nasty mountains in the way.
It may be his game plan to seek a change in government which supports Russia without resorting to a long drawn out campaign whilst keeping control of the regions they have invaded. He's got form for this.
Russia can do the same though.
Judging by Syria, I think he will keep it focused on Donetsk and Luhansk and any other regions which seek independence.This was quite predictable, I think the masses of Russian forces are there in case Ukraine attempts to take them back. The only time I can recall us arming a group actually working was the Kurds against Isis, who were a relatively small army and also up against Nato and Russia.
If your shop is being robbed it's best to give the robbers what they want and if the police cannot catch them, cut your losses then strengthen your security: if Putin is satisfied with these regions and goes away, let the rest of Ukraine join Nato and the EU as a security measure. Then have and agreement with Russia not to mass armament near the border.
Some people are calling for the British military to get involved - they don't seem to realise how small the British army is and how few resources it has.
Some people are calling for the British military to get involved - they don't seem to realise how small the British army is and how few resources it has.
This reminds me of a book my daughter gave a while back as a birthday present - "2017 War with Russia" by Richard Shirreff. Anyone read it? It's badly written as fiction but the author is a retired British Nato general who wrote it based on his own experiences of war-gaming while in NATO. He was warning about how Russia will invade Ukraine and other Baltic states on some pretext and how we have limited options in response as our army is so small and underfunded so we would not be able to take on the Russian army's much greater numbers.
Even if the UK had the numbers and the hardware it would be too big a risk, both possessing nuclear weapons. None of us really know what Putin is capable of and that's what makes him dangerous.I think he's a desperate man and the invasion is a desperate act.
Russia has rightly been condemned for this and hopefully sanctions will do their job (beyond that I'm not sure what more can be done)We can supply weapons and training to the Ukrainians.
but this is in part also a failure of the West to genuinely engage with Russia (though Russia never makes that easy as you always need to read between the lines) . Even if Putin wasn't in power I still think Ukraine potentially joining NATO would be too big a pill for Russia to swallow.This is true. Since the Second World War, Russia has been absolutely paranoid about anything that looks like a threat on their borders. I think we could have acceded to Russia's demand not to let the Ukraine join NATO, it was never going to happen anyway.
I think he's a desperate man and the invasion is a desperate act.
I think we could have acceded to Russia's demand not to let the Ukraine join NATO, it was never going to happen anyway.
Everybody seems to be thinking this will be a walkover for Putin. It won't be.
You've got an army consisting of conscripts who have no reason or desire to die for their leader's ambition up against a well equipped army that is highly motivated to defend its homeland. Yes, the Russians outnumber the Ukrainians, but it will still be a long and bloody war. Ukraine doesn't have mountains but it does have a lot of marshland which failed to freeze this year. That makes them impassable for tank columns.
In the meantime, Russia will be economically squeezed to death by sanctions. If it can't sell its gas, it has no income. More importantly (from Putin's pov), if its oligarchs can't do business, they are going to be very unhappy. Putin is desperate.
...
Perhaps, perhaps not. He knows that an accommodation will have to be reached, and that he won't be able to hold on to the whole of the Ukraine, but a significant portion of resource rich lands will give him an economic boost that he needs, and politically standing up to the West will make for good TV back home.The resource rich lands won't help him much if he can't sell them. Russia isn't short of resources anyway. You are right that this will help his image domestically, in the short term. However, the Russian economy is in the toilet and his people are already noticing. That's why he's doing this.
Well the Ukrainians can try and resist, but the longer the resistance the more civilian deaths and other destruction. The West can supply weapons but this time we don't have a Mujahidin army to fight this for us.
There's currently a lot of outrage at the invasion and bluster about punitive sanctions - no doubt they could damage Russia economically - but these would take a long time to have any effect even if some of the nations involved weren't already arguing to hold the most hard hitting back (eg Swift exclusion and oil/gas imports). If the conflict lasts more than a year or so many of those implemented will start to be rolled back - as they also affect our economies and Putin implements counter strategies.
Since the Second World War, Russia has been absolutely paranoid about anything that looks like a threat on their borders. I think we could have acceded to Russia's demand not to let the Ukraine join NATO, it was never going to happen anyway.
It's amazing how he lied saying they had no plans to invade.Because you support Might is Right
How wrong was I thinking they would only invade Donbas. I must say I hope Ukraine will surrender soon.
Because you support Might is RightNo, because I don't want to see any more killing.
No, because I don't want to see any more killing.Which leads to Might is Right
No, because I don't want to see any more killing.
No, because I don't want to see any more killing.
They're not going to give up without a fight. With that logic you could just demand land on the basis of military superiority. We both know it doesn't work like that though.I'm not saying war is never the right option. You have to weigh up your chances of overpowering an enemy though. Without NATO's military assistance (no fly zone at the very least) and I suggest China on board, it's suicidal for Ukraine to resist.
The resource rich lands won't help him much if he can't sell them.
Russia isn't short of resources anyway.
You are right that this will help his image domestically, in the short term. However, the Russian economy is in the toilet and his people are already noticing. That's why he's doing this.
No, we have the Ukrainians. Do you think it's some tin pot little country? It's the seventh largest in Europe by population and the fourth largest geographically.
If the conflict lasts a year or more, Putin is utterly screwed. The bodies will be piling up. The economy (already in the toilet) will be completely fucked.
I'm not saying war is never the right option. You have to weigh up your chances of overpowering an enemy though. Without NATO's military assistance (no fly zone at the very least) and I suggest China on board, it's suicidal for Ukraine to resist.
I'm not saying war is never the right option. You have to weigh up your chances of overpowering an enemy though. Without NATO's military assistance (no fly zone at the very least) and I suggest China on board, it's suicidal for Ukraine to resist.Depends on the soldiers - some people prefer to die than to surrender as they consider there is honour in dying fighting for a cause e.g. refusing to surrender the freedom of your country or culture or way of life.
The bible does indeed show that God's power can intervene through prayer. But if you study the texts, you will see that prayer coupled with repentance is the most effective way of invoking God's supernatural power.
I would hope that Biden would repent for his continued support for the murder of millions of innocent children in their own mother's womb in order to make his prayers more effective.
I note that president Biden, as a committed Roman Catholic, has turned to God in prayer concerning the war and its consequences for the Ukraine people - and the rest of the world.
The bible does indeed show that God's power can intervene through prayer. But if you study the texts, you will see that prayer coupled with repentance is the most effective way of invoking God's supernatural power.
I would hope that Biden would repent for his continued support for the murder of millions of innocent children in their own mother's womb in order to make his prayers more effective.
It's amazing how he lied saying they had no plans to invade.The two recordings, supposedly made days apart, show him wearing the same jacket, tie and shirt. One recording states that he won't invade, the other confirming invasion. It's pretty clear both were made on the same day. He might at least have worn a different tie. Western satirists could make something of this "Economy so bad you can only afford one
How wrong was I thinking they would only invade Donbas. I must say I hope Ukraine will surrender soon.
I note that president Biden, as a committed Roman Catholic, has turned to God in prayer concerning the war and its consequences for the Ukraine people - and the rest of the world.Is his the only prayer that counts?
The bible does indeed show that God's power can intervene through prayer. But if you study the texts, you will see that prayer coupled with repentance is the most effective way of invoking God's supernatural power.
I would hope that Biden would repent for his continued support for the murder of millions of innocent children in their own mother's womb in order to make his prayers more effective.
I note that president Biden, as a committed Roman Catholic, has turned to God in prayer concerning the war and its consequences for the Ukraine people - and the rest of the world.
The bible does indeed show that God's power can intervene through prayer. But if you study the texts, you will see that prayer coupled with repentance is the most effective way of invoking God's supernatural power.
I would hope that Biden would repent for his continued support for the murder of millions of innocent children in their own mother's womb in order to make his prayers more effective.
Spud;For your info, it was Alan that brought it up. But I would point out a possible reference to the subject of killing unwanted children in the chapter in Leviticus that prohibits incest: do not offer your children to Molech. This comes right after "Do not sleep with your neighbour's wife", and is possibly an allusion to what people would do if they had a child as a consequence of doing that.
Many sincere Christians, whilst never welcoming abortion, nevertheless give thanks that it exists. Without it, orphanages would overflow, and the quality of life of tens, weven hundreds of thousands, would be worse.
There position of AScripture is ambiguous at best: please don't bring it into this thread.
Depends on the soldiers - some people prefer to die than to surrender as they consider there is honour in dying fighting for a cause e.g. refusing to surrender the freedom of your country or culture or way of life.
Humans come up with interesting abstract concepts like honour - they believe in honour even though there will be some / many people who won't think of it as honourable to die fighting rather than surrender.
BTW why does everyone use Kyiv nowadays? What was wrong with Kiev? How the bloody hell are you even meant to pronounce Kyiv? These kind of things vex me.Apparently Kiev is the Russian way of pronouncing it.
I think the motivation to fight also comes from anger; I thought this after hearing Captain Tom contrast seeing Spitfires flying nowadays, with seeing them fly over 'in anger' to meet the Luftwaffe. And seeing that Russian tank drive over a car that had someone inside yesterday.
I don't know my Finnish history, but had a quick look, and it looks as though that war was mainly over a section of border territory, rather than the entire country? Also they had help from Germany after that?
In that case Finland should have given Russia our country in 1939. Despite being badly equiped and being outnumbered 10:1 we still saved our country.
Visa applications from Ukraine for people who are not related to British nationals are currently suspended, meaning there is no legal route for them to enter the UK and claim asylum. A source told the BBC the government was “scenario-planning” for an increase in asylum seekers from Ukraine.
It would seem that the world of music has joined the conflict.Astonishing, and sad. But it confirms what I knew but didn't like to admit - fine art has little or no effect on one's moral outlook, and this case absolutely no improving effect on Gergiev's judgment of character.
The mayor of Munich has informed Valery Gergiev, conductor of the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra, that he will be removed from this post if he does not openly condemn the invasion of Ukraine. He has also been told by La Scala, Milan, that that a forthcoming engagement is now cancelled. Gergiev is known to be a close friend of Putin and each are godfathers of the other's children.
For a number of years, Gergiev was principal conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra.
Our Prime Minister @BorisJohnson on the frontline [RAF Brize Norton] with our Armed Forces coordinating the UK's response to the invasion of Ukraine. True global leadership!
I tuned in to LBC this afternoon and heard a caller say that we need to stop sending weapons and tell Ukraine that we aren't going to come to their aid. He said that because Russia is so powerful they will win, so the West sending lethal aid will only cause more casualties.A 'buffer zone' is telling people their views are meaningless.
It is also the view of Lady Colin Campbell that the only solution is to create a buffer zone between Nato and Russia.
A 'buffer zone' is telling people their views are meaningless.What she means (I think) is more to do with not allowing states in that zone to be members of NATO. So presumably, this means Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Finland. I don't think that is the same as telling people their views are meaningless?
What she means (I think) is more to do with not allowing states in that zone to be members of NATO. So presumably, this means Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Finland. I don't think that is the same as telling people their views are meaningless?You have just said to all the people in those states that their views are meaningless.
You have just said to all the people in those states that their views are meaningless.Views about what?
Views about what?What they choose to do. They can't be members of NATO because you are telling them they are 'buffer states'. Your choice, not their's.
I tuned in to LBC this afternoon and heard a caller say that we need to stop sending weapons and tell Ukraine that we aren't going to come to their aid. He said that because Russia is so powerful they will win, so the West sending lethal aid will only cause more casualties.
Also, it is the view of Lady Colin Campbell that the only solution is to create a buffer zone between Nato and Russia.
I think the motivation to fight also comes from anger; I thought this after hearing Captain Tom contrast seeing Spitfires flying nowadays, with seeing them fly over 'in anger' to meet the Luftwaffe. And seeing that Russian tank drive over a car that had someone inside yesterday.
What she means (I think) is more to do with not allowing states in that zone to be members of NATO. So presumably, this means Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Finland. I don't think that is the same as telling people their views are meaningless?
I've just watched a section on the BBC News about the people of Ukraine being motivated to fight by their deep religious beliefs - that they are in the right and that God will ensure they win. Any thoughts on that?
Aren't Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania already part of NATO? As for Finland, I hope we don't join, though for obvious reasons it has become a hot topic once again. The worst thing we could do is join through a sense of panic (those all of a sudden saying we should are probably the same people who emptied shop shelves of bog roll early 2020).I'll bet that the overlap between the two groups is relatively small.
Personally I see a bit of a Winter War spirit. They know they're probably not going to get much military help but they're still willing to fight against the odds.
Yes, I see that too, but the section on the news spoke to several people who talked about their religious faith being a factor and the journalist suggested that this was a wide spread feeling.
https://twitter.com/lapatina_/status/1499012600826322946?t=nIMm7Y0Ub9u99hL0sH4nyQ&s=19
I don't know if any of you have seen this. Poor kid can't be any more than twenty. It appears the majority of Russian troops are just kids, conscripts, with low morale. It seems many went into Ukraine thinking this was still a military exercise, not even knowing where they were going.
Very sad. Reminds me of the Paul Hardcastle song about Vietnam.
What they choose to do. They can't be members of NATO because you are telling them they are 'buffer states'. Your choice, not their's.
I think their best hope now is if an intermediary with good understanding of statecraft and Putin can persuade him to stop killing, withdraw and come to an agreement with Ukraine, in both their long term interests.
It seems to me that Ukraine has been a "buffer state" since the breakup of the USSR in the 1990s.So your understanding is that the Ukraine could not choose its future.
Their whole wellbeing depended on them realizing this and managing their affairs so as to balance or play off the demands of each of the two aggressive/defensive players on each side - to maximise their own benefits. They managed to do that (though not without ups and downs) since then - up until around the takeover of Crimea - becoming both economically better off and more democratic.
However with the new president/government they looked as if they had given up on that understanding and had, maybe as a result of the Crimean invasion and inability to peacefully resolve the insurgency in the SE "Russian" areas, opted for the NATO/EU block.
I think their best hope now is if an intermediary with good understanding of statecraft and Putin can persuade him to stop killing, withdraw and come to an agreement with Ukraine, in both their long term interests.
So your understanding is that the Ukraine could not choose its future.
I tuned in to LBC this afternoon and heard a caller say that we need to stop sending weapons and tell Ukraine that we aren't going to come to their aid. He said that because Russia is so powerful they will winI think they've already lost.
, so the West sending lethal aid will only cause more casualties.That's war for you.
Also, it is the view of Lady Colin Campbell that the only solution is to create a buffer zone between Nato and Russia.
I think they've already lost.Really, you think Russia has lost? Okay I can see how that could turn out to be the case, though I wouldn't say they have literally lost, yet. And I think there is a chance that they might, Lord forbid, flatten the whole country. In which case they would have won, but then have to face the music of ongoing sanctions.
That's war for you.Okay; question: in hindsight, is this ever the right course of action?
There would have been fewer casualties if Britain had kept out of WW2.
Putin doesn't care about buffer zones. He wants the Soviet Union back.Yes, I think we have to assume that. He has seen the West's military mistakes and reluctance to be involved in more war, and knows he can be aggressive without them opposing directly, militarily.
Also, Poland already borders Belarus. The buffer zone is gone.Yes - I was speaking in terms of an ideal, I know it isn't likely to happen.
Sometimes the only right thing to do is stand and fight. Sometimes you just have to confront a dictator, just like you would a playground bully.In that case I would expect the other people in the playground to step in? I've seen a strong kid fighting with a weak kid who decided he would take him on, and nobody stepped in. Having been quite badly punched, the weak kid didn't get into more fights after that.
Otherwise they feel they're getting stronger and stronger and can get away with anything.Not if people don't have anything to do with that bully?
Sometimes the only right thing to do is stand and fight. Sometimes you just have to confront a dictator, just like you would a playground bully. Otherwise they feel they're getting stronger and stronger and can get away with anything.
In that case I would expect the other people in the playground to step in? I've seen a strong kid fighting with a weak kid who decided he would take him on, and nobody stepped in. Having been quite badly punched, the weak kid didn't get into more fights after that. Not if people don't have anything to do with that bully?
Really, you think Russia has lost?In global terms yes. They might take over the whole of Ukraine, but it will be a very costly occupation. However, their economy is now crippled and they can no longer do international sport or even travel freely. Also, we've found out that their military isn't up to much either.
As to what happens now in Ukraine, I have been thinking about AD70 and how the Jews believed that God would deliver them from the Romans. In the end there was mass slaughter. A high priest had tried to get the Jews to surrender the city of Jerusalem, and this would surely have been the right thing to do.The Ukrainians are not relying on God to deliver them.
The Roman empire eventually fell.
My problem is the folk crushed underfoot in the fight. Is the fight worth the deaths of so many innocents?
As to what happens now in Ukraine, I have been thinking about AD70 and how the Jews believed that God would deliver them from the Romans. In the end there was mass slaughter. A high priest had tried to get the Jews to surrender the city of Jerusalem, and this would surely have been the right thing to do.
The Roman empire eventually fell.
My problem is the folk crushed underfoot in the fight. Is the fight worth the deaths of so many innocents?
Fortunately, school playground bullies don't carry around nuclear weapons in their school satchel.I think we should assume that Russia would use nuclear weapons; NATO, rightly, doesn't appear willing to risk using them against Russia, it would mean a nuclear exchange and catastrophe. So the concept of NATO doesn't solve the problem we are now faced with. That's why I'm thinking about how else it can be solved. I'm open to being proved wrong.
How would it be better for them to be crushed underfoot without a fight?
O.
I think we should assume that Russia would use nuclear weapons; NATO, rightly, doesn't appear willing to risk using them against Russia, it would mean a nuclear exchange and catastrophe. So the concept of NATO doesn't solve the problem we are now faced with. That's why I'm thinking about how else it can be solved. I'm open to being proved wrong.
So we have a nuclear-armed state invading a sovereign neighbour.
Due to the latter's resistance, it is now shelling civilians. We are making this situation worse by encouraging the underdog to fight (while not being able to engage Russia directly).
Remember that the Russian conscripts apparently don't want this, but apparently they have no choice. So by carrying on fighting they are getting them killed too.
If Ukraine agrees to Russia's terms, they will live - I think that is clear.
I would rather plough my fields under an occupier who is being punished with sanctions than be blown up along with my family.
That's you. Others preserves to die fighting so they can be free. Maybe it's time to call Putin's bluff.That's their choice. A year ago I personally experienced an injury, an accident, but equivalent to a war injury, and I can assure you it is better to keep your body intact. Or, I'm curious, do you think this is a salvation issue?
That's their choice. A year ago I personally experienced an injury, an accident, but equivalent to a war injury, and I can assure you it is better to keep your body intact. Or, I'm curious, do you think this is a salvation issue?
As I get older, I'm more and more inclined toward pacifism.
No. I just think freedom is better than bondage. Better to die a free man than live as a slave.Do you think Russia wants to enslave Ukraine?
Do you think Russia wants to enslave Ukraine?
They want to control it. To bend it to their will. I think that comes close to enslavement.Maybe. But does that justify going to war? What about either submitting or leaving the country, given that we have multinational sanctions on them.
Maybe. But does that justify going to war? What about either submitting or leaving the country, given that we have multinational sanctions on them.
Well, it was Russia that actually went to war.Ok, but as I understand it, the people of Donbass voted for independence, right?
Ukraine just responded as a sovereign nation.Yes, when it's that or be blown to bits. And have you read the poem by Wilfred Owen, Dulce et Decorum est?
Yea, just submit and live under a repressive regime or leave your homeland. It's so easy isn't it?
Yes, when it's that or be blown to bits. And have you read the poem by Wilfred Owen, Dulce et Decorum est?
Ok, but as I understand it, the people of Donbass voted for independence, right?
Trent, I am getting it but I also think they are assuming tin-of-poo won't use his nuclear arsenal. What if he does? I'm just interested in this strategy of sanctions, I didn't think imuch of it until I realised it may be the only thing that can stop tin Man.
Meanwhile a reminder that even though Raab, Patel, Johnson say we are at the forefront of sanctions, we pretty much aren't. So no change in the lying from the government. Still, got to give them 10 out of 10 for consistency.It depends on how many Russian entities a country has got that it can sanction.
They want to control it. To bend it to their will. I think that comes close to enslavement.
No, TV, it doesn't.
These islands have three centuries of testemonial.
No, TV, it doesn't.
These islands have three centuries of testemonial.
Don't worry, if you vote in an anti-union government (which you have already), you won't find the English tanks rolling across the lowlands to install a puppet regime.I agree that there is nothing in common between Scotland and Ukraine here but it's not that long ago that there were tanks deployed by the UK about a territorial dispute in what some would argue is 'occupied territory'.
Would you be for or against resistance if they did?
https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1499439820363468802?t=ZW38l3JrTnDhpf_uEfSuEg&s=19Ooft!
https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1499439820363468802?t=ZW38l3JrTnDhpf_uEfSuEg&s=19"Genocde on an industrial scale" is a huge and unhelpful exaggeration.
"Genocde on an industrial scale" is a huge and unhelpful exaggeration.Easy to say when you are not being killed.
Easy to say when you are not being killed.Typical self-righteous sarcasm. Give it a rest.
Typical self-righteous sarcasm. Give it a rest.I doubt you will be capable of seeing the irony of your post, but it is quite spectacular.
https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1499439820363468802?t=ZW38l3JrTnDhpf_uEfSuEg&s=19
I agree that there is nothing in common between Scotland and Ukraine here but it's not that long ago that there were tanks deployed by the UK about a territorial dispute in what some would argue is 'occupied territory'.
Are you talking about Afghanistan or Iraq? Neither of them were territorial disputes - at least not before we invaded.
I assume you're not talking about Northern Ireland because we didn't deploy tanks there.
Are you talking about Afghanistan or Iraq? Neither of them were territorial disputes - at least not before we invaded.
I assume you're not talking about Northern Ireland because we didn't deploy tanks there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Motorman
Several Centurion AVRE demolition vehicles, derived from the Centurion tank and fitted with bulldozer blades, were used. They were the only heavy armoured vehicles to be deployed operationally by the British Army in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. The tanks had been transported to Northern Ireland on board the amphibious landing ship HMS Fearless, and were operated with their turrets traversed to the rear and main guns covered by tarpaulins
I doubt you will be capable of seeing the irony of your post, but it is quite spectacular.Examples of self-righteous sarcasm from me, please.
We have granted 50 Ukrainian visas so far (out of about 5,000 applications).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60640460
I'm a little bit angry: Priti Patel is doing everything possible to speed up the process, so she says. Why can't she just say to borders officials "if they have a Ukrainian passport, let them in and we'll sort out the details later"?
I'm ashamed at our (the UK's) response to this crisis.
We have granted 50 Ukrainian visas so far (out of about 5,000 applications).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60640460
I'm a little bit angry: Priti Patel is doing everything possible to speed up the process, so she says. Why can't she just say to borders officials "if they have a Ukrainian passport, let them in and we'll sort out the details later"?
I'm ashamed at our (the UK's) response to this crisis.
If Ukrainian refugees and asylum seekers were able to present themselves and make their cases easily at the channel ports, it would set a precedent that could be used by black, brown, etc or Muslim people in the future.
Daniel Hannan, a former Conservative member of the European Parliament, wrote in London’s Telegraph newspaper of the Ukrainian people being attacked: “They seem so like us. That is what makes it so shocking. War is no longer something visited upon impoverished and remote populations. It can happen to anyone.”
This crisis? Yes, and all the other crises over the last two decades.
But, of-course, the border policies are working exactly as intended.
If Ukrainian refugees and asylum seekers were able to present themselves and make their cases easily at the channel ports, it would set a precedent that could be used by black, brown, etc or Muslim people in the future.
Yes. The racism is naked:
Taken from this report here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/02/27/media-ukraine-offensive-comparisons/
I think, if you look at my posts in the past on this forum you'll find that I've always been pretty liberal with respect to immigration. In my opinion, we should have an open door policy with some caveats. If somebody is prepared to try to cross the English Channel in a dinghy or lock themselves in a container for days or weeks, wherever they are coming from must be pretty bad and we have a moral duty not to send them back.
Couldn't get past the subscription offer.
I'm beginning to be more and more of the opinion that we have to intervene. Ukraine is putting up a good defence but how long can they hold out? On the plus side, I read a report in the Finnish media that Russia's military hardware was meant to be updated but most of the money was stolen and spent on luxury yachts etc.
I'm beginning to be more and more of the opinion that we have to intervene.
Ukraine is putting up a good defence but how long can they hold out?Longer than Russia IMO.
On the plus side, I read a report in the Finnish media that Russia's military hardware was meant to be updated but most of the money was stolen and spent on luxury yachts etc.
...
Frankly, I think what we are doing now will turn out to be enough in the long term, even if the Ukrainian military response collapses.
...
I don't really get this. What is "enough"? How is success to be evaluated?Withdrawal of Russia from Ukraine.
Is success independent of the cost in lives, ruined economies and cities?No.
If success means "freedom" what does that mean, did they have it before the invasion?
If success means "freedom" what does that mean, did they have it before the invasion?
I can only go on what a good friend, who lived there for over a year tells me. The answer is unquestionably "Yes".
I view with horror the vision of future Ukrainian society under Russian occupation, as "Comrade Clueless", Maria Butina depicted things this morning. She seems to think that the ideal state is one where all information and ideas are state controlled. She also asserted to Nick Robinson on Radio 4 that the Ukrainians were bombing their own cities and civilians because "Russian forces don't do this". Obviously not one accustomed to dealing with reality, though I understand she has a degree from an American university. Probably Dodge City, given her obsession with guns.
Really, William?
Really, William?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60690362
Roman Ambramovich has been sanctioned and will have all his assets frozen just as soon as he's moved the important ones out of the UK or sold them /sarcasm.
Really, William?Yes, really. There haven't been any wars in Europe since the former Yugoslavian wars ended, and before that none or very few since 1945.
Yes, really. There haven't been any wars in Europe since the former Yugoslavian wars ended, and before that none or very few since 1945.But not alien to us (W's words).
Yes, really. There haven't been any wars in Europe since the former Yugoslavian wars ended, and before that none or very few since 1945.
Greek civil war in late 40's, coup in 1960s. Various guerrilla conflicts in the Balkans throughout the early 1950s. Cypriot war of independence, Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Hungarian revolution. Northern Ireland conflict. Invasion of Czechoslovakia. Portuguese revolution. Nagorno-Karabakh. Romanian revolution. Soviet invasion of Lithuania. Break-up of Yugoslavia (Kosovo if you consider that separate). Georgian/Russian conflict, Abkhazi separatist movement and the Georgian civil war. Both Chechen war. Azerbaijani coup. Chechen invasion of Dagestan. Macedonian insurgency. Both Russia's invasions of Ukraine.OK, I was wrong.
Those are just the conflicts geographically within Europe that I can recall, that's not including conflicts involving European forces elsewhere (i.e. Falklands, Afghanistan) or the various proxy conflicts of Russia during the Cold War....
O.
Greek civil war in late 40's, coup in 1960s. Various guerrilla conflicts in the Balkans throughout the early 1950s. Cypriot war of independence, Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Hungarian revolution. Northern Ireland conflict. Invasion of Czechoslovakia. Portuguese revolution. Nagorno-Karabakh. Romanian revolution. Soviet invasion of Lithuania. Break-up of Yugoslavia (Kosovo if you consider that separate). Georgian/Russian conflict, Abkhazi separatist movement and the Georgian civil war. Both Chechen war. Azerbaijani coup. Chechen invasion of Dagestan. Macedonian insurgency. Both Russia's invasions of Ukraine.
Those are just the conflicts geographically within Europe that I can recall, that's not including conflicts involving European forces elsewhere (i.e. Falklands, Afghanistan) or the various proxy conflicts of Russia during the Cold War....
O.
But if you wrote a similar list for Asia or Africa, it wlould likely be longer and contain many more in the 21st century.Is this a competition? War is not alien to 20th and 21st century Europe, whatever may have happened elsewhere.
But if you wrote a similar list for Asia or Africa, it wlould likely be longer and contain many more in the 21st century.
Hmmm...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60597807
Hmmm...Nice gesture for the two teams to wear the colours of the Ukrainian flag...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60597807
Do people here believe that if Ukraine had agreed to Russia's terms at the outset, Russia would have eventually tried to gain more territory? As I understand it, the terms were for Ukraine to give up Donbass and Crimea, and to not join the EU or Nato.
I think it was cede claims on Crimea to Russia, and accept Donbass and Lukhetsk as independent territories, and change the constitution to state no attempts would be made to join NATO.Thanks for clarifying. I know the way Russia has acted is completely wrong, but I can't help feeling that these terms would have been a price worth paying, at least for the short term, to avoid what has happened. The main problem I see with that scenario is being under the umbrella of such an evil regime. My gut feeling is that Russia will not always be like this, though. Putin will at some point die, and there is a chance a more honest regime can replace his?
I'd expect, if that was implemented, for the Russians to then either manipulate elections in those newly recognised independent territories until they 'voted' to join Russia, or simply usher friendly faces into power as with Byelorussia.
Given that it's then worked twice in the last decade, Putin would have to think that there's at least a chance he can do it again.
O.
Do people here believe that if Ukraine had agreed to Russia's terms at the outset, Russia would have eventually tried to gain more territory? As I understand it, the terms were for Ukraine to give up Donbass and Crimea, and to not join the EU or Nato.
I wasn't aware of the Budapest Memorandum, which explains why we are arming Ukraine.
Yes, despite the jaw-dropping lies of Sergei Lavrov, the B M principally states that Russia should respect the independence and original borders of Ukraine, and that Ukraine should give up any attempts to be a nuclear power - which it DID.
The words of someone who knows he's lost:
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1504159499040526338?t=nwwepdgR2E9rMSNVNW2pRQ&s=19
From this we take two messages.
1. He's throwing the oligarchs under the bus
2. He's trying to turn the populace against the segment that thinks the war is a bad idea.
He's set himself up for a civil war on both counts I think.
Edit: (for the pedants) not necessarily a literal civil war but definitely violence between Russians.
Yes, despite the jaw-dropping lies of Sergei Lavrov, the B M principally states that Russia should respect the independence and original borders of Ukraine, and that Ukraine should give up any attempts to be a nuclear power - which it DID.But did it say anything about NATO expansion, which seems to be the main reason for the invasion; they don't like the prospect of being within striking distance. Even though that logic is flawed, as NATO is for the purpose of defense only.
Re: 'de'Nazifying' Ukraine, I'm reading through How One Priest Turned Putin’s Invasion Into a Holy War (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/holy-war-priest-putin-war-ukraine-1323914/) which contains a link to
Same-Sex Marriage as Immoral as Nazi Laws, Russian Putin Ally Says (https://www.newsweek.com/same-sex-marriage-russia-gay-617565)
"So-called homosexual marriages" threaten family values, he was quoted as saying by RIA Novosti and reported by The Moscow Times. He added that "when laws are detached from morality they cease being laws people can accept"—as, he said, was the case in Nazi Germany."
Re: 'de'Nazifying' Ukraine, I'm reading through How One Priest Turned Putin’s Invasion Into a Holy War (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/holy-war-priest-putin-war-ukraine-1323914/) which contains a link to
Same-Sex Marriage as Immoral as Nazi Laws, Russian Putin Ally Says (https://www.newsweek.com/same-sex-marriage-russia-gay-617565)
"So-called homosexual marriages" threaten family values, he was quoted as saying by RIA Novosti and reported by The Moscow Times. He added that "when laws are detached from morality they cease being laws people can accept"—as, he said, was the case in Nazi Germany."
Re: 'de'Nazifying' Ukraine, I'm reading through How One Priest Turned Putin’s Invasion Into a Holy War (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/holy-war-priest-putin-war-ukraine-1323914/) which contains a link to
Same-Sex Marriage as Immoral as Nazi Laws, Russian Putin Ally Says (https://www.newsweek.com/same-sex-marriage-russia-gay-617565)
"So-called homosexual marriages" threaten family values, he was quoted as saying by RIA Novosti and reported by The Moscow Times. He added that "when laws are detached from morality they cease being laws people can accept"—as, he said, was the case in Nazi Germany."
But did it say anything about NATO expansion, which seems to be the main reason for the invasion; they don't like the prospect of being within striking distance. Even though that logic is flawed, as NATO is for the purpose of defense only.
Not quite sure what your point is.I posted that mainly as it might give a bit of insight into why Russia invaded, ie rescuing Ukraine from Western liberalism, although the real reason could just be strategic, as O says.
the suggestion that same-sex marriage is in some way akin to Nazism is offensive in the extreme given what the Nazis did to gay people.
The legal situation for gay people in Ukraine is not brilliant, though better than it is Russia:
https://www.equaldex.com/region/ukraine
https://www.equaldex.com/region/russia
I get really tired of this mantra pushed by some religious people (although in reality they are just bigots) that "So-called homosexual marriages" threaten family values,.If you think about it it's fairly obvious. If a child should be brought up by its natural parents then it doesn't make sense to introduce other partners into the family. A public commitment between the natural parents ensures that a child is brought up by them. That's what I see as the role of marriage. And I don't agree with the "marriage is not about kids" view; from a physiological/anatomical point of view, it is. And of course other factors threaten family values, such as divorce. And I don't agree that killing people is the way to prevent liberalism.
How exactly does it threaten family values?
Because as far as I am concerned it really is as simple as if you don't like gay marriage then don't marry a gay person. Problem solved. Leave others alone to live their life as they see fit.
Do these religious nutjobs think that homosexuality is so irresistibly attractive that everybody is suddenly going to switch camps given the chance?
It is absurd.
I can only think that what they have as brains has been turned to jelly by years of exposure to incense and incantations.
If you think about it it's fairly obvious. If a child should be brought up by its natural parents then it doesn't make sense to introduce other partners into the family.
A public commitment between the natural parents ensures that a child is brought up by them.
That's what I see as the role of marriage.
And I don't agree with the "marriage is not about kids" view.
And of course other factors threaten family values, such as divorce.
And I don't agree that killing people is the way to prevent liberalism.
What do you mean by "Do these religious nutjobs think that homosexuality is so irresistibly attractive that everybody is suddenly going to switch camps given the chance? "?
I posted that mainly as it might give a bit of insight into why Russia invaded, ie rescuing Ukraine from Western liberalism, although the real reason could just be strategic, as O says.Rescuing from Western liberalism? In what twisted Universe is Western liberalism bad?
I posted that mainly as it might give a bit of insight into why Russia invaded, ie rescuing Ukraine from Western liberalism, although the real reason could just be strategic, as O says.
A public commitment between the natural parents ensures that a child is brought up by them.
What do you mean by "Do these religious nutjobs think that homosexuality is so irresistibly attractive that everybody is suddenly going to switch camps given the chance?
I mean get a grip, gay marriage doesn't affect anyone adversely, save those who have narrow enough minds to feel affronted by it.What he said
I mean get a grip, gay marriage doesn't affect anyone adversely, save those who have narrow enough minds to feel affronted by it.
To lose one general might be regarded as misfortune. To lose seven looks like carelessness.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60807538
Also, a colonel got run over by one of his own tanks because his troops weren't happy. I think this is what Ad O's link alludes to, but it just goes to the Guardian icon.
In fact, this is it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/25/russian-troops-mutiny-commander-ukraine-report-western-officials
That's it. Apparently the commanders have had to lead from the front, added to that decent Ukranian intelligence, Russian commanders have been easy targets.As Gilbert and Sullivan might have had it
As Gilbert and Sullivan might have had it
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1507365192405073920.html
As the figures in the survey I posted made clear, there is not much difference between the two countries when it comes to the treatment of gay people. So if you think it is an insight you are mistaken. It might be being posited as a reason, but it is no more a reason than the claim that Ukraine is being rescued from Nazism."Rescued from Nazism" = "protected from Western liberalisation". It's not just same sex marriage but Gender switching as well.
That will come as a surprise to many children who find themselves in the middle of some divorcing parents. Also, I'd rather have children brought up by people who truly want to be parents, rather than some numpties who forgot the condoms whilst on a night out on the piss.
I thought the meaning was perfectly clear. If family values are threatened by gay marriage, then gay marriage must be an awesomely attractive alternative, wouldn't you say?
I mean get a grip, gay marriage doesn't affect anyone adversely, save those who have narrow enough minds to feel affronted by it.
"Rescued from Nazism" = "protected from Western liberalisation". It's not just same sex marriage but Gender switching as well.
Fuck off.Homophobic, yes (in the sense of arachnophobia etc), but bigot, no, I'm just saying what is partly motivating Putin to get control over Ukraine. He has mentioned it in his speeches. I'm not agreeing with his policy.
Homophobic bigot.
Apologist for Putin.
Trent,
I linked to an article about the Russian orthodox church which makes a connection between same sex marriage and some unnamed policies and laws of the Nazis, because those laws were immoral.
As you know I turn over if I see homoaexual behaviour on TV. That's the sense I meant.
Yes I was absolutely wrong about Putin. This is about the Russian church backing him, though.
What?Sandy Toskvig? She's got some neck.
You were the one that equated Western Liberalisation with Nazism and specifically mentioned same-sex marriage and gender-switching as examples of said liberalisation.
As for Putin mentioning this in his speeches - you believe him do you?
Because your track record isn't great on this man because you believed him when he said he wouldn't invade Ukraine didn't you?
So you'll excuse me while I get the Saxa salt out. There may be enough pinches with which to take all your crap statements.
And you are scared of homosexuals in the way some people are scared of spiders?
Do you really expect people to believe that?
Do you have to hide behind the sofa when Stephen Fry appears? Do you have a fit of the vapours when Sandi Toskvig hosts QI?
Not buying it. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Bigot.
Apologist for Putin.
Russia is building up troops and military equipment along Ukraine's eastern border ahead of an expected offensive in the Donbas region.
Here are the latest developments:
Satellite images show new Russian troop build-up on border
Russia planning renewed push in eastern Donbas region
Ukraine is also bolstering its forces in Donetsk and Luhansk
Russian forces close to capturing southern city of Mariupol
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60506682
And all we get from Biden are incoherent mumbling about war- crimes and genocide. If he wants Putin to halt the blood bath - he needs to lay down clear lines that the Russians must not cross. And ... the actions that America/NATO will take to stop the invading Russian troops if they do cross them.
He's now supplying armoured vehicles and helicopters to Ukraine. Actions speak louder than words whether mumbled or not.
I like this blog, from a group dedicated to keeping the name of Bonhoeffer alive. https://www.projectbonhoeffer.org.uk/project-bonhoeffer-says-its-time-to-listen-to-bonhoeffers-prophetic-message/
So how might Russia retaliate if Sweden and Finland join NATO?
The figure on the news was that approval for joining NATO in Finland had gone from 20% to 70% which for a shift in public opinion is remarkable. Does it feel like that there?
Cyber attacks, misinformation, moving nuclear weapons to Kaliningrad etc. Not anything we're not prepared for. If Putin's plan was to discourage NATO expansion he's obviously failed miserably. This is two fingers right at him. Only himself to blame.
The figure on the news was that approval for joining NATO in Finland had gone from 20% to 70% which for a shift in public opinion is remarkable. Does it feel like that there?
Good stuff! Kirill is a tool. It's important that all Christians speak out against this war and especially Orthodox. Religion is a part of the justification for this war, that Ukraine belongs to Russia because of Kieven Rus and its conversion.I thought that Kyiv was converted first, and therefore Putin and his thugs have got it arse about face. I also thought that historically, Poland had more of a claim to Ukraine (if such ancient history has any validity at all - why not talk about Belarus as being part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Absurd!)
I thought that Kyiv was converted first, and therefore Putin and his thugs have got it arse about face. I also thought that historically, Poland had more of a claim to Ukraine (if such ancient history has any validity at all - why not talk about Belarus as being part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Absurd!)
Some media suggest that any advances of Russian orcs might be their last. They are depleted. Let's hope this is true.
Hopefully he'll be fertilising sunflowers soon, assumind he really is ill. The aim should be to isolate Russia as long as Putin and his mafia are in power.
Yes, I'd agree but what will Putin do when completely cornered with no way out? Here is an interesting interview with a nuclear weapons expert and Freddie Sayers is always a good unbiased interviewer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FsSLq1qvX8
Assuming the long term objective be to restore trade with Russia, how much of the problem is due just to Putin himself? What is the likelihood of a coup, and of a decent replacement for him?
Yes, I'd agree but what will Putin do when completely cornered with no way out? Here is an interesting interview with a nuclear weapons expert and Freddie Sayers is always a good unbiased interviewer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FsSLq1qvX8
Yes, I'd agree but what will Putin do when completely cornered with no way out? Here is an interesting interview with a nuclear weapons expert and Freddie Sayers is always a good unbiased interviewer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FsSLq1qvX8
We don't really know if any of the Russian missiles still work. Nuclear weapons require a lot of maintenance, which is something that the Russians seem to be very bad at. We don't really want to find out because even one working ICBM spells catastrophe but I wouldn't be surprised if Putin is wondering how many of his missiles still work too.interesting thought.
There's another possibility and that is that Putin has already pressed the button and nothing happened. Obviously, this is pretty unlikely, but wouldn't it be nice(?) if, when this is all over, it comes to light that Putin tried to destroy the World at the end of March but just caused a few fires in missile silos?
I still think it would have been better to give in to Russia's initial terms. Putin appears to me to have wanted Russian-soeakung regions to become independent and some kind of neutral zone between Russia and NATO countries.
I can understand Ukrainians wanting to fight for their territory and independence, especially because they love their families and land. But I am not sure that land is sacred enough to die for. Life is also sacred, more so in my opinion. Putin would not have dared to invade a NATO country, so I think to strengthen those borders would have been all that was necessary. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding in Russia - evidenced by their belief that the West want to invade it.
I still think it would have been better to give in to Russia's initial terms. Putin appears to me to have wanted Russian-soeakung regions to become independent and some kind of neutral zone between Russia and NATO countries.
I can understand Ukrainians wanting to fight for their territory and independence, especially because they love their families and land. But I am not sure that land is sacred enough to die for. Life is also sacred, more so in my opinion. Putin would not have dared to invade a NATO country, so I think to strengthen those borders would have been all that was necessary. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding in Russia - evidenced by their belief that the West want to invade it.
And what about all the other non-NATO countries that he would have then felt emboldened to attack?If they agreed to his peace terms he would not need to use military force.
If they agreed to his peace terms he would not need to use military force.
If they agreed to his peace terms he would not need to use military force.
I still think it would have been better to give in to Russia's initial terms. Putin appears to me to have wanted Russian-soeakung regions to become independent and some kind of neutral zone between Russia and NATO countries.
I can understand Ukrainians wanting to fight for their territory and independence, especially because they love their families and land. But I am not sure that land is sacred enough to die for. Life is also sacred, more so in my opinion. Putin would not have dared to invade a NATO country, so I think to strengthen those borders would have been all that was necessary. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding in Russia - evidenced by their belief that the West want to invade it.
That's the might is right argument again. Give in to the bully in the hope he might stop bullying you. It's not an option though because the bully never stops there.Putin won't be around forever.
Putin won't be around forever.
I was reading this morning that China is to expand its Navy. The reaction from the US is to raise the alarm. Likewise, Russia sees NATO expansion as a provocation.
No. Hopefully not for long but what about his cronies?
Ironic really. It was Putin that provoked NATO expansionRecently, yes. But historically it seems to be the other way round: the Warsaw Pact was a consequence of the rearming of West Germany within NATO, and since the Pact was discontinued, 11 central and Eastern European countries have joined, with more talking about joining. I think there is a culture of war and violence escalating (just heard talk of a defense treaty between Russia, China and Brazil), and that there has to be a worldwide resolution to work permanently towards deescalation and disarming.
I think once Putin is gone, Russia will immediately withdraw from Ukraine and do everything it can to have the sanctions removed. It's probably obvious to everybody in the power chain in Russia that this was a terrible mistake. It's probably obvious even to Putin, but he's a dead man the moment he admits it.Yes - problems seem to start when one leader goes rogue, and subside when he is gone.
So how long will it take for the world to declare RuSSia a terrorist state and declare all agreements made with it null and void?
It seems obvious this is not going to happen? The world has been complicit in Russian kleptocracy for decades. They will adjust to the new state of affairs, the next cold war, until Putin is ousted or dies without a similarly motivated successor, or succeeds in the destruction and subjugation of Ukraine, whichever is sooner.
I'm not defending the way Russia is acting, Trent. The Russian language is mutually intelligible with Belarusian and Ukrainian, but not with those countries you listed.
I'm not defending the way Russia is acting, Trent. The Russian language is mutually intelligible with Belarusian and Ukrainian, but not with those countries you listed.
And yet Russia hasn't invaded Norway, Poland, Latvia and Estonia.
All of which have borders with Russia and are in NATO.
It's almost like you are making stuff up to defend Russia's actions.
Poland doesn't have a border with Russia (excepting that weird little chunk with Kaliningrad in it) and Norway's is very short and very far North.
Eh?Ok, the language difference might be bigger than I thought.
Ok, the language difference might be bigger than I thought.
If I might play devil's advocate; parts of Eastern Ukraine, notably the Donbas region, are majority-Russian.Well they are now since they have basically been depopulated by the Russians.
Is it unreasonable for them to be ceded to Russia, If Putin could be persuaded to content himself with that?
If I might play devil's advocate; parts of Eastern Ukraine, notably the Donbas region, are majority-Russian. Is it unreasonable for them to be ceded to Russia, If Putin could be persuaded to content himself with that?
I might be, it might not. I can't say. Still, I don't understand why having a related language would make joining NATO (if that really was ever on the cards) more unacceptable (to RuSSia, that is).We won't understand, probably. Compare the situation with Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka?
They're not bothered about Finland joining, only about the deployment of weapons close to the border.
So what were all the years of threats about then? The invasion directly led to us applying, which is exactly the opposite of what he wanted. He knows he's lost that fight, hence his comments, but don't believe for one moment that he's fine with it.
Fuck you, Putin! From Finland with love! Kaliningrad is fucked!
Yeah, it really worked. With Finland joining NATO's border with Russia doubles. Putin must be a master strategist!When I say keeping NATO at arm's length, I mean stopping them deploying nuclear missiles near the border. If Finland does that, he will do the same.
When I say keeping NATO at arm's length, I mean stopping them deploying nuclear missiles near the border. If Finland does that, he will do the same.
This is an article about the current distribution of nuclear weapons:I had been reading an article, in which Putin is reported to have said, "The NATO membership of the Nordic nations poses no direct threat for us … but the expansion of military infrastructure to these territories will certainly provoke our response". I interpreted "military infrastructure" as nuclear missiles.
https://tinyurl.com/2vfb9ak8
From memory, this situation on the NATO side has been like this for years and has not changed.
You will notice that Russia already has missiles adjacent to Finland, so who actually is the provocateur?
So what were all the years of threats about then? The invasion directly led to us applying, which is exactly the opposite of what he wanted. He knows he's lost that fight, hence his comments, but don't believe for one moment that he's fine with it.But NATO supplying weapons to Ukraine has basically enabled them to resist Russia, without defeating them. A bit like mounting a vaccine-induced adaptive immune response against a rapidly mutating virus while being exposed to that virus (instead of being fully vaccinated before exposure). The virus learns how to evade the antibodies while they are suboptimal. Ukraine has to be trained how to use the weapons while under attack, and Russia changes tactics and uses artillery instead of tanks. On goes the pandemic, on goes the war.
Fuck you, Putin! From Finland with love! Kaliningrad is fucked!
But NATO supplying weapons to Ukraine has basically enabled them to resist Russia, without defeating them. A bit like mounting a vaccine-induced adaptive immune response against a rapidly mutating virus while being exposed to that virus (instead of being fully vaccinated before exposure). The virus learns how to evade the antibodies while they are suboptimal. Ukraine has to be trained how to use the weapons while under attack, and Russia changes tactics and uses artillery instead of tanks. On goes the pandemic, on goes the war.
I had been reading an article, in which Putin is reported to have said, "The NATO membership of the Nordic nations poses no direct threat for us … but the expansion of military infrastructure to these territories will certainly provoke our response". I interpreted "military infrastructure" as nuclear missiles.
Yes the map you posted does show Russian nuclear deployment near the border. I'm wondering if this predates Eastern European countries joining NATO? In which case, it isn't near the original border between the Soviet Union and NATO. If NATO expands Eastwards, should Russia be expected to move its missiles further back?
Going by Putin's comment that if Ukraine joins NATO it may try to take back Crimea, which could lead to NATO being directly in conflict with Russia, and given the possibility that as a NATO member, Ukraine could host US ballistic missiles and US troops, it is understandable that Russia would seek written guarantees that NATO will not allow Ukraine to join or put military infrastructure near its border.
ad o,
No - unless NATO can go in and fight with them, and is prepared to suffer huge losses due to nuclear war, let Ukraine go.
What? Russia's threats are all bluff! Putin always banks on us falling for it. He goes all in on us going for the less riskier option now. We let Ukraine go and it does not end there. Less risk now equals more risk later. Now is the time to go for the jugular and call his bluff. Sorry, but to do anything else than make sure we do all we can to make sure Ukraine wins and Russia loses (including giving longer range equipment) is to be in the side of a genocidal dictator.That would mean NATO going in and getting fully involved: I doubt Ukraine could kick them out on its own. The problem is we've been involved in several wars lately and nobody from here has much appetite for more.
That would mean NATO going in and getting fully involved: I doubt Ukraine could kick them out on its own. The problem is we've been involved in several wars lately and nobody from here has much appetite for more.
That would mean NATO going in and getting fully involved: I doubt Ukraine could kick them out on its own. The problem is we've been involved in several wars lately and nobody from here has much appetite for more.
We don't have to put boots on the ground. Ukraine isn't asking for that. They're asking for weapons. We need to arm them to the teeth. The Russian army is already in trouble. It's running out of ammo and man power.But you have to get the equipment there and train them to use it. Plus it wil bankrupt both sides and Ukraine will be decimated.
Is your middle name Neville?Is Russia aiming to overrun Europe?
Is Russia aiming to overrun Europe?
In his speech, Putin reached back far further than the cold war to find his grievances. He stated clearly that the processes that led to Russia losing territory a century ago must be reversed. He pointed out what he said were catastrophic mistakes by the Bolsheviks in recognising Ukraine as a republic, and ceding land to end the war with Germany in 1918. He lamented the loss not of the Soviet Union, but of the “territory of the former Russian empire”.
It's amazing how he lied saying they had no plans to invade.
How wrong was I thinking they would only invade Donbas. I must say I hope Ukraine will surrender soon.
Is Russia aiming to overrun Europe?
But you have to get the equipment there and train them to use it. Plus it wil bankrupt both sides and Ukraine will be decimated.
ad o,
No - unless NATO can go in and fight with them, and is prepared to suffer huge losses due to nuclear war, let Ukraine go.
Wait. Are you seriously claiming we should let Russia take Ukraine? Sorry, but you are out of your mind if you think that's a good idea.My view from the start has been that if we don't help them with boots on the ground (hundreds of thousands) the war will rumble on indefinitely.
This is from a report about a speech Putin gave:Has Putin indicated any intention to invade a NATO country? Is that likely?
Full article here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/22/putin-speech-russia-empire-threat-ukraine-moscow
History teaches us that empires, dictators, and madmen don't stop at just one country.
As there are elements of all three of those in this tragic tangle of Putin, history, and misplaced wounded pride, I have no reason to hope that Putin would stop at Ukraine.
At the beginning of this conflict you were surprised he'd invaded, even when you had the evidence of massed troops on the border:
I'm not sure you're understanding of Putin or history is that well-informed.
Is Russia aiming to overrun Europe?
My view from the start has been that if we don't help them with boots on the ground (hundreds of thousands) the war will rumble on indefinitely.
To be honest it's not for us to let or not let Russia take Ukraine. They need to sort out their own problems. We can provide humanitarian support, but arming them will not help them win but lead to them all being killed over a long period.
We should reserve our military for NATO countries and strengthen our presence in NATO countries at risk of attack from Russia. Then de-escalate, negotiating mutual de-armament, peacefully.
The only way we could save Ukraine would be to treat them as NATO members and put boots on the ground - a lot of them.
Jus my view.
You really aren't paying attention, are you?I used the word Europe in the sense it meant when Hitler invaded it. I use the word NATO in the literal sense and I think that Putin won't invade a NATO country (if we keep our noses out of the Ukraine war) because he knows he wouldn't be able to win. If NATO joined in, obviously he could attack targets in Poland etc from which it would be operating.
You didn't think he'd invade Ukraine, based on some naive idea you had that Putin's word could be trusted.
If we let him get away with this, he will then chance his arm further.
And you are changing the playing field a little. You talked about Europe, not NAto countries here:
As Ukraine is part of Europe then I'd have to say yes, he has started.
As pointed out in the article I linked to, the arguments used by Putin for Ukraine can equally be used for the Baltic states, Finland & Poland.
As it is already well known that he is unstable then he might think NATO is weak enough to just stand by if we don't stop him now. He cannot be allowed to succeed in Ukraine.
Yeah, just your view and you're dangerously wrong. How Russia runs its own internal affairs is indeed its own business. Russians by and large seem content to live in perpetual serfdom. Well they can have it, along with their mouldy burgers and outside khazis. When they start invading their neighbours it becomes other people's business though. This isn't some internal dispute as your language seems to suggest. That's just Russian propaganda for the vatniks back home. This is full out invasion and genocide of a sovereign nation and people.So let's go and make a no-fly zone and put boots on the ground. That's the only way Ukraine can be saved. The Kurds did well against Isis but we were helping them with air support. This is not Isis, it's Russia.
Russia is losing this war already. Today the go ahead has been given to give Ukraine fighter jets. More HIMARS are on the way (Man! I love HIMARS! That's when vatnik goes boom!) and heavy weaponry are on the way. First Herson, then Crimea, and then the Black Sea fleet. Finally Donbas. See you later Russia!Tough talk. So are you going to go and help the Ukrainians? No, you're letting them do the dying while you sit watching it on TV.
I think that Putin won't invade a NATO country
So let's go and make a no-fly zone and put boots on the ground. That's the only way Ukraine can be saved. The Kurds did well against Isis but we were helping them with air support. This is not Isis, it's Russia.
And we can't really go to war with Russia, because it could turn nuclear. The best we can do is humanitarian support.
Incidentally, why didn't we stay in Afghanistan? Because we haven't got a mandate to fight an ongoing war with the Taliban.
Tough talk. So are you going to go and help the Ukrainians? No, you're letting them do the dying while you sit watching it on TV.
From where I sit it looks like the west is using Ukrainians to weaken Russia, while not willing to get their hands dirty.
Is that the same "I think" that was involved in your last prediction?I recall being wrong about Putin invading Ukraine and trying to capture Kiev. The latter was a tactical blunder by Russia; once they'd retreated and focused on the Donbass they made more progress.
I do hope you don't find yourself having to use the phrase "How wrong was I......" again.
I'm afraid though that were we to follow your line of complete surrender you will find yourself uttering that phrase at least once more.
Spud! Vatnik propagandist! You don't really believe all that guff do you? Putin's threats are all bluff. He and his cronies have played the nuclear card too often. If they had any intention of using them they would have by now.What reason would he have had to use them by now?
As for the last bit, that's risible! Have you ever asked what Ukrainians actually want? Obviously not! So enough of your westplaining. You're a dictator enabler and you have blood on your hands!I'm not saying NATO shouldn't help directly; the risk of nukes is there, but they could still have made a no-fly zone, especially if it's true that Putin is bluffing on nukes. I'm not against that, my argument is that without it, there could be a stalemate.
The difference with NATO countries is they have two significant deterrents: the commitment to defend each other, and nuclear weapons
What reason would he have had to use them by now?
I'm not saying NATO shouldn't help directly; the risk of nukes is there, but they could still have made a no-fly zone, especially if it's true that Putin is bluffing on nukes. I'm not against that, my argument is that without it, there could be a stalemate.
I hope I am wrong about that and the assistance we have given achieves its objective.
Spud! Vatnik propagandist! You don't really believe all that guff do you? Putin's threats are all bluff. He and his cronies have played the nuclear card too often. If they had any intention of using them they would have by now.My last post was pro-NATO involvement, partly in response to your second paragraph here. Having thought more, I think a non-intervention stance is best. I guess I'll have to put up with your criticism.
As for the last bit, that's risible! Have you ever asked what Ukrainians actually want? Obviously not! So enough of your westplaining. You're a dictator enabler and you have blood on your hands!
My last post was pro-NATO involvement, partly in response to your second paragraph here. Having thought more, I think a non-intervention stance is best. I guess I'll have to put up with your criticism.
Russia now says that if long-range weapons are placed near its borders, it will expand its objectives to include conquering those areas.
They can try!It shows that Russia's concern about weapons near the border is genuine. So again, the solution will be found in an agreement in which weapons are removed from near borders and not deployed at a threatening distance from the other side.
It shows that Russia's concern about weapons near the border is genuine. So again, the solution will be found in an agreement in which weapons are removed from near borders and not deployed at a threatening distance from the other side.
Russia can eat shit!Still better than their burgers though!
More video evidence today (which I will not link to here) of Russian war crimes. Russian soldiers castrate a Ukrainian soldier with a stanley knife and Wagner Group behead and cut off the hands of another Ukrainian soldier and put them on posts for display. And some people still want to negotiate a peace? These are not even human. The only peace is when every last kacap in Ukraine is killed. Every single one of them! Fucking subhuman scum!Isn't this the same language as the Russians will be using about the Ukrainians?
Isn't this the same language as the Russians will be using about the Ukrainians?
What's good for the goose...Then you become the thing you hate
No fucking mercy!
Then you become the thing you hate
Tell that to the victims and all the people who have been murdered, tortured or raped. Russia must fucking fall.And you'll accept murder torture and rape to achieve that.
And you'll accept murder torture and rape to achieve that.
All I said was they must die! I never suggested that anyone commit any war crimes. I'm saying that every single last orc should go home in a body bag. They deserve nothing less now.Which would almost certainly represent a massive war crime.
All I said was they must die! I never suggested that anyone commit any war crimes. I'm saying that every single last orc should go home in a body bag. They deserve nothing less now.
Which would almost certainly represent a massive war crime.
The "orcs" are just people who have been put in a bad situation by their president. I'd be happy with them just going home, leaving all their equipment behind and telling everybody in Russia what it was really like.
Of course, some of them have committed war crimes and they should ideally be brought to justice, but I don't agree with capital punishment so I'd be happy with prison sentences for them.
How, if it was done within the rules of combat? I'm not suggesting anything else. Just look to annihilate the enemy through superior firepower. That's why we should be giving Ukraine everything we've got. Let's put an end to this here. We should also be looking to support ethnic rebellion across Russia and reduce it to its 1471 borders and call it Muskovy. Russia doesn't deserve to exist. It's entire history is one of paranoia, aggression and genocide.How would it be possible to kill every single enemy combatant within the rules of combat which only permit you to kill enemy combatants under certain circumstances. You are not permitted under law to engage in unnecessary killing of enemy combatants, nor can you kill captured enemy combatants. And the law is such that if enemy combatants can be put out of action by capturing them, they should not be injured; if they can be put out of action by injury, they should not be killed. Nor are you allowed to engage in reciprocity - in other words to violate the Geneva convention as reprisal for violations by your enemy.
How would it be possible to kill every single enemy combatant within the rules of combat which only permit you to kill enemy combatants under certain circumstances. You are not permitted under law to engage in unnecessary killing of enemy combatants, nor can you kill captured enemy combatants. And the law is such that if enemy combatants can be put out of action by capturing them, they should not be injured; if they can be put out of action by injury, they should not be killed. Nor are you allowed to engage in reciprocity - in other words to violate the Geneva convention as reprisal for violations by your enemy.Great post, PD.
So it is extremely difficult to see how you could kill all your enemies combatants without it being a massive war crime.
Setting aside my view that the war could have been avoided by agreeing to Russia's terms of peace from the outset, and that the aid given to Ukraine has until now not been sufficient to allow them to win
I don't buy that they're just a bunch of poor sods who are being used by Putin. Of course there are Russians against the war and Putin but generally Russians are behind the war and adhere to the mindset behind it. It belongs to the Russian psyche. As a nation they have to accept a measure of collective guilt because they have enabled this.
I don't buy that they're just a bunch of poor sods who are being used by Putin. Of course there are Russians against the war and Putin but generally Russians are behind the war and adhere to the mindset behind it. It belongs to the Russian psyche. As a nation they have to accept a measure of collective guilt because they have enabled this.Some of the soldiers are reported to be conscripts - so they have no choice whatsoever.
Genocide it is then.
Pootin sympathist! You've really bought into the Moskovites narrative. Pray, what "peace" did he ofder that didn't entail Ukraine having to give up its territorial sovereignty? Utterly morally reprehensible view!Why?
Why?
Sorry, how do you get to that conclusion? Don't you think nations bear some sort of collective responsibility for their history? Nazi Germany anyone?
Because you want all the Russians dead.
Because you're doing what you did at the beginning of this thread. Might is right!I'm not saying might is right. That philosophy is wrong, but if somebody acts on it against you and they are bigger than you, and you retaliate, then you will get beaten up.
We mustn't annoy Russia. Musn't embarrass Pootin! Russia big bear who gets annoyed when you poke him! Slava Rossiya! Vatnik talk.I went to pat an elephant on the trunk once, and ended up on the ground. We would risk ww3 if we get directly involved. Yet in order to beat Russia, in my opinion that would take all NATO has got - assuming China doesn't side with Russia.
More war Russian war crimes.The New Testament teaches us to avoid retaliation and revenge.
https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1553346547739410432?t=LBSW7w8LPKzzwiELi-gdnA&s=19
Anyone still think the invaders deserve to live? There will be revenge for this.
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.
All I said was they must die! I never suggested that anyone commit any war crimes. I'm saying that every single last orc should go home in a body bag. They deserve nothing less now.You want to calm down a lot, and drop the inflammatory language. You sound like the sort of propagandist who incites war crimes.
Is he raping her or killing her or both?
Just inviting so many Godwinism's.
So are you seriously saying when a woman gets attacked in the street by some pervert that she should not resist him?
Seriously that is the biggest steaming pile of shite you've served up yet.
Is he raping her or killing her or both?
If it's just rape, suppose she has a knife. Would it be better to kill him or let him rape her?
If someone robs you do you kill them?
Do not repay evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.
Russia wanted to rob Ukraine, they didn't want to kill them. But they brought weapons with them knowing that Ukrainians would try to kill them.
If it is unjust to kill a robber, then Ukraine is guilty of initiating the war. Many Ukrainians in Donbas did not resist with violence, but protested and stood in front of the tanks etc. I think that was the right thing to do.
What are you actually going on about?To be clear, I'm not against resistance in that situation. I wasn't sure about going as far as killing him in self defense, but since in Deuteronomy 22:25 rape is punishable by death, I would assume for now that it would be permissible.
"Excuse me just a moment before you do whatever you are going to do can you just let me know is this a rape or murder?"
"TEll you what luv, I'll do two for the price of one"
You aren't real Spud. You are some kind of grotesque made up bot.
To be clear, I'm not against resistance in that situation. I wasn't sure about going as far as killing him in self defense, but since in Deuteronomy 22:25 rape is punishable by death, I would assume for now that it would be permissible.
Also, I think it's clear from Luke 22:35-38 that killing in self defence is justified, so if a country is invaded then it is justified in defending itself.
I'm just not convinced that appealing to the rest of the world to protect you is the best thing, as it has resulted in devastation of the country, the death of innocent people and worldwide economic destruction. It might have been better, for example, to sanction Russia and wait until it gives up Ukraine.
So if the Nazis had just committed genocide on the Jews, and not invaded other countries, your take is that it would have been wrong of the Jews to appeal for help.
Russia wanted to rob Ukraine, they didn't want to kill them. But they brought weapons with them knowing that Ukrainians would try to kill them.
If it is unjust to kill a robber, then Ukraine is guilty of initiating the war.
Also, I think it's clear from Luke 22:35-38 that killing in self defence is justified, so if a country is invaded then it is justified in defending itself.
So if the Nazis had just committed genocide on the Jews, and not invaded other countries, your take is that it would have been wrong of the Jews to appeal for help.The Jews survived that kind of attack under the Persian empire, see book of Esther. But that was because they were supported by the Persian king who was married to a Jewess.
The Jews survived that kind of attack under the Persian empire, see book of Esther. But that was because they were supported by the Persian king who was married to a Jewess.
I doubt the Jews could have been helped in your scenario, as a similar thing happened in Rwanda and nothing was done. That was because of its suddenness and the reluctance of UN forces to intervene.
A big reason, it seems, for the rest of the world helping Ukraine, is because of the perceived threat to Europe. But that is not necessarily so much of a threat as is made out, as Europe is mostly part of NATO and protected by nuclear deterrents.
Is he raping her or killing her or both?
If it's just rape, suppose she has a knife. Would it be better to kill him or let him rape her?
If someone robs you do you kill them?
Do not repay evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.
Russia wanted to rob Ukraine, they didn't want to kill them. But they brought weapons with them knowing that Ukrainians would try to kill them.
If it is unjust to kill a robber, then Ukraine is guilty of initiating the war. Many Ukrainians in Donbas did not resist with violence, but protested and stood in front of the tanks etc. I think that was the right thing to do.
And your position is that asking for help when genocide is being committed against you is wrong.It's not genocide though. Genocide implies (to me at least) attacking Ukraine even if Ukraine had surrendered or agreed to Russia's terms for peace.
It's not genocide though. Genocide implies (to me at least) attacking Ukraine even if Ukraine had surrendered or agreed to Russia's terms for peace.The post I replied to was about the Jews, who you would have let be murdered.
It's not genocide though. Genocide implies (to me at least) attacking Ukraine even if Ukraine had surrendered or agreed to Russia's terms for peace.
The post I replied to was about the Jews, who you would have let be murdered.No, I would have helped them, because that was genocide. This situation is not genocide, as Zelensky has the option to agree to peace terms.
No, I would have helped them, because that was genocide. This situation is not genocide, as Zelensky has the option to agree to peace terms.
No, I would have helped them, because that was genocide. This situation is not genocide, as Zelensky has the option to agree to peace terms.
No, I would have helped them, because that was genocide. This situation is not genocide, as Zelensky has the option to agree to peace terms.So say the Nazis had said to the Jews 'We won't kill you if you agree to be our slaves', you would have been fine with that? After all, it's just 'peace terms'.
No, I would have helped them, because that was genocide. This situation is not genocide, as Zelensky has the option to agree to peace terms.
No, I would have helped them, because that was genocide. This situation is not genocide, as Zelensky has the option to agree to peace terms.
So say the Nazis had said to the Jews 'We won't kill you if you agree to be our slaves', you would have been fine with that? After all, it's just 'peace terms'.How do we deal with modern slavery? By shooting those who are guilty of it?
How do we deal with modern slavery? By shooting those who are guilty of it?Certainly not by standing by and ignoring it as you want to do.
It's not genocide? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/27/russia-guilty-inciting-genocide-ukraine-expert-report (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/27/russia-guilty-inciting-genocide-ukraine-expert-report) These thirty expert scholars and lawyers appear to disagree with you, on the basis of the forcible relocation of children, the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage and the ongoing propoganda effort to try to depict Ukrainians as just 'mislabelled' Russians without an identity of their own.Okay, thanks for the link. Looking at it from the Russian perspective, a few points:
Genocide is the crime of trying to eradicate a culture - the Nazis opted to try to do that by killing entire populations, but Russia, like China with the Uyghur Muslims, is trying to suppress the identity and idea in any way it can.
Now, maybe that's a form of genocide that you wouldn't feel as obligated to fight back against, I can understand the logic of that stance (though I wouldn't agree with it), but this is clearly an attempt to undermine the concept of Ukraine and being Ukrainian, and therefore it's a form of genocide.
O.
Firstly, Ukrainians armed their citizens, in case Russian troops managed to enter cities. This means that any attacks on apartment blocks etc were not strictly attacks on defenseless citizens.
Why shouldn't they?
It's their fucking country.
They wouldn't need to defend their country if the Russians hadn't invaded. Just who do you think is at fault here? Clue: It's not the Ukrainians.
By your argument, we shouldn't have had the Home Guard in WW2.
It would be best if you got your water supply checked, there is something in it that is not doing your thought processes any good.
Or maybe he is taking some substance, which interfers with his thought processes so he can't see how inane his comments on this topic are.
Is he raping her or killing her or both?
If it's just rape, suppose she has a knife. Would it be better to kill him or let him rape her?
If someone robs you do you kill them?
Do not repay evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.
Russia wanted to rob Ukraine, they didn't want to kill them. But they brought weapons with them knowing that Ukrainians would try to kill them.
If it is unjust to kill a robber, then Ukraine is guilty of initiating the war. Many Ukrainians in Donbas did not resist with violence, but protested and stood in front of the tanks etc. I think that was the right thing to do.
The Jews survived that kind of attack under the Persian empire, see book of Esther.The book of Esther is acknowledged to be a work of fiction. Think of it as a historical novel.
A big reason, it seems, for the rest of the world helping Ukraine, is because of the perceived threat to Europe. But that is not necessarily so much of a threat as is made out, as Europe is mostly part of NATO and protected by nuclear deterrents.
I would cheer if someone was brave enough to dispose of Putin. I would have no hesitation in doing it myself if it was possible.
Somebody who is being raped has every right to stop the rape happening by any reasonable means, as far as I'm concerned. If that means stabbing the rapist with a knife, I'd say that is acceptable and if the rapist subsequently dies, again, that is acceptable.Maybe they do have the right to fight back, but as I've said earlier, on their own they would be better off making a peace treaty with Russia.
If I was being robbed I would only consider stabbing the robber if they were actually doing violence to me or if I was sure they will be doing violence to me.
Russia invaded Ukraine. They wanted to subjugate Ukraine and its people. Had they succeeded in the first few days as they expected, most of the incumbent government would have been murdered. They would probably have started ethnically cleansing certain territories and you can be sure there would be robbery, rape and murder going on, because that's what occupying soldiers do. Ukraine has every right to fight back.
Putin and his followers are very dangerous people who would stop at nothing to get what they want. They need to know that they wont get away with their terrible crimes.
Maybe they do have the right to fight back, but as I've said earlier, on their own they would be better off making a peace treaty with Russia.
Your basis for justifying the West arming Ukraine seems to be the assumption that Russia would attack other countries after Ukraine? I may be ignorant of reasons for that, but I don't see evidence for it.
Google came up with this video when I typed in "who will win war in Ukraine?"
https://youtu.be/goHs6xNQx_0
It's an interview with an American colonel, who seems ten times more awake than the US president.
Or he might be talking nonsense. How do you decide which it is?
Or he might be talking nonsense. How do you decide which it is?The full interview is the first 45 minutes of this video (https://youtu.be/O71K8GpNNNg)
The full interview is the first 45 minutes of this video (https://youtu.be/O71K8GpNNNg)
Also check out the first minute of this (https://youtu.be/yHdVQfiaXGY)
Definitely pronouncing nonsense! Just five seconds in he says we should all of just done what Putin said. He's got a massive Russian dick in his mouth. A useful idiot!What he actually said was we should have listened to what Putin said in 2008 and what they would and would not tolerate. And if we'd done that, and sat down and talked with them as mature adults we could have come up with some sort of compromise. We did the opposite, we stonewalled with the goal of punishing Russia, which is nonsense, and we've ruined eastern Europe.
What he actually said was we should have listened to what Putin said in 2008 and what they would and would not tolerate.Because murdering tyrants are the people we should listen to
Because murdering tyrants are the people we should listen toIf it means they won't murder then yes.
If it means they won't murder then yes.Might is right, obey or die. Putin has murdered political opponents. You are his cheerleader.
Might is right, obey or die. Putin has murdered political opponents. You are his cheerleader.And not just Putin's cheerleader, you justify all those murderers and domestic abusers who victim blame. You cheer on violence. You piss on your religion.
What he actually said was we should have listened to what Putin said in 2008 and what they would and would not tolerate. And if we'd done that, and sat down and talked with them as mature adults we could have come up with some sort of compromise. We did the opposite, we stonewalled with the goal of punishing Russia, which is nonsense, and we've ruined eastern Europe.
If it means they won't murder then yes.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/we-were-turned-into-feral-savages-says-ex-russian-soldier-of-his-time-in-ukraine/ar-AA10OUvu?ocid=mailsignout&li=BBoPWjQ
And not just Putin's cheerleader, you justify all those murderers and domestic abusers who victim blame. You cheer on violence. You piss on your religion.Try reading Daniel chapter 1. Daniel and his three friends worked for the Babylonians. Was he a traitor? Jeremiah told the Jews to surrender and they locked him up. There is a time to fight and a time to submit, Ukraine has forced all its men to go on a giant suicide mission. There won't be any left.
Try reading Daniel chapter 1. Daniel and his three friends worked for the Babylonians. Was he a traitor? Jeremiah told the Jews to surrender and they locked him up. There is a time to fight and a time to submit, Ukraine has forced all its men to go on a giant suicide mission. There won't be any left.You support the murder and rape of women. You cheerlead violence. You piss on Christ.
Try reading Daniel chapter 1. Daniel and his three friends worked for the Babylonians. Was he a traitor? Jeremiah told the Jews to surrender and they locked him up. There is a time to fight and a time to submit, Ukraine has forced all its men to go on a giant suicide mission. There won't be any left.
Ha! What makes you think that except a desire to see Russia win?Er, a desire to see people stop fighting? [Moderator: content removed].
Russia is losing.From what I gather, they withdrew their professional army to refit and rest them in preparation for a major offensive to take the remaining coastal land in the south.
You support the rape, torture and murder of Ukrainians.No I don't. Russian soldiers helped Ukrainian civilians causght in the shelling to escape to Belarus, according to one source. Ukrainians murder their own citizens if they don't fight for them, according to two other sources, one of which was backed up by a photo of a sign threatening to hang, explode or knife to death anyone caught collaborating (or could we say cooperating?). They lie about their successes to get more money from the West. and threaten to shoot American, British and Canadian soldiers in the back if they try to leave.
You couldn't be further from Christ.Maybe, maybe not. I don't think much of the stuff that's coming out of your head.
I suppose one has to feel sorry for people like Spud who have been taken in by the EVIL Putin. :oCan I try and explain again my view? I don't condone Russia invading Ukraine. But I'm not convinced that our response of arming Ukraine is right. Russia is not going to attack NATO, which has a much larger military, so it won't make us safer. What do we gain from pushing them back to the original border? To say that we've helped Ukraine? At a huge cost to our economies and the Ukrainian people. If we give Russia what it wants - Ukrainian neutrality, more freedom for Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine - everybody will be better off.
Can I try and explain again my view? I don't condone Russia invading Ukraine. But I'm not convinced that our response of arming Ukraine is right. Russia is not going to attack NATO, which has a much larger military, so it won't make us safer. What do we gain from pushing them back to the original border? To say that we've helped Ukraine? At a huge cost to our economies and the Ukrainian people. If we give Russia what it wants - Ukrainian neutrality, more freedom for Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine - everybody will be better off.
Here is an interesting take on Johnson's recent speech in Kiev:
https://youtu.be/GzNOXWjcLVs
Can I try and explain again my view? I don't condone Russia invading Ukraine. But I'm not convinced that our response of arming Ukraine is right. Russia is not going to attack NATO, which has a much larger military, so it won't make us safer. What do we gain from pushing them back to the original border? To say that we've helped Ukraine? At a huge cost to our economies and the Ukrainian people. If we give Russia what it wants - Ukrainian neutrality, more freedom for Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine - everybody will be better off.According to a friend of mine, who lived in the Ukraine for two years, the 'Russian speakers' had pretty much all the freedoms of other Ukrainians (a very large number of whom also spoke Russian anyway). The 'separatists' certainly didn't need liberating.
Here is an interesting take on Johnson's recent speech in Kiev:
https://youtu.be/GzNOXWjcLVs
Maybe they do have the right to fight back, but as I've said earlier, on their own they would be better off making a peace treaty with Russia.They had a peace treaty with Russia. Putin ignored it.
And if we'd done that, and sat down and talked with them as mature adults
Can I try and explain again my view? I don't condone Russia invading Ukraine. But I'm not convinced that our response of arming Ukraine is right. Russia is not going to attack NATO, which has a much larger military, so it won't make us safer.It's already made us safer.
What do we gain from pushing them back to the original border?
If we give Russia what it wantsThy'll think they can take more just by rolling their tanks into other countries.
Ukrainian neutralityRussia wants Ukrainian subjugation, not neutrality.
more freedom for Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine - everybody will be better off.
The chairman of Russia's Lukoil oil giant, Ravil Maganov, has died after falling from a hospital window in Moscow, reports say.
How many people have you ever heard of falling from a hospital window?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62750584
He was critical of the Ukraine war apparently.
Essentially your position is, it's not our problem so let's allow Russia to commit genocide in Ukraine, Russian oil and gas is more important to us than Ukrainian lives.No: it's not our problem and the more we get involved, the more lives will be lost.
There is only one morally right outcome here, Ukrainian victory. We have a moral obligation to make sure that happens.Don't forget Afghanistan. And while you're at it, Yemen, and the Tamils in Sri Lanka could have used some anti-tank equipment.
They are fighting for the same values we hold to. Russian "peace" only brings terror and death to the people they claim to be liberating.Health is more important than possessions.
No: it's not our problem and the more we get involved, the more lives will be lost.
Don't forget Afghanistan. And while you're at it, Yemen, and the Tamils in Sri Lanka could have used some anti-tank equipment.
Health is more important than possessions.
Given Putin's history...fuck it! Given Russia's history, what evidence do you have that less lives will be lost? A country whose only real achievement is aggression and genocide against its neighbours.What happens if you give your son a knife? It's clear that those carrying knives get stabbed more than those who don't.
Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout! Apart from the obvious attrocities Russia itself is committing, not only in Ukraine, but also Syria, Africa etc, there is only one correct response to that.Don't do business with them.
Don't do business with them.
No: it's not our problem and the more we get involved, the more lives will be lost.
What happens if you give your son a knife? It's clear that those carrying knives get stabbed more than those who don't.
RuSSia is beyond rehabilitation. I don't buy all the rubbish that this is just Putin's war. No! This is definitely RuSSia's war. RuSSians support this. People from Moskow and St. Petersburg aren't being sent to the front but they ignore what is happening there. Sanctions need to hit them for things to change. One of the reasons we need a visa ban.What % of Russians would be affected by a visa ban, and for those unaffected what effect might it have on their motivations?
What % of Russians would be affected by a visa ban, and for those unaffected what effect might it have on their motivations?
What happens if you give your son a knife? It's clear that those carrying knives get stabbed more than those who don't.
This was an interesting report:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/23/helsinki-airport-russian-tourists-europe-travel-finland
Clearly only a small % of Russians would be affected by a visa ban, as the mass of people don't travel abroad.
However. The control that Putin and the Kremlin has over Russia is manged through the middle classes. If they can continue living the lives (as well as possible) that they have slowly become accustomed too they won't actively challenge the government lies and propaganda that keeps the country suppressed.
This was an interesting report:Isn't this just another version of the financial restrictions in place. I'm not arguing against it but I doubt whether it will have the effect on those affected as is assumed, particularly given it's only ever going to be piecemeal. And I don't think those not affected are the sheep you seem to think.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/23/helsinki-airport-russian-tourists-europe-travel-finland
Clearly only a small % of Russians would be affected by a visa ban, as the mass of people don't travel abroad.
However. The control that Putin and the Kremlin has over Russia is manged through the middle classes. If they can continue living the lives (as well as possible) that they have slowly become accustomed too they won't actively challenge the government lies and propaganda that keeps the country suppressed.
Do you have some data on that?
Exactly this. It is that middle class of Moscow and St. Peterburg Russians that can bring change...if they want to. A visa ban will hit them. I know the argument, expressed by Scholtz and Macron, that expossing them to Western values might change them, but they've already had 30 years to do so and it hasn't worked. As for the rest of Russia, a visa ban won't really affect them. There we need to support separatist groups like the Chechens (not the Putin supporting goat molesting Kadyrovites) and Buryats.
Isn't this just another version of the financial restrictions in place. I'm not arguing against it but I doubt whether it will have the effect on those affected as is assumed, particularly given it's only ever going to be piecemeal. And I don't think those not affected are the sheep you seem to think.
The big question to me is whether the semi united front survives much longer. Public opinion in Austria is already moving towards a negotiated statement.
...
The big question to me is whether the semi united front survives much longer. Public opinion in Austria is already moving towards a negotiated statement.
Europe could go for a negotiated settlement - but it won't solve anything for longer than a winter. Putin will reinforce his position and then continue tweaking until he can prise loose another area, possibly a Baltic state, sufficiently so that it can be attacked without Nato putting in troops to fight directly.I don't think there will be a negotiated settlement this side of winter but if there isn't unanimity then I think there will just be an aim to get through the winter. To get through that winter is likely to have major impacts on Getmany and how they regard themselves. The already huge changes in the Green Party in Germany show the difference this is making.
Possibly a winter is enough for Europe to get to grips with the energy problems and arm up enough to confront Russia in the coming war?
According to a friend of mine, who lived in the Ukraine for two years, the 'Russian speakers' had pretty much all the freedoms of other Ukrainians (a very large number of whom also spoke Russian anyway). The 'separatists' certainly didn't need liberating.Okay - good to have some first hand evidence. I had a read up about the history of the Russian language in Ukraine, and got the impression that there's been a lot of migration from Russia in the last century or two, so that in some areas Russian is the main language spoken.
They had a peace treaty with Russia. Putin ignored it.From what I've read, it's the Ukrainian government that ignored it?
Who the bloody hell was talking about possessions? What does rape, torture and murder have to do with possessions?What I meant was that anyone can say they will fight for their home and land, but I just wonder what they are thinking the moment after a limb is ripped off and the real pain starts? Regret? I should have just gone far away?
What I meant was that anyone can say they will fight for their home and land, but I just wonder what they are thinking the moment after a limb is ripped off and the real pain starts? Regret? I should have just gone far away?
Unless you've been seriously injured yourself, you won't understand. As someone who has experienced that, it's my responsibility to discourage anyone from taking a risk assuming the pain of injury will be worth it. It isn't worth it.
But it seems it's a risk Ukrainians are willing to take. It's the price of freedom. Who are we to say they can't take it? Surely it's their choice? All they have done is ask for help doing that. We absolutely should do that. Stop victim blaming!
Unless you've been seriously injured yourself, you won't understand. As someone who has experienced that, it's my responsibility to discourage anyone from taking a risk assuming the pain of injury will be worth it. It isn't worth it.
I'm sure the conflict isn't black and white, and I'm sure that the Ukrainians have behaved badly on occasion, because that's always the case in war, but in the final analysis Ukraine is the victim, Russia the aggressor. Spud seems to see it as black and white the other way round.I mostly agree with this but I don't think Spud does see it as a black and white. He doesn't seem to be saying Russia is good but rather that the least worst option all round is some compromise that is more beneficial to Russia than most posters on here might want to accept. There's an element of realpolitik in his approach, even if for me, an oddly naive one.
I don't think there will be a negotiated settlement this side of winter but if there isn't unanimity then I think there will just be an aim to get through the winter. To get through that winter is likely to have major impacts on Getmany and how they regard themselves. The already huge changes in the Green Party in Germany show the difference this is making.
A lot will depend on the US midterms as well.
Unless you've been seriously injured yourself, you won't understand. As someone who has experienced that, it's my responsibility to discourage anyone from taking a risk assuming the pain of injury will be worth it. It isn't worth it.
So I was right, in your opinion Ukrainians should just let Russia rape, torture and kill them.That would not happen if they agreed to a peace treaty; one which might not suit them but at least saves them their lives.
Seriously injured in what context?The context for my injury was I slipped on the stairs, my thumb caught a strut of a stairlift rail, my momentum meant that I couldn't pull my hand away in time and the thumb was ripped backwards. Had to get it relocated in H. Ligament gone, now a year later I think an osteophyte is helping to restrict the movement to protect it.
In the context of being beaten up on the street or in a car crash or in the context of being subjugated by a foreign power.
The pain of injury may not have been worth it for you in your context.
The pain of injury may well be worth it from Ukraine's pov due to their knowledge of what Russia is capable of. Something you are in no position to understand.
Finally, in WW2 was the pain suffered by people in the various resistance movements across Europe really not worth it?
That would not happen if they agreed to a peace treaty; one which might not suit them but at least saves them their lives.
Brilliant idea. Let's not give guns to our soldiers. That way, any wars we get involved in will end quickly with minimal loss of life.But disarmament (nuclear) is something we once aimed for. I think the principle holds whether its kids with knives or countries with guns. The Bible mentions this too - don't amass horses (Moses; Solomon disobeyed this) don't take a census of your fighting men with some thought as to increasing the size of the army (as David did).
Ukraine is fighting for its existence. It's not going to stop just because we don't give it weapons. There are two ways this war ends:The defeat of Russia would I think involve far more casualties. Where do you get the idea there would be genocide if Ukraine agreed to Russia's terms?
1. the total subjugation of Ukraine, including probably genocide
2. The defeat of Russia.
Be honest: which would you prefer to see?
Also, if you think Russia is going to win, I'm afraid you are probably wrong.
The context for my injury was I slipped on the stairs, my thumb caught a strut of a stairlift rail, my momentum meant that I couldn't pull my hand away in time and the thumb was ripped backwards. Had to get it relocated in H. Ligament gone, now a year later I think an osteophyte is helping to restrict the movement to protect it.The way you have written this means you would have accepted the deaths of 6 million Jews to have avoided your injury.
The pain and loss of function was such that I would have traded everything
for it not to have happened. I would think the same in any other context.
Re: WW2, I don't think we know whether those who died considered it worth it when they were at the point of death.
I mostly agree with this but I don't think Spud does see it as a black and white. He doesn't seem to be saying Russia is good but rather that the least worst option all round is some compromise that is more beneficial to Russia than most posters on here might want to accept. There's an element of realpolitik in his approach, even if for me, an oddly naive one.Nearly Sane, thank you. I appreciate this comment.
Where do you get the idea there would be genocide if Ukraine agreed to Russia's terms?
The way you have written this means you would have accepted the deaths of 6 million Jews to have avoided your injury.It was supposed to mean I would have traded everything I owned to avoid it.
It was supposed to mean I would have traded everything I owned to avoid it.You would have traded everything you own and then the Nazis would have killed all the Jews anyway. They were planning to do the same with the Slavic populations of Eastern Europe too after they beat Russia, by the way.
The context for my injury was I slipped on the stairs, my thumb caught a strut of a stairlift rail, my momentum meant that I couldn't pull my hand away in time and the thumb was ripped backwards. Had to get it relocated in H. Ligament gone, now a year later I think an osteophyte is helping to restrict the movement to protect it.
The pain and loss of function was such that I would have traded everything
for it not to have happened. I would think the same in any other context.
Re: WW2, I don't think we know whether those who died considered it worth it when they were at the point of death.
The left linking the cost of living to Ukraine. There are voices on the right saying the same.
https://www.counterfire.org/articles/analysis/23440-to-avert-a-cost-of-living-catastrophe-we-need-to-talk-about-ukraine
The left linking the cost of living to Ukraine. There are voices on the right saying the same.
https://www.counterfire.org/articles/analysis/23440-to-avert-a-cost-of-living-catastrophe-we-need-to-talk-about-ukraine
You would have traded everything you own and then the Nazis would have killed all the Jews anyway. They were planning to do the same with the Slavic populations of Eastern Europe too after they beat Russia, by the way.
The death toll would have been much higher had we let Hitler do want he wants. Putin is not in thew same league but the same principle applies.
Of course it's linked although the war is not the only thing contributing to the crisis. What are we supposed to do about it though? Are we supposed to hang Ukraine out to dry? Are we supposed to give in to Russia? In the long term, the latter could be very costly indeed.
I've found an interview with someone in the DPR's army concerning the role of Russia in Donbas. He reminds us that the war started in 2014 with the coup d'etat. After the peace agreement of 2015, the separatists reduced their army to 10,000 which they kept in order to hold back the AFU. It became clear that Ukraine wasn't going to keep their side of the deal, which was for autonomy of Donbas within Ukraine, and that they would try to take Donbas back. That is why they asked Russia for help - because at that point they couldn't build their army up to strength in time to stop the Ukrainian army invading.
Given this, I don't think 'we' should be involved at present.
Of course it's linked although the war is not the only thing contributing to the crisis. What are we supposed to do about it though? Are we supposed to hang Ukraine out to dry? Are we supposed to give in to Russia? In the long term, the latter could be very costly indeed.
But if we're talking purely about the Holocaust, as soon as I take up arms I make myself more of a target. Better to go in unarmed and try to help them escape. Part of the problem was, at the time it cost Ł5,000 per person for a Jew to emigrate to Palestine, as set by the British. Many more could have escaped if that hadn't been the case.
I don't think I am against taking up arms, when it comes to something like ISIS. The mission there was to destroy their equipment (which we gave them). Should Britain have declared war on Germany when Hitler invaded Poland? Should the US have stayed out of the war? I'm not sure if Hitler originally intended to invade Britain, but it has been suggested that far less people would have died if the US had not got involved. I gather that the appeasement arrangement was to do with allowing Germany to occupy German-speaking lands such as Austria.
If as you say Putin isn't in the same league as Hitler, maybe it would be wiser to wait until he crossed the NATO line before getting involved militarily.
I've found an interview with someone in the DPR's army concerning the role of Russia in Donbas. He reminds us that the war started in 2014 with the coup d'etat. After the peace agreement of 2015, the separatists reduced their army to 10,000 which they kept in order to hold back the AFU. It became clear that Ukraine wasn't going to keep their side of the deal, which was for autonomy of Donbas within Ukraine, and that they would try to take Donbas back. That is why they asked Russia for help - because at that point they couldn't build their army up to strength in time to stop the Ukrainian army invading.
Given this, I don't think 'we' should be involved at present.
But if we're talking purely about the Holocaust,Why are we talking purely about the Holocaust? Hitler didn't just murder Jews.
Should Britain have declared war on Germany when Hitler invaded Poland?We should have declared war when he invaded Czechoslovakia. We weren't really ready at that point of course, but that was because of our policy of appeasement. You know, the very thing you are advocating.
Should the US have stayed out of the war?
I've found an interview with someone in the DPR's army concerning the role of Russia in Donbas. He reminds us that the war started in 2014 with the coup d'etat. After the peace agreement of 2015, the separatists reduced their army to 10,000 which they kept in order to hold back the AFU. It became clear that Ukraine wasn't going to keep their side of the deal, which was for autonomy of Donbas within Ukraine, and that they would try to take Donbas back."Autonomy of Donbas within Ukraine". I would suggest that, with Donbas claiming it is not part of Ukraine, the deal was already dead.
Given this, I don't think 'we' should be involved at present.We were presented with the opportunity to neutralise one of the most malignant states in World politics. Russia is isolated, its military is shown to be a paper tiger, we no longer have to worry about it corrupting sports events or our politicians, NATO and the EU are both strengthened, the dependence on Russian fossil fuels is broken. I'd say we've done very well to be involved and the outcome has been pretty good for most countries. There may even by some positive points for Ukraine. It may get back some or all of the territory that Russia stole before the war.
You are a scaredy cat! :o
You are a scaredy cat! :oI disagree with Spud but using simplistic playground phrases about what policy is right here is ridiculous.
That's a little bit unfair actually. Within the context of this forum, Spud is demonstrating more courage than the rest of us. We all think he's wrong for various reasons but we are doing it from the comfort of our computers in the UK. We are not in constant danger of being shelled by the murdering Russians so it is easy for us to say fight on.Agree but worth noting that ad_o is a bit closer.
You are a scaredy cat! :oIndeed! I'd probably be up a tree the moment I saw a tank.
Although I am more scared of what the people of my own country have done than the Russians. Lockdowns, vaccine mandates, supporting a false messiah who forces people to fight.
Agree but worth noting that ad_o is a bit closer.
Not true. As a former pacifist, and still near-pacifist, I can tell you that most modern pacifists advocate non-violent resistance to violent aggressors: non-co-operation with them, sabotage, etc. I remember seeing a long list of specific non-violent resistance tactics, which included "Lysistratan non-co-operation". Non-violent resistance worked effectively against the Quisling regime in Norway in WW2.
The problem with pacifism, which is what you appear to be advocating, is that it only works if everyone is a pacifist.
Not true. As a former pacifist, and still near-pacifist, I can tell you that most modern pacifists advocate non-violent resistance to violent aggressors: non-co-operation with them, sabotage, etc. I remember seeing a long list of specific non-violent resistance tactics, which included "Lysistratan non-co-operation". Non-violent resistance worked effectively against the Quisling regime in Norway in WW2.
Pacifism and non-violent resistance are not the same thing.Non-violent resistance is a form of pacifism.
Non-violent resistance is a form of pacifism.
None of which is contrary to what I said, and I'd prefer it if you didn't try to teach me, a lifelong pacifist or near-pacifist,and former Quaker attender and member of the Peace Pledge Union and Fellowship of Reconciliation, what pacifism is and isn't.
Non-violent resistance worked effectively against the Quisling regime in Norway in WW2.
;D
That's why I'm no longer an absolute pacifist. Non-violent resistance can be an effective technique, but can't defeat an aggressor on its own. However, I can't think of a war since 1945 that theUK has fought that was worth fighting
Did it overthrow the German occupation?No, but I've already acknowledged that it can't usually remove an aggressor altogether. It did make things very difficult for the Quisling regime, though, and saved many Jews.
That's just pure RuSSian propaganda. This was already planned in 2008. The template was RuSSia's invasion of Georgia. Look up Igor Girkin and his role in all this, starting with the invasion of Crimea and then Donbas and also neo-Nazi Wagner Group who were operating in the area since the beginning.Thanks, just looked up Girkin and can understand your concern. Are his views those of Putin as well? It seems to me that there is too much history to learn to be able to form a judgment on which side is the aggressor and what their intentions are. How can enough people learn the truth to be able to participate effectively in a war thousands of miles away? If Putin's forces were pushing across France it would be obvious we should be worried. It seems people here just take the view that Russia is at fault without knowing much about the situation. Or maybe it's just me that knows nothing? At first I was pretty much sure it was Russia, but now when I read things like Zelensky's claims in this week's Sunday Times I think he is not entirely right. He said something to the effect of, think back to when London was being bombed by Germany. You don't want that to happen again, do you? Well the only way I can see that happening is if we get too far involved. As I said before, quoting Colonel Douglas Macgregor, Russia is highly unlikely to attack Nato because it is far weaker. But the more we get involved the less safe we will be in the event of a retaliation from Russia.
...
I'm not sure who this false messiah is you speak of.
Thanks, just looked up Girkin and can understand your concern. Are his views those of Putin as well? It seems to me that there is too much history to learn to be able to form a judgment on which side is the aggressor and what their intentions are. How can enough people learn the truth to be able to participate effectively in a war thousands of miles away? If Putin's forces were pushing across France it would be obvious we should be worried. It seems people here just take the view that Russia is at fault without knowing much about the situation. Or maybe it's just me that knows nothing? At first I was pretty much sure it was Russia, but now when I read things like Zelensky's claims in this week's Sunday Times I think he is not entirely right. He said something to the effect of, think back to when London was being bombed by Germany. You don't want that to happen again, do you? Well the only way I can see that happening is if we get too far involved. As I said before, quoting Colonel Douglas Macgregor, Russia is highly unlikely to attack Nato because it is far weaker. But the more we get involved the less safe we will be in the event of a retaliation from Russia.
Thanks, just looked up Girkin and can understand your concern. Are his views those of Putin as well? It seems to me that there is too much history to learn to be able to form a judgment on which side is the aggressor and what their intentions are. How can enough people learn the truth to be able to participate effectively in a war thousands of miles away? If Putin's forces were pushing across France it would be obvious we should be worried. It seems people here just take the view that Russia is at fault without knowing much about the situation. Or maybe it's just me that knows nothing? At first I was pretty much sure it was Russia, but now when I read things like Zelensky's claims in this week's Sunday Times I think he is not entirely right. He said something to the effect of, think back to when London was being bombed by Germany. You don't want that to happen again, do you? Well the only way I can see that happening is if we get too far involved. As I said before, quoting Colonel Douglas Macgregor, Russia is highly unlikely to attack Nato because it is far weaker. But the more we get involved the less safe we will be in the event of a retaliation from Russia.
Zelensky has a propaganda war to fight - just as much as Putin, Biden ...I'm not aware that there is any doubt that Putin ordered an invasion of another sovereign country, nor the Russians are actively tying to take at least part of that country.
You can't, certainly at this stage, collect enough facts and history to properly understand exactly who is right and wrong. We have to try and ensure our data sources are objective and verifiable, then formulate the story that most likely explains the motives and actions of the players involved.
"We" (on the forum or in the West) could be wrong about about Putin's objectives, but we do have facts on how he has engaged in many situations since he took power and his outlook recorded in his own words.
Of-course there is danger of being wrong. Blair was in dealing with Sadam - although the information that could have prevented the war was available - overlooked due to hubris and political outlook.
I'm not aware that there is any doubt that Putin ordered an invasion of another sovereign country, nor the Russians are actively tying to take at least part of that country.
I'd have thought there were plenty of Russians who believe Putin, Russia, are trying to save Ukraine from fascism?
I'd have thought there were plenty of Russians who believe Putin, Russia, are trying to save Ukraine from fascism?
We do have quite a bit of evidence to go on. Firstly, Putin. Secondly, Russia's entire history of a nation. I know I can be hot and mouthy at times (alright, a lot of the time) but seriously, why are you burying your head in the sand and making excuses? It's as clear as day. Neither do I buy into the argument that it's a long way away and therefore poses no threat to us, so no need to do anything. No! That's not morally right. It's not that far away to all of us and as I have said many times before, there's a reason why those who live next to Russia usually are the most hawkish: firsthand experience.Just looked up the war in 2008. I just read the first bit of the Wiki article on it. It looks like it was a similar situation to Ukraine, with a region of Georgia wanting independence and being backed by Russia. Regarding this, Nato didn't supply weapons to Georgia so what is different about Ukraine?
Thanks for looking up what I suggested. 👍
Also, Hungary doesn't seem to be worried about Russian invasion. Any thoughts on that?
Just looked up the war in 2008. I just read the first bit of the Wiki article on it. It looks like it was a similar situation to Ukraine, with a region of Georgia wanting independence and being backed by Russia. Regarding this, Nato didn't supply weapons to Georgia so what is different about Ukraine?
Also, Hungary doesn't seem to be worried about Russian invasion. Any thoughts on that?
It is at best debatable about whether areas of either Georgia or Ukraine 'wanted' independence; there were likely some individuals - much like Cornwall - amplified by Russian reporting and Russian influenced internet information, but it's not likely there was a majority even in isolated locations.
NATO, and Europe in General, didn't supply weapons to Georgia on a combination basis of: Georgia wasn't a regime you'd want to support at the time; Georgia wasn't in the process of reaching out to the West with things like requests to join NATO; and, Russian wasn't getting significantly closer to Western nations and NATO members by bringing regions of Georgia into their sphere of influence.
Hungary's current stance is serving to disrupt Western unity, particularly the European Union, so for the moment it serves Putin's interests to leave it alone, and Orban and his government know that.
O.
It is at best debatable about whether areas of either Georgia or Ukraine 'wanted' independence; there were likely some individuals - much like Cornwall - amplified by Russian reporting and Russian influenced internet information, but it's not likely there was a majority even in isolated locations.Most people would probably just cooperate with whichever power won the territory and not be particularly bothered who it was, I would think. As someone said about Israel after biblical times, it belongs to whoever can hold it.
NATO, and Europe in General, didn't supply weapons to Georgia on a combination basis of: Georgia wasn't a regime you'd want to support at the time; Georgia wasn't in the process of reaching out to the West with things like requests to join NATO; and, Russian wasn't getting significantly closer to Western nations and NATO members by bringing regions of Georgia into their sphere of influence.The Donbas is hardly significantly close to the West. Ukraine may have asked to join Nato, and I don't see that as a problem, but Russia did have a problem with it and so for Ukraine to join would escalate tension with Russia.
Hungary's current stance is serving to disrupt Western unity, particularly the European Union, so for the moment it serves Putin's interests to leave it alone, and Orban and his government know that.If Hungary relies on Russia for fuel, what is wrong with its remaining neutral?
O.
Most people would probably just cooperate with whichever power won the territory and not be particularly bothered who it was, I would think. As someone said about Israel after biblical times, it belongs to whoever can hold it.
The Donbas is hardly significantly close to the West. Ukraine may have asked to join Nato, and I don't see that as a problem, but Russia did have a problem with it and so for Ukraine to join would escalate tension with Russia.
If Hungary relies on Russia for fuel, what is wrong with its remaining neutral?
Most people would probably just cooperate with whichever power won the territory and not be particularly bothered who it was, I would think. As someone said about Israel after biblical times, it belongs to whoever can hold it.Might is right. Do you really believe that?
The Donbas is hardly significantly close to the West.Russia doesn't want Donbas, it wants the whole of Ukraine. This is why, in the early days of the war they tried to take Kyiv. Ukraine borders on Poland which is both a NATO and EU country. Furthermore, a Russian victory in Ukraine would embolden then to attack other former parts of the Soviet Union.
Ukraine may have asked to join Nato, and I don't see that as a problem, but Russia did have a problem with it and so for Ukraine to join would escalate tension with Russia.
Might is right. Do you really believe that?That a territory belongs to whoever is able to hold onto it may not always be right but it seems to be reality. For example, Europeans took and kept land from native Americans and Aborigines.
Anyway, it doesn't matter what most people want. If enough people don't want it and organise an insurgency, lots of blood will be shed.I shouldn't have said most people wouldn't be bothered, but if someone assumed control of their country I think most would cooperate and adapt. Eg the English who tried to defend against the Romans but eventually failed. Again, I'm not saying invading is right, but that cooperation by the invaded avoids bloodshed.
This has nothing to do with Israel and biblical times. Are you really arguing that Ukrainians aren't that bothered? Hmm! How would I rather live? In a liberal democracy or occupation under constant fear of torture, rape and death?Yes, I agree Ukrainians are bothered!
Boo hoo to Russia! Not their decision.
They are facilitating Russian aggression.
I shouldn't have said most people wouldn't be bothered, but if someone assumed control of their country I think most would cooperate and adapt. Eg the English who tried to defend against the Romans but eventually failed.Not the English. The British maybe.
Again, I'm not saying invading is right, but that cooperation by the invaded avoids bloodshed.Not if the invaders are intent on genocide. I think there's pretty good evidence that Russia would have ethnically cleansed Eastern Ukraine of anybody not sympathetic to them.
Most people would probably just cooperate with whichever power won the territory and not be particularly bothered who it was, I would think.
The Donbas is hardly significantly close to the West.
Ukraine may have asked to join Nato, and I don't see that as a problem, but Russia did have a problem with it and so for Ukraine to join would escalate tension with Russia.
If Hungary relies on Russia for fuel, what is wrong with its remaining neutral?
On a slightly different topic but not unrelated, I spend a lot of time on Twitter and as a NAFO member we regularly target vatniks, tankies and their disinformation. Vatniks are just horrible people and tankies are often a special kind of psycopath; but we've discovered a new kind of stupid: MAGA communists, basically red-browns. I know it's been criticised somewhat but it does make me think if there is some truth to horseshoe theory.
Didn't really understand a word of that :)
Don't worry, I understand. Took me a while to learn the lingo too. :)
NAFO: a loose collective of online cartoon shiba inu dogs who challenge Russian propaganda mainly on Twitter
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en/article/y3pd5y/shitposting-shiba-inu-accounts-chased-a-russian-diplomat-offline
Vantik: pro-Russian, laps up all the propaganda
Tankie: communist
MAGA: make America great again
Red-brown: communist and fascist
Horseshoe theory: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
Hope that helps.👍
Most people, of course, would cooperate, because the alternative in Putin's Russia is to find yourself in prison thousands of miles away from your family. I strongly suspect they'd be quite bothered - bothered enough to put up an army to resist it, as it turns out.Yes but that army has to be strong enough to win.
The Donbas both has deep-water ports on the Sea of Azov, which also has Bulgarian, Greek, Romanian, Turkish and other coasts, and provides a land-bridge from Russia to the occupied territories of Crimea which also have highly developed ports. Although Russia has ports on the Sea of Azov none of them are of such capability, and with that previously narrow coast to blockade it wasn't a viable route of offence - now it is. Tactically and strategically it puts significantly more Russian pressure on the Sea of Azov and, from there, the Black Sea.I didn't know that about the ports.
If Russia wasn't an expansionist territory there wouldn't have been pressure on Ukraine to join NATO in order to bolster its defences. Arrangements between Nato and Ukraine are none of Russia's business so long as Russia stays in, you know, Russia.It seems wherever you have two superpowers with territory between them, that territory will get caught in the tension between them. I would have thought the way to prevent that would be to reduce that tension.
To paraphrase, "For evil to flourish, good men (and Victor Orban) must stand by and do nothing..." Germany relies on Russia for fuel, it has not stood by and done nothing. Bosnia Herzegovina, Moldova, North Macedonia, Latvia, Serbia, Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, Slovakia, Greece and Slovenia all, like Hungary, get in excess of 60% of their gas from Russia, typically - have they stood by?Are the people of those countries well and truly behind their governments? Was it the German foreign minister who stated (a bit foolishly) that she would defend Ukraine, no matter what her voters thought?
It's a tough choice to have to make, I don't disagree, but everyone else has chosen a different path to Orban's Hungary - you have to wonder why a racist, misogynist, Christian Nationalist leadership chooses to not oppose Vladimir Putin's invasion of a neighbour and draw your own conclusions. Maybe Victor Orban is a pacifist at heart... maybe. And maybe not.I don't know much about orban or his politics but I imagine he is putting his country's welfare first
O.
I don't know much about orban or his politics but I imagine he is putting his country's welfare first
I am coming to the conclusion that Russia's actions are not so much expansionist but defensive.
Sorry Spud, but you are totally out of your tree if you believe that.
Sorry Spud, but you are totally out of your tree if you believe that.Its response to NATO expansion is to attempt to de-militarise Ukraine.
Its response to NATO expansion is to attempt to de-militarise Ukraine.'in order to save the village, we had to destroy it'
'in order to save the village, we had to destroy it'
Its response to NATO expansion is to attempt to de-militarise Ukraine.
Its response to NATO expansion is to attempt to de-militarise Ukraine.
Depopulate is the word you are thinking of.But their actions seem consistent with their stated aim of de-militarizing. They seem to be being quite selective in who they kill.
"As well as torturing and killing those who stand against us!" >:(Exactly. Note I am not saying they are right to do this.
But their actions seem consistent with their stated aim of de-militarizing. They seem to be being quite selective in who they kill.
A related thought: is the fear of Scotland joining the EU behind the English desire to keep them in the Union?
There are a lot of assumptions in that scenario.In addition at the time of the 2014 indyref, the No campaign backed by UK govt argued the only way to stay in the EU was to vote No.
The first one is that the English think as one on any given issue. They don't.
It would perhaps be better if it had been phrased "is the fear of Scotland joining the EU behind theEnglishConservative governments desire to keep them in the Union?"
Even then I think the argument is unsound.
At the root of it, the UK government believes it should continue to rule all parts of the UK. I don't think membership or not of the EU comes into it.
And btw, that was written only half in jest.Not sure that makes it better. Scalping? Orcs? You are a shiny mirror version of this
Not sure that makes it better. Scalping? Orcs? You are a shiny mirror version of this
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1572087951416336385?t=F8Qz1NQD67n_-8iNj2HMpQ&s=19
And there would be Russians who would write the same. That you and they indulge in this dehumanising shows how you are both being controlled.
I just love the way people who have never had to live next to that monster moralise about how we should feel about them.
And there would be Russians who would write the same. That you and they indulge in this dehumanising shows how you are both being controlled.
In Ukraine, which is the country currently being invaded, they seem to be treating captured Russian troops fairly humanely. Of course, there are practical reasons why they are doing this, but, nevertheless, others could use their example.What is your point?
What is your point?
The Ukrainians themselves are not dehumanising their enemies - at least not after they have been captured. Ad O has no excuse.
Changing tack - is the ranting pro-Putin Gorgon, Olga Skabayeva of any significance in escalating the conflict? Or is she regarded by educated Russians as a sort of unhinged Melanie Griffiths type, with a lower IQ than Trump? There seem quite a number of mad ranters who are coming out the Putin dung heap recently.
Talking of fast moving shit, | noticed that Sergei Lavrov was in and out of the UN Security Council summit like a dose of salts.
What kind of alternate universe are you living in?Just trying to establish if Russia is being expansionist.
Just trying to establish if Russia is being expansionist.
Are they coercing people to vote to join Russia? Bear in mind that Ukraine is coercing them not to - threatening jail for obtaining Russian citizenship.
Just trying to establish if Russia is being expansionist.Invade a country, bomb, murder and pillage - and then invite the invaded regions to vote to join the invading country? Don't you think that's a bit arse about face old bean?
Are they coercing people to vote to join Russia? Bear in mind that Ukraine is coercing them not to - threatening jail for obtaining Russian citizenship.
Just trying to establish if Russia is being expansionist.Are you serious? We had the answer to that years ago.
Are they coercing people to vote to join Russia?Yes. Of course they are.
Bear in mind that Ukraine is coercing them not to - threatening jail for obtaining Russian citizenship.Citation needed.
Invade a country, bomb, murder and pillage - and then invite the invaded regions to vote to join the invading country? Don't you think that's a bit arse about face old bean?Well....
Not that invading a country if the vote doesn't go your way would be a much better option.
Well....The Russian-funded activist, with a lifetime of promoting every crank conspiracy theory going?
Have you heard of Eva Bartlett? She is in Donetsk and says civilians have been shelled since 2014 by Ukrainian forces. Why, because they didn't want to follow the rest of Ukraine down the path of closer ties with the EU, wanting independence instead.
Well....
Have you heard of Eva Bartlett? She is in Donetsk and says civilians have been shelled since 2014 by Ukrainian forces. Why, because they didn't want to follow the rest of Ukraine down the path of closer ties with the EU, wanting independence instead.
Well....
Have you heard of Eva Bartlett? She is in Donetsk and says civilians have been shelled since 2014 by Ukrainian forces. Why, because they didn't want to follow the rest of Ukraine down the path of closer ties with the EU, wanting independence instead.
If you believe the Russians, born liars.She's Canadian I think? Anyway, she seemed genuine to me but I don't know her history. She took photos last week of 13 people killed in shelling on 19th September, which she said was by Ukraine and has been ongoing since 2014.
My respect for Roger Waters has just gone up in a puff of smoke.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63026101
She's Canadian I think? Anyway, she seemed genuine to me but I don't know her history. She took photos last week of 13 people killed in shelling on 19th September, which she said was by Ukraine and has been ongoing since 2014.Yes, there has been violent military activity there since 2014. The situation changed to full scale invasion by RUSSIA earlier this year.
Yes, there has been violent military activity there since 2014. The situation changed to full scale invasion by RUSSIA earlier this year.Should we be looking at the initial cause of the conflict, though? I understand that Russia perhaps wrongly stepped in in 2014 in support of the separatists, but is there not a case for a genuine referendum on independence? It doesn't seem that different from Scotland saying they want closer ties with the EU and to break away from UK. Then the people could decide, and Russia and Ukraine would have to agree to respect the result.
Should we be looking at the initial cause of the conflict, though? I understand that Russia perhaps wrongly stepped in in 2014 in support of the separatists, but is there not a case for a genuine referendum on independence? It doesn't seem that different from Scotland saying they want closer ties with the EU and to break away from UK. Then the people could decide, and Russia and Ukraine would have to agree to respect the result.England has not bombed, has not killed, has not raped. It is not even fucking close to Scotland and an indy ref. It's so fucking far away that it's grossly offensive to suggest. You are an apologist for murder.
Should we be looking at the initial cause of the conflict, though?
...
England has not bombed, has not killed, has not raped. It is not even fucking close to Scotland and an indy ref. It's so fucking far away that it's grossly offensive to suggest. You are an apologist for murder.Ok so it's completely different from the UK.
Of-course - but what on earth do you think it is? And how long do you think this has been going on?It started when the
Should we be looking at the initial cause of the conflict, though?
I understand that Russia perhaps wrongly stepped in in 2014 in support of the separatists
...but is there not a case for a genuine referendum on independence?
It doesn't seem that different from Scotland saying they want closer ties with the EU and to break away from UK.
Then the people could decide, and Russia and Ukraine would have to agree to respect the result.
Ok so it's completely different from the UK.
Still, why can't the pro-Russian regions in Ukraine have a referendum as long as it is done fairly?
It started when the
previous Ukrainian President wouldn't sign an agreement initiating closer relations with the EU. There were people in Eastern and Southern Ukraine who wanted closer ties with Russia. There were demonstrations by both sides and the separatists took over government buildings, leading to the Ukrainian military going in and that's when the fighting started. Russia began to support the DPR and LPR , which is where I think the situation got worse because then NATO began to side with Ukraine, so we now have a NATO v Russia proxy war.
If they had been left to fight it out I think Ukraine would have taken back control of these regions. But what would it take for them to allow them a referendum?
Are there any pro-Russian regions in Ukraine?Luhansk is further East than Moscow, does that count ;)
There was a referendum in Ukraine in 1991 about leaving the USSR. Every region voted in favour of leaving. Yes, it was a long time ago, but recent events have probably hardened that attitude (assuming the Russians haven't murdered all the people who are not pro-Russia).Maybe every region wasn't voting for what is now the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement. Good point though.
Are there any pro-Russian regions in Ukraine?According to my friend Alex, who lived there for two years, recent events have indeed hardened that attitude, including a number of people whose first language is Russian, and who previously might have equivocated over their stance somewhat.
There was a referendum in Ukraine in 1991 about leaving the USSR. Every region voted in favour of leaving. Yes, it was a long time ago, but recent events have probably hardened that attitude (assuming the Russians haven't murdered all the people who are not pro-Russia).
Yet another escalation by Russia. Time to call Putin's bluff!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63057966
In September many families were forced to send their children to Russian-administered schools even though their children would be exposed to the Kremlin's propaganda.
"If you don't send your child to school, it's a litmus test for you - it means you have pro-Ukrainian views," explains Ms Kumok. "I know parents who had to tell their seven-year-old child not to talk about things discussed at home with anyone at school. Otherwise the child could be taken away. That was really awful."
Yet another escalation by Russia. Time to call Putin's bluff!Why would Russia blow them up when it could have just kept the taps closed, and when a group of US assault ships had been 30km away a few days before?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63057966
Why would Russia blow them up when it could have just kept the taps closed, and when a group of US assault ships had been 30km away a few days before?Training to sabotage western infrastructure and a warning of intent. It should be obvious that Putin is prepared to sacrifice anything to try to gain the bigger advantage.
"Kearsarge and Gunston Hall completed port calls in Gdynia and Gdansk, respectively, last week."
https://news.usni.org/2022/09/26/usni-news-fleet-and-marine-tracker-sept-26-2022
Why would Russia blow them up when it could have just kept the taps closed, and when a group of US assault ships had been 30km away a few days before?
"Kearsarge and Gunston Hall completed port calls in Gdynia and Gdansk, respectively, last week."
https://news.usni.org/2022/09/26/usni-news-fleet-and-marine-tracker-sept-26-2022
Why would Russia blow them up when it could have just kept the taps closed, and when a group of US assault ships had been 30km away a few days before?
"Kearsarge and Gunston Hall completed port calls in Gdynia and Gdansk, respectively, last week."
https://news.usni.org/2022/09/26/usni-news-fleet-and-marine-tracker-sept-26-2022
I agree it looks like Russia, but here is Joe Biden promising to end Nord Stream...
https://mobile.twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662
I agree it looks like Russia, but here is Joe Biden promising to end Nord Stream...
https://mobile.twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662
Ukraine is applying for NATO membership under an accelerated procedure. Given today, who can blame them? It should have happened eight years ago!
Remember! Zelensky was a comedian. The timing couldn't be any better!
Something has to be done to counter Putin escalations. I really hope NATO have a solid plan as to reacting when he threatens to use nuclear weapons or deploys them.As I understand it, Russia will not use nuclear weapons unless they are used against them first.
Better than "reacting" might be to make clear what they will do in advance - to deter Putin from escalating in the first place.
Will NATO accept their membership given that they have a pre-existing border dispute?
As I understand it, Russia will not use nuclear weapons unless they are used against them first.
Will NATO accept their membership given that they have a pre-existing border dispute?
As I understand it, Russia will not use nuclear weapons unless they are used against them first.
But Putin has been threatening to use them. Is it your contention that Putin's threats are empty? I certainly hope they are.
Where does that understanding come from?Here is Putin's address (not his home address, I'm afraid):
It's all a bluff. This is Russia's modus operandi. Raise the stakes in the hope that the West will fold. To be fair, we always bloody have. No more! Time to call his bluff.Allowing Ukraine to join NATO minus the territory it has lost, would seem like a good response to Russia annexing Donbas etc.
Allowing Ukraine to join NATO minus the territory it has lost, would seem like a good response to Russia annexing Donbas etc.Bollocks! Luhansk is Ukraine! Donetsk is Ukraine. Zaporizhzhia is Ukraine. Kherson us Ukraine. Crimea is Ukraine. We give Ukraine everything it needs to get them back. And let's bomb Moscow into the fucking stoneage.
Bollocks! Luhansk is Ukraine! Donetsk is Ukraine. Zaporizhzhia is Ukraine. Kherson us Ukraine. Crimea is Ukraine. We give Ukraine everything it needs to get them back. And let's bomb Moscow into the fucking stoneage.The idea is to play Russia at its own game, ie 'annex' the remaining territory of Ukraine (fast track it into NATO) and ensure Russia cannot take any more territory. In your scenario, Ukraine could not join NATO because they would have a continuing border dispute: it would be an escalation by NATO
Here is Putin's address (not his home address, I'm afraid):
Putin's address (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/21/putin-speech-russia-ukraine-war-mobilization/)
At the end he says, "(western leaders) have even resorted to the nuclear blackmail. I am referring not only to the Western-encouraged shelling of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which poses a threat of a nuclear disaster, but also to the statements made by some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO countries on the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction — nuclear weapons — against Russia.
I would like to remind those who make such statements regarding Russia that our country has different types of weapons as well, and some of them are more modern than the weapons NATO countries have. In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff."
He seems to a be saying that Western leaders have openly stated they would use nuclear weapons, after which he says that he will use any means to defend Russian territory, including weapons similar to NATO's. He's not saying that he would meet continued attacks on the Donbas with conventional weapons with a nuclear response.
Not all Russians are the same.Thanks Jeremy.
Here's a video in which a recently captured "orc"* relates his experience in the Russian army and following his surrender.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l2FgTr4fUw
tl;dr he volunteered to drive medical transports, was assigned as a tank driver, given really bad equipment and then used as bait to make Ukrainians give away their positions. His war lasted approximately five minutes and he was only member of his crew to survive. The second half of the video is, IMO, surprising.
*I'm using the term ironically
I don't think you are reading Putin's speech right. He is saying he would use "all the weaponsI interpreted the bit you quoted in the context of the bit before, that Western leaders were threatening to use Nukes against Russia. Taken out of context, he does seem to imply that any attack on Russian territory (including annexed) could be met with any kind of weapons, agreed. But elsewhere on YouTube I have seen a Russian say that this would only be if NATO sets foot on Russian territory. He said their nukes are to protect them against NATO's nukes.
systems available" to Russia if Russian territory, that now includes the "annexed" areas, is attacked.
In any case, even if you were right, what confidence can you put in the wording of any threat or promise in a speech that is clearly filled with lies?
I interpreted the bit you quoted in the context of the bit before, that Western leaders were threatening to use Nukes against Russia. Taken out of context, he does seem to imply that any attack on Russian territory (including annexed) could be met with any kind of weapons, agreed. But elsewhere on YouTube I have seen a Russian say that this would only be if NATO sets foot on Russian territory. He said their nukes are to protect them against NATO's nukes.
Thanks Jeremy.It didn't need liberating.
Colonel Douglas Macgregor said on "Judging Freedom", a channel on Youtube, that initially Russia wasn't planning to annex any territory, rather just liberate it.
The DPR and LPR asked for help to do this; however, when the Russians came in, they said that the plan was to leave once the Donbas was liberated. But the DPR and LPR said that if the Russians left, the Ukrainian secret police would come back in and kill the separatist militia, so Russia then decided to annex the territory in order to permanently defend it.
Do you think there is truth in this?
I must have missed any Western leaders threatening to use nuclear weapons against Russia, at least over the current conflict - have they really done so?I don't know what Putin was thinking of when he talked about Western leaders' comments about nuclear weapons. But his subsequent comment clarified that Russia's are a deterrent.
I doubt that NATO have any intention to "set foot in Russian territory" - but even if they did, a nuclear response would be insanely disproportionate.
It didn't need liberating.Whether or not it needed liberating, Putin thought it did, as well as that he needed to remove Nato influence on Ukraine; he was not planning to attack other European countries.
No. I think the Ukrainian army is coming in to kill the separatist militia because they are currently occupying Ukrainian territory.
Whether or not it needed liberating, Putin thought it did, as well as that he needed to remove Nato influence on Ukraine; he was not planning to attack other European countries.
Whether or not it needed liberating, Putin thought it did,Yes, well everybody outside Russia knows it didn't.
as well as that he needed to remove Nato influence on Ukraine;How's that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations) working for him?
he was not planning to attack other European countries.
I interpreted the bit you quoted in the context of the bit before, that Western leaders were threatening to use Nukes against Russia.
Here is Putin's address (not his home address, I'm afraid):
Putin's address (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/21/putin-speech-russia-ukraine-war-mobilization/)
At the end he says, "(western leaders) have even resorted to the nuclear blackmail. I am referring not only to the Western-encouraged shelling of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which poses a threat of a nuclear disaster, but also to the statements made by some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO countries on the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction — nuclear weapons — against Russia.
I would like to remind those who make such statements regarding Russia that our country has different types of weapons as well, and some of them are more modern than the weapons NATO countries have. In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff."
He seems to a be saying that Western leaders have openly stated they would use nuclear weapons, after which he says that he will use any means to defend Russian territory, including weapons similar to NATO's. He's not saying that he would meet continued attacks on the Donbas with conventional weapons with a nuclear response.
Yes, well everybody outside Russia knows it didn't.Scott Ritter explains the initial problems here (https://youtu.be/6Ahj8qt8zAM)
How's that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations) working for him?He planned on the basis that the West wouldn't pour weapons in. So, not well. I mean, I would welcome a retreat by the entire Russian army, but I think this will be less likely now they have mobilised.
Not yet. I suspect, if Ukraine had been a success, those plans might have changed.Zelensky wants you to think that. But the other countries are protected by NATO and are not AFAIK in border disputes with Russia.
Gawd! Scott Ritter! A convicted nonce! But then Z = paedophile!But (contrary to what I said in post 597) that's another circumstance in which Russia might use nukes: if there is an existential threat to Russia. I found this from July/August 2020: "Russia Releases Nuclear Deterrence Policy" (https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2020-07/news/russia-releases-nuclear-deterrence-policy)
And yes! We do want Russia broken up. That's the only way to guarantee peace. There's hope for the ethnic regions if we can get them to rise up but your average Moskal has no hope. Better to reduce it to Muscovy and de-militarise it along with its nukes.
Scott Ritter explains the initial problems here (https://youtu.be/6Ahj8qt8zAM)He's a Russian shill.
(He gets a bit carried away towards the end, mind)
If the Minsk agreement had been implemented by Ukraine, Donbas wouldn't have needed liberating.Donbas didn't need liberating. It does now though: from Russia.
He planned on the basis that the West wouldn't pour weapons in. So, not well. I mean, I would welcome a retreat by the entire Russian army, but I think this will be less likely now they have mobilised.The Russians are retreating, just not voluntarily.
Zelensky wants you to think that. But the other countries are protected by NATO and are not AFAIK in border disputes with Russia.Putin must want me to think that too. Under his leadership, Russia has now invaded a number of foreign countries and the usual MO is to level their cities. This must stop and Ukraine is doing its best to lance the boil of Russian expansionism.
Plus, Putin wants guarantees that US nuclear weapons will not be based in UkraineNobody cares what Putin wants anymore. He is a proven liar, a gangster and a tyrant. Putin could stop the bloodshed tomorrow simply by withdrawing his troops from Ukraine. He's not doing it because anything that looks like defeat will probably end up with him falling out of an open window on the fifth floor of the Kremlin.
He's a Russian shill.Just out of interest, did you watch any of the video? Ritter exposed the truth about WMD in Iraq, which is why I think his opinion on the current war should at least be heard.
Never forget, Russia is a terrorist state!I agree to an extent, but it would mean the US is also terrorist. If as Jeremy said Russia's modus operandi is flattening towns, this is what the US did to Japan, and therefore can we look at it as similar in purpose to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? A way of Russia saying it has the power to annihilate if they don't surrender? Remembering that they claim they are defending mother Russia.
I agree to an extent, but it would mean the US is also terrorist. If as Jeremy said Russia's modus operandi is flattening towns, this is what the US did to Japan, and therefore can we look at it as similar in purpose to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? A way of Russia saying it has the power to annihilate if they don't surrender? Remembering that they claim they are defending mother Russia.
An interesting article on religion in Russia ..... https://tinyurl.com/4z56bnuyQuote: Kirill blamed the invasion on 'Gay parades'.
Quote: Kirill blamed the invasion on 'Gay parades'.At the risk of annoying Steve, drivel!
God will judge any nation which allows this, Leviticus 18:27 For the men who were in the land before you committed all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. 28So if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it spewed out the nations before you.
Putin seems to know this - in his address he expressed his aversion to the West's perversion of gender. It's good evidence for the truth of the Bible; NATO countries, which allow same sex marriage, are being weakened by their attempt to defeat Russia.
Quote: Kirill blamed the invasion on 'Gay parades'.
God will judge any nation which allows this, Leviticus 18:27 For the men who were in the land before you committed all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. 28So if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it spewed out the nations before you.
Putin seems to know this - in his address he expressed his aversion to the West's perversion of gender. It's good evidence for the truth of the Bible; NATO countries, which allow same sex marriage, are being weakened by their attempt to defeat Russia.
Quote: Kirill blamed the invasion on 'Gay parades'.
God will judge any nation which allows this, Leviticus 18:27 For the men who were in the land before you committed all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. 28So if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it spewed out the nations before you.
Putin seems to know this - in his address he expressed his aversion to the West's perversion of gender. It's good evidence for the truth of the Bible; NATO countries, which allow same sex marriage, are being weakened by their attempt to defeat Russia.
Quote: Kirill blamed the invasion on 'Gay parades'.Well, you've certainly reached a new low, Spud.
God will judge any nation which allows this, Leviticus 18:27 For the men who were in the land before you committed all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. 28So if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it spewed out the nations before you.
Putin seems to know this - in his address he expressed his aversion to the West's perversion of gender. It's good evidence for the truth of the Bible; NATO countries, which allow same sex marriage, are being weakened by their attempt to defeat Russia.
Quote: Kirill blamed the invasion on 'Gay parades'.
God will judge any nation which allows this, Leviticus 18:27 For the men who were in the land before you committed all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. 28So if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it spewed out the nations before you.
Putin seems to know this - in his address he expressed his aversion to the West's perversion of gender. It's good evidence for the truth of the Bible; NATO countries, which allow same sex marriage, are being weakened by their attempt to defeat Russia.
God will judge any nation which allows this, Leviticus 18:27 For the men who were in the land before you committed all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. 28So if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it spewed out the nations before you.
Putin seems to know this - in his address he expressed his aversion to the West's perversion of gender.
It's good evidence for the truth of the Bible; NATO countries, which allow same sex marriage, are being weakened by their attempt to defeat Russia.
Quote: Kirill blamed the invasion on 'Gay parades'.
God will judge any nation which allows this, Leviticus 18:27 For the men who were in the land before you committed all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. 28So if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it spewed out the nations before you.
Putin seems to know this - in his address he expressed his aversion to the West's perversion of gender. It's good evidence for the truth of the Bible; NATO countries, which allow same sex marriage, are being weakened by their attempt to defeat Russia.
Putin's comments on transgenderism and having more than two parents - I took these comments, perhaps wrongly, as inclusive of the whole LGBTQ issue. Let's assume he is including same sex marriage, my point is that God said he would judge nations that do this kind of thing, and the state of the UK at the moment, the reason for which seems to be our involvement in the war, suggests we are being judged.
Putin's comments on transgenderism and having more than two parents - I took these comments, perhaps wrongly, as inclusive of the whole LGBTQ issue. Let's assume he is including same sex marriage, my point is that God said he would judge nations that do this kind of thing, and the state of the UK at the moment, the reason for which seems to be our involvement in the war, suggests we are being judged.
NATO countries, which allow same sex marriage, are being weakened by their attempt to defeat Russia.
Don't be silly, Spud: ditch the 'God' nonsense and pay attention to people in future.I'm not allowed to mention God? Is this a new rule?
I'm not allowed to mention God? Is this a new rule?
Enki brought up the subject and I was giving an opinion. If I'm wrong about God judging the West, there is also the fact that I agree with Putin about transgenderism and 3-parent families.
Do you also agree with him breaking the sixth commandment?And if 'not coveting your neighbour's ox' has a general sense, then Putin has done rather a lot of coveting Not to mention bearing false witness, the filthy lying bastard.
Where does your warped value set come from?
I'm not allowed to mention God? Is this a new rule?
Enki brought up the subject and I was giving an opinion. If I'm wrong about God judging the West, there is also the fact that I agree with Putin about transgenderism and 3-parent families.
Do you also agree with him breaking the sixth commandment?The killing of 13 civilians in Ukrainian shelling of Donesk on 19 September shows that it's both sides breaking it.
The killing of 13 civilians in Ukrainian shelling of Donesk on 19 September shows that it's both sides breaking it.
Quote: Kirill blamed the invasion on 'Gay parades'.
God will judge any nation which allows this, Leviticus 18:27 For the men who were in the land before you committed all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. 28So if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it spewed out the nations before you.
Putin seems to know this - in his address he expressed his aversion to the West's perversion of gender. It's good evidence for the truth of the Bible; NATO countries, which allow same sex marriage, are being weakened by their attempt to defeat Russia.
And?They had a peace agreement, but Ukraine decided to continue attacking the Donbas. Russia's SMO was a pre-emptive response to increased Ukrainian military build-up.
I'm not the one trying to justify Putin's murderous attack on Ukraine or trying to pretend that it is somehow the fault of the West because they treat gay people as, well, you know, people.
He's a murderer, you're completely besotted with him because he persecutes gay people. I bet you've probably got a stiffie just thinking about him.
Never argue with an idiot they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you through experience.”
I'm not allowed to mention God? Is this a new rule?
Enki brought up the subject and I was giving an opinion. If I'm wrong about God judging the West, there is also the fact that I agree with Putin about transgenderism and 3-parent families.
They had a peace agreement, but Ukraine decided to continue attacking the Donbas.Donbas is in Ukraine. Ukraine wasn't attacking Donbas, it was attacking the people who had invaded it.
Russia's SMO was a pre-emptive response to increased Ukrainian military build-up.But God seems to be punishing Russia more than the West. What did the Russians do wrong?
Regarding your comments on the treatment of gay people, the point I was making is that the West has believed the lie that a same sex relationship can be the same as marriage; along with making everybody call trans people by the gender they are not, I don't think I am pretending any such thing.
...
But God seems to be punishing Russia more than the West. What did the Russians do wrong?
No, Enki didn't bring up the subject. You did, Spud, in post 626, when you said,"God will judge any nation which allows this,". All I did was to comment on the way in which you sought to justify your warped prejudices by quoting from Leviticus. Now I don't know if you are deliberately lying or that you just don't have any grasp of what you actually say in your rather confused posts, but I thought I would put the record straight anyway.Actually you linked to the article which quoted Kirill, so you brought it up.
Donbas is in Ukraine. Ukraine wasn't attacking Donbas, it was attacking the people who had invaded it.Right, but the coup in 2014 saw a democratically elected government overthrown, right? So the response of the separatists is understandable.
But God seems to be punishing Russia more than the West. What did the Russians do wrong?We can be sure that God judges, I can only guess what that means for Russia. Perhaps it is iconography, perhaps it's their brutality.
Actually you linked to the article which quoted Kirill, so you brought it up.
Right, but the coup in 2014 saw a democratically elected government overthrown, right? So the response of the separatists is understandable. We can be sure that God judges, I can only guess what that means for Russia. Perhaps it is iconography, perhaps it's their brutality.
Actually you linked to the article which quoted Kirill, so you brought it up.
Don't be silly, Spud: ditch the 'God' nonsense and pay attention to people in future.
I'm not allowed to mention God? Is this a new rule?
Enki brought up the subject and I was giving an opinion. If I'm wrong about God judging the West, there is also the fact that I agree with Putin about transgenderism and 3-parent families.
Quote: Kirill blamed the invasion on 'Gay parades'.
Hmmm.. if you check we will see that was ekim not Enki.Thanks, sorry.
Thanks, sorry.
The Yanukovych government had long departed any association with democracy - he was rightly ousted, having run a corrupt regime in concert with Putin.Ok.
His replacement meant that Putin was no longer able to control and milk Ukraine,Milk Ukraine? Any details on that?
that prompted the takeover of Crimea and his arming of Russian sympathisers and dissidents in Donbas.Okay.
Leaving that aside. I wish you'd make your mind up.
First Putin definitely wasn't going to attack.
Then it was NATO's fault for provoking Putin.
Then it's the West's treating gay people as ordinary citizens.
Then it's a pre-emptive response to Ukrainian military build-up.
And you still think it's ok to break the sixth commandment.
You aren't any type of Christian I recognise.
You are full of hatred and cowardice. A dreadful mixture.
Sorry for what though? For kicking off on a "religiously justified" homophobic basis for the invasion of Ukraine? Doesn't look like it.No, sorry for mistaking Enki and Ekim.
also that God does judge nations which allow certain things to take place.
Ok.Milk Ukraine? Any details on that?Okay.
I've been reading Military Assistance To Ukraine 2014-2021 (https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07135/SN07135.pdf) which is interesting. It says,
"The UK, US and Russia are signatories to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum with Ukraine, which provided security assurances against the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”, including respect for its sovereignty and existing borders, in exchange for Ukraine’s unilateral nuclear disarmament and accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."
It also says
"Russia said Western military assistance to Ukraine was a provocation and
accused the West of supporting Ukraine in militarising eastern Ukraine and
dismantling the 2014 and 2015 Minsk Agreements, which had been the basis
for a political solution to the conflict there."
But I understand that the Minsk agreement was interpreted by both Ukraine and Russia as giving themselves more control over Donbas, so it wasn't satisfactory.
From the above article I get that the provision of security assurance by USA and UK was in return for nuclear disarmament of Ukraine, and that in the Budapest Memorandum (https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf), Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and borders and not use force against them except in self defense. In relation to that last point, Russia seems to be claiming it is protecting those in Ukraine with Russian citizenship.
A question: how far should the military assistance go? As far as a world war? As far as causing economic ruin for Europe?
I'll call it Trying to Get To the Bottom of It.
Ok.Milk Ukraine? Any details on that?Okay.
I've been reading Military Assistance To Ukraine 2014-2021 (https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07135/SN07135.pdf) which is interesting. It says
...
In relation to that last point, Russia seems to be claiming it is protecting those in Ukraine with Russian citizenship.
As I said before, the idea that eastern Ukraine rose up in defiance of Kyiv is false. That's not to say there wasn't any collaborators, useful idiots etc but it was largely a Russian invasion. Girkin and Wagner. Everything that happened in eastern Ukraine afterwards has to be looked in that context. Ukraine was fighting Russian invaders.Regarding the 1992 borders, I have a question. The EEC was formed IIRC as a way of preventing conflict between France and Germany over fossil fuel resources that exist in the territory between the two countries. How significant is the desire for control over such resources in Donbas by both Russia and Ukraine, and is the answer similar to the EEC, a trading agreement of some kind?
How far should we assist Ukraine? To victory! Liberation up to 1992 borders. Anything less will make world war more likely. The more we appease, the more Russia will escalate. On a personal level I would rather tighten my belt and wear an extra layer of clothes than fund the Russian fascist regime one cent more. If there is world war, which I hope not, I am ready. Ready to do that which I swore to do when I did my military service. I fully knew what my oath meant.
Regarding the 1992 borders, I have a question. The EEC was formed IIRC as a way of preventing conflict between France and Germany over fossil fuel resources that exist in the territory between the two countries. How significant is the desire for control over such resources in Donbas by both Russia and Ukraine, and is the answer similar to the EEC, a trading agreement of some kind?
Regarding Girkin's involvement in 2014. He is apparently a Russian ultranationalist who wants unification of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, right? Since that doesn't involve the rest of Europe, why did the US and UK agree to security assurances for Ukraine in case of invasion? It seems the Memorandum was entirely for the purpose of preventing nuclear conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which is fair enough, but although it has so far prevented a world war: as we are seeing, it is causing the gradual slaughter of all the Ukrainian men, as well as many Russians. So it seems unsatisfactory in that respect. Wouldn't it have been better to implement the Minsk Agreement?
On that subject, I am reading an article (https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/18/siding-with-ukraines-far-right-us-sabotaged-zelenskys-peace-mandate/) that claims that the Americans refused to encourage Zelensky to negotiate with Putin for peace, in 2019 after the Trump impeachment event. According to Scott Ritter this apparently fueled Ukrainian far right nationalists who subsequently turned the peaceful protests in 2014 against Velikovsky into a violent insurrection and began killing Russian nationals. This led to Russia annexing Crimea.
I'm just looking into the matter from both sides. I don't believe in war. Although I used to want to be a fighter pilot (went for RAF interviews at 18 but sent home on the first evening due to eyesight), conversations with a housemate at uni changed my mind. He's not the type who would refuse to fight to protect his country, but he told me he would not join the Army "and kill people". On foreign conflict he said, "they need to sort their own problems out". He was a believer in the principle that if you help one person in trouble you save the world.
So I guess what I am saying is what I've said before too, the conflict is not our business, in the sense of providing lethal weapons. The article linked says that Obama didn't allow the US to provide Ukraine with them precisely because it would lead to conflict. The nuclear disarmament thing at the core of the Budapest Memorandum is concerning, though.
The conflict is our business. Russia is a gangster state that seeks to impose its will on its neighbours. If it isn't stopped now, when are we going to stop it? When it's got Poland? Germany? France? The Isle of Wight?It's quite a big assumption you're making - that Putin just fancied a bit more territory. Don't you think there could be other reasons for him invading?
I'll remind you that whilst its right to be opposed to war, when a foreign country rolls across your border with tanks, the options are pretty limited. You either give in or fight. If you do the former, it is a signal to Putin that he can do this whenever he fancies a bit of extra territory and he'll roll into a lot more countries with tanks.
And don't think that capitulating will save lives, at least not Ukrainian lives. Putin wants to eradicate Ukraine as a national identity. I'm sure you can imagine what that involves.
It's quite a big assumption you're making - that Putin just fancied a bit more territory. Don't you think there could be other reasons for him invading?Are any of them good?
It's quite a big assumption you're making - that Putin just fancied a bit more territory. Don't you think there could be other reasons for him invading?
It's quite a big assumption you're making - that Putin just fancied a bit more territory. Don't you think there could be other reasons for him invading?
It's quite a big assumption you're making - that Putin just fancied a bit more territory. Don't you think there could be other reasons for him invading?Well, if we are being pedantic, what he fancies is controlling populations and resources. He probably also is attracted the legacy of rebuilding the Russian empire.
I am really struggling with your reasoning on this issue.This from the New York Times in March 2014 may help explain:
Putin invaded another country, one that is recognised around the world as a sovereign nation.
The Ukrainians have shown overwhelmingly that they wish their country to remain as Ukraine.
There is a clear right and wrong here, no matter whether you choose to obfuscate with various confused and unfounded theories.
Why do you insist on being a cheerleader for an authoritarian, war-mongering, anti-democratic bully?
This from the New York Times in March 2014 may help explain:
Quote:
But the president [Obama] has signaled privately that despite all the pressure, he remains reluctant to send arms. In part, he has told aides and visitors that arming the Ukrainians would encourage the notion that they could actually defeat the far more powerful Russians, and so it would potentially draw a more forceful response from Moscow. He also wants to give a shaky cease-fire a chance to take hold, despite a reported 1,000 violations so far, and seems determined to stay aligned with European allies that oppose arms for Ukraine.
“If you’re playing on the military terrain in Ukraine, you’re playing to Russia’s strength, because Russia is right next door,” Antony J. Blinken, the deputy secretary of state, told an audience in Berlin last week. “It has a huge amount of military equipment and military force right on the border. Anything we did as countries in terms of military support for Ukraine is likely to be matched and then doubled and tripled and quadrupled by Russia.”
,..............
Is this not what we are now seeing?
This from the New York Times in March 2014 may help explain:
Quote:
But the president [Obama] has signaled privately that despite all the pressure, he remains reluctant to send arms. In part, he has told aides and visitors that arming the Ukrainians would encourage the notion that they could actually defeat the far more powerful Russians, and so it would potentially draw a more forceful response from Moscow. He also wants to give a shaky cease-fire a chance to take hold, despite a reported 1,000 violations so far, and seems determined to stay aligned with European allies that oppose arms for Ukraine.
“If you’re playing on the military terrain in Ukraine, you’re playing to Russia’s strength, because Russia is right next door,” Antony J. Blinken, the deputy secretary of state, told an audience in Berlin last week. “It has a huge amount of military equipment and military force right on the border. Anything we did as countries in terms of military support for Ukraine is likely to be matched and then doubled and tripled and quadrupled by Russia.”
,..............
Is this not what we are now seeing?
This from the New York Times in March 2014 may help explain:No. Ukraine is winning this war.
Quote:
But the president [Obama] has signaled privately that despite all the pressure, he remains reluctant to send arms. In part, he has told aides and visitors that arming the Ukrainians would encourage the notion that they could actually defeat the far more powerful Russians, and so it would potentially draw a more forceful response from Moscow. He also wants to give a shaky cease-fire a chance to take hold, despite a reported 1,000 violations so far, and seems determined to stay aligned with European allies that oppose arms for Ukraine.
“If you’re playing on the military terrain in Ukraine, you’re playing to Russia’s strength, because Russia is right next door,” Antony J. Blinken, the deputy secretary of state, told an audience in Berlin last week. “It has a huge amount of military equipment and military force right on the border. Anything we did as countries in terms of military support for Ukraine is likely to be matched and then doubled and tripled and quadrupled by Russia.”
,..............
Is this not what we are now seeing?
No. Ukraine is winning this war.
What Obama said in 2014 was probably true in 2014. But Ukraine spent most of the intervening time massively improving its armed forces.
Wasn't even true back then. Yes, Ukraine has improved but Russia always been corrupt to the bone. Much of the money meant to modernise the Russian army was siphoned off. I love it. Remember the Finnish verb: Ryssiä.
Yes but prior to 2014, Ukraine also had a Soviet style army with similar levels of corruption.
Probably. Nevertheless, we all know now Russian military might is a myth. I doubt most of their nuclear weapons even work. Laughing stock. We need to finish Russia off.
Unfortunately "most" doesn't cut it where nuclear weapons are concerned. "All" the the quantifier I'd be looking for.
Interesting point: Russia recently (in the last two weeks) took 300 MiG-29 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29)s out of mothball storage. They found that 200 were effectively complete write-offs and 80% were definitely not airworthy. The remaining 60 look OK, but a more in depth examination may reveal problems with them too. If this is something that can be extrapolated to all Russian military hardware that hasn't been used for ages, we may postulate that Putin dare not use his nuclear weapons in case it shows that Russia is no longer a nuclear power.
What would NATO do to Russia if they found out that the nuclear threat is fictional?
Unfortunately, you only need one nuclear war head to work to bring complete disaster down on human civilisation.
I get your point. I still think we should call Putin's bluff though.
We are calling his bluff. We are still supplying Ukraine with arms and we are not pressuring them to do a deal.
I think the biggest danger is not nuclear weapons but the Russians blowing the dam on the Dnipro above Kherson. There's a real possibility they will do that.
Unfortunately "most" doesn't cut it where nuclear weapons are concerned. "All" the the quantifier I'd be looking for.I just had a look at a list of active Russian military aircraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_military_aircraft) and counted 640 4th-Generation fighters in service (plus 5 Su-57s); not bad.
Interesting point: Russia recently (in the last two weeks) took 300 MiG-29 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29)s out of mothball storage. They found that 200 were effectively complete write-offs and 80% were definitely not airworthy. The remaining 60 look OK, but a more in depth examination may reveal problems with them too. If this is something that can be extrapolated to all Russian military hardware that hasn't been used for ages, we may postulate that Putin dare not use his nuclear weapons in case it shows that Russia is no longer a nuclear power.
What would NATO do to Russia if they found out that the nuclear threat is fictional?
Unfortunately, you only need one nuclear war head to work to bring complete disaster down on human civilisation.
Joint UK, US, France statement"(but no boots on the ground, ok)"
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/russian-war-in-ukraine-p3-statement
Russians are almost certainly preparing an escalation. The dirty bomb thing is a joke, surely. No military value and as I understand it nuclear waste has a fingerprint which is easy to trace. If they do, they'll fuck it up some how (ryssiä) but still perpetuate the lie. Don't believe anything until the Kremlin denies it!Apparently Russia is accusing Ukraine of the same. I'm wondering if someone heard someone else talking about a dirty bum and that's what started the rumours?
Apparently Russia is accusing Ukraine of the same. I'm wondering if someone heard someone else talking about a dirty bum and that's what started the rumours?
Apparently Russia is accusing Ukraine of the same. I'm wondering if someone heard someone else talking about a dirty bum and that's what started the rumours?
Send more toilet paper.Chapeau!
If the dam were breached, this would lead to Russian pontoon bridges downstream being washed away, one reason why they would not bomb it?
I thought one of the plans posited was to bomb it after they had withdrawn from that area.
I read that destroying it would have only minimal effect on Ukrainian advance and also cut off a major water source for Crimea.
I read that destroying it would have only minimal effect on Ukrainian advance and also cut off a major water source for Crimea.The North Crimean canal begins just upstream of the dam. How would destroying it cut off the canal's supply, other than needing a short length of canal to be dug to reconnect it to the river?
The North Crimean canal begins just upstream of the dam. How would destroying it cut off the canal's supply, other than needing a short length of canal to be dug to reconnect it to the river?
I read that destroying it would have only minimal effect on Ukrainian advance and also cut off a major water source for Crimea.
The North Crimean canal begins just upstream of the dam. How would destroying it cut off the canal's supply, other than needing a short length of canal to be dug to reconnect it to the river?
The water level upstream of the dam would drop significantly leaving the entrance to the canal high and dry.Of course! Well done. I forgot to think vertically :(
N̶A̶T̶O̶
̶J̶e̶w̶i̶s̶h̶ ̶n̶a̶z̶i̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶p̶
̶W̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶A̶z̶o̶v̶
̶P̶r̶o̶t̶e̶c̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶n̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶a̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶p̶o̶p̶
̶B̶i̶o̶l̶a̶b̶s̶
̶J̶e̶w̶i̶s̶h̶ ̶s̶p̶a̶c̶e̶ ̶l̶a̶s̶e̶r̶s̶
̶W̶e̶a̶p̶o̶n̶i̶z̶e̶d̶ ̶b̶i̶r̶d̶s̶
̶D̶i̶r̶t̶y̶ ̶b̶o̶m̶b̶s̶
Let’s try Satanism
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/russias-security-council-claims-hundreds-144610842.html
Have they suggested that Zelensky is head of a paedophile ring yet?
I noticed Sergei Lavrov in the photo. I believe it is claimed that he knows seven or eight languages. I wonder how he feels deep down when he is required to talk shit in all of them?
With the dam destroyed or not, the Dnipro represents a major military obstacle. If the Russians dug in on the South bank, having evacuated the Northern part of Kherson, I'd be extremely surprised if Ukraine could get across.I agree about the river being a military obstacle, it would seem a natural border. But there may be other reasons for holding the north side of Kherson than just optical/political.
In fact, I think the only reason the Russians haven't done that already is the optics of abandoning the capital city of a region they have just claimed is part of Russia. i.e. it's politics, not tactics.
I agree about the river being a military obstacle, it would seem a natural border. But there may be other reasons for holding the north side of Kherson than just optical/political.
They said a while back that they had a new objective which was to destroy any NATO-supplied longer range artillery that threatens the annexed territories. Could this also be why they're taking out energy infrastructure, which is apparently a common prelude to a major offensive (such as at the start of the Iraq war). Also they stated that one of their objectives was to stop genocide of Russian-speakers, hence the referenda and annexation of the whole oblast of Kherson.
What genocide?The one Putin claims has occurred. Perhaps the best evidence I have found that it is taking place is Eva Bartlett's coverage of Ukrainian shelling of residential areas in Donetsk which she says has happened daily for years. But maybe genocide is not the right word for it, war crimes could be more accurate, I don't know. Note, my comment was about the policy of Russia to hold the territory in Kherson north of the river, and possible reasons for it.
The one Putin claims has occurred. Perhaps the best evidence I have found that it is taking place is Eva Bartlett's coverage of Ukrainian shelling of residential areas in Donetsk which she says has happened daily for years. But maybe genocide is not the right word for it, war crimes could be more accurate, I don't know. Note, my comment was about the policy of Russia to hold the territory in Kherson north of the river, and possible reasons for it.
Trent, perhaps anyone claiming that Ukraine is winning should be following the flat earth website?
I don't like to mention it, I just do mention it: Russia has taken 15% of Ukraine and held it. So far, Obama in 2014 was right.
The one Putin claims has occurred. Perhaps the best evidence I have found that it is taking place is Eva Bartlett's coverage of Ukrainian shelling of residential areas in Donetsk which she says has happened daily for years. But maybe genocide is not the right word for it, war crimes could be more accurate, I don't know. Note, my comment was about the policy of Russia to hold the territory in Kherson north of the river, and possible reasons for it.
Trent, perhaps anyone claiming that Ukraine is winning should be following the flat earth website?
I don't like to mention it, I just do mention it: Russia has taken 15% of Ukraine and held it. So far, Obama in 2014 was right.
Oh yeah cos Putin thought he'd be able to walk in over a few days and take Ukraine. How's that going you Russian shill?Putin wasn't prepared for NATO to supply Ukraine.
Yes Obama was right in 2014. We are now in 2022.
Yes, Ukraine is winning. Almost 70,000 dead orcs says so.Nobody is winning. Unless one side backs down it will be stalemate.
Kyiv was just a feint! Snake Island, good will gesture. Kharkiv, withdrawal. Cope more!
Eva Bartlett is a Russian shill! Also her head is an egg.The 13 civilian deaths on 19 September that she reported were confirmed in western media.
Yes, and you gave the Russian claim of a genocide as a reason for the invasion without commenting on whether it was a justified claim.I think my point in giving the Russian claim was to show that they are keeping to that originally-stated objective, this then showing that they were not just trying to appear successful to the people of Russia by holding territory.
Yes, and you gave the Russian claim of a genocide as a reason for the invasion without commenting on whether it was a justified claim.By way of a comment: it seems that from 2014, as well as pre-2012, the Ukrainian language was, in parts of Donbas where the majority are ethnic Russians, encouraged by the government merely for the sake of ensuring loyalty to Ukraine.
Nobody is winning. Unless one side backs down it will be stalemate.
By way of a comment: it seems that from 2014, as well as pre-2012, the Ukrainian language was, in parts of Donbas where the majority are ethnic Russians, encouraged by the government merely for the sake of ensuring loyalty to Ukraine.
Russia has interpreted this as a reason to protect ethnic Russians in those areas, and I can understand their thinking. If the Ukrainian government were to be really honest, they would recognize there to be no need to hold on to control over them.
Maybe this has led to the hyper-nationalism exhibited in Poroshenko's words in 2014 about the people of Odessa being on the right track because they are pro-Ukrainian.
As I understand it Putin did not initially want Donbas to be independent. He only intervened when hypernationalists began to fight with the pro-Russian separatists. He only recognised their independence in 2022, eight years later.
Putin wasn't prepared for NATO to supply Ukraine.
I am not a Russian shill, just looking objectively at the military side of it and researching the cause.
Nobody is winning. Unless one side backs down it will be stalemate.
Good to see you brushing your teeth, ad.
I can't. People being encouraged, in Ukraine, to speak Ukrainian interpreted as being a threat to Russian speakers? Ukraine is an independent nation and is seeking to establish it's own identity so is going to encourage people to speak Ukrainian. Think you need to come up with some better evidence than that Spud.I have been reading "Language, Status, and State Loyalty in Ukraine" (https://www.husj.harvard.edu/articles/language-status-and-state-loyalty-in-ukraine) in order to get a better understanding of whether 'genocide' describes what has been happening in Donbas. I would say that the Holodomor was genocide against Ukrainian nationalists, and I wouldn't say at present that Ukraine has recently committed genocide in Donbas, as Putin claims. But the ongoing attacks on civilians in Donetsk might justify Russian military support.
Essentially Putin wants to control Ukraine. Ukraine wants to be independent and not controlled by Russia. The question is, does Ukraine have the right to independence? What is your position on that and why?Putin wants Ukrainian neutrality.
It is strange how you objectively looking at it always chimes with an autocratic leader's wishes and against the democratically expressed will of a sovereign nation.I don't agree that Putin wants to rebuild a Russian empire. If he did, why would he be party to the Minsk agreement which kept Donbas as part of Ukraine?
The cause is simple. Putin wants to rebuild a Russian empire by subjugating other nations. If he were to "win" in Ukraine, he would not stop there.
The one Putin claims has occurred.The fictional one. I see.
Perhaps the best evidence I have found that it is taking place is Eva Bartlett's coverage of Ukrainian shelling of residential areas in Donetsk which she says has happened daily for years. But maybe genocide is not the right word for it, war crimes could be more accurate, I don't know. Note, my comment was about the policy of Russia to hold the territory in Kherson north of the river, and possible reasons for it.
Putin wasn't prepared for NATO to supply Ukraine.Putin was also not prepared for the fact that his own armed forces had been hollowed out by corruption. That's why he's now forced to kidnap men from the streets and force them to act as bullet absorbers for what's left of his professional army.
I am not a Russian shill, just looking objectively at the military side of it and researching the cause.You won't find the cause by examining Putin's words. He wouldn't know the truth if it punched him in the face.
He never wanted that. He wanted Ukraine to be run by somebody he could control. I think he's changed his mind about that now though. I think he wants to erase Ukraine as a nation.
Putin wants Ukrainian neutrality.
I don't agree that Putin wants to rebuild a Russian empire.He keeps invading foreign countries. Of course he wants an empire.
I have been reading "Language, Status, and State Loyalty in Ukraine" (https://www.husj.harvard.edu/articles/language-status-and-state-loyalty-in-ukraine) in order to get a better understanding of whether 'genocide' describes what has been happening in Donbas. I would say that the Holodomor was genocide against Ukrainian nationalists, and I wouldn't say at present that Ukraine has recently committed genocide in Donbas, as Putin claims. But the ongoing attacks on civilians in Donetsk might justify Russian military support.
Putin wants Ukrainian neutrality.
I don't agree that Putin wants to rebuild a Russian empire. If he did, why would he be party to the Minsk agreement which kept Donbas as part of Ukraine?
Minsk isn't worth the paper it was written on. Russia also violated it multiple times.The point is that Russia didn't recognize the DNR and LNR until 8 years after the civil war broke out. That indicates he had no empire-building ambitions.
The point is that Russia didn't recognize the DNR and LNR until 8 years after the civil war broke out. That indicates he had no empire-building ambitions.
The point is that Russia didn't recognize the DNR and LNR until 8 years after the civil war broke out. That indicates he had no empire-building ambitions.
He wants them to do what he wants - which is controlling them.Just reading this by CIA's William Burns in 2009:
Russian military support? An invasion you mean.
Putin was also not prepared for the fact that his own armed forces had been hollowed out by corruption. That's why he's now forced to kidnap men from the streets and force them to act as bullet absorbers for what's left of his professional army.More evidence that his motive wasn't expansion.
More evidence that his motive wasn't expansion.
Just reading this by CIA's William Burns in 2009:
"During his annual review of Russia's foreign policy
January 22-23 (ref B), Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that
Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO,
particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military
threat. While Russia might believe statements from the West
that NATO was not directed against Russia, when one looked at
recent military activities in NATO countries (establishment
of U.S. forward operating locations, etc. they had to be
evaluated not by stated intentions but by potential."
Continue reading (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html)
Switzerland became neutral in 1515 because, if I've understood right, it is between France and Austria. I don't know but is this to do with Switzerland being bilingual? It seems similar with Ukraine, there is french and German influence in the Ukrainian language, and Russian is the main language of many. This increases the potential for conflicting loyalties, which makes neutrality a logical position to take
It was an invasion, not a civil war!invasion, or intervention?
invasion, or intervention?
invasion, or intervention?
The point is that Russia didn't recognize the DNR and LNR until 8 years after the civil war broke out. That indicates he had no empire-building ambitions.
More evidence that his motive wasn't expansion.
Just reading this by CIA's William Burns in 2009:
"During his annual review of Russia's foreign policy
January 22-23 (ref B), Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that
Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO,
particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military
threat. While Russia might believe statements from the West
that NATO was not directed against Russia, when one looked at
recent military activities in NATO countries (establishment
of U.S. forward operating locations, etc. they had to be
evaluated not by stated intentions but by potential."
Continue reading (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html)
Switzerland became neutral in 1515 because, if I've understood right, it is between France and Austria. I don't know but is this to do with Switzerland being bilingual? It seems similar with Ukraine, there is french and German influence in the Ukrainian language, and Russian is the main language of many. This increases the potential for conflicting loyalties, which makes neutrality a logical position to take
How are things he didn't know evidence against his motive?Oh, so Putin was planning to annex parts of Europe all along but didn't know that his military wouldn't be up to it?
Oh, so Putin was planning to annex parts of Europe all along but didn't know that his military wouldn't be up to it?
Oh, so Putin was planning to annex parts of Europe all along but didn't know that his military wouldn't be up to it?
Oh, so Putin was planning to annex parts of Europe all along but didn't know that his military wouldn't be up to it?
From WikipediaI meant when it first became neutral, which I read was partly because it had been trying to expand and also because it would be good for relations between France and Austria. I'll go back and check.
'Swiss neutrality is one of the main principles of Switzerland's foreign policy which dictates that Switzerland is not to be involved in armed or political conflicts between other states. This policy is self-imposed and designed to ensure external security and promote peace.'
totally different from Putin wanting Ukraine to be neutral.
He started the civil war.There are people who think the West is responsible, because of the expansion of NATO Eastwards. The effect of that was predicted long before it happened, as the above link to William Burns shows.
That is clearly the case, or he wouldn't have invaded Ukraine.Maybe. But I think the consensus view is that he wasn't expecting the Ukrainians to fight so well or the West to give them so much support.
I meant when it first became neutral, which I read was partly because it had been trying to expand and also because it would be good for relations between France and Austria. I'll go back and check.
Edit: quote, (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/why-is-switzerland-a-neutral-country) "after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, the major European powers concluded that a neutral Switzerland would serve as a valuable buffer zone between France and Austria and contribute to stability in the region."
There are people who think the West is responsible, because of the expansion of NATO Eastwards.
The effect of that was predicted long before it happened, as the above link to William Burns shows.
When the Soviet Union broke up, the main reason for NATO continuing to function was to keep re-unified Germany in check (correct me if that is wrong).
That's why the Russians were happy for the US to maintain its presence in Europe.
Article 10 of NATO includes the condition for a country that joins it that it will contribute to the security of Europe. For a country that's on Russia's border, I would say the best way to do that is to remain neutral.
There are people who think the West is responsible, because of the expansion of NATO Eastwards.Those people are wrong.
The effect of that was predicted long before it happened, as the above link to William Burns shows.
When the Soviet Union broke up, the main reason for NATO continuing to function was to keep re-unified Germany in check (correct me if that is wrong). That's why the Russians were happy for the US to maintain its presence in Europe.This is nonsense. Germany was kept in check bu being a member of the EU. NATO continued because the threat from Russia had not gone away.
Article 10 of NATO includes the condition for a country that joins it that it will contribute to the security of Europe. For a country that's on Russia's border, I would say the best way to do that is to remain neutral.That didn't work out for Ukraine.
Those people are wrong.I can see your point. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined not long after the two wars in Chechnya. However, Chechnya was already part of the Russian Federation. Arguably, it had the right to independence, since it had in 1917 gained independence for a bit before being forced to join the Soviet Union, and prior to that it had had ongoing conflict as it tried to resist Russia. Since Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic do not share a border with Russia, I'm not sure that there was a huge threat to them at the time. So I don't quite buy that the Chechnya conflict was evidence of a great threat to Eastern European countries.
Why did countries of Eastern Europe want to join NATO? It was because they were concerned about the threat from Russia, a concern that has proven justified. So Russia is responsible.
This is nonsense. Germany was kept in check bu being a member of the EU. NATO continued because the threat from Russia had not gone away.I got the idea from "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault" (https://www.natur.cuni.cz/geografie/socialni-geografie-a-regionalni-rozvoj/studium/doktorske-studium/kolokvium/kolokvium-2013-2014-materialy/ukrajina-a-rusko-mearsheimer-souleimanov.pdf) which says, "As the Cold War came to a close, Soviet leaders preferred that U.S. forces remain in Europe and NATO stay intact, an arrangement they thought would keep a reunified Germany pacified. But they and their Russian successors did not want NATO to grow any larger and assumed that Western diplomats understood their concerns."
That didn't work out for Ukraine.
Barry Chuckle gives his Oscar to Zelensky
https://twitter.com/CharlotteEmmaUK/status/1590245642768912384?t=OxtwByy9jokbS8eXjpa2LA&s=08
I don't mean to be unkind, but he really is a twat.
What Kherson defence doing? A tactical withdrawal is one of the hardest military manouvres, especially when you announce it beforehand. It's now turned into a rout.Awesome for the people of Kherson. From the Russian perspective it seems like a kind of Dunkirk situation. I've heard that the retreat went smoothly, was covered by Russian air defense and cost Ukraine many casualties over the weeks since it was being planned.
Spud, are you still certain Ukraine can't win?
https://twitter.com/thevenetiandoge/status/1591077517729095681?t=CiCXk874MTExHaiFVOj07Q&s=19
Incidentally, Sweden finding an underwater drone laden with explosives but undetonated close to the forth gas pipeline (https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/en/news-page/world/explosives-laden-drone-undetonated-found-near-nord-stream-pipeline-bomb-blast-site) suggests it was not Russia, or they would not be keeping what they now know a secret.
This Hal Turner?Oh pants, I thought the article was referring to current events, but it happened in 2015. Been a busy week....
"Hal Turner is so far to the right he made Rush Limbaugh look like a liberal and Sean Hannity seem like a girly-man!"
Credit where credit is due Spud. If there is a right-wing nut job out there you'll find him. It's a shame that you then go on to believe such proven liars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Turner
Always trust a holocaust denier eh?
Oh pants, I thought the article was referring to current events, but it happened in 2015. Been a busy week....
Busy enough not to spot a holocaust denier?Even busier
Busy enough not to spot a holocaust denier?
Hell of an ad hominem you've got there.
Not really. Just questioning the workings of a mind that takes the word of a proven liar as gospel. Holocaust denial is the most extreme example of it as exhibited by Hal Turner. Anyone who takes more than cursory glance at the website can see what he is.
Being horribly wrong on one topic does not make you definitely wrong on another. Whilst I would treat Hal Turner's pronouncements on the war in Ukraine with extreme scepticism, I would not dismiss them out of hand just because he is a Holocaust denier.
Being horribly wrong on one topic does not make you definitely wrong on another. Whilst I would treat Hal Turner's pronouncements on the war in Ukraine with extreme scepticism, I would not dismiss them out of hand just because he is a Holocaust denier.Is his being a holocaust denier a factor in your extreme scepticism?
I've been reading some articles by George H Eliason after he was interviewed on Redacted a week or two ago. He is an American journalist who has lived in Donbas for 10 years. I think I found the link from my post 758 on his Twitter page.
The date of the article is October 2022, and its wording can be interpreted as though the discovery of the drone was after the recent sabotage of the pipeline.
I guess the main take away is that sabotage has been attempted before.
Two missiles headed for Lviv have apparently strayed and landed in Poland, killing two people. I'll try and find a link. If true, Article 5 those bastards and go all the way to Moscow!
What do you think of the most recent missile attacks on Ukrainian civilians?I think their government needs to negotiate instead of sacrificing its entire population to its Bandera god.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63638859
Two missiles headed for Lviv have apparently strayed and landed in Poland, killing two people. I'll try and find a link. If true, Article 5 those bastards and go all the way to Moscow!If what I've read recently is correct, the donating of weapons to Ukrainian nationalists by the US is illegal in America, since it encourages another country to attack a country with which the US is at peace.
I think their government needs to negotiate instead of sacrificing its entire population to its Bandera god.
I think their government needs to negotiate instead of sacrificing its entire population to its Bandera god.
If what I've read recently is correct, the donating of weapons to Ukrainian nationalists by the US is illegal in America, since it encourages another country to attack a country with which the US is at peace.
I think their government needs to negotiate instead of sacrificing its entire population to its Bandera god.It didn’t occur to you to suggest Russia could stop targeting civilians?
Biden is saying that the missile that hit Poland is unlikely to be Russian.
I think it's quite certain it's Russian made, at least. I think that's been more or less been confirmed. The question is where it came from. Surely they must already know. As I understand, there's a NATO radar station only 40km away.
When did you start simping for dictators, Spud? Was it when you started reading The Grayzone?https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=Odessa--the-First-Pogrom-by-George-Eliason-Activism-Anti-War_Civil-Disobedience_Class-War_Obama-Warmonger-140507-595.html
Disturbing (https://www.globalresearch.ca/kiev-regime-is-forcing-death-by-starvation-and-relocation-in-east-ukraine/5420460)
Disturbing (https://www.globalresearch.ca/kiev-regime-is-forcing-death-by-starvation-and-relocation-in-east-ukraine/5420460)
This just about nails it, I think.
https://twitter.com/bctallis/status/1592775424001847296?t=E5xwp7GF1XL9LJTu7vdzlw&s=19
Not completely. Ukraine's allies are already doing pretty much everything they can to help Ukraine win this war, short of engaging with their own armed forces. What more do you want?
ATACMS, Abrams, F-16's.
That didn't work out for Ukraine.In 2013-14 I was very preoccupied, so I didn't really take in much of the events in Ukraine. Have recently found this Guradian article from September 2013 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-european-union-trade-russia) which describes Russia's warning to Ukraine about the consequences of signing a free trade agreement with the EU. It would not be able to join a customs union with Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan as well. Russia points out that it is Ukraine's main creditor, and warns of financial collapse; also that signing the EU deal would violate the Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty). I've underlined a couple of bits I found interesting:
Instead, he said, signing the agreement would make the default of Ukraine inevitable and Moscow would not offer any helping hand. "Russia is the main creditor of Ukraine. Only with customs union with Russia can Ukraine balance its trade," he said. Russia has already slapped import restrictions on certain Ukrainian products and Glazyev did not rule out further sanctions if the agreement was signed.
The Kremlin aide added that the political and social cost of EU integration could also be high, and allowed for the possibility of separatist movements springing up in the Russian-speaking east and south of Ukraine. He suggested that if Ukraine signed the agreement, Russia would consider the bilateral treaty that delineates the countries' borders to be void.
"We don't want to use any kind of blackmail. This is a question for the Ukrainian people," said Glazyev. "But legally, signing this agreement about association with EU, the Ukrainian government violates the treaty on strategic partnership and friendship with Russia." When this happened, he said, Russia could no longer guarantee Ukraine's status as a state and could possibly intervene if pro-Russian regions of the country appealed directly to Moscow.
In 2013-14 I was very preoccupied, so I didn't really take in much of the events in Ukraine. Have recently found this Guradian article from September 2013 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-european-union-trade-russia) which describes Russia's warning to Ukraine about the consequences of signing a free trade agreement with the EU. It would not be able to join a customs union with Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan as well. Russia points out that it is Ukraine's main creditor, and warns of financial collapse; also that signing the EU deal would violate the Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty). I've underlined a couple of bits I found interesting:
If anything is clear from this war, it's that Russia cannot exist in its current form anymore. The first step is Ukrainian victory and Russian defeat all the way up to 1992 borders. Break-up of Russian federation. De-militarisation and re-education of Russians. Russia is a stain on civilisation. History doesn't lie. Entire history is one of aggression and genocide.The Russians know that you and others are saying this. That's why they have a nuclear deterrent.
It didn’t occur to you to suggest Russia could stop targeting civilians?I recently came across a quote from the Washington Post: "Increasingly, Ukrainians are confronting an uncomfortable truth: The military’s understandable impulse to defend against Russian attacks could be putting civilians in the crosshairs. Virtually every neighborhood in most cities has become militarized, some more than others, making them potential targets for Russian forces trying to take out Ukrainian defenses....Ukraine’s strategy of placing heavy military equipment and other fortifications in civilian zones could weaken Western and Ukrainian efforts to hold Russia legally culpable for possible war crimes."
What the hell is wrong with you?
What do you think of the most recent missile attacks on Ukrainian civilians?They seem to have targeted power stations and air defenses? I think this possibly is to do with stopping NATO weapons being brought near to the four annexed regions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63638859
The Russians know that you and others are saying this. That's why they have a nuclear deterrent.
I recently came across a quote from the Washington Post: "Increasingly, Ukrainians are confronting an uncomfortable truth: The military’s understandable impulse to defend against Russian attacks could be putting civilians in the crosshairs. Virtually every neighborhood in most cities has become militarized, some more than others, making them potential targets for Russian forces trying to take out Ukrainian defenses....Ukraine’s strategy of placing heavy military equipment and other fortifications in civilian zones could weaken Western and Ukrainian efforts to hold Russia legally culpable for possible war crimes."
If what I've read recently is correct Russia invaded Ukraine. Your wrong-headed attempts at putting up straw men tp divert attention from this fact are pathetic.If you go to this YouTube video you will find a link in the description to a documentary made by RT about 2014-2022 in Donbass.
You are so concerned about Ukrainian nationalists and yet you ignore the rather blatant and obvious nationalism of Putin.
Your denial in various areas around this conflict is truly impressive.
No, they have a nuclear deterrent as a legacy of the days when the Soviet Union was opposed to the USA.And they still have it for the reason I gave.
RT. Good grief!RT is banned in the UK.
RT is banned in the UK.
I'm 24 minutes into the video, it's showing Mariupol and saying Azov shelled it, destroying every building, then Russia liberated it and enabled the kids to go to school again. Is it just me or is this the opposite of what we were told was happening?
RT is banned in the UK.Can you explain why, when Ukraine liberates bits of territory that Russia invaded, the civilians always seem to be really happy, even the ones who speak Russian as a first language?
I'm 24 minutes into the video, it's showing Mariupol and saying Azov shelled it, destroying every building, then Russia liberated it and enabled the kids to go to school again. Is it just me or is this the opposite of what we were told was happening?
Can you explain why, when Ukraine liberates bits of territory that Russia invaded, the civilians always seem to be really happy, even the ones who speak Russian as a first language?Maybe those come from places outside Donbass, like Kherson and Kharkov? The film is mainly about the liberation of LNR and DNR.
Maybe those come from places outside Donbass, like Kherson and Kharkov? The film is mainly about the liberation of LNR and DNR.
The Russians bombed the shit out of Mariupol. Russia always lies. It worries me that you still don't get that but I suppose that's what happens when you simp for dictators.Maybe they did, but the claim in the film is that the Ukrainian military had already been shelling Mariupol since 2014. The aim then is to verify whether the people there welcomed the Russian liberation.
Maybe they did, but the claim in the film is that the Ukrainian military had already been shelling Mariupol since 2014. The aim then is to verify whether the people there welcomed the Russian liberation.
That doesn't make any sense. Ukraine didn't lose control of Mariupol until the spring of this year. The nearest frontline was at least a good 20km away.Ok, sorry - it's people from towns in the border regions eg Golubovka who reported Ukrainian shelling over the 8 years, not people from Mariupol.
At 19 minutes they describe how from 22 February the Ukrainians taking up firing positions on the 7th, 8th and 9th floors of blocks of flats having kicked out the residents. That would be why the Russians shelled the buildings.
That's the reason given. What makes you think it is accurate?Why would the Russians shell apartment blocks believing no military were in them, then after taking the city, give out food to civilians and allow schools to start back up?
Ukraine is in an existential war at the moment. How do you not understand this? If they weakened their resolve in any way, Ukraine will soon cease to exist.The problem seems to be that they use terrorist tactics to achieve that. If they allowed the Russian-speaking Donbass to become autonomous and agreed on non-NATO status, the rest of Ukraine could westernize as it chose to.
The Russians can stop the starvation today by withdrawing from Ukraine.The article was written in December 2014. If Ukraine wanted to give Russia a humanitarian reason to intervene at that time, cutting off the economy of Donbass was it. Is there starvation in Donbass now?
Why would the Russians shell apartment blocks believing no military were in them, then after taking the city, give out food to civilians and allow schools to start back up?
Here is the 2016 documentary, Ukraine on Fire (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TjeW5pPHg0&t=1719s).
At 25:28 begins Oliver Stone's interview with Viktor Yanukovych, who explains why he decided to reject the EU treaty in November 2013 in favour of closer ties with Russia.
The problem seems to be that they use terrorist tactics to achieve that.They are at war with Russia. How can you not see that?
If they allowed the Russian-speaking Donbass to become autonomous and agreed on non-NATO status, the rest of Ukraine could westernize as it chose to.Why should they? Why let Russia steal their territory?
Why would the Russians shell apartment blocks believing no military were in them,Because they are murderous bastards.
Perhaps because they thought there might be and didn't really care if they were right or not so did it anyway. Did they know the residents had been kicked out? Did they care? I don't know the answers to any of those questions as I don't know what is true - but just interested as to why you seem to believe everything RT and other pro-Russian sources say regardless.
Any force which occupies territory needs the local population to be on side or at least to accept the occupation and not resist. Giving out food, if they did, is about 'hearts and minds' surely.It was more than just giving out food, it was not killing them, as the Azov soldiers had done.
They are at war with Russia. How can you not see that?We've been through this and I can't really do any more but refer you to the links. My opinion is that our government have been sending weapons that are being used not just on Russian soldiers but on civilians (deliberately) and anyone who disagrees with the nationalist agenda.
Why should they? Why let Russia steal their territory?
I think if we're going to be fed information from our own media then we the public should be able to hear both sides of the story. RT was a useful source for the Russian perspective before it was banned.
It was more than just giving out food, it was not killing them, as the Azov soldiers had done.
My opinion is that our government have been sending weapons that are being used not just on Russian soldiers but on civilians (deliberately) and anyone who disagrees with the nationalist agenda.
The problem seems to be that they use terrorist tactics to achieve that. If they allowed the Russian-speaking Donbass to become autonomous and agreed on non-NATO status, the rest of Ukraine could westernize as it chose to.
Have you got any evidence that that is the case, because it is bullshit. Ukraine has a Russian army to fight that is superior in numbers and seeks to destroy the country. A moment's thought will tell you that wasting their NATO weapons on civilians would be suicidal.As I said, I refer you to the RT and Oliver Stone documentaries.
Russia is unambiguously the bad guy here.
As I said, I refer you to the RT and Oliver Stone documentaries.
Several people in the RT documentary describe the Ukrainians shooting at them as they tried to escape the combat. That was this year.
Other civilians from Donbass described being shelled for the last eight years with weapons supplied by the West, and the soldiers trained by us.
As I said, I refer you to the RT and Oliver Stone documentaries.
Several people in the RT documentary describe the Ukrainians shooting at them as they tried to escape the combat. That was this year.
Other civilians from Donbass described being shelled for the last eight years with weapons supplied by the West, and the soldiers trained by us.
If you live in a war zone, occasionally you are going to come under fire from one side or the other. It's unfortunate but mistakes are made.To your last point: "[t]he separation of a minority from the State of which it forms a part . . . can only be considered as an altogether exceptional solution, a last resort when the State lacks either the will or the power to enact and apply just and effective guarantees." (The Aaland Islands Question: Report Submitted to the Council of the League of Nations by the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B7/21/68/106 (1921).) In 2014 the new government of Ukraine revoked Yanukovych's law passed two years earlier making Russian an official language in Donbass (iirc). Although this decision was vetoed by the new President, it triggered the demonstrations in Donetsk and Luhansk. The Oliver Stone film implies that the government somehow brought in ultra nationalists to turn the peaceful protests violent. The subsequent oppression in those regions (the so-called Anti terror operation) seems to me to meet the criterion of "the State lacking either the will or the power to enact and apply just and effective guarantees".
You do know don't you that the reason why there is a war zone is because Russia keeps invading. If Russia had kept out of Ukraine, everybody in that country would be living in peace side by side.
To your last point: "[t]he separation of a minority from the State of which it forms a part . . . can only be considered as an altogether exceptional solution, a last resort when the State lacks either the will or the power to enact and apply just and effective guarantees." (The Aaland Islands Question: Report Submitted to the Council of the League of Nations by the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B7/21/68/106 (1921).) In 2014 the new government of Ukraine revoked Yanukovych's law passed two years earlier making Russian an official language in Donbass (iirc). Although this decision was vetoed by the new President, it triggered the demonstrations in Donetsk and Luhansk. The Oliver Stone film implies that the government somehow brought in ultra nationalists to turn the peaceful protests violent. The subsequent oppression in those regions (the so-called Anti terror operation) seems to me to meet the criterion of "the State lacking either the will or the power to enact and apply just and effective guarantees".
Googling "Ukrainian army uses civilians as human shield in Mariupol" brings up links to claims and counter-claims. Given the past history of the West's intelligence services I think it's best to treat what our one or another journalist, intelligence source or government says with caution. The point is that the right thing to do in a war is to evacuate civilians if possible. If people were prevented from leaving apartment blocks then this would be a war crime.
A while ago I came across a video called "An interview with Scott Ritter" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdM5Pkyl0_8). At 37 minutes he is asked to explain the legality of Russia's invasion. His answer lasts about 7 minutes I think, but he describes how Russia acted according to international law. Now I've just heard the Supreme Court say something about Scotland not being oppressed by the UK, and this makes sense of Scott's explanation about the legality of Donbas independence.
I also wanted to verify his claims earlier in the interview about the Maidan protests and subsequent events, and it appears he could have got his information from the Oliver Stone documentary, which details the interview with Yanukovych who explains the circumstances in which he had to decide whether to sign the treaty with the EU, and with Putin in which Putin says Russia "would not pay for Ukraine to sign up to the treaty" (in 2013). This clarifies that Russia was not putting undue pressure on Yanukovych, correct?
Anyway, I thought I'd post the link to the Ritter interview.
The point is that the right thing to do in a war is to evacuate civilians if possible.
A while ago I came across a video called "An interview with Scott Ritter" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdM5Pkyl0_8). At 37 minutes he is asked to explain the legality of Russia's invasion. His answer lasts about 7 minutes I think, but he describes how Russia acted according to international law.
To where? What part of the Ukraine is not currently under threat of imminent indiscriminate missile strikes from Russian forces? Where in a country which has systematically had its utilities infrastructure attacked by a military trying to scrabble a Pyrrhic victory at any cost can handle the sudden influx of these displaced individuals? The 'right thing' to do in war is not to target civilian centres - these people aren't 'human shields' being put into the proximity of viable military targets, they're a civilian populace in their own homes being targetted by an unjustifiable tactic in an already unjustifiable invasion.Sounds like you didn't watch the RT documentary. Around ą⁶ minutes onwards there are multiple witnesses saying they tried to escape the shelling but were forced to stay put or shot.
He cites two justifications for military actions - UN-mandated, and (pre-emptive) self-defence. There is no UN mandate here, and I've seen no credible claim that Ukraine offered a potential threat to Russian territory. Putin's attempts to paint NATO as some aggressive force massing on his border is just self-serving bullshit. Ukraine's potential joining of NATO is only a threat to Russia in Putin's mind because he already thinks that Ukraine is a recalcitrant part of some larger notional Russian empire.
O.
Sounds like you didn't watch the RT documentary. Around ą⁶ minutes onwards there are multiple witnesses saying they tried to escape the shelling but were forced to stay put or shot.
Russia is dealing with the ultra-nationalist factions in Ukraine, which are controlling the government and people. Think brexiteers with tanks
Sounds like you didn't watch the RT documentary. Around ą⁶ minutes onwards there are multiple witnesses saying they tried to escape the shelling but were forced to stay put or shot.
Russia is dealing with the ultra-nationalist factions in Ukraine, which are controlling the government and people.
Think brexiteers with tanks
People who voted for Brexit are just a bunch of mad racists?
I think if the Brexiteers had tanks they'd be lining them up on the White Cliffs to make sure the wrong coloured people didn't come and contribute to our economy with their strange accents, they wouldn't invade a foreign state; they want less to do with other countries, not more.
O.
People who voted for Brexit are just a bunch of mad racists?
The reason there is a war going on is that Russia has invaded Ukraine.According to this (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-starts-regular-winter-military-drills-region-bordering-ukraine-2021-12-01/) Russia was concerned about a buildup of Ukrainian troops - half it's army - near Donbass in 2021. Russia's invasion was pre-emptive.
According to this (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-starts-regular-winter-military-drills-region-bordering-ukraine-2021-12-01/) Russia was concerned about a buildup of Ukrainian troops - half it's army - near Donbass in 2021. Russia's invasion was pre-emptive.
According to this (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-starts-regular-winter-military-drills-region-bordering-ukraine-2021-12-01/) Russia was concerned about a buildup of Ukrainian troops - half it's army - near Donbass in 2021. Russia's invasion was pre-emptive.
According to this (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-starts-regular-winter-military-drills-region-bordering-ukraine-2021-12-01/) Russia was concerned about a buildup of Ukrainian troops - half it's army - near Donbass in 2021. Russia's invasion was pre-emptive.
According to this (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-starts-regular-winter-military-drills-region-bordering-ukraine-2021-12-01/) Russia was concerned about a buildup of Ukrainian troops - half it's army - near Donbass in 2021. Russia's invasion was pre-emptive.
Do you ever look at the context of these claims, or do you just suckle at the teat of Russian-sponsored propoganda and right-wing bull-shit merchants uncritically?
Wasn't there a war going on in Donbas already between Ukraine and the Russian backed separatists? Ukraine sent its army to where a war was happening within its own borders.There was also the Minsk Agreement, which resulted in the separatists reducing their numbers to 10,000, according to this Russian field commander (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOl7Yy7ljwo&t=1009s) (See 13-15 minutes into the video.). To mobilize to greater strength in time to counter the AFU would have taken too long, which is why they appealed to Russia for help.
2014 Russia masses troops on the Ukrainian border, then invades Crimea and still occupies that Ukrainian territory.The reason it did this was because there were people murdering pro-Russian demonstrators in Ukraine following the insurrection in Kiev. They even attempted to assassinate Yanukovych. Why should Russia 'respect Ukraine's borders' as per the Budapest Memorandum if the democratically elected government is violently forced out?
The reason it did this was because there were people murdering pro-Russian demonstrators in Ukraine following the insurrection in Kiev. They even attempted to assassinate Yanukovych. Why should Russia 'respect Ukraine's borders' as per the Budapest Memorandum if the democratically elected government is violently forced out?
The Memorandum was not a license for Ukrainians to terrorise the Russian minority - they nullified the agreement.
The reason it did this was because there were people murdering pro-Russian demonstrators in Ukraine following the insurrection in Kiev. They even attempted to assassinate Yanukovych. Why should Russia 'respect Ukraine's borders' as per the Budapest Memorandum if the democratically elected government is violently forced out?What are you talking about? Democratically elected governments are often forced out by elections. Zelenskyy is there because he was democratically elected.
The Memorandum was not a license for Ukrainians to terrorise the Russian minority - they nullified the agreement.
What are you talking about? Democratically elected governments are often forced out by elections. Zelenskyy is there because he was democratically elected.In 2014 the Ukraine parliament voted on whether to impeach Yanukovych, according to he himself on the Oliver Stone documentary. They needed 3/4 of MPs to vote yes for it to go through, and they got less than that. Fearing for his life he had to leave his house secretly and flee to Russia; meanwhile what was thought to be his car leaving his house was fired on. A new government was formed and given the thumbs up by the US. So it was an insurrection, not a legitimate election. What had been peaceful demonstrations concerning the EU treaty prior to this, were turned into violent acts of murder by the Right Sector (iirc).
There is no justification tfor the wholesale slaughter that Russia is perpetrating in Ukraine now. People on mainstream Russian TV are openly suggesting that Ukraine needs to be erased from the face of the Earth.The point of what I have just described is that it only takes a spark to cause a forest fire, and this big war is the result of the above relatively small events. But the original aggressor was clearly the Ukrainian nationalists.
Nothing that Ukraine might have done in the past justifies what Russia is doing to it. Nothing.
In 2014 the Ukraine parliament voted on whether to impeach Yanukovych, according to he himself on the Oliver Stone documentary. They needed 3/4 of MPs to vote yes for it to go through, and they got less than that. Fearing for his life he had to leave his house secretly and flee to Russia; meanwhile what was thought to be his car leaving his house was fired on. A new government was formed and given the thumbs up by the US. So it was an insurrection, not a legitimate election. What had been peaceful demonstrations concerning the EU treaty prior to this, were turned into violent acts of murder by the Right Sector (iirc).
The point of what I have just described is that it only takes a spark to cause a forest fire, and this big war is the result of the above relatively small events. But the original aggressor was clearly the Ukrainian nationalists.
Secondly we cannot look at the current events only from outside Donbass and from the West's perspective. My initial argument here was that we shouldn't get involved because doing so would make Ukraine think it could win with our support (and, it seems no nearer to defeating Russia after 9 months, with hundreds of thousands dead or injured).
But I was still hopeful for a Ukrainian victory, like everyone else.
But when they started making up stories of heroism and telling us they were defending Europe, that was the start of a new scepticism for me.
Now we have the first public evidence of Ukrainian atrocities, executing prisoners. What else have they done that we don't know about because of censorship?
You dismissed the witnesses on the RT documentary as actors. I'm inclined to believe them.
I'm not denying Russian war crimes may have occurred, but we now have to ask how much of what we have been told about the latter is true.
In 2014 the Ukraine parliament voted on whether to impeach Yanukovych, according to he himself on the Oliver Stone documentary. They needed 3/4 of MPs to vote yes for it to go through, and they got less than that. Fearing for his life he had to leave his house secretly and flee to Russia; meanwhile what was thought to be his car leaving his house was fired on. A new government was formed and given the thumbs up by the US. So it was an insurrection, not a legitimate election. What had been peaceful demonstrations concerning the EU treaty prior to this, were turned into violent acts of murder by the Right Sector (iirc).Yanukovych was a corrupt Putin bootlicker who reneged on his election promises. He also tried to turn Ukraine into a one party state along the lines of Russia. He was a bad man.
The point of what I have just described is that it only takes a spark to cause a forest fire, and this big war is the result of the above relatively small events. But the original aggressor was clearly the Ukrainian nationalists.
Secondly we cannot look at the current events only from outside Donbass and from the West's perspective. My initial argument here was that we shouldn't get involved because doing so would make Ukraine think it could win with our support (and, it seems no nearer to defeating Russia after 9 months, with hundreds of thousands dead or injured). But I was still hopeful for a Ukrainian victory, like everyone else.We had to help them. If we had sat by and done nothing, the Russians would now be genociding Ukrainians. Not only that, Russia would have learned the lesson that the West will let them take whatever territory they want.
But when they started making up stories of heroism and telling us they were defending EuropeThey are defending Europe.
I'm not sure you understand what an 'insurrection' is. The duly elected parliament of Ukraine held a vote on whether to impeach a former president -No that is not the case - he was not impeached. Instead they voted to dismiss him on the grounds that he "withdrew from performing the constitutional powers".
I'm not sure you understand what an 'insurrection' is. The duly elected parliament of Ukraine held a vote on whether to impeach a former president - he was already not in power, him still not being in power doesn't turn this into an 'insurrection'. Although he has claimed he was shot at as he left, that's not been independently verified so far as I'm aware.If I understand it correctly, the vote did not succeed in impeaching him because over a quarter of them did not vote or were absent. Three quarters would have been needed. So, him being in Russia, they replaced him. It was unconstitutional and brought about by the Right Sector party refusing to put down their weapons or end their siege of government buildings unless he resigned. They violently forced him out of the country, from what I can tell. Insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government.
Yanykovych was elected on a mandate to foster ties with the EU, he actively campaigned on attempting to formally join, and then changed tack once he was in power, hence the widespread protests at his attempts to railroad Ukraine into Russian partnership.He said in the interview that he changed tack because the IMF suggested they increase utility rates while keeping income at the same level. He decided Russian partnership was a better option.
And, really, Oliver Stone? Really?Russia is seeking to protect civilians in Donbass from Ukrainian shelling of them, since 2014. That's what some evacuees in Russia are saying.
No. The real aggressor has always been Russia - internal political disturbances, even if they escalate to violence, are not an invitation to neighbouring countries to annex territory.
We should get involved, because if we don't then millions of Ukrainians suddenly find themselves living in the rampant corruption of Russian systems, and Putin starts turning his eyes towards Finland, or Slovakia or one of the other former Communist satellite states that he wants to create a buffer around the indefensible Russian western plains.Our involvement is escalating the war and costing hundreds of thousands of lives.
You could have fooled me.I don't agree that they are defending Europe. Putin may want NATO to pull back from Russia's borders, but it isn't about to attack NATO, as NATO is too powerful.
You're skeptical that a country verging on the European/Asian border, defending against invasion from a predominantly Asian country that wants to see the retraction or dismantling of the majority European mutual defence organisations sees themselves as defending Europe, but you'll suck on the bullshit-teat of Russia Today like an addict mainlining heroin.
We don't know, and if there are such crimes being committed they should indeed be investigated when it's safe to do so, and anyone guilty should be punished accordingly. I'll put good money on the fact that more Russians get found out for that than Ukrainians by the time it's all done.My guess is they are preparing for a winter offensive and reducing the Ukraineian military's ability to manoeuvre.
If you think RT is journalism, and not state-sponsored Russian propoganda, I can see why you'd make that mistake.
Yes we do. Just like we have to ask what's the military purpose of the mass attacks on civilian population centres and vital infrastructure from retreating Russian forces?
Even if there are Ukrainian war crimes being committed, and it seems entirely plausible that there are, they still aren't on anything like the scale of the Russian infractions which aren't isolated or individual incidents, they are the explicit policy of the criminal invasion force.I have read some convincing claims of Russian war crimes, yes. For Ukraine, setting up military equipment around civilian buildings seems the main issue.
O.
On 21 February, President Yanukovych and parliament declared 22 and 23 February to be days of mourning "due to the loss of human life as a result of mass disturbances".[210]
Parliament Chairman Volodymyr Rybak submitted his resignation in parliament on 22 February, citing illness.[211] Yanukovych's whereabouts were unknown, despite media reports that he had flown to Kharkiv (according to the governor of Kharkiv Oblast at the time, Mykhailo Dobkin, Yanukovych was in Kharkiv that day[71]). Oleksandr Turchynov said that most of the ministers had disappeared, including Interior Minister Zakharchenko, who was reported to have fled to Belarus.[212]
In the afternoon, the Rada voted 328-0[213] to remove Yanukovich from his post and to schedule a presidential election for 25 May.[74][214] This vote did not follow the impeachment process specified by the Ukrainian Constitution, which would have involved formally charging Yanukovych with a crime, a review of the charge by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and a three-fourths majority vote—at least 338 votes in favor—in parliament. Instead, parliament declared that Yanukovych "withdrew from his duties in an unconstitutional manner" and cited "circumstances of extreme urgency" as the reason for early elections.[215] Lawmakers then elected opposition leader Oleksandr Turchynov to be the chairman of Parliament, acting president and prime minister of Ukraine; this decision also violated the Constitution, according to which the impeached President was to be succeeded by the Prime Minister Serhiy Arbuzov.[75][216][217]
Turchynov claimed that Yanukovych had agreed to resign as president, but after consulting with advisers, he disavowed that and even pre-recorded a resignation statement.[182] Yanukovych said he would not resign or leave the country and called parliament's decisions "illegal". He added, "The events witnessed by our country and the whole world are an example of a coup d'état", and compared them to the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany in the 1930s.[218]
No that is not the case - he was not impeached. Instead they voted to dismiss him on the grounds that he "withdrew from performing the constitutional powers".
And is that within the defined powers of the Ukrainian parliament, as defined in their 'constition'? I think you'll find it is.I haven't read all of the Ukrainian constitution just yet. Put it this way: Boris survived his no confidence vote, but people close to him pressured him to resign. Is that okay? Yes. What if members of an opposition party had surrounded 10 Downing Street and said they will not lay down their weapons nor lift a blockade of a single government building until Boris resigns? Then suppose Boris fled to France and the UK parliament continued without him. Is that ok or is it insurrection/coup/violent uprising?
So, again... where's the 'insurrection'?See 1:00:56 - 1:01:20 of Ukraine on Fire (O. Stone).
O.
I haven't read all of the Ukrainian constitution just yet. Put it this way: Boris survived his no confidence vote, but people close to him pressured him to resign. Is that okay? Yes. What if members of an opposition party had surrounded 10 Downing Street and said they will not lay down their weapons nor lift a blockade of a single government building until Boris resigns? Then suppose Boris fled to France and the UK parliament continued without him. Is that ok or is it insurrection/coup/violent uprising?
See 1:00:56 - 1:01:20 of Ukraine on Fire (O. Stone).
Or to put it another way: they charged him with withdrawing from his constitutional duties. Was it ok to force him to withdraw from them on threat of death and then say that "he withdrew from his duties", as if he did so under no physical compulsion?
I haven't read all of the Ukrainian constitution just yet.
Put it this way: Boris survived his no confidence vote, but people close to him pressured him to resign. Is that okay?
What if members of an opposition party had surrounded 10 Downing Street and said they will not lay down their weapons nor lift a blockade of a single government building until Boris resigns?
See 1:00:56 - 1:01:20 of Ukraine on Fire (O. Stone).
Or to put it another way: they charged him with withdrawing from his constitutional duties.
Was it ok to force him to withdraw from them on threat of death and then say that "he withdrew from his duties", as if he did so under no physical compulsion?
Yes, I was thinking about Sri Lanka as well. But that was different because the country seemed united against the government. In Ukraine half the country wanted free trade with Europe, the other half with Russia. That can be resolved as long as people don't get violent; which the pro-EU side did in Ukraine, causing Russia to step in to protect the other side.
RuSSian state tv now claiming Zelensky is the Antichrist! Brain damaged, all of them!😂
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1598766707073597440?t=S4r3fWmaTIJj77dCZiZalg&s=19
I'm still failing to see how any of this justifies Russia's invasions. If the above hypothetical had happened to Boris, would it justify a French invasion and them systematically shelling all our infrastructure and murdering civilians?It could justify opponents of the new Ukrainian government in 2014 demonstrating across the country. Since that time Ukraine has been shelling and murdering civilians.
It could justify opponents the new Ukrainian government in 2014 demonstrating across the country. Since that time Ukraine has been shelling and murdering civilians.
It could justify opponents the new Ukrainian government in 2014 demonstrating across the country.We are not talking about a demonstration: we are talking about a full on Russian invasion with added genocide.
Since that time Ukraine has been shelling and murdering civilians.
Crimea, Donetsk people's Republic and Lugansk people's republic have been in a collective self-defense agreement with Russia since they were attacked by Ukrainian far-right militants in 2014.
Meet the gang cos the boys are here, the boys to entertain you.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64016599
Not on purpose. Sadly, when you're trying to drive an enemy invader out of your homeland, some civilians are going to get caught up in it. This wouldn't be happening if the enemy hadn't invaded, or, having invaded, withdrew.It has been on purpose, often with Western-supplied weapons. Last June 13 they shelled a busy maternity hospital. (https://ingaza.wordpress.com/2022/06/17/western-media-and-politicians-prefer-to-ignore-the-truth-about-donetsk-civilians-killed-in-ukrainian-shelling/). In April they hit two marketplaces.
Donbass declared independence because of the Maidan revolution and coup. Before that the majority wanted free trade with its neighbour.
Russian narrative again. There was no separatist movement in Ukraine. Pre 2014 east Ukraine was pro-Ukrainian in elections.
It has been on purpose, often with Western-supplied weapons. Last June 13 they shelled a busy maternity hospital. (https://ingaza.wordpress.com/2022/06/17/western-media-and-politicians-prefer-to-ignore-the-truth-about-donetsk-civilians-killed-in-ukrainian-shelling/). In April they hit two marketplaces.
Donbass declared independence because of the Maidan revolution and coup. Before that the majority wanted free trade with its neighbour.
Neither must we fall into the trap of listening to the peaceniks. They don't want peace, they just want Ukraine to surrender. They side with genocide. Only Ukrainians get to decide when to negotiate peace and on what terms.They do want peace. Unfortunately, they are naive about what peace on Russian terms looks like.
Bullshit. The only people shelling civilians on purpose are the Russians.
Donbass declared independence because of the Maidan revolution and coup. Before that the majority wanted free trade with its neighbour.
There was no coup. Yanukovych was democratically removed by the Verkhovna Rada (parliament). He fled, because he knew he would've been impeached. He wasn't in imminent danger. Even the Communist Party (pro-russian) voted for his removal!Iirc, the Constitution required a minimum of 334 yes votes following a legal hearing by the supreme court.
Bullshit. The only people shelling civilians on purpose are the Russians.We are talking about Ukrainians shelling civilians between 2014 and last February, according to locals in Donetsk; I gave examples of how that continued last year.
We are talking about Ukrainians shelling civilians between 2014 and last February, according to locals in Donetsk; I gave examples of how that continued last year.
Another nice piece of ruSSian propaganda. The reality is quite different though.Okay, I get that it wasn't simply shelling civilians but was attempting to regain territory by force.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g-YKRc_b7CE
But even if it were true, ruSSia invaded eastern Ukraine in 2014. Is Ukraine not expected to fight back? You're pronouncing nonsense!
Okay, I get that it wasn't simply shelling civilians but was attempting to regain territory by force.
As I understand it, the Ukrainian parliament acted unlawfully following the violent demonstrations in Kiev. You can expect people in pro-russian regions to force their way into government buildings and declare independence following those events. The AFU responded by attacking DPR and LPR, which has continued since then. What Russia did was in response to that
It has been on purpose, often with Western-supplied weapons. Last June 13 they shelled a busy maternity hospital. (https://ingaza.wordpress.com/2022/06/17/western-media-and-politicians-prefer-to-ignore-the-truth-about-donetsk-civilians-killed-in-ukrainian-shelling/). In April they hit two marketplaces.Whereas the Russian bombing of the mainly Russian speaking area around Mariupol was 'totally accidental'.
Okay, I get that it wasn't simply shelling civilians but was attempting to regain territory by force.
As I understand it, the Ukrainian parliament acted unlawfully following the violent demonstrations in Kiev. You can expect people in pro-russian regions to force their way into government buildings and declare independence following those events. The AFU responded by attacking DPR and LPR, which has continued since then. What Russia did was in response to that
In the last legitimate referendum all of the regions except Sevastopol voted quite heavily in favour of being part of Ukraine, not Russia.By 'pro-Russian' I mean wanting closer ties with Russia, not wanting to be part of it. Polls taken in 2013 showed the majority in Donbass wanted this.
The pro Russia regions are fictions invented by Russian propagandists.
RuSSia invaded eastern Ukraine in 2014.In the case of Donbass, this was with the aim of helping it gain independence, not the aim of annexation.
In the case of Donbass, this was with the aim of helping it gain independence, not the aim of annexation.
Crimea was occupied by Russia in February 2014. That notwithstanding, none of these regions of Ukraine had the authority to make 'collective self-defence agreements' with any foreign nation, and there is no record of any such agreements outside of the Russian statements and the allies they've elevated to positions of 'authority' following their attempted annexations.
Bullshit. The only people shelling civilians on purpose are the Russians.The AFU have been fighting from residential areas without first evacuating civilians, thus the civilians are effectively human shields.
Did Ukrainians have the authority to force Yanukovich out without due process? The Donbass regions responded accordingly.
I think I've posted the video below before: it's an interview with Alexander Khodakovsky, who is former commander of Ukraine's Alpha special unit of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBUl now commander of the Donetsk People's Republic's "Vostok" Battalion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOl7Yy7ljwo&t=940s
He explains how the conflict began.
The AFU have been fighting from residential areas without first evacuating civilians, thus the civilians are effectively human shields.
Did Ukrainians have the authority to force Yanukovich out without due process? The Donbass regions responded accordingly.
I think I've posted the video below before: it's an interview with Alexander Khodakovsky, who is former commander of Ukraine's Alpha special unit of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBUl now commander of the Donetsk People's Republic's "Vostok" Battalion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOl7Yy7ljwo&t=940s
He explains how the conflict began.
The AFU have been fighting from residential areas without first evacuating civilians, thus the civilians are effectively human shields.
Interesting stuff about the pipeline sabotage.
https://archive.vn/BUCIs
So the Ukrainians are supposed to politely say to the Russians "Please let us evacuate all our civilians. Then you can start bombing and shelling us, if that's all right by you." As if the Russians gave a monkey's toss whether there were civilians there or not.Video from the initial invasion showed the Russian soldiers trying to avoid hurting civilians.
Video from the initial invasion showed the Russian soldiers trying to avoid hurting civilians.
He is pro-Russian and gives his opinion of how it started. Do you know his view is accurate?His account from the first 15 minutes agrees with evidence such as Victoria Nuland's phone call to the US ambassador in Kiev discussing who they would get to replace Yanukovich.
His account from the first 15 minutes agrees with evidence such as Victoria Nuland's phone call to the US ambassador in Kiev discussing who they would get to replace Yanukovich.
Or who they would prefer to replace Yanukovich.Russia saw it as interference; Sergei Glazyev called it, "unilaterally and crudely interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs" - a breach of the Budapest Memorandum whereby the US was required to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity jointly with Russia.
Russia saw it as interference; Sergei Glazyev called it, "unilaterally and crudely interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs" - a breach of the Budapest Memorandum whereby the US was required to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity jointly with Russia.Oh, the irony of it!
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-russia-glazyev-idUKBREA150XA20140206
Oh, the irony of it!To clarify my above comment, please refer to point 2 of the Budapest Memorandum.
Russia saw it as interference; Sergei Glazyev called it, "unilaterally and crudely interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs" - a breach of the Budapest Memorandum whereby the US was required to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity jointly with Russia.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-russia-glazyev-idUKBREA150XA20140206
I looked through George Eliason's videos and one of his first from 2014 was this one which attempts to prove that some Maidan protestors were armed and shooting at 'Berkot' police, leading special forces snipers to return fire:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-russia-glazyev-idUKBREA150XA20140206
To clarify my above comment, please refer to point 2 of the Budapest Memorandum.Unless I've misunderstood something, the Right Sector organisation turned Russia's commitment not to use force against Ukraine into a license to mistreat people who were pro-closer ties with Russia.
Of course Russia did because they want to control Ukraine and keep it in their 'sphere of influence'.Looking at "Ukraine on Fire" (https://youtu.be/pKcmNGvaDUs) again, at 28:10 (see also the preceding few minutes) Putin says "We said, 'of course, if Ukraine has come to this decision (to have a trade agreement with the EU), this is it's choice and we respect this choice. But we don't have to pay for it' ". He's refering to the fact that the two countries already had a unique economic relationship, thus the EU deal would leave Russia's customs border wide open to EU goods without any negotiations. Yanukovich and co. realised that they would lose this economic relationship if they signed the agreement with the EU. If this is true then it means Russia was willing to let Ukraine go, but that would not be economical for Ukraine, as it would lead to a trade barrier between it and Russia.
Unless I've misunderstood something, the Right Sector organisation turned Russia's commitment not to use force against Ukraine into a license to mistreat people who were pro-closer ties with Russia.
And if the other agreements are broken, such as the US trying to influence the democratic process, that nullifies the agreement anyway.
Unless I've misunderstood something, the Right Sector organisation turned Russia's commitment not to use force against Ukraine into a license to mistreat people who were pro-closer ties with Russia.
And if the other agreements are broken, such as the US trying to influence the democratic process, that nullifies the agreement anyway.
Looking at "Ukraine on Fire" (https://youtu.be/pKcmNGvaDUs) again, at 28:10 (see also the preceding few minutes) Putin says "We said, 'of course, if Ukraine has come to this decision (to have a trade agreement with the EU), this is it's choice and we respect this choice. But we don't have to pay for it' ". He's refering to the fact that the two countries already had a unique economic relationship, thus the EU deal would leave Russia's customs border wide open to EU goods without any negotiations. Yanukovich and co. realised that they would lose this economic relationship if they signed the agreement with the EU. If this is true then it means Russia was willing to let Ukraine go, but that would not be economical for Ukraine, as it would lead to a trade barrier between it and Russia.
Another name for you: Vladislav Surkov.Thanks. This seems to have happened around the same time as the Nuland/US ambassador in Kiev phonecall, when the US were also trying to influence Ukrainian politics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surkov_leaks
Let Ukraine go?Allow it to forfeit (if that's the right word) the economic relationship it had with Russia in favour of closer EU ties.
Did Ukrainians have the authority to force Yanukovich out without due process? The Donbass regions responded accordingly.
I think I've posted the video below before: it's an interview with Alexander Khodakovsky, who is former commander of Ukraine's Alpha special unit of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBUl now commander of the Donetsk People's Republic's "Vostok" Battalion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOl7Yy7ljwo&t=940s
He explains how the conflict began.
The AFU have been fighting from residential areas without first evacuating civilians, thus the civilians are effectively human shields.1. Russia is deliberately targeting civilians
Video from the initial invasion showed the Russian soldiers trying to avoid hurting civilians.
Allow it to forfeit (if that's the right word) the economic relationship it had with Russia in favour of closer EU ties.
Would would Ukraine want an economic relationship with the murdering bastards that invaded it? Not only that, but Russia's economy is in the toilet thanks to sanctions imposed on it for containing a lot of murdering bastards. Nobody in Ukraine wants anything to do with Russia ever again.Was talking about pre-2014 economic ties
Do you understand what the bit I highlighted in bold actually means? It's means Russia invaded Ukraine. They didn't have to, but they did. Nobody asked them to invade. Nobody forced them to invade. Russia could stop the bloodshed tomorrow by withdrawing from Ukraine. They won't do it though because Putin's job is more important to him than the lives of Ukrainians and Russians.As Khodakovsky said (and this is referring to the 2022 SMO) the militia realised that Kiev was planning to retake Donbas, and because the militia had reduced their troops to 10,000 after the Minsk agreement, and would therefore not be able to defend against the Ukrainian army, they asked Russia for help.
Was talking about pre-2014 economic ties
Were they within their rights to end those ties?I'm sure that relatively recently, one country severed quite a lot of ties that it had with it's neighbours.
I'm sure that relatively recently, one country severed quite a lot of ties that it had with it's neighbours.
I don't recall anyone calling for armed conflict because if it!
::)
Absolutely. I'm trying to clarify the langue being used - 'Let Ukraine go' 'Allow it to forfeit'
"We said, 'of course, if Ukraine has come to this decision, this is it's choice and we respect this choice. But we don't have to pay for it' ".
As Khodakovsky said (and this is referring to the 2022 SMO) the militia realised that Kiev was planning to retake Donbas, and because the militia had reduced their troops to 10,000 after the Minsk agreement, and would therefore not be able to defend against the Ukrainian army, they asked Russia for help.
So the Russian-sponsored militia illegally trying to militarily secede from UkraineIt was the opposition usurping power using assault rifles at Maidan, Feb 2014, that was illegal, not Odessa, Kharkov, Lugansk and Donetsk regions declaring independence after those events.
was likely to be retaken by the government of the country it's in,who had refused to recognise Donbass as two autonomous states within Ukraine as the Minsk agreement stipulated they should
so Russia decided to get their terrorists in the country to set up a smokescreen excuse for the third actual, and second military invasion, of Ukraine in the last ten years.What terrorists and what smokescreen excuse?
O.
As Khodakovsky said (and this is referring to the 2022 SMO) the militia realised that Kiev was planning to retake Donbas, and because the militia had reduced their troops to 10,000 after the Minsk agreement, and would therefore not be able to defend against the Ukrainian army, they asked Russia for help.
It was the opposition usurping power using assault rifles at Maidan, Feb 2014, that was illegal
not Odessa, Kharkov, Lugansk and Donetsk regions declaring independence after those events.
who had refused to recognise Donbass as two autonomous states within Ukraine as the Minsk agreement stipulated they should
What terrorists and what smokescreen excuse?
Arguably, but they were responding to a democratically elected leader deliberately contradicting the platform on which he'd been elected against the express will of the people. Either way, that's a purely internal Ukrainian matter, not something for Russia to get itself involved with.He suspended the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, yes, because it would have limited Ukrainian access to the Russian market and Europe wouldn't provide enough economic loss balancing. So the US and Germany used fascist militia to help a pro-NATO regime get into power. That's what divided the country, and why Russia got involved.
That would be the Minsk agreement (actually Minsk II, given the complete failure of the first) that said control of the borders reverted to the Ukrainian authority, and which Russia continued to send personnel over coordinating with their sponsored stooges in the contested regions? That Minsk agreeement? The one that included a ceasefire that the 'rebel' forces in Donbass and Luhansk never complied with, that Minsk agreement? That Minks agreement which, again, is a PURELY INTERNAL UKRAINIAN MATTER.Yes, the one which Hollande and Merkel recently admitted was signed to allow Ukraine time to re-arm.
Yes, the one which Hollande and Merkel recently admitted was signed to allow Ukraine time to re-arm.
See above about a freely elected president (unlike the first time he 'won' when the result was overturned because of widespread corruption and voter intimidation) who turns his back on the will of the public to favour his (presumably) personal ties with Russia, then the continued identification by groups such as the European Parliament, the US security services and the British intelligence apparatus of Russian state sponsorship of terrorist activities, including arming and maintaining militias in Ukraine and the continued illegal occupation of the Crimean peninsula.Arming militias, illegal occupation, as in protecting the population?
O.
Putin really is a master strategist. Today Finland becomes a full member of NATO, doubling Muskovy's border with the alliance.To quote Putin in 2016, "Why do we react so vehemently to NATO's expansion? We are concerned with the decision-making process. I know how decisions are made. As soon as the country becomes a member of NATO, it can't resist the pressure of the USA. And very soon anything at all can appear in such country - missile defense systems, new bases or, if necessary, new missile strike systems. What should we do? We need to take countermeasures, meaning, to aim our rocket systems at the new facilities which we consider to be threatening us. The situation gets tense. Sometimes I don't quite understand the logic of our partners. Sometimes it looks like they need an external enemy to keep in leash, and establish discipline in their own so-called Western European bloc. And despite all the concerns, Iran doesn't live up to it."
To quote Putin in 2016, "Why do we react so vehemently to NATO's expansion? We are concerned with the decision-making process. I know how decisions are made. As soon as the country becomes a member of NATO, it can't resist the pressure of the USA. And very soon anything at all can appear in such country - missile defense systems, new bases or, if necessary, new missile strike systems. What should we do? We need to take countermeasures, meaning, to aim our rocket systems at the new facilities which we consider to be threatening us. The situation gets tense. Sometimes I don't quite understand the logic of our partners. Sometimes it looks like they need an external enemy to keep in leash, and establish discipline in their own so-called Western European bloc. And despite all the concerns, Iran doesn't live up to it."
To quote Putin in 2016, "Why do we react so vehemently to NATO's expansion? We are concerned with the decision-making process. I know how decisions are made. As soon as the country becomes a member of NATO, it can't resist the pressure of the USA.US pressure is nothing compared to Russian pressure.
And very soon anything at all can appear in such country - missile defense systems, new bases or, if necessary, new missile strike systems. What should we do? We need to take countermeasures, meaning, to aim our rocket systems at the new facilities which we consider to be threatening us.They wouldn't have the missile systems if Russia was clearly not interested in imperialist expansionism.
The situation gets tense. Sometimes I don't quite understand the logic of our partners. Sometimes it looks like they need an external enemy to keep in leash, and establish discipline in their own so-called Western European bloc. And despite all the concerns, Iran doesn't live up to it."
US pressure is nothing compared to Russian pressure.Can you give an example of this russian pressure? We've seen Joe Biden promise to prevent Russia selling gas to Germany via the Nord Stream pipelines, at a press conference last year. What's worse than promising to cut off the gas supply to your ally?
They wouldn't have the missile systems if Russia was clearly not interested in imperialist expansionism.Aren't you thinking of Soviet Russia? Modern Russia isn't interested in expansionism. The proof: they agreed to Donbas autonomy within Ukraine. Then waited until last year before recognising the two regions as independent.
Until Russia invaded Ukraine, there was no prospect of Finland, Sweden or Ukraine itself joining NATO. Putin has single handedly pushed two countries in to NATO and once he is expelled from Ukraine, I suspect they will be attempting to join at the first opportunity.Russia wants to invade Sweden or Finland?
All this invasion has done is strengthened NATO. Putin has reminded its members why it exists and provided a compelling reason for other countries on Russia's borders to join.
Can you give an example of this russian pressure?Oh, I don't know, let me see...
Aren't you thinking of Soviet Russia? Modern Russia isn't interested in expansionism.This is a joke right? You surely can't think that the country that first illegally annexed Crimea and then invaded Ukraine is not expansionist?
NATO is out of shells, so if anything is weaker now having sent much of its reserves to be used up in Ukraine.
Arming militias, illegal occupation, as in protecting the population?
The following is taken from the Ukraine on Fire documentary.
Whilst the terrorist state ruSSia chairs the UN security council, at the same time committing genocide in Ukraine, a new video has emerged of a group of ruSSian soldiers cutting the head of a captured Ukrainian. If anyone tells me that every last invader shouldn't become sunflower fertiliser, go and watch the fucking video. Fucking animals everyone. Subhumans!Have you seen any more on this, ad_o?
Oh, I don't know, let me see...Or that it views as a threat?
... oh yes: Russia invades foreign countries that don't toe the line.
This is a joke right? You surely can't think that the country that first illegally annexed Crimea and then invaded Ukraine is not expansionist?Yes, if it has genuine reasons to do so.
You can make more shells.
Even if the intent were to 'protect the population' - which is at best questionable - you don't put out a fire by throwing petrol on it.Other documentaries are available, which show that the Ukrainian military has been conducting a war of attrition on Donbas since 2014, regularly shelling civilians to destroy their morale.
The overtly pro-Russian documentary by consistently pro-Putin Oliver Stone in collaboration with the preferred interviewer of authoritarian despots Igor Lopatonok. Pretty much every critic of that film, from all sides of the political spectrum, make the point that it is at best significantly partial, when it's not outright misrepresentative or lying.
O.
It's always "Ukraine should just roll over and get conquered for 'peace'" and never "Russia should pull out of its unjustified invasion of other countries for actual peace" with these people. I imagine these guys would also tell rape victims that they should just lie down and take it 'for safety’, instead of saying that we should discourage and penalize rape.This was an interesting reply:
No, sorry, you don’t imagine it right. You are comparing cognitive processes but the chains of causality in the two cases are different. In international relations between states one can often observe a typical pattern that is usually referred to as the “security trap”. One state, in this case Ucraine, at some point starts “assuming” that a threat could possibly come from another state (Russia). To increase its security it seeks protection (in this case under the umbrella of NATO) and starts increasing its investment in weapons. The other state (Russia) reacts likewise increasing its defenses, since it “interprets” the strategy of the neighbor as hostile. The process keeps evolving and escalating until one of the two states (in this case Russia) attacks the other to eliminate the perceived threat with a pre-emptive strike.
To prevent such an outcome, the general principle is for each state to avoid pursuing its own security at the expense of that of others. It is well documented that Ucraine has started its relationship with NATO back in 1994 and that has formally requested NATO membership in 2008, even if Russia had made it clear all along that it would consider this a threat to its own security. That’s not to blame Ukraine for the Russian invasion. One can argue that Russia overreacted to the possibility of Ukraine NATO membership (though a statement of intent had been formally reiterated as late as June 2021). And certainly Russia did break international law in February 2022 by invading a sovereign country (though US contravened UN provisions by heavily interfering with the internal affairs of Ukraine over many years, particularly during the coup of 2014).
But whatever your assessment of Russian invasion, it is not possible to compare it with a “rape”. In such circumstances the woman is usually not attacked by the stalker because of his perception of a threat. The woman is acting only following the attack. Therefore a “diplomatic” attempt would not be of any use to the woman, at least in the sense that she would be raped anyway. On the other end, a diplomatic solution between Ukraine and Russia could (though at this late stage only partially) revert to the very causes that triggered the attack in the first place, if agreement could be found in assuring acceptable security to both parties.
Other documentaries are available, which show that the Ukrainian military has been conducting a war of attrition on Donbas since 2014, regularly shelling civilians to destroy their morale.
Ukraine attempting to kill Putin?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65471904
Definitely a false flag.
Definitely a false flag.
F-16s to be supplied but how long does that mean we think the war will go on.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65649471
Then we really need to give Ukraine everything it needs. Everything! Sod any threats ruSSia makes.
All kicking off in Bilhorod!
What's kicking off?
All kicking off in Bilhorod!
Free Russians that have been fighting for Ukraine have invaded Belgorod Oblast. Nothing too significant but they've already liberated a couple of villages. Stupid Russians thought the war would never come home.
That makes more sense. Bilhorod is a place in Ukraine near Moldova
What are they sucking on?The same as what Putin's sucking on.
RuSSia blows up the Nova Khakovka hydroelectric damn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADYVikvpmOM
Blowing up dams is now considered a war crime. I wonder what Spud's view is.
Obvious innit? It'll be the Ukranians wot done it, even though it doesn't help them at all in this war, they just want to frame Putin.Russia is saying that it does help the Ukrainians, as it enables them to redeploy thousands of troops from the Kherson region to Zaporozhye. I don't think there is any proof yet of who did it, though.
Why I should even have to point out the obvious is beyond me!
Russia is saying that it does help the Ukrainians, as it enables them to redeploy thousands of troops from the Kherson region to Zaporozhye. I don't think there is any proof yet of who did it, though.
I don't think there is any proof yet of who did it, though.
Video evidence that it was a mine rather than a missile or other airborne strike (due to the way the plume of smoke acted).There is video footage showing explosions at the dam; this footage went viral, but it has emerged that it is actually from 2022.
There is video footage showing explosions at the dam; this footage went viral, but it has emerged that it is actually from 2022.
I stand corrected, the last time I trust Sky News.I don't know. I do know that the Russians are no longer the main suspects for Nord Stream pipelines, which everyone said was them. Also that Ukraine has been shelling the Kakhovka dam previously.
However, seismic data points to an explosion, who gains most?
I don't know. I do know that the Russians are no longer the main suspects for Nord Stream pipelines, which everyone said was them. Also that Ukraine has been shelling the Kakhovka dam previously.
I don't know. I do know that the Russians are no longer the main suspects for Nord Stream pipelines, which everyone said was them.
I don't know. I do know that the Russians are no longer the main suspects for Nord Stream pipelines, which everyone said was them. Also that Ukraine has been shelling the Kakhovka dam previously.The Nord Stream pipelines were there so Russia could sell gas to people in Europe. Blowing up the pipeline cuts off a revenue stream for Russia.
The Nord Stream pipelines were there so Russia could sell gas to people in Europe. Blowing up the pipeline cuts off a revenue stream for Russia.
The dam is there to provide electricity and water to Ukraine. Blowing up the dam stops the electricity nd the water for Ukraine (including a nearby nuclear power station) as well as making it harder for military forces to get across the river down stream.
It's obvious the Russians blew the dam. Your tongue is so far up Putin's arse you can taste his tonsils.
More pertinently, with the Ukrainian counter-offensive due imminently, blowing the dam and flooding a huge swathe of the area downstream, the Russian's have temporarily restricted a significant section of the potential front from Ukrainian troop and materiel movements, allowing them to bolster their defences over the remainder of the battlefront.
O.
More pertinently, with the Ukrainian counter-offensive due imminently, blowing the dam and flooding a huge swathe of the area downstream, the Russian's have temporarily restricted a significant section of the potential front from Ukrainian troop and materiel movements, allowing them to bolster their defences over the remainder of the battlefront.I'm not sure exactly what movements you mean, but I just don't think it would make sense for Russia to flood its own fortifications. It even warned the UN late last year of Ukrainian plans to blow the dam, and evacuated some areas in case it happened.
O.
I'm not sure exactly what movements you mean, but I just don't think it would make sense for Russia to flood its own fortifications.
It even warned the UN late last year of Ukrainian plans to blow the dam, and evacuated some areas in case it happened.
Conversely to what you said, Ukraine has been able to move troops from Kherson region to Zaporozhye to bolster the counter-offensive, as it's no longer possible for Russia to attack Kherson.
But the main reason they are unlikely to have done it is that the water supply to Crimea.
I read that water could be seen leaking through the floodgates days before June 6. It was already damaged.
Also Ukraine had released dangerous amounts of water upstream at another dam, putting excessive stress on the kakhovka dam.
It could have happened due to a combination of this and previous damage from Ukrainian shelling.
They haven't flooded the fortifications, they've flooded the extensive area downstream of the dam where they didn't have fortifications and now, for the short-term at least, do not need to have any.They had defenses and troops stationed downstream, whom they didn't warn or evacuate beforehand.
Funny how in that particular instance they're concerned enough to mention something to the UN? Funny how they were worried about Ukraine somehow getting inside a dam they occupy to plant charges that blow the dam out. And as to the 'evacuation', they moved the native population on to create further disruption and add to the ongoing humanitarian burden on Ukraine's infrastructure because they are a barbaric invading force.Here is an unbiased (from what I can make out) article that explains what I've been saying a lot better:
Both of which are on the northeast side of the flood-waters - whether the Russians hoped for more extensive flooding in Kherson isn't clear, but it's the occupied areas south and west of the flood-plain that are being protected by it, currently.
Russia chose to damage Crimea in the short term - not a great impact, given that it's militarily and economically largely inactive during the current conflict - in the hope that they'll still occupy it in the long-term, against the threat of their forces capitulating entirely and Ukraine reclaiming the illegally occupied territory. The flood-waters can't mutiny, fail to adequately comply with orders or be so fundamentally corrupt that they're ineffective in the same manner as it seems significant portions of the Russian military are.
Yes, that's how you sabotage large concrete structures, you make holes in them and then wedge explosives into key stress areas - that way you reduce the quantity of explosives that you need. You can also close the outflow valves and build up an unnecessary head of water behind the dam to add stress and, as a bonus piece of shithousery, increase the indiscriminate damage downstream to civilian centres.
Do you have a reliable source for that? I've seen it mentioned once, and the source for that was the entirely reliable Russian state media agency.
Given the pattern of damage in the structure, that's unlikely.It was already damaged, as shown by satellite image of leaking before 6 June. What caused this, do you think?
Given who gains from the flooding,Nobody, imo
the damage pattern to the dam itself reported by people (Ukrainian and independent) who've seen it, the prior activity such as weakening the dam's integrity,Ukrainian shelling trying to disrupt Russian activity on the bridge.
the occupation by Russian forces and the increase in the reservoir's water level, it seems likely that it was a deliberate Russian act.The Russian forces might have deliberately kept the gates closed to increase the reservoir's water level and maximize the flooding, but just because they could have done it doesn't make it likely that they did.
Are you going to suggest, as well, that it was the Ukrainian's who were shelling the refugees trying to evacuate through the floods when their boats were fired upon?I don't know. The firing came from "across the river" according to one report from a civilian on the Russian side.
O.
Good grief! You really lap up that ruSSian propaganda. Firstly, the ruSSian's "warned" the UN last year means absolutely bugger all given their history of being compulsive liars. It's textbook false flag stuff on their part. Secondly, Norwegian seismologists have already confirmed that data shows it's highly likely the dam breached due to an explosion consistent with the dam having been packed with explosives, compared to it having been shelled or otherwise.
They had defenses and troops stationed downstream, whom they didn't warn or evacuate beforehand.
It gives a chart showing that the water in the reservoir had reached a critical level at the beginning of May, then plateaued. He cites a tweeter who said on May 4 that the Russians could not get the gates of the dam to open, then on 6 May that they had managed to.
The general picture is either of damage from repeated Ukrainian shelling causing difficulty letting water out and consequentially a build up of water in the reservoir, followed by a breach (visible on June 1-2).
Or, of excessive water being let in through dams further upstream, causing critical water levels. The chart in the link shows that the level is higher than the previous 6 years, so this must have been caused by more than just rainfall.
It was already damaged, as shown by satellite image of leaking before 6 June. What caused this, do you think?
Ukrainian shelling trying to disrupt Russian activity on the bridge.
The Russian forces might have deliberately kept the gates closed to increase the reservoir's water level and maximize the flooding, but just because they could have done it doesn't make it likely that they did.
I don't know. The firing came from "across the river" according to one report from a civilian on the Russian side.
They had conscript and released convicts downstream who are, for the Russian military, not merely acceptable losses but a logistics drain now removed and a media bonus back home.
They had defenses and troops stationed downstream, whom they didn't warn or evacuate beforehand.
Here is an unbiased (from what I can make out) article that explains what I've been saying a lot better:
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/portmortem-analysis-on-kakhovka-dam
It gives a chart showing that the water in the reservoir had reached a critical level at the beginning of May, then plateaued. He cites a tweeter who said on May 4 that the Russians could not get the gates of the dam to open, then on 6 May that they had managed to.
The general picture is either of damage from repeated Ukrainian shelling causing difficulty letting water out and consequentially a build up of water in the reservoir, followed by a breach (visible on June 1-2).
Or, of excessive water being let in through dams further upstream, causing critical water levels. The chart in the link shows that the level is higher than the previous 6 years, so this must have been caused by more than just rainfall.
It was already damaged, as shown by satellite image of leaking before 6 June. What caused this, do you think?
Nobody, imo
Ukrainian shelling trying to disrupt Russian activity on the bridge.
The Russian forces might have deliberately kept the gates closed to increase the reservoir's water level and maximize the flooding, but just because they could have done it doesn't make it likely that they did.
I don't know. The firing came from "across the river" according to one report from a civilian on the Russian side.
https://twitter.com/StarskyUA/status/1669344350072098816?s=19
Lots of replies saying the Tweets are faked. Is there any way to verify the statement allegedly made by the 205th motorised division?
Your memory is very short.
Ukraine spent a lot of time last year shelling the Dnipro crossings in Kherson because there were Russian soldiers on the North bank whose supplies Ukraine wanted to deny. They shelled a bridge next to the dam but they scrupulously avoided shelling the dam itself because they knew it would be a catastrophe. Why would they choose to do it now when there are no Russian soldiers on the North side of the river and they might want to cross it themselves?
I don't know if this is referring to the holes made in the road bridge next to the dam or as it says, to the floodgate itself. So I don't know if that test strike damaged the floodgate. But what we can learn is that they would have been willing to damage the dam to a such an extent that the river would become a lot wider, in the event that they had no other way to defeat the Russians on the East bank in Kherson. So we can't rule out the possibility that they would, in certain circumstances, deliberately target the dam with the intention of causing damage to it.
Edit: but just as the Russians would be unlikely to deliberately flood their own defences downstream, I guess the Ukrainians would also be unlikely to flood their own positions on the islands in the river.
One other thing we should establish is whether the source in the Washington Post's claim that they damaged the floodgate should be taken to mean the actual floodgate. If it was damaged, this could explain why the Russians apparently had difficulty opening it back in May. It might also support the accidental breach theory.
And are any of those circumstances in play currently? No. The only operation that benefits from the flooding in any way is the illegally invading Russians.Not sure.
Nonsense. The Russians have been prepared to throw away people since their invasion began - they've upgraded poorly equipped and ill-disciplined conscripts and ex-convicts led by corrupt officers with water that can't disobey or run away.Same for the Ukrainians. They lost 7000 soldiers since the counter-offensive started according to Russia.
The visible mine damage, coupled with the previous claims by the Russians that they'd mined the dam does not support the 'accidental breach' theory.What visible mine damage is that?
O.
Not sure.
Same for the Ukrainians. They lost 7000 soldiers since the counter-offensive started according to Russia.
What visible mine damage is that?
I think the claims were from Zelensky, without actual evidence, last year.
Not sure.Same for the Ukrainians. They lost 7000 soldiers since the counter-offensive started according to Russia.
How quaint. Spud believes the Russian propaganda.
How quaint. Spud believes the Russian propaganda.
I am.Achieving what? They haven't reclaimed much territory, and yes they have admitted to significant losses. But of course they won't say anything that makes us question their war.
And according to creditable sources it's less than that, but still not zero. There is a difference, though, between losing professional troops who are achieving something trying to reclaim towns from an occupying invasion force which has been stealing your children and throwing untrained, barely armed savages out without a coherent plan.
The visible damage that four independent media organisations and the UN observers have looked at from three different drone footage sources who all concluded that the damage was consistent with explosions within the structure, not damage from an external source.
The claims were publicised by Zelensky, but came from Ukrainian dam-workers who escaped the area after the Russians occupied. Are the impartial, arguably not, but has their account been borne out by the evidence? Wholesale flooding of the Dnipro downstream of what used to be the dam suggests that, yes, they were telling the truth about the cultural, ethnic and infrastructure vandalism of the illegal invasion.
O.
Achieving what?
They haven't reclaimed much territory, and yes they have admitted to significant losses.
But of course they won't say anything that makes us question their war.
Whichever side is wisest will back down. Life is worth more than land.
Tell Putin, he's the one killing his own people and Ukrainians for someone else's land.
Indeed, but we also need to point whoever is behind the Ukrainian policy of using lethal force against their enemy, to the teaching of Romans 12:17-21,
17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Carefully consider what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible on your part, live at peace with everyone.
19Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but leave room for God’s wrath. For it is written: “Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, says the Lord.”b
20On the contrary,
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him a drink.
For in so doing,
you will heap burning coals on his head.”c
21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Matthew 10:34 “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword.”Jesus didn't come to make people kill their family members. I'd say the 'sword' refers to division - which is how Luke words it.
Random quotes don't cut it.
“You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.
Wtf? Just when you thought Spud couldn't get any lower.
God seems convinced wars are necessary.Self defense can be necessary, Luke 22:36. In this case the people of Donbass are the victims. They have the right to self defense. If Ukraine stops taking weapons from NATO the war can end.
All over the place on this issue for such an enlightened being.
Self defense can be necessary, Luke 22:36. In this case the people of Donbass are the victims. They have the right to self defense. If Ukraine stops taking weapons from NATO the war can end.
Self defense can be necessary, Luke 22:36. In this case the people of Donbass are the victims. They have the right to self defense. If Ukraine stops taking weapons from NATO the war can end.
Self defense can be necessary, Luke 22:36. In this case the people of Donbass are the victims. They have the right to self defense. If Ukraine stops taking weapons from NATO the war can end.If Russia withdraws its invading forces, the war can end.
Indeed, but we also need to point whoever is behind the Ukrainian policy of using lethal force against their enemy, to the teaching of Romans 12:17-21,
17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Carefully consider what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible on your part, live at peace with everyone.
19Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but leave room for God’s wrath. For it is written: “Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, says the Lord.”b
20On the contrary,
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him a drink.
For in so doing,
you will heap burning coals on his head.”c
21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Away with the fairies.
When I read your posts I sometimes think you'd agree with Russia invading the UK because we enjoy Chicken Kiev and the term offends Putin.
You are one weird guy.
Is a strip of land in East and South Ukraine, along with NATO membership, worth expending hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives? You're the ones who are bonkers.Putin seems to think that strip of land is worth many thousands of Russian lives and as many civilians that he can kill.
Putin seems to think that strip of land is worth many thousands of Russian lives and as many civilians that he can kill.People will disagree, but the original plan was to liberate two independent territories, not to annex them. Even if there was a plan to annex them, they have historically been part of Russia anyway.
Who is bonkers now?
People will disagree, but the original plan was to liberate two independent territories, not to annex them. Even if there was a plan to annex them, they have historically been part of Russia anyway.
People will disagree, but the original plan was to liberate two independent territories, not to annex them. Even if there was a plan to annex them, they have historically been part of Russia anyway.Oh please.
Putin isn't going to invade a NATO country, this is one of the lies being used to justify arming Ukraine.
I knew from the start that Russia would be impossible to defeat unless NATO itself does it.
Ukraine is sending in tanks without an air force to protect them. I mean, this is absurd in the extreme, it's suicidal, let alone a complete waste of equipment.
After failing to convince you of this, I started looking into the origins of the war. From a close look at the footage of the riots in Kiev in 2014 when the rioters were using bulldozers and shooting the police, then burning people to death in Odessa, it was obvious that parts of the country would not stand for it.
Is a strip of land in East and South Ukraine, along with NATO membership, worth expending hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives for? You're the ones who are bonkers.
People will disagree, but the original plan was to liberate two independent territories, not to annex them. Even if there was a plan to annex them, they have historically been part of Russia anyway.
Putin isn't going to invade a NATO country, this is one of the lies being used to justify arming Ukraine.
I knew from the start that Russia would be impossible to defeat unless NATO itself does it.
Ukraine is sending in tanks without an air force to protect them. I mean, this is absurd in the extreme, it's suicidal, let alone a complete waste of equipment.
Is a strip of land in East and South Ukraine, along with NATO membership, worth expending hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives for?
You're the ones who are bonkers.
All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to stand by and do nothing...That assumes that "we are good, they are evil". Reality is, everyone is capable of evil.
That assumes that "we are good, they are evil". Reality is, everyone is capable of evil.
Options, then:
1.Supply weapons. Ukraine fights until the last Ukrainian.
2. NATO intervenes, nuclear exchange results, earth contaminated, life ends.
3. Agree to Russia's terms for peace.
That assumes that "we are good, they are evil".
Reality is, everyone is capable of evil.
Options, then:
1. Supply weapons. Ukraine fights until the last Ukrainian.
2. NATO intervenes, nuclear exchange results, earth contaminated, life ends.
3. Agree to Russia's terms for peace.
"Nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war"
Robert F Kennedy Jr
The ruSSian terrorists are planning to blow of the Zaporizzia nuclear power plant.
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1671805650106474497?s=19
This is a bullshit argument. The only language ruSSia understands is violence. We've backed down far too often. Backing down merely makes nuclear escalation more likely.
That assumes that "we are good, they are evil".In all my life I have rarely come across a more clear cut example of one side (Russia) is evil. I don't say the other side is all good, but is certainly not in Russia's league.
Reality is, everyone is capable of evil.Do you not understand that this is an existential crisis for Ukraine? If they don't fight to the last man then Putin will have them murdered to the last man.
Options, then:
1. Supply weapons. Ukraine fights until the last Ukrainian.
In all my life I have rarely come across a more clear cut example of one side (Russia) is evil. I don't say the other side is all good, but is certainly not in Russia's league.If you think that if they don't fight to the last man then Russia would have them murdered to the last man then I think your perception of Russia is wrong.
Do you not understand that this is an existential crisis for Ukraine? If they don't fight to the last man then Putin will have them murdered to the last man.
Please get it into your thick fucking skull, Russia is the evil one here.
Or, Russia pulls outI am talking about our options.
All it knows is how to destroy.Don't forget it is fighting a US and NATO proxy, the US/NATO that killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you think that if they don't fight to the last man then Russia would have them murdered to the last man then I think your perception of Russia is wrong.
I can see that the grinding down principle Russia is following on the battlefield seems criminal. But I think they are targeting any weaponry whether or not it is carried by or carries a person. This is in line with their objective to de-militarize. Also, they are defending their Russian kin in Ukraine. We however are handing out weapons knowing full well that the Ukrainian army will be wiped out. That is not 'good', imo.
Don't forget it is fighting a US and NATO proxy, the US/NATO that killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan.Of course, nobody died in the Soviet/Afghan war, did they Spud?
If you think that if they don't fight to the last man then Russia would have them murdered to the last man then I think your perception of Russia is wrong.
I can see that the grinding down principle Russia is following on the battlefield seems criminal.
But I think they are targeting any weaponry whether or not it is carried by or carries a person.
This is in line with their objective to de-militarize.
Also, they are defending their Russian kin in Ukraine.
We however are handing out weapons knowing full well that the Ukrainian army will be wiped out.
That is not 'good', imo.
If you think that if they don't fight to the last man then Russia would have them murdered to the last man then I think your perception of Russia is wrong.
And what right do they have to 'de-militarize' a foreign nation?They were asked for help by two allies, LPR and DPR.
Was the last 24 hours a fake mutiny by Prigodgen/Wagner?It could be a disguised prelude to opening up a new attack front from Belarus if Prigodgen is accompanied by a substantial number of Wagner forces. If he is assassinated then probably not.
They were asked for help by two allies, LPR and DPR.
"Surrendered Ukrainian troops confirm Kiev’s plans of massive offensive in Donbass"
28 FEB 2022
https://tass.com/defense/1413035
They were asked for help by two allies, LPR and DPR.
"Surrendered Ukrainian troops confirm Kiev’s plans of massive offensive in Donbass"
28 FEB 2022
https://tass.com/defense/1413035
A Belorussian youtuber shared video footage of a Ukrainian commander telling his company to attack. When they refused, he threw a grenade at them.I don’t see anything in that video to suggest that the soldiers were Ukrainian. Also, there’s no sound. Sorry, it could be Ukrainians but it could be Russian propaganda. It’s not like they’ve never faked videos before.
https://youtu.be/wGIt9J_F4f0
See at 16:20 minutes.
I've seen other footage of a Bradley being used against Ukrainian troops who were helping a wounded comrade get to a rear position.
I heard the Ukrainians have squads whose job it is to kill retreating Ukrainian soldiers.
I'm aware this may be the case with the Wagner forces as well, but just informing you about the regime you are supporting.
I don’t see anything in that video to suggest that the soldiers were Ukrainian. Also, there’s no sound. Sorry, it could be Ukrainians but it could be Russian propaganda. It’s not like they’ve never faked videos before.Absolutely - there is nothing that I can discern from the video to show that the soldiers are Ukrainian, Russian or from any other country. With the sound I've no idea the language nor what is said and something like this would be dead easy to fake.
I can't find any verification at the moment.
Lavrov said at the UN the other day that ruSSia has no plans to blow up the ZNPPOh dear. That's really bad news considering he lies all the time.
The US hasn't detected any sign that Russia is preparing to blow it up.Everybody has been told to get away from the area by July 5th.
Everybody has been told to get away from the area by July 5th.If it is proven to be Russia, I'll admit it was them. The UK has already sent depleted uranium shells, which would cause radioactive contamination if used.
If they do blow it up, will you then admit that Russia is the evil guy in all this?
If it is proven to be Russia, I'll admit it was them. The UK has already sent depleted uranium shells, which would cause radioactive contamination if used.
Simplicius the thinker thinks it is a false flag by Ukraine, given the timing just before the NATO summit - a way to provoke the West to get directly involved, or just to persuade us to give them more weapons.
If it is proven to be Russia, I'll admit it was them. The UK has already sent depleted uranium shells, which would cause radioactive contamination if used.
Simplicius the thinker thinks it is a false flag by Ukraine, given the timing just before the NATO summit - a way to provoke the West to get directly involved, or just to persuade us to give them more weapons.
The LPR and the DPR didn't exist before Russia destabilised the region.The US recognises a region called Cossackia as distinct from both Communist Russia and Ukraine:
A false flag operation that renders a large proportion of your own country uninhabitable seems rather extreme. If ZNPP is blown up, it will be the Russians doing it.And on such a scale, never known before in the whole history of humanity
The politicians and media aren't really talking about it.I'm quite surprised that they're also not mentioning Russia's updates on the numbers of Ukrainian casualties, totaling around 500-700 per day. I haven't seen any figures for daily Russian casualties but I wonder whether if the mainstream media and politicians were talking about this, would public opinion about supporting the war be different?
Ukraine and Russia to continue slaughtering each other, then. I'm quite surprised that they're also not mentioning Russia's updates on the numbers of Ukrainian casualties, totaling around 500-700 per day. I haven't seen any figures for daily Russian casualties but I wonder whether if the mainstream media and politicians were talking about this, would public opinion about supporting the war be different?
RuSSian's talk shit and nothing what they say is to be believed. RuSSian claims are fantastical. RuSSia doesn't give a shit about the lives of its soldiers. On the otherhand, Ukraine cares about its own soldiers. That is why the counter offensive seems slow to many. However, this isn't a video game. Ukrainian ministry of defence publishes daily ruSSian casualties.So 237,000 Russians dead. What are [edit: Ukraine's] stats for their own casualties?
So 237,000 Russians dead. What are their stats for their own casualties?
Here is an article from the NYT stating that a cemetery in Lviv has buried 500 soldiers since Feb last year.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/19/world/europe/ukraine-soldier-funerals-lviv.html
I think you need to do a reality check, ad.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-military-deaths-facd75c2311ed7be660342698cf6a409Thanks Seb, I actually meant what are Ukraine's stats for their own casualties.
My point is this. The government calls Ukrainians 'our Ukrainian friends'. I agree with this, but if the reality is that they are dying in their hundreds of thousands, perhaps eventually millions, and we are not willing to fight with them, then is it really them we care about or is it the land they are fighting for? A much better way to help them would be like how we helped Hong Kongers, allowing them to settle in Europe, alive.
My point is this. The government calls Ukrainians 'our Ukrainian friends'. I agree with this, but if the reality is that they are dying in their hundreds of thousands, perhaps eventually millions, and we are not willing to fight with them, then is it really them we care about or is it the land they are fighting for? A much better way to help them would be like how we helped Hong Kongers, allowing them to settle in Europe, alive.You mean we should let Russia win?
My point is this. The government calls Ukrainians 'our Ukrainian friends'. I agree with this, but if the reality is that they are dying in their hundreds of thousands, perhaps eventually millions, and we are not willing to fight with them, then is it really them we care about or is it the land they are fighting for? A much better way to help them would be like how we helped Hong Kongers, allowing them to settle in Europe, alive.Maybe Putin could help the hungry of the world by not bombing grain stores?
My point is this. The government calls Ukrainians 'our Ukrainian friends'. I agree with this, but if the reality is that they are dying in their hundreds of thousands, perhaps eventually millions, and we are not willing to fight with them, then is it really them we care about or is it the land they are fighting for? A much better way to help them would be like how we helped Hong Kongers, allowing them to settle in Europe, alive.
No. For exactly the same reason that we should have stood up harder to the Chinese, we need to ensure that our allies in Ukraine can stand up to the aggression of Russia. If Russia gets what it wants from throwing its military around, it will continue to do so - we reward Russian aggression, we get more Russian aggression.
O.
Alternatively, instead of holding back (worrying about imaginary red lines), we could just give Ukraine everything it needs to kick every last ruSSian barbarian out as quickly as possible and with minimum loss of life (for the Ukrainians, that is). You know, things like long range missiles, more air defence, and fighter jets.That is basically escalation. Russia would match anything. Furthermore, they are no more likely to surrender than Ukraine is, so you're looking at the last Ukrainian, then the last Pole, and so on until the last Russian. Don't be naiive, no western country is going to give up enough of its weapons to enable Ukraine to win without all of them being killed.
No. For exactly the same reason that we should have stood up harder to the Chinese, we need to ensure that our allies in Ukraine can stand up to the aggression of Russia. If Russia gets what it wants from throwing its military around, it will continue to do so - we reward Russian aggression, we get more Russian aggression.You all keep saying "we" but until NATO puts boots on the ground to help, you mean "they". You're effectively telling them to go and commit suicide.
O.
That is basically escalation. Russia would match anything. Furthermore, they are no more likely to surrender than Ukraine is, so you're looking at the last Ukrainian, then the last Pole, and so on until the last Russian. Don't be naiive, no western country is going to give up enough of its weapons to enable Ukraine to win without all of them being killed.
Think of it this way. When Solomon as the new king of Israel had to decide which of two women was a baby's real mother, he knew by the way the real mother cared so much for the baby's life that she was willing to let it be given to the other woman.
If you really care about Ukraine, meaning the people of Ukraine, then you will be willing to give it up so that the slaughter can stop.
You all keep saying "we" but until NATO puts boots on the ground to help, you mean "they". You're effectively ordering your slaves to go and commit suicide so you can be safe.
You are wrong. The ruSSian army is a mess. It can and will be defeated as long as we, the West, have the will to do so. The might of the ruSSian army is a myth. As for Ukraine, they fight for what we believe in. We have a duty to help them. RuSSian aggression must stop!The Russian army is supported by it's air force and navy, and backed by a bigger nuclear arsenal than that of NATO, which gives them confidence.
The Russian army is supported by it's air force and navy, and backed by a bigger nuclear arsenal than that of NATO, which gives them confidence.
Which prophet was it that told Israel not to trust in Egypt for help against Babylonia?
I'd be surprised if any ruSSian nuclear weapons work. It's all a bluff.So are you saying that Russia won't use any nukes because it knows most of them won't work and it would be annihilated by those of NATO? If so, why is NATO ensuring it doesn't get drawn in? Could that be because they think Russia's nukes would work?
Still, the only language they know is strength. Backing down only encourages them.But for Ukraine, backing down is necessary in this case, because it does not have the comfort of a nuclear deterrent to fall back on.
So are you saying that Russia won't use any nukes because it knows most of them won't work and it would be annihilated by those of NATO? If so, why is NATO ensuring it doesn't get drawn in? Could that be because they think Russia's nukes would work?
But for Ukraine, backing down is necessary in this case, because it does not have the comfort of a nuclear deterrent to fall back on.
This could have huge repurcussions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66253143
That is basically escalation. Russia would match anything.Russia could de-escalate simply by withdrawing from Ukraine, a country they invaded.
Furthermore, they are no more likely to surrender than Ukraine is,I think they are. I think it just requires the removal of Putin. His successor would not be quite so invested in the war and might therefore withdraw in exchange for the lifting of some sanctions.
so you're looking at the last Ukrainian, then the last Pole, and so on until the last Russian. Don't be naiive, no western country is going to give up enough of its weapons to enable Ukraine to win without all of them being killed.Nope. You forget that, if Russia wins, they'll be genociding the Ukrainians anyway.
Think of it this way. When Solomon as the new king of Israel had to decide which of two women was a baby's real mother, he knew by the way the real mother cared so much for the baby's life that she was willing to let it be given to the other woman.Yes, but there is no Solomon in this case to restore the baby to its rightful parent. If the wrong woman wins the baby, she'll just do it again when she decides it needs a sibling.
If you really care about Ukraine, meaning the people of Ukraine, then you will be willing to give it up so that the slaughter can stop.
You all keep saying "we" but until NATO puts boots on the ground to help, you mean "they". You're effectively telling them to go and commit suicide.If Ukraine decides to give up, I will not stand in their way, but it's their country and their decision and I don't think giving up will make things better.
You all keep saying "we" but until NATO puts boots on the ground to help, you mean "they". You're effectively telling them to go and commit suicide.
No, we're supporting them financially and militarily, we're providing training, equipment, expertise and housing for the displaced. That we aren't sending in troops is an attempt to prevent further escalations on the part of the ILLEGAL RUSSIAN INVASION. This is where we've decided to draw a line - we didn't do it for Chechnya, we didn't do it for Crimea, and not doing it emboldened Russia, so now we draw a line and we coordinate our response in conjunction with our allies.It looks more as though we don't want our troops being killed.
If we don't provide the Ukrainians with arms and armaments, do you believe they'll just decide to become Russian, just accept the invasion of their country by a hostile foreign power?The people of Eastern and Southern territories would become part of the Russian Federation, yes - this would protect them from the rest of Ukraine, which would become neutral.
Do you believe that the Russians will suddenly stop violating rights and start treating people decently in Ukraine, even though they don't back in the Motherland?Which rights do you mean? Same sex marriage?
They are fighting, with or without our help, to avoid become meat for the Russian grinder, and we are providing assistance to that resistance that will happen anyway.Actually a lot of them are being rounded up and compelled to fight. You are assisting that.
O.
Russia could de-escalate simply by withdrawing from Ukraine, a country they invaded.Yes, but that's irrelevant. We are encouraging Ukraine to fight, knowing that Russia will match, then exceed their strength.
I think they are. I think it just requires the removal of Putin. His successor would not be quite so invested in the war and might therefore withdraw in exchange for the lifting of some sanctions.But Putin is more popular in Russia than Biden is in the US, or Sunak is in the UK, iirc.
Nope. You forget that, if Russia wins, they'll be genociding the Ukrainians anyway.What evidence do you have for that? Anyone with a Nazi tatoo may be in some trouble.
Yes, but there is no Solomon in this case to restore the baby to its rightful parent. If the wrong woman wins the baby, she'll just do it again when she decides it needs a sibling.But at least the baby will be alive.
If Ukraine decides to give up, I will not stand in their way, but it's their country and their decision and I don't think giving up will make things better.The problem is that two wrongs don't make a right. We need to stand in Russia's way, unarmed. Or at least not try to outgun Russia - that makes us or Ukraine more of a target.
I find your concern quite fake. More like, why won't you let ruSSia win already! Plus you're just regurgitating ruSSian lies. Bambili bambas!Why don't you try seeing things from their point of view?
Why don't you try seeing things from their point of view?
It looks more as though we don't want our troops being killed.Well we don't. But we also don't want to escalate this into a world war.
The people of Eastern and Southern territories would become part of the Russian Federation, yes - this would protect them
from the rest of Ukraine, which would become neutral.It was neutral before. That didn't stop Russia from invading.
Which rights do you mean? Same sex marriage?Their right to life and liberty.
Actually a lot of them are being rounded up and compelled to fight. You are assisting that.
Yes, but that's irrelevant. We are encouraging Ukraine to fight, knowing that Russia will match, then exceed their strength.The facts show that Russia is not matching or exceeding Ukraine's strength. Ukraine doesn't need any encouragement from us to fight.
But Putin is more popular in Russia than Biden is in the US, or Sunak is in the UKOh FFS, Putin will not be deposed by a democratic election. He'll either die of natural causes (he's not in the best of health) or deposed by one of his minions.
, iirc.What evidence do you have for that? Anyone with a Nazi tatoo may be in some trouble.Because it's Russia. They are already talking about exterminating Ukraine.
But at least the baby will be alive.You mean babies. If Russia gets away with this, they'll do it again and again and again.
The problem is that two wrongs don't make a right. We need to stand in Russia's way, unarmed. Or at least not try to outgun Russia - that makes us or Ukraine more of a target.
It looks more as though we don't want our troops being killed.
The people of Eastern and Southern territories would become part of the Russian Federation, yes - this would protect them from the rest of Ukraine, which would become neutral.
Which rights do you mean? Same sex marriage?Actually a lot of them are being rounded up and compelled to fight. You are assisting that.
https://twitter.com/YLEKuronen/status/1680816117801951234?s=19
Wait, what? The Russians lied? I can't believe it.
/s
This may not be a name that is familiar to everyone but Igor Girkin has been arrested in ruSSia on charges of extremism. He is the main culprit in the shooting down of MH17. He has been very critical of Putin's and especially Shoigu's handling of the so-called SMO. He also led the occupation of Crimea in 2014 and later Donbas. Girkin's arrest is a good thing because, despite being a fascist and a convicted war criminal, he is occasionally capable of lucid thought. Hopefully he doesn't return and the age old Russian tradition of negative selection continues. Only morons and "yes" men should be left.In what way was he critical? I've heard that some Russian officials wanted a more 'shock-and-awe' type of operation, but that Putin felt that to be wrong because of the close ties between the two countries.
Should Zelensky disarm?
https://peacenews.info/node/10589/zelenskyy-seeking-way-out
Only morons and "yes" men should be left.
They moved Christmas
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66341617
Changed calendars with one in sync with the cosmos.
They were already using the Gregorian calendar. All that's happened is the public holiday for Christmas has mov ed to the same day that the Ukrainian Orthodox church is celebrating it.
Jeremy, you said in a post, which I can't find, that Ukraine tried neutrality but that it didn't work for them. Putin recently said (https://tass.com/politics/1653919) in a meeting with African leaders concerning peace proposals, that "Kiev obtained its independence during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, based on the declaration of independence, and this declaration states clearly that Ukraine is a neutral state. This is of principle importance to us; it is not quite clear for us, why the West started pulling Ukraine into NATO", adding that, in Moscow's opinion, this is what poses a fundamental threat to Russia's interests.
The West didn't start pulling Ukraine into NATO until Russia invaded. Putin is lying.He said "it is not quite clear for us, why the West started pulling Ukraine into NATO". That isn't a lie. Your statement, "because Russia invaded" answers his question. But he only invaded (Crimea) because of the coup. He thinks NATO should understand that
Why is the US condemning the coup in Niger when it accepted the one in Ukraine?
Because they don't consider the events in Ukraine to have been a coup I guess.
Because they don't consider the events in Ukraine to have been a coup I guess.Would you agree that whatever it was, it backfired somewhat, in that it initiated a conflict that meant Ukraine was not eligible for NATO membership.
Would you agree that whatever it was, it backfired somewhat, in that it initiated a conflict that meant Ukraine was not eligible for NATO membership.
Jeremy, you said in a post, which I can't find, that Ukraine tried neutrality but that it didn't work for them. Putin recently said (https://tass.com/politics/1653919) in a meeting with African leaders concerning peace proposals, that "Kiev obtained its independence during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, based on the declaration of independence, and this declaration states clearly that Ukraine is a neutral state. This is of principle importance to us; it is not quite clear for us, why the West started pulling Ukraine into NATO", adding that, in Moscow's opinion, this is what poses a fundamental threat to Russia's interests.
He said "it is not quite clear for us, why the West started pulling Ukraine into NATO".It should have been obvious: NATO is pulling Ukraine in because Russia invaded. Is he some kind of idiot?
That isn't a lie. Your statement, "because Russia invaded" answers his question. But he only invaded (Crimea) because of the coup. He thinks NATO should understand that
Why is the US condemning the coup in Niger when it accepted the one in Ukraine?
Why is the US condemning the coup in Niger when it accepted the one in Ukraine?
What coup in Ukraine are you referring to? Are you referring to the Maidan Uprising/Revolution of Dignity when the duly-elected regime reneged on its campaign promises as a result of Russian pressure and bribery, and prompted a popular revolt to throw them out and RUN FURTHER DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS as the Russians invaded the country? That's not a coup, even in Russian.Bribery? I thought Yanukovych was unhappy with the EU deal because of the financial problems it left unresolved, and that Russia made a better offer?
O.
What is a threat to Russian interests, currently, is the lack of a defensible land border.Not sure what you mean?
Did it initiate the conflict?The Revolution seems to have done, yes
The Revolution seems to have done, yes
It should have been obvious: NATO is pulling Ukraine in because Russia invaded. Is he some kind of idiot?Agreed - Yanukovych shelved plans for NATO membership (from 2008) in 2010 when he was elected. The revolution initiated a border conflict, so Ukraine is not eligible anyway. The whole idea of it joining is a non-starter.
In 2014, NATO was not "pulling Ukraine in". Nor was it in 2022 until Russia invaded.
Putin is lying. He is a liar.
Steven Myers, an Air Force veteran who served on the State Department's Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy under two secretaries of State, told USA TODAY that one of the West’s narratives is that Putin planned to conquer Ukraine and continue west if not stopped. But Myers argues that Russia's military tactics have been "completely inconsistent with conquest." The agenda was, is and will always be to keep Ukraine out of NATO at all costs, he said.
Bribery? I thought Yanukovych was unhappy with the EU deal because of the financial problems it left unresolved, and that Russia made a better offer?
Agreed - Yanukovych shelved plans for NATO membership (from 2008) in 2010 when he was elected.
The revolution initiated a border conflict, so Ukraine is not eligible anyway.
The whole idea of it joining is a non-starter.
The falsehood seems to me to be this (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/ukraine/2023/07/27/ukraine-russia-war-live-updates/70475598007/):
Agreed - Yanukovych shelved plans for NATO membership (from 2008) in 2010 when he was elected. The revolution initiated a border conflict, so Ukraine is not eligible anyway. The whole idea of it joining is a non-starter.No. Russia initiated the "border conflict". Although you are correct to say that NATO membership is currently a non starter due to Ukraine being at war with Russia.
The falsehood seems to me to be this (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/ukraine/2023/07/27/ukraine-russia-war-live-updates/70475598007/):
A good article on ruSSian imperialism.I do wish you'd drop this childish habit of writing "Russia[n]" with capital s's; it's getting very tiresome. If you want to capitalise anything, do it to the R: country names take an initial capital.
I do wish you'd drop this childish habit of writing "Russia[n]" with capital s's; it's getting very tiresome. If you want to capitalise anything, do it to the R: country names take an initial capital.
LOL! Then why sacrifice a column trying to take Kyiv? Don't tell me, it was a feint!🤣They didn't expect such a strong resistance. Assuming their goal was regime change to keep Ukraine out of NATO, that's not the same as conquest.
They didn't expect such a strong resistance. Assuming their goal was regime change to keep Ukraine out of NATO, that's not the same as conquest.
Putting a puppet government in charge who do what Russia says, by military force, is conquest.Even if it is preemptive? Anyway, the point is that the, imo false, western narrative is "Putin planned to conquer Ukraine and continue west if not stopped".
Even if it is preemptive? Anyway, the point is that the, imo false, western narrative is "Putin planned to conquer Ukraine and continue west if not stopped".
Even if it is preemptive?
Anyway, the point is that the, imo false, western narrative is "Putin planned to conquer Ukraine and continue west if not stopped".
Even if it is preemptive? Anyway, the point is that the, imo false, western narrative is "Putin planned to conquer Ukraine and continue west if not stopped".
Pre-empting what... Russian aggression?No, putting a non-hostile (to Russia and to ethnic Russians in Ukraine) government in place both to preempt the country from joining NATO as well as to prevent the Donbas region being compelled to Ukrainize.
Based on his historic pattern of invading places and taking them over, making settlements and then reneging on those and invading again. Putin might not be attempting that, but you can't trust that he isn't lying now when he says that's not the plan, and that he won't change his mindIt struck me that the same can be said of NATO if you look at its history of attempting to force liberal democracy on countries such as Afghanistan. Why should Russia believe that with Ukraine in NATO, the US will not attempt to block Russia's black sea interests? It seems that both superpowers want hegemony over the territory in between. In Russia's case, you can understand it's desire for freedom to access the black sea. Maybe in future it will agree that it's wrong for it to force its way to it, I don't think the way to achieve that is blockading it though.
Even if it is preemptive? Anyway, the point is that the, imo false, western narrative is "Putin planned to conquer Ukraine and continue west if not stopped".I don't recall anybody in the West saying that. Certainly there were fears about his attempt to rebuild the Russian empire, which would have continued.
No, putting a non-hostile (to Russia and to ethnic Russians in Ukraine) government in place both to preempt the country from joining NATO as well as to prevent the Donbas region being compelled to Ukrainize.
It struck me that the same can be said of NATO if you look at its history of attempting to force liberal democracy on countries such as Afghanistan.Well you can't deny that Afghanistan was a better place to live for many people, especially women, before the USA pulled out.
Why should Russia believe that with Ukraine in NATO, the US will not attempt to block Russia's black sea interests?Can I remind you that Ukraine was not going to join NATO. It's only Russia's actions since February last year that have put it on the table. It's called shooting yourself in the foot.
It seems that both superpowers want hegemony over the territory in between. In Russia's case, you can understand its desire for freedom to access the black sea. Maybe in future it will agree that it's wrong for it to force its way to it, I don't think the way to achieve that is blockading it though.Have you looked at a map of the Eastern Mediterranean? Access to the Black Sea is already completely controlled by an existing NATO member.
No, putting a non-hostile (to Russia and to ethnic Russians in Ukraine) government in place both to preempt the country from joining NATO as well as to prevent the Donbas region being compelled to Ukrainize.
It struck me that the same can be said of NATO if you look at its history of attempting to force liberal democracy on countries such as Afghanistan. Why should Russia believe that with Ukraine in NATO, the US will not attempt to block Russia's black sea interests?
It seems that both superpowers want hegemony over the territory in between.
In Russia's case, you can understand it's desire for freedom to access the black sea.
Maybe in future it will agree that it's wrong for it to force its way to it, I don't think the way to achieve that is blockading it though.
Preemptive of what exactly?I didn't see this yesterday, sorry. Yes, but I think the context of Steven Myers' use of the word 'conquest' clarifies that it doesn't mean invading other countries than Ukraine. Russia's strategy is inconsistent with this, but I've seen British news articles in which Zelensky claims Russia could start bombing London if they aren't stopped in Ukraine. So it's ok for him to exaggerate but Russia isn't allowed to want security guarantees?
I wouldn't necessarily agree with the idea that Putin intends marching further West (but he may if allowed to) but rather that he wants to expand Russian control westward and to create a buffer zone between The West and Mother Russia. This involves conquering Sovereign nations and is illegal.
Yes, but I think the context of Steven Myers' use of the word 'conquest' clarifies that it doesn't mean invading other countries than Ukraine.
Russia's strategy is inconsistent with this,
...but I've seen British news articles in which Zelensky claims Russia could start bombing London if they aren't stopped in Ukraine. So it's ok for him to exaggerate but Russia isn't allowed to want security guarantees?
What the invasion was preemptive of seems to have been the US eventually having the capability of launching nukes at Moscow that would reach it within a minute.
If the US navy had access to Crimea this is closer than Cuba is to Washington. It seems Russia needs control over the black sea in order to prevent this - not so much as for access to the Mediterranean.
As well as this, the news website Tass reports daily on the shelling of residential areas well being the line of engagement in DPR. It says that since Feb last year, 4600 civilians have been killed and 4900 wounded by AFU shelling.
I didn't see this yesterday, sorry. Yes, but I think the context of Steven Myers' use of the word 'conquest' clarifies that it doesn't mean invading other countries than Ukraine.As we discussed before, Steven Myers is clearly an idiot who doesn't remember back to March last year.
Russia's strategy is inconsistent with thisRussia's strategy makes no sense to anybody who doesn't understand that it is driven entirely by internal politics. This is all about Putin keeping power in Moscow. Initially, it was a "look a squirrel" tactic and now it's just about him not taking a walk out of a nearby sixth storey window.
but I've seen British news articles in which Zelensky claims Russia could start bombing London if they aren't stopped in Ukraine. So it's ok for him to exaggerate but Russia isn't allowed to want security guarantees?Come on, you live in a NATO country. was there ever any realistic chance that NATO would invade Russia? NATO was set up as a defensive pact. There is no danger of NATO launching an invasion of Russia. So why is Putin nervous about NATO forces close to his border? Because it stops him from launching invasions of his neighbours and he wants to launch invasions of his neighbours because he wants to be the new Peter the Great and it distracts Russians from their problems at home.
As well as this, the news website Tass reports daily on the shelling of residential areas well being the line of engagement in DPR. It says that since Feb last year, 4600 civilians have been killed and 4900 wounded by AFU shelling.
https://tass.com/society/1654987
I get that the argument for the invasion based on Crimea being used to attack Russia doesn't hold up.
Anyone like to acknowledge the illegal shelling of civilians in DPR?
"The idea that they'd sponsor a terrorist attack in London is far from radical."
Zelensky was implying bombing like that of WWII, Outrider.
Anyone like to acknowledge the illegal shelling of civilians in DPR?
I didn't see this yesterday, sorry. Yes, but I think the context of Steven Myers' use of the word 'conquest' clarifies that it doesn't mean invading other countries than Ukraine. Russia's strategy is inconsistent with this, but I've seen British news articles in which Zelensky claims Russia could start bombing London if they aren't stopped in Ukraine. So it's ok for him to exaggerate but Russia isn't allowed to want security guarantees?
What the invasion was preemptive of seems to have been the US eventually having the capability of launching nukes at Moscow that would reach it within a minute. If the US navy had access to Crimea this is closer than Cuba is to Washington. It seems Russia needs control over the black sea in order to prevent this - not so much as for access to the Mediterranean.
As well as this, the news website Tass reports daily on the shelling of residential areas well being the line of engagement in DPR. It says that since Feb last year, 4600 civilians have been killed and 4900 wounded by AFU shelling.
https://tass.com/society/1654987
IAEA finds no explosives on roofs of Zaporozhye NPP units
What ruble doing?
Everything's fine! Nothing to see!🤭
It doesn't really matter when the EU won't sell you anything or buy anything off you.
But anti-personnel mines were found in the plant though and not for the first timeThose are to defend the site against attack. They claimed the Russians were going to create a nuclear disaster - this looks like an attempt to get NATO more involved in the war, given the timing just before the summit. I'm making this point because you and the others were saying how we can't trust Tass, etc.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/new-iaea-complaint-about-anti-personnel-mines-russian-held-nuclear-plant-2023-07-24/
If Tass and others say Ukraine has been targeting civilians regularly, we cannot dismiss this.
Come on, you live in a NATO country. was there ever any realistic chance that NATO would invade Russia? NATO was set up as a defensive pact. There is no danger of NATO launching an invasion of Russia. So why is Putin nervous about NATO forces close to his border?A possible reason is because there are Russians living in Ukraine, and Russia wouldn't be able to defend them in the event of Ukrainian aggression (which we saw in 2014 imo) without triggering ww3, if Ukraine were part of NATO.
Yes we can because they are lying Russian liars.Does Ukraine publish videos of destroyed military targets in these civilian areas, like they do on or near the front line?
The simplest way for it to stop is for the invaders to withdraw back to their own borders
1,000 Ukrainian casualties on the front line yesterday. Surely it's time for this to stop?
A possible reason is because there are Russians living in Ukraine, and Russia wouldn't be able to defend them in the event of Ukrainian aggression (which we saw in 2014 imo) without triggering ww3, if Ukraine were part of NATO.
1,000 Ukrainian casualties on the front line yesterday. Surely it's time for this to stop?
There are Britons living in Niger. I don't know if you missed it, but we didn't INVADE NIGER, we simply recommended that they consider leaving the area.
Absolutely it's time. Just let me know when Vlad's withdrawing from the illegally occupied territories, because unless that happens the Ukrainian military surrendering isn't going to prevent the deaths of Ukrainian people at Russian hands, it's not going to stop children being removed from the country of their birth to be indoctrinated and held hostage. Ukraine is RESPONDING here - you want this to stop, the aggressor has to stop, and that's Russia.Ukraine was the original aggressor. Turchinov sent the military into Donbass even though the separatists were not not killing people, but firmly refusing to submit to the new government.
Ukraine was the original aggressor.
Poroschenko sent the military into Donbass even though the separatists were not not killing people, but firmly refusing to submit to the new government.
Ukraine was the original aggressor. Kurchinov sent the military into Donbass even though the separatists were not not killing people, but firmly refusing to submit to the new government.
Nonsense.Sorry, I meant Turchynov. I've looked at the wiki article on the timeline, which says that the separatists initially took control of an armoury of the SBU.
Firstly, Russia had already been sending troops and equipment into Donbass at that point. Secondly, even if there were separatists, that's still AN INTERNAL UKRAINIAN MATTER. Thirdly, in what way does that justify Russia occupying Crimea and continuing to send troops further into Ukraine?
Utter, utter, revisionist bullshit.
O.
Sorry, I meant Turchynov. I've looked at the wiki article on the timeline, which says that the separatists initially took control of an armoury of the SBU.
Secondly, if it was an internal affair, what are we doing sending weapons?
At least Russia was supporting Russians.
We aren't supporting Brits.
Your third point: we could say that Russia is responding, to use your word, to the prospect of 11 million Russians in Donbas and Crimea becoming part of an alliance that it is not itself part of.
It's also interesting that Crimea was illegally transferred to Ukraine in 1954, according to an inquiry in 2015.
An internal issue that doesn't warrant a foreign nation invading.I'll leave you and ad O to it, then, learn the hard way.
We weren't until, in case you missed it, RUSSIA INVADED A FOREIGN COUNTRY. Invading a foreign country changes it from a domestic issue to an international one.
If they were Russians, why were they trying to foment a revolt in Ukraine? If they don't like Ukraine, they should fuck off back to Russia. If they're Ukrainians (Russian-speaking or otherwise) then it's an internal Ukrainian matter. Either way, the appropriate response is not to send in Russian troops to a foreign country.
We are defending a neighbour and an ally who has been invaded. In the long-term, to a degree, we are arguably keeping an expansionist and militaristic Russia from NATO's borders - a conflict there would oblige us to commit troops, so tangentially we ARE preventing British deaths, but the primary motivation is to assist a beleaguered ally.
You and Vladimir both need to decide whether you think these people are Russian or Ukrainian. If they're Russians and they don't like Ukraine they don't have to stay there. If they're Ukrainians then it's none of Russia's business.
An inquiry by whom? That would have been the administrative action by the Soviet government when it was a single state. The territory of Ukraine as it stands at the moment is a result of the agreements made at the dissolution of the USSR, long after those events. Whether that was an 'illegal transfer' or not at that time isn't really relevant to the current situation. Calais was taken by force from England in 1558, I can't see that standing as a basis for sending in the tanks.
Even if any of those claims were slightly correct, the appropriate action is not to invade; it's to seek to impose sanctions, it's to call for supervised elections and negotiated separation. If Putin's worried about Ukraine moving towards NATO or the EU, forcing Ukraine to hold independence referenda or show themselves as not as democratically accountable as the EU would require is a better way of achieving that goal than military invasion.
You keep trying to come with these weaselly attempts at something that might, with a squint, look like a technically valid justification for military action if you didn't look too long at it with any eyes that actually worked. If these were actual reasons they would have been made clear either before the first invasion or before the second invasion, but they weren't. This is just a land-grab by a militaristic authoritarian who is losing power at home and needs a foreign war to stoke political fear and new resources to top up a failing economy.
You need to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself why you're so adamantly supporting such a blatantly corrupt regime's undeniably unjustifiable invasion of a neighbour. It doesn't speak well of you.
O.
There are about 100 Britons living in Niger, a neutral country. There are around 11 million Russians living in Ukraine.
Ukraine was the original aggressor.That's a lie. Ukraine never attacked Russia.
I'll leave you and ad O to it, then, learn the hard way.If you are capable of learning (which I'm beginning to doubt)then it is you who will have to learn the hard way. Your view of life reminds me of Lewis Carroll's verses on old Father William, who incessantly stood on his head. Except in your case, you walk around on it, so that everything you perceive is arse about face.
The others on the flight
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66602757
No there aren't. That would be a quarter of the population.The figures I quoted were from 1992. In 2001 a census counted 8.3 million.
An internal issue that doesn't warrant a foreign nation invading.At that point in Donbas Russia didn't invade. They did what the west is doing now for ukraine: providing arms to the separatists and possibly mercenary fighters, after the Ukrainian government sent the army to fight them.
If you are capable of learning (which I'm beginning to doubt)then it is you who will have to learn the hard way. Your view of life reminds me of Lewis Carroll's verses on old Father William, who incessantly stood on his head. Except in your case, you walk around on it, so that everything you perceive is arse about face.My point is that Ukraine will have to fight to the last man if you continue to give them weapons, because, it seems, Russia is not going to withdraw. This looks like assisted suicide. Is that what you want?
My point is that Ukraine will have to fight to the last man if you continue to give them weapons, because, it seems, Russia is not going to withdraw. This looks like assisted suicide. Is that what you want?
At that point in Donbas Russia didn't invade. They did what the west is doing now for ukraine: providing arms to the separatists and possibly mercenary fighters, after the Ukrainian government sent the army to fight them.
The figures I quoted were from 1992. In 2001 a census counted 8.3 million.
At that point in Donbas Russia didn't invade. They did what the west is doing now for ukraine: providing arms to the separatists and possibly mercenary fighters, after the Ukrainian government sent the army to fight them.
At that point in Donbas Russia didn't invade. They did what the west is doing now for ukraine: providing arms to the separatists and possibly mercenary fighters, after the Ukrainian government sent the army to fight them.
Jan Petrovsky, a commander of Rusich, a neo-nazi regiment associated with Wagner, was detained in Finland about a month ago. News of this only came to us last week. He is accused of war crimes in Donbas in 2014-2015. Ukraine has asked for him to be extradited. The world's eyes are on us now. Let's hope we do the right thing and send him to Ukraine to face justice.
There are question marks over how he was able to enter Finland, being on sanctions lists. I seems he legally changed his name to Voislav Torden whilst residing in Norway. His wife (having been granted permission to study in Finland) and children obtained visas to stay in Finland and then Jan Petrovsky followed later. He was eventually detained last month at the Finnish border using facial recognition whilst trying to leave the country. Lots of questions to be asked. Why are we letting in ruSSians at all? Why does Norway seem to be so free with its visas etc? Nevetheless we got the bastard!
Rusich might not be familiar to everyone here. It is an outright neo-nazi regiment responsible for some of the worst attrocities in Donbas in 2014-2015. They're still around but have taken a more backseat role.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/wagner-channels-say-russian-citizen-arrested-finland-is-top-fighter-2023-08-25/
The West is not providing arms to terrorists, it is providing arms to the legitimate government of Ukraine.I'm fairly convinced by the Tass reports of daily shelling of non-military targets by Ukraine. That makes them terrorists.
I'm fairly convinced by the Tass reports of daily shelling of non-military targets by Ukraine. That makes them terrorists.
That's what the Moskal barbarians want you to think.It's also slavery - Mitt Romney let the cat out of the bag 2 days ago
Then you've just confirmed yourself as the gullible idiot we've come to realise you are.Happy to be proved wrong
You miss the point. They are not Russians. The language you speak does not define your nationality.The data I saw said they were Ethnic Russians
Happy to be proved wrong
RuSSia is on fire tonight. Big explosions in Pskov, explosions in Bryansk, explosions in Tula and Moscow airports closed. Burn ruSSia burn!
So is Ukraine sadly.
The data I saw said they were Ethnic Russians
In a plane crash! How convenient!Correlation is not necessarily causation, as you regularly remind others.
Indeed. Two waves I believe. All the more reason to bring the war to ordinary ruSSians.You bloodthirsty little sod!
You bloodthirsty little sod!
I'm fairly convinced by the Tass reportsThat by itself is a serious WTF. TASS is an arm of the Russian state and before that the USSR.
of daily shelling of non-military targets by Ukraine. That makes them terrorists.
Correlation is not necessarily causation, as you regularly remind others.No, but it's a pretty reasonable inference.
Correlation is not necessarily causation, as you regularly remind others.
Indeed. Two waves I believe. All the more reason to bring the war to ordinary ruSSians.
Whilst I understand you aren't calling for Russian civilians to be targeted (having read your subsequent posts), no bombing campaign in history that deliberately targeted civilians has caused the country to lose its resolve to fight, except for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Ukraine targeting civilians would be a waste of ordnance as the Russian bombing of civilians is.
That's why the targets have to have value, like last night, a military airfield and a microchip factory.
Correlation is not necessarily causation, as you regularly remind others.Apart from being a non sequitur, the last time you tried this you couldn't find one example of me doing that, never mind it bring a regular occurrence.
Nationality based on ethnicity is the sort of white nationalist shit-housery that gets you Donald Trump as a president or Nick Griffin as an MP. In the modern world ethno-nationalism is long-dead, and rightfully so. There are no 'ethnic Russians', there are Russian citizens and there are citizens of other countries.Back to the point (why would Russia need to feel threatened by NATO on its borders). Why was it agreed (verbally, as part of US and UK diplomacy with Russia) in 1991 that NATO should not expand an inch eastwards after the reunification of Germany? There must have been an understanding that it would be inappropriate. Then there was the Cuban missile crisis that resulted from the US having nukes in Italy.
O.
The data I saw said they were Ethnic Russians
why would Russia need to feel threatened by NATO on its borders.Yes, why? I've lived in a NATO country all my life and never has there once been any hint that NATO would attempt to invade Russia - or the USSR as was.
Why was it agreed (verbally, as part of US and UK diplomacy with Russia) in 1991 that NATO should not expand an inch eastwards after the reunification of Germany? There must have been an understanding that it would be inappropriate.Was it?
Then there was the Cuban missile crisis that resulted from the US having nukes in Italy.What's that got to do with anything?
Back to the point (why would Russia need to feel threatened by NATO on its borders). Why was it agreed (verbally, as part of US and UK diplomacy with Russia) in 1991 that NATO should not expand an inch eastwards after the reunification of Germany?
There must have been an understanding that it would be inappropriate.
Then there was the Cuban missile crisis that resulted from the US having nukes in Italy.
And also why Spud's claims of deliberate targeting of civilians by Ukraine are almost certainly complete BS.https://youtu.be/2Z5JUaXbCzo?si=9SdZWrKwBC-H361V
https://youtu.be/2Z5JUaXbCzo?si=9SdZWrKwBC-H361V
Who is this guy? Is he another Russian shill like yourself?
Are you aware that there are Russian soldiers invading this part of Ukraine and Ukraine wants to make them go away? This is a war zone. It doesn't mean civilians are being deliberately targeted.
Patrick "The Vatnik" Lancaster, known for reporting staged "attrocities". He's a propaganda mouthpiece for the Luhansk and Donetsk banana republics.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/02/28/exploiting-cadavers-and-faked-ieds-experts-debunk-staged-pre-war-provocation-in-the-donbas/
Who is this guy? Is he another Russian shill like yourself?It's indiscriminate shelling of non-military, civilian areas, which has gone on since the Donbas declared independence. Patrick Lancaster has reported on many such incidents.
Are you aware that there are Russian soldiers invading this part of Ukraine and Ukraine wants to make them go away? This is a war zone. It doesn't mean civilians are being deliberately targeted.
why would the USSR have signed the agreements without that clause if it was both important and agreed. As it was, at that time, NATO was already at the the Ukrainian border with the USSRNo it wasn't - the Warsaw Pact, neutral Austria/Yugoslavia, Finland and Sweden were between NATO and the USSR at the time of the negotiations over German reunification. That could be why no formal agreement preventing NATO expansion was considered necessary.
It's indiscriminate shelling of non-military, civilian areas, which has gone on since the Donbas declared independence. Patrick Lancaster has reported on many such incidents.
If you watch the video you'll see that the US -made HARM missile hit a high-rise block next to a school and football pitch in Donetsk city, where there was no military presence nearby. He also interviews kids in a hospital who were wounded recently in similar indiscriminate attacks.
If Ukraine was attacking military targets it would without doubt be posting footage of the attacks online, as it does when it hits a Russian tank or ammo depot.
No it wasn't - the Warsaw Pact, neutral Austria/Yugoslavia, Finland and Sweden were between NATO and the USSR at the time of the negotiations over German reunification. That could be why no formal agreement preventing NATO expansion was considered necessary.
It's indiscriminate shelling of non-military, civilian areas
Patrick LancasterRussian propagandist. Don't believe anything he says.
If Ukraine was attacking military targets it would without doubt be posting footage of the attacks online
as it does when it hits a Russian tank or ammo depot.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusich_Group
Kostiantynivka, where a missile landed in a shopping area yesterday. This was likely a false flag, watch first six minutes of this:
https://youtu.be/M4tFAsEqMbk?si=SFSxKYanqxN8mM8O
Yes, because the lying Russian liars can absolutely be trusted.To summarise, in case you haven't watched it:
Wait, no they can't. That was a Russian missile designed to terrorise Ukrainians.
Two pedestrians turn to look behind them the moment the sound of the projectile occurs.
They look towards ukrainian-held Druzhkivka.
A reflection of the projectile is seen on a car roof, confirming the latter trajectory of the projectile.
Russians claimed to detect the launch of a missile at the same time.
To summarise, in case you haven't watched it:
Two pedestrians turn to look behind them the moment the sound of the projectile occurs. They look towards ukrainian-held Druzhkivka.
A reflection of the projectile is seen on a car roof, confirming the latter trajectory of the projectile.
Russians claimed to detect the launch of a missile at the same time.
Musk is a cunt, pass it on! He has blood on his hands.
https://kyivindependent.com/cnn-musk-turned-off-starlink-near-crimea-to-prevent-ukraines-strike-against-russian-fleet/
First impressions, presuming that the link is actually from where it's claimed on the basis that I've not seen anything suggesting it isn't.There's a sort of double bang, which sounds like a rocket or shell being launched, then a second later a screeching noise and the explosion. If you look at the man, he turns to look behind him straight after the bang, and the woman copies him.
There's a strange noise in an established conflict zone - of course they turn to look.
They look towards the noise; given the timing, the object is relatively close already at the time they turn, and they turn towards where the explosion is. That's dependent upon where the destination is in relation to them, not the launch point. If it was a guided munition then the direction it arrived from isn't that relevant. If it's an unguided munition then it's on a high trajectory and the approach direction is pretty much vertical at that point, where they perceive the sound to come from (not considering the echo effect of built up areas) isn't a good indicator of the direction of fire.
As above, a facet more of the direction of facing of the camera in relation to the impact point than any reliable indicator of the incoming trajectory.
The same Russians that claim this isn't an illegal invasion, and that Ukraine is riddled with Nazis. Do they have a bridge for sale?
O.
There's a sort of double bang, which sounds like a rocket or shell being launched, then a second later a screeching noise and the explosion. If you look at the man, he turns to look behind him straight after the bang, and the woman copies him.
This suggests that the launch is behind them, unless the acoustics of the street changed the direction it would be perceived to be coming from.
Putin's got something on him.
The distance from the purported launch point in Druzhkivka is about 20km. For the first noise to be the launch and the second to be the impact, you'd have to have a) the loudest munitions launcher in history by orders of magnitude and, b) a munition that covers 20km in less than 2 seconds which is somewhere above 20,000 mph - about Mach 20. That's preposterous. Far more likely are either multiple munitions (one out of shot that they respond to, and then one closer), or an impact followed by a delayed detonation (doesn't look like that on the film, but it's not great quality and the detonation is at the edge of the frame).This rules out the Russian side launching it, as the front line is also over 20km away.
If that was launch then impact the launch point would have be within earshot - within a built-up area, with traffic noise and people, that's perhaps a mile or two at most.
O.
This rules out the Russian side launching it, as the front line is also over 20km away.
interestingly, the reflection on the car roof can't be seen
Are you saying ruSSian missles or artillery can't reach twenty miles? Pretty crap then.Outrider did the maths. If it was fired from 20km away, it would have to be travelling at Mach 20 to reach the target 2 seconds after the launch is heard at the target. It must have been launched from a few km away.
For the first noise to be the launch and the second to be the impact, you'd have to have a) the loudest munitions launcher in history by orders of magnitude and, b) a munition that covers 20km in less than 2 seconds which is somewhere above 20,000 mph - about Mach 20.
You have made a fundamental mistake. Think about the fact that any missile travelling at more than Mach 1 will arrive at its target before the sound of its launch.
If the launch had been 20km away and the impact came two seconds after the sound of the launch, the missile must have been travelling at slightly less than 340m/s depending on atmospheric conditions.
The reflection on the car roof occurred two frames after the explosion. It's not the missile.
The people who looked the wrong way may have heard an echo of the sound.
https://ryanmcbeth.substack.com/p/analyzing-deceptive-imagery-from
If it was a mortar or howitzer that fired it, it would most likely be closer than the front line. Some travel at speeds lower than the speed of sound, so it's possible that the 2 second delay between the sound of the launch and the explosion is achievable given the right muzzle velocity. It would have been launched upwards to shoot into the town, so even if it was travelling nearer the speed of sound, the projectile would have had further to travel than the sound (travelling horizontally) so could still cause a 2 second delay.Whatever it was, I'm sceptical that the first sound was the launch of the missile/shell.
Whatever it was, I'm sceptical that the first sound was the launch of the missile/shell.What makes you skeptical? What else would make that sound?
What makes you skeptical? What else would make that sound?If it was a missile, its launch would not have sounded like that and it would very likely have been launched a long way away.
There are two other people who turn to look - they are between the red and the yellow umbrellas.
This rules out the Russian side launching it, as the front line is also over 20km away.
If it was a mortar or howitzer that fired it, it would most likely be closer than the front line.
Some travel at speeds lower than the speed of sound, so it's possible that the 2 second delay between the sound of the launch and the explosion is achievable given the right muzzle velocity.
It would have been launched upwards to shoot into the town, so even if it was travelling nearer the speed of sound, the projectile would have had further to travel than the sound (travelling horizontally) so could still cause a 2 second delay.
If it was a missile, its launch would not have sounded like that and it would very likely have been launched a long way away.Agreed, a missile launch wouldn't sound like that.
If it was a shell, I'd expect it to be supersonic, so the sound would reach us after the shell.
Agreed, a missile launch wouldn't sound like that.Is it clearly a shell that came from the direction people are looking in? It’s a street with buildings on both sides so the sound need not necessarily have come from where the people are looking.
Some shells are subsonic. It's clearly a shell that has come from the direction the four people looked in, and a few km away: it echoes several times before the hit.
I think the Russian claim of a missile must be wrong or false.
The two factors that matter are the four people that look round and the launch sound.[
The timing was perfect for a false flag, with Blinken announcing more weapons the same day; look how all MSM have immediately claimed it was a Russian strike - we must defeat these terrorists!
In fact though, there is sufficient evidence that Ukraine is a terrorist state and therefore the UK is breaking the law by arming them.
there is sufficient evidence that Ukraine is a terrorist state and therefore the UK is breaking the law by arming them.
Is it clearly a shell that came from the direction people are looking in? It’s a street with buildings on both sides so the sound need not necessarily have come from where the people are looking.I think the issue is that you can't conceive of Ukraine committing war crimes because that would make supplying them morally questionable. The fact is, Russia is recording thousands of incidents of AFU attacks on civilian targets or other war crimes such as using human shields, and these have been ignored by the west, just as you ignored the last video I gave you from the slightly clumsy but sincere Mr Lancaster. Now we have evidence our side of the front line so it should be investigated.
Anyway, it’s interesting isn’t it that there have now been thousands of strikes against civilians in Ukraine and this is the one that you are talking about in detail. All the hospitals and power plants and blocks of flats that the Russians struck deliberately don’t matter to you, but one market where the source cannot be definitively proved to be Russian and you and your Russian friends are all over it.
Which law is the UK breakingI'm assuming that the government is responsible for the control of arms sales and trafficking. The US president has discretion over where arms can be sent, and he is required to assess the risk that they would be used for terrorism or that they would result in escalation of conflict. Shall we assume the law is similar in this country?
Four people look around, but the direction in which they look is not that indicative of anything given the built up area's capacity to redirect sound; that they turn is just evidence of a source of (presumably) noise. It's not clear (at least to me) that the sound on the clip is a launch sound - that might be just that I'm not familiar with the equipment, but it could just easily be another munition impact somewhere out of the immediate sight of the camera. That seems just as likely an explanation to me as the idea of a close-by artillery shell launch.That doesn't seem likely to me. It sounds very much like the first sound and the hit are the same event. Given the echoes, I'd say very nearby. I could be wrong, but I think it should be independently investigated to try and establish what sort of munition it was from the debris.
I think the issue is that you can't conceive of Ukraine committing war crimes because that would make supplying them morally questionable.Given that Ukraine has been attacked by a gang of thugs pretending to be a state, we would be morally questionable if we didn't help them to the best of our ability.
The fact is, Russia is recording thousands of incidents of AFU attacks on civilian targets or other war crimes such as using human shields, and these have been ignored by the westThe Russians are a bunch of lying liars. You can't trust anything they say.
just as you ignored the last video I gave you from the slightly clumsy but sincere Mr Lancaster. Now we have evidence our side of the front line so it should be investigated.I do not ignore anything that isn't blatant Russian propaganda. You seem to ignore everything but the blatant Russian propaganda.
I'm assuming that the government is responsible for the control of arms sales and trafficking.
The US president has discretion over where arms can be sent, and he is required to assess the risk that they would be used for terrorism or that they would result in escalation of conflict. Shall we assume the law is similar in this country?
That doesn't seem likely to me.
It sounds very much like the first sound and the hit are the same event.
Given the echoes, I'd say very nearby. I could be wrong, but I think it should be independently investigated to try and establish what sort of munition it was from the debris.
Given that Ukraine has been attacked by a gang of thugs pretending to be a state, we would be morally questionable if we didn't help them to the best of our ability.Some of them may be thugs, yes, but can we say that about all of them? A lot of them are doing it because they want to protect the civilians who are being shelled from towns like Avdiivka. Rightly or wrongly, but not because they're thugs. So they are a country, not a gang of thugs pretending etc.
The Russians are a bunch of lying liars. You can't trust anything they say.
I do not ignore anything that isn't blatant Russian propaganda. You seem to ignore everything but the blatant Russian propaganda.
Yep. And the authority to determine to whom arms should or should not be sent rests with that government. You might disagree with that decision (and, certainly, in some other instances such as sales to Saudi Arabia in recent years I'd be inclined to disagree with them) but if they undertake the proper documented assessments then it is not illegal. Immoral, maybe, in some circumstances, but not illegal.I did email my MP a year ago. Her main argument for arming Ukraine was the illegal invasion and atrocities. I replied that if we care about the Ukrainians, it would be better to stick to a policy of non-escalation because if they try to take back the land they lost, they will be slaughtered. I didn't hear back after that.
In this circumstance what the US law is on the matter isn't particularly relevant, although I suspect that Congress actually has a degree of oversight of the particulars.We left Afghanistan because the US was withdrawing; I think the US law is definitely relevant.
However, you've gone from failing to demonstrate that Ukraine has perpetrated this,I started with the view that Russia was the perpetrator, but they would be too strong for Ukraine.
to determining that it's terrorism (as opposed, say, to an elaborate fake which is equally as preposterous)Ukraine seems to be trying to invoke NATO's assistance having failed to invoke Article 5 by pretending Russia attacked the Polish farm. There is plenty to read if you want evidence for terrorism and are willing to allow that Russia can tell truths sometimes.
to therefore the UK is conducting illegal sales - absolute nonsense built on a fabrication that only the deliberately false or incredibly stupid would accept wholesale.It seems a logical inference to make.
There's a surprise.When I said "It sounds very much like the first sound and the hit are the same event." I meant that it sounds like the first sound was from the gun that fired the projectile, as opposed to the sound of an air defense missile being launched nearby to try and intercept an incoming missile.
Which is odd given that when you started the first sound was explained as the sound of a launch in order to justify the assertion that it must have been a local launch.
Should it be investigated? Probably, although unless the Ukrainians change tack entirely and let the FSB in to do it, I suspect you'll fail to accept the findings. It just begs the question why you think Ukraine needs to set up this elaborate and potentially self-incriminating false flag operation when they have a daily tally of between dozens and hundreds of instances of well-establish Russian munitions falling on their civilian centres. It's literally incredible, as in you'd have to be a credulous cretin to accept the notion.I accept that Russian missiles do hit civilians, but not as often as daily, and not deliberately, except in isolated instances.
O.
I did email my MP a year ago. Her main argument for arming Ukraine was the illegal invasion and atrocities.
I replied that if we care about the Ukrainians, it would be better to stick to a policy of non-escalation because if they try to take back the land they lost, they will be slaughtered.
I didn't hear back after that.
We left Afghanistan because the US was withdrawing; I think the US law is definitely relevant.
I started with the view that Russia was the perpetrator, but they would be too strong for Ukraine.
Ukraine seems to be trying to invoke NATO's assistance having failed to invoke Article 5 by pretending Russia attacked the Polish farm.
There is plenty to read if you want evidence for terrorism and are willing to allow that Russia can tell truths sometimes.
It seems a logical inference to make.
When I said "It sounds very much like the first sound and the hit are the same event." I meant that it sounds like the first sound was from the gun that fired the projectile, as opposed to the sound of an air defense missile being launched nearby to try and intercept an incoming missile.
I accept that Russian missiles do hit civilians, but not as often as daily, and not deliberately, except in isolated instances.
Some of them may be thugs, yes, but can we say that about all of them?Certainly we can about the people running Russia. Yes, when I say "gang of thugs" I mean Putin and his henchmen, mostly.
A lot of them are doing it because they want to protect the civilians who are being shelled from towns like Avdiivka.Rubbish. They are doing it because the consequences of not doing it will be terrible for them and possibly their families.
I did email my MP a year ago. Her main argument for arming Ukraine was the illegal invasion and atrocities. I replied that if we care about the Ukrainians, it would be better to stick to a policy of non-escalation because if they try to take back the land they lost, they will be slaughtered. I didn't hear back after that.
Yes, ruSSia always lies. RuSSia lies knowing everyone else knows it's lying. It just doesn't care. Spud, you support genocide. They only way this can end once and for all is to destroy ruSSia. There is no hope for the country.
Wouldn't destroying Russia necessitate genocide too?
I wouldn't be able to tell you what a Ukrainian or Russian mortar, howitzer or missile sounded like, and with the poor sound quality of the clip and the distortion produced by the baffle-effect of the built up area, I'd be sceptical if you could.Have you seen the Guardian's version? It includes the bang, 2 seconds before the strike, and it doesn't sound distorted. I don't know what the munition is, but it definitely sounds like was launched from not far away.
Have you seen the Guardian's version? It includes the bang, 2 seconds before the strike, and it doesn't sound distorted. I don't know what the munition is, but it definitely sounds like was launched from not far away.
https://youtu.be/gAP_7MA6DiI?si=UxpkaoH6iNpQKc02
Top Russian general issues stark warning over Ukraine war ..... https://tinyurl.com/2xacbaxb
A top Russian commander has admitted that the war in Ukraine is ‘a stepping stone’ for the rest of eastern Europe.
It's too late to prevent escalation. There's a full scale war going on. It's escalated.My actual words were: if we care about Ukraine, we should give it to Russia because otherwise they will annihilate it. This was a general statement meaning Ukraine should agree to Russia's terms.
Encouraging Ukraine to Surrender further land to Russia will just encourage Putin, and other expansionist aggressors, to invade other places.I would suggest that rather than imperialism, this is more to do with matching NATO's strength, as was the intention when the Warsaw Pact was made. Reading the history it seems to have started as a result of the tension between communism and capitalism. Would you agree?
I would suggest that rather than imperialism, this is more to do with matching NATO's strength, as was the intention when the Warsaw Pact was made. Reading the history it seems to have started as a result of the tension between communism and capitalism. Would you agree?
My actual words were: if we care about Ukraine, we should give it to Russia because otherwise they will annihilate it. This was a general statement meaning Ukraine should agree to Russia's terms.
My actual words were: if we care about Ukraine, we should give it to Russia because otherwise they will annihilate it. This was a general statement meaning Ukraine should agree to Russia's terms.
Article from the Daily Kos on various things happening in the war at the moment.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/9/15/2193491/-Ukraine-Update-Everything-we-learn-about-Elon-Musk-s-actions-makes-thing-worse
The bit about Elon Musk makes for very interesting reading. He's even more scummy than I thought.
Another potential case study for the extraordinary correlation between Russia apologists and sex offenders.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russell-brand-rape-sexual-assault-abuse-allegations-investigation-v5hxdlmb6?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1694876330
Z nazis are usually rapists and nonces.
Rumours that the traitor of the Chechen people, Kadyrov, is dead.
https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1703365268695564343?s=19
FFS Spud, your actual words are written down for us all to see. They are "it would be better to stick to a policy of non-escalation because if they try to take back the land they lost, they will be slaughtered."Do keep up. I am quoting what I wrote to my MP. And it is coming true. Russia is slaughtering them, because they are fighting back. If they don't fight back, they will live.
And no, if we care about Ukraine we will help them fight. If Ukraine loses, the genocide inflicted by Putin and his gangster thugs will make the Holocaust look small scale.
No. It's plain imperialism. That's why Putin keeps on referring to Peter and Catherine. Russia is an empire and that's why, if we're going to finally destroy Russian imperialism, Russia also needs to be destroyed. It's not something they'll just give up, it needs to be surgically removed.This attitude is escalating the conflict. You have to take into account how this comes across from Russia's viewpoint. They see the West trying to blockade Russia, with Poland and the Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey; Ukraine and Georgia in NATO's sights; why else would the Russians annex Crimea in 2014? Crimea is the point at which Russia is cornered if it becomes part of NATO.
This attitude is escalating the conflict. You have to take into account how this comes across from Russia's viewpoint. They see the West trying to blockade Russia, with Poland and the Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey; Ukraine and Georgia in NATO's sights; why else would the Russians annex Crimea in 2014? Crimea is the point at which Russia is cornered if it becomes part of NATO.
Do keep up. I am quoting what I wrote to my MP. And it is coming true. Russia is slaughtering them, because they are fighting back. If they don't fight back, they will live.
I would suggest that rather than imperialism, this is more to do with matching NATO's strength, as was the intention when the Warsaw Pact was made.
Reading the history it seems to have started as a result of the tension between communism and capitalism. Would you agree?
This attitude is escalating the conflict.
You have to take into account how this comes across from Russia's viewpoint.
They see the West trying to blockade Russia, with Poland and the Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey; Ukraine and Georgia in NATO's sights; why else would the Russians annex Crimea in 2014?
Crimea is the point at which Russia is cornered if it becomes part of NATO.
The Warsaw Pact which totally wasn't about Imperialism, but ignore the tanks rolling through Prague and martial law implemented in Poland when the people got uppity.The Warsaw pact was formed as a result of West Germany rearming within NATO, according to Wikipedia.
The Warsaw pact was formed as a result of West Germany rearming within NATO, according to Wikipedia.
The Warsaw pact was formed as a result of West Germany rearming within NATO, according to Wikipedia.
The Warsaw Pact was formed as part of the cold war; the re-arming of Germany was one of the immediate events, but it had been coming. What the specific 'spark' was doesn't change the Imperialist nature of it.I thought the initial pact was between East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland? They feared a rearmed West Germany, and so did the Soviets. I don't see evidence for imperialism there. It was a balance of power issue, with a potentially hostile state involved (West Germany) - much like the case with Ukraine since Yanukovich was ousted.
O.
I thought the initial pact was between East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland? They feared a rearmed West Germany, and so did the Soviets.No they didn't. At least their leaders didn't because West Germany was never going to get aggressive. In 1955, they might have had a legitimate reason to fear the USA though.
I don't see evidence for imperialism there. It was a balance of power issue, with a potentially hostile state involved (West Germany) - much like the case with Ukraine since Yanukovich was ousted.Ukraine was never a threat to Russia.
Also, Putin's actions before the war are evidence against imperialism: agreement that Donbas would be independent, his security proposal to the US in December 2021.
No they didn't. At least their leaders didn't because West Germany was never going to get aggressive.According to wiki, the Czechoslovak leadership did.
In 1955, they might have had a legitimate reason to fear the USA though.Okay. The thing is, Russia wasn't worried about Ukraine being a threat to them. They were helping the Donbas separatists, to whom Ukraine was a threat.
Ukraine was never a threat to Russia.
I think you'll find that Yanukovich abandoned his post following opposition to his draconian anti-protest laws that resulted in a number of deaths. He wasn't ousted, he fled.That's not what happened according to Yanukovich himself.
Putin had no right to "agree" that part of another sovereign state should be independent. He was poking his nose in matters that did not concern him. Why? Because of his imperialist ambitions.As I understand it, Russia poked it's nose in in response to the US' meddling in Ukraine (see eg the Nuland phonecall)
According to wiki, the Czechoslovak leadership did. Okay. The thing is, Russia wasn't worried about Ukraine being a threat to them. They were helping the Donbas separatists, to whom Ukraine was a threat.Donbas is part of Ukraine. Ukraine isn't a threat to itself and Russia were interfering with the internal affairs of another country.
That's not what happened according to Yanukovich himself.
Also, Putin's actions before the war are evidence against imperialism: agreement that Donbas would be independent, his security proposal to the US in December 2021.
UEFA to allow under 17 Russian teams to compete in Europe
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66927138
Have you seen the Guardian's version? It includes the bang, 2 seconds before the strike, and it doesn't sound distorted. I don't know what the munition is, but it definitely sounds like was launched from not far away.Bonkers conspiracy-theoretical bullshit.
https://youtu.be/gAP_7MA6DiI?si=UxpkaoH6iNpQKc02
UEFA to allow under 17 Russian teams to compete in EuropeUkraine asks them not to.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66927138
Ukraine asks them not to.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66954582
I have to wonder if UEFA officials are in receipt of Russian money.
IPC votes to allow Russian athletes to take part in the Paris Paralympics.
'Andrew Parsons, president of the IPC, said the organisation was "very firm believers that sport and politics should not mix".' - meanwhile in the real world...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/disability-sport/66960723
More Russian money flowing into certain pockets...
Yep. Anyone who justifies this saying sports and politics should be kept apart is a complete moron.I say that, except when the politics directly affects the sport, eg refusing to field teams selected solely on ability.
I say that, except when the politics directly affects the sport, eg refusing to field teams selected solely on ability.Either allowing or not allowing Russian teams to take part is politics here so how do you avoid it?
All gone quiet on this thread. Sorry Ukraine, not exciting enough, there's a new war to talk about.
Just to make sure that one war doesn't hide what happens in another.It says, "The intensification of attacks on Kherson is likely due to the Ukrainian counteroffensive."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67308647
Today, I am pointing out that Russia not invading would have had the same result
The other day Scott Ritter pointed out that Kherson and Zaporizhia would still be under Ukrainian control, and half a million Ukrainians would still be alive, had Ukraine conceded autonomy for the Donbas and ruled out joining NATO last March.
Just suppose that Ukraine surrendered today and the war ended with Russia annexing the whole country: would that be so terrible? Daily life in Ukraine would continue without the danger of being blown to bits. It's not as if Russia is Nazi Germany - they're not going to start arresting and murdering Jews, or any other racial or ethnic or religious group It would be a severe blow to Ukrainian pride, but it would be recoverable from.So it's ok to let another country be annexed if the invaders are not as bad as the Nazis?
Today, I am pointing out that Russia not invading would have had the same result
Just suppose that Ukraine surrendered today and the war ended with Russia annexing the whole country: would that be so terrible?Yes.
Daily life in Ukraine would continue without the danger of being blown to bits.No. Children will be shipped back to Russia for "reeducation". Adults who don't toe the Russia line would be murdered, or tortured and murdered. Ukraine would be genocided.
It's not as if Russia is Nazi GermanyRussia is not identical to Nazi Germany but shares many of the same traits.
they're not going to start arresting and murdering Jews, or any other racial or ethnic or religious group
It would be a severe blow to Ukrainian pride, but it would be recoverable from.
So it's ok to let another country be annexed if the invaders are not as bad as the Nazis?No, it isn't ok, but is it worth going to war over?
Would you apply the same logic to Palestine
No, it isn't ok, but is it worth going to war over?
Palestine is not a comparable situation. However, if Israel annexed the whole of the occupied territories, but allowed the Palestinian refugees back into the country, and stopped treating the Palestinians as second-class citizens and gave everyone equal rights of immigration, I would not think that worth fighting.
You're right. Palestine is not comparable. Why are you bringing it up?Because NS did.
No, it isn't ok, but is it worth going to war over?No complex situation is exactly comparable. That doesn't mean that there are no similarities. Russia is much more anti democratic than Israel - see its policies as regarding gay rights - but you seem to think Russia, despite invading another country, is just going to be fine running it.
Palestine is not a comparable situation. However, if Israel annexed the whole of the occupied territories, but allowed the Palestinian refugees back into the country, and stopped treating the Palestinians as second-class citizens and gave everyone equal rights of immigration, I would not think that worth fighting.
Today, I am pointing out that Russia not invading would have had the same resultActually there may have been genocide of Donbas Ukrainians, because Donbas and Crimea didn't accept the new post-US-orchestrated-coup government since 2014. Ukraine was always planning to retake these territories, which led them to ask Russia for help in 2022, because they had de-mobilized and feared genocide when the AFU took over. That was on record from the Donetsk People's Republic until YouTube took down Scott Ritter's interview last year with a DPR military commander.
You're right. Palestine is not comparable. Why are you bringing it up?He didn't. I did. See my answer to him on it.
Because NS did.
So it's ok to let another country be annexed if the invaders are not as bad as the Nazis?They wouldn't have annexed it if they had agreed to Russia's terms from the start.
How do think that might make Taiwan feel just now?
Would you apply the same logic to Palestine
Actually there may have been genocide of Donbas Ukrainians,That may well be true. Ukraine has found a lot of evidence of Russian atrocities in the areas they have managed to retake.
because Donbas and Crimea didn't accept the new post-US-orchestrated-coup government since 2014.
Ukraine was always planning to retake these territories,
which led them to ask Russia for help in 2022, because they had de-mobilized and feared genocide when the AFU took over. That was on record from the Donetsk People's Republic until YouTube took down Scott Ritter's interview last year with a DPR military commander.
Do you understand that the very existence of Ukraine is under threat here?Yes, but the territory and its inhabitants would continue to exist, just under a different regime.
Yes, but the territory and its inhabitants would continue to exist, just under a different regime.
The other day Scott Ritter pointed out that Kherson and Zaporizhia would still be under Ukrainian control, and half a million Ukrainians would still be alive, had Ukraine conceded autonomy for the Donbas and ruled out joining NATO last March.
The democratically elected government, you meanThe new 2014 one wasn't, hence the civil war. The 2018 one was elected on the basis that the Minsk Agreement would be implemented.
No that is what you are failing to get. It wouldn't be the same people under a different regime. Russia will genocide Ukraine. Even if they didn't, Ukraine is a democracy at the moment and Russia is a dictatorship. You're arguing against people having the right to fight for their freedom.Russia is a very flawed democracy, not a dictatorship. Putin has to face the electorate on a regular basis. I'm not arguing against the right to fight for freedom, just asking if it's worth the huge cost in lives. How do you know that "Russia will genocide Ukraine"?
The new 2014 one wasn't, hence the civil war.What civil war?
They wouldn't have annexed it if they had agreed to Russia's terms from the start.So anyone can threaten to take over another country, and you think the other country should agree.
So anyone can threaten to take over another country, and you think the other country should agree.He didn't say or imply that.
He didn't say or imply that.Disagree. That seems the direct implication of suggesting that the Russian terms should have been accepted because of the what Russia would then do.
Just suppose that Ukraine surrendered today and the war ended with Russia annexing the whole country: would that be so terrible? Daily life in Ukraine would continue without the danger of being blown to bits. It's not as if Russia is Nazi Germany - they're not going to start arresting and murdering Jews, or any other racial or ethnic or religious group It would be a severe blow to Ukrainian pride, but it would be recoverable from.
Russia is a very flawed democracy, not a dictatorship. Putin has to face the electorate on a regular basis. I'm not arguing against the right to fight for freedom, just asking if it's worth the huge cost in lives. How do you know that "Russia will genocide Ukraine"?
The new 2014 one wasn't, hence the civil war. The 2018 one was elected on the basis that the Minsk Agreement would be implemented.
Russia is a very flawed democracy, not a dictatorship. Putin has to face the electorate on a regular basis.But he never loses.
I'm not arguing against the right to fight for freedom, just asking if it's worth the huge cost in lives.You shouldn't be asking us keyboard warriors sitting comfortably in our homes in Britain, you should be asking the people who would be subject to the Russian jackboot id they surrendered.
How do you know that "Russia will genocide Ukraine"?
When, where and how?
They are already doing it. [Committing genocide.]
When, where and how?
So anyone can threaten to take over another country, and you think the other country should agree.Yes, if it's clear they can't prevent it doing so.
Yes, if it's clear they can't prevent it doing so.
Yes, if it's clear they can't prevent it doing so.Is that clear in Ukraine?
Yes, if it's clear they can't prevent it doing so.
Yes, if it's clear they can't prevent it doing so.
In the last couple of years.Genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." (Google's English dictionary)
In the occupied areas.
By killing Ukrainians and/or deporting them to Russia for reeducation.
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3859439-a-year-on-we-have-clear-evidence-of-genocide-in-ukraine/
I should be astonished that you think this. However, I have become so accustomed to your lack of critical thinking, well any thinking, that I am not.If you are so concerned about Ukraine or about the threat of Russia marching across Europe then why aren't you fighting with the Ukrainians?
So we just consign Taiwan to China then.
We should have left Poland to Hitler unchallenged. (Godwinesque)
You are presumably calm about the possibility of Putin moving into other neighbouring countries that are smaller and less able to defend themselves.
I bet you think the British Empire was absolutely spiffing and just grand for everyone concerned.
Fuck me but you take my breath away. And not in a good way.
If you are so concerned about Ukraine or about the threat of Russia marching across Europe then why aren't you fighting with the Ukrainians?
If you are so concerned about Ukraine or about the threat of Russia marching across Europe then why aren't you fighting with the Ukrainians?
Genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." (Google's English dictionary)
Where is the evidence that Russia has tried to destroy the Ukrainian nation?
Genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." (Google's English dictionary)Are you trying to take the piss?
Where is the evidence that Russia has tried to destroy the Ukrainian nation?
DEFINITION OF GENOCIDE IN THE CONVENTION:
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
If you are so concerned about Ukraine or about the threat of Russia marching across Europe then why aren't you fighting with the Ukrainians?
Why are you astonished that I think that military neutrality and surrendering two oblasts (as per Russia's original demand) would have been better than the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians trying and failing to take back that territory and Crimea?
200,000 dead Ukrainians and counting. Same number maimed. Many more fled the country, all because they wanted to join NATOAll because Russia murdered them
200,000 dead Ukrainians and counting. Same number maimed. Many more fled the country, all because they wanted to join NATO
Utter bullshit.The Ukrainians may have thought (https://youtu.be/0G_j-7gLnWU?si=SPQ6d1tJ351rVJ9P) Putin wanted them to be part of greater Russia, but if that had been the case why did Russia use only 100,000 men for the initial phase of the operation? To take the whole of Ukraine would have required a much bigger army and also preparation by bombardment like the US did when it invaded Iraq.
It's because they didn't want to be part of Greater Russia and also Putin needed a distraction from the shortcomings of his government.
The Ukrainians may have thought (https://youtu.be/0G_j-7gLnWU?si=SPQ6d1tJ351rVJ9P) Putin wanted them to be part of greater Russia, but if that had been the case why did Russia use only 100,000 men for the initial phase of the operation? To take the whole of Ukraine would have required a much bigger army and also preparation by bombardment like the US did when it invaded Iraq.
Well, clearly Russia expected that the army they brought would be enough to press Ukraine into agreeing to its terms (the central one of which was permanent neutrality).
In the interview in the above link, he also implies that Boris Johnson persuaded them not to sign, saying "let's just fight". So Ukraine was clearly influenced by Johnson, and obviously would not be able to fight without NATO support, so NATO is partly responsible for the catastrophic loss of life.
200,000 dead Ukrainians and counting. Same number maimed. Many more fled the country, all because they wanted to join NATO
The Ukrainians may have thought (https://youtu.be/0G_j-7gLnWU?si=SPQ6d1tJ351rVJ9P) Putin wanted them to be part of greater Russia, but if that had been the case why did Russia use only 100,000 men for the initial phase of the operation?
To take the whole of Ukraine would have required a much bigger army and also preparation by bombardment like the US did when it invaded Iraq.The plan was to capture the seat of government, execute the leaders and put in place a puppet president. Ukraine did not want that, so they fought back.
Well, clearly Russia expected that the army they brought would be enough to press Ukraine into agreeing to its terms (the central one of which was permanent neutrality).Russian terms aren't worth the paper they are written on. Russia is inherently untrustworthy.
In the interview in the above link, he also implies that Boris Johnson persuaded them not to sign, saying "let's just fight". So Ukraine was clearly influenced by Johnson, and obviously would not be able to fight without NATO support, so NATO is partly responsible for the catastrophic loss of life.
The Ukrainians may have thought (https://youtu.be/0G_j-7gLnWU?si=SPQ6d1tJ351rVJ9P) Putin wanted them to be part of greater Russia, but if that had been the case why did Russia use only 100,000 men for the initial phase of the operation?
To take the whole of Ukraine would have required a much bigger army and also preparation by bombardment like the US did when it invaded Iraq.
Well, clearly Russia expected that the army they brought would be enough to press Ukraine into agreeing to its terms (the central one of which was permanent neutrality).
In the interview in the above link, he also implies that Boris Johnson persuaded them not to sign, saying "let's just fight". So Ukraine was clearly influenced by Johnson, and obviously would not be able to fight without NATO support, so NATO is partly responsible for the catastrophic loss of life.
Because he's strategically and tactically inept, and failed to understand that Ukrainian people have western mentality of fighting against oppression? Because although Putin has a long-term goal of taking over Ukraine he has a short-term objective of creating a land bridge to the territory he's already stolen?I thought his goal was for Ukraine to commit to neutrality, and treat ethnic Russians equally?
Absolute horseshit. If people weren't supplying food other people would starve, so therefore Cadburys is responsible for world overpopulation. We can send as many munitions to Ukraine as we like, and if they don't have anyone to defend themselves against no-one gets killed.But it ought to have been obvious that Russia will outlast Ukraine, as they have four times as big a population. So it was irresponsible for NATO to urge Ukraine to fight
On the other hand, if we don't send them, Russia still invades, and people still die.As many as have died since they decided to fight back? I think not.
I thought his goal was for Ukraine to commit to neutrality, and treat ethnic Russians equally?
He has already (iirc) admitted his error in thinking Ukraine would agree to this.
Crimea was given to Ukraine when Ukraine was Russia's ally.
He took it back when it became clear that Ukraine was hostile to Russia.
But it ought to have been obvious that Russia will outlast Ukraine, as they have four times as big a population. So it was irresponsible for NATO to urge Ukraine to fight.
As many as have died since they decided to fight back? I think not.
I thought his goal was for Ukraine to commit to neutrality, and treat ethnic Russians equally?Why should they commit to neutrality? And are you aware that Ukraine's president is a native Russian speaker. I think, if you can become the leader of your country, concerns about equality become moot.
He has already (iirc) admitted his error in thinking Ukraine would agree to this.
Crimea was given to Ukraine when Ukraine was Russia's ally. He took it back when it became clear that Ukraine was hostile to Russia.
But it ought to have been obvious that Russia will outlast UkraineNope. It wasn't obvious at all. After all Russia failed to outlast Afghanistan.
So it was irresponsible for NATO to urge Ukraine to fight As many as have died since they decided to fight back? I think not.
Nope. It wasn't obvious at all. After all Russia failed to outlast Afghanistan.I think you'll find that Russia is still there.
I think you'll find that Russia is still there.Really,? What did the USA do between 2001 and 2021?
It was part of NATO's duty to its constituent members to assist a neighbour in a way that would keep those forces further away.While in the process, getting hundreds of thousands of them killed. I'm trying hard to see how that can be right, but I can't. It seems very selfish.
While in the process, getting hundreds of thousands of them killed. I'm trying hard to see how that can be right, but I can't. It seems very selfish.
Ukraine was going to fight. People were going to die. NATO's support changed the balance of who was going to die, but the only people that could have stopped it happening were Russian leadership.They wouldn't be able to fight without western weapons, so all the west has done is increase the number of Ukrainians who will die. Apparently then the west is using Ukrainians to weaken Russia. Weaken, as opposed to defeat, because the problem remains that Ukraine will run out of manpower faster than Russia. So when that time comes, the west will have to replace the defeated Ukrainian forces and carry on the attrition until Russia is defeated. Given Cameron's latest antics at NATO, that seems to be the likely outcome - unless the west doesn't want to commit manpower in the latter stages. And unless China or other countries ally with Russia.
You can keep suggesting that the rest of the world should just roll over for a bully if you want, but you at least need to admit that he's a bully, you can't even seem to find it within yourself to do that.
O.
They wouldn't be able to fight without western weapons, so all the west has done is increase the number of Ukrainians who will die.
Apparently then the west is using Ukrainians to weaken Russia.
Weaken, as opposed to defeat, because the problem remains that Ukraine will run out of manpower faster than Russia.
So when that time comes, the west will have to replace the defeated Ukrainian forces and carry on the attrition until Russia is defeated.
Given Cameron's latest antics at NATO, that seems to be the likely outcome - unless the west doesn't want to commit manpower in the latter stages.
And unless China or other countries ally with Russia.
They wouldn't be able to fight as well, but they'd be able to fight. They have a standing army, they have people. What the west's support has done is made sure that more of the deaths are on the side of the aggressor than would otherwise be the case. It's given the Ukrainians a chance of making their fight potentially lead to a victory.I hear that recently the commander of the 14th mechanised brigade on the northern front line got orders to attack the Russians, but without artillery support. He refused, and a woman who was the psychologist for the brigade tried to motivate them to do it, calling them cowards etc. The commander shot her.
The West doesn't need to weaken Russia, the West could piss on Russia strongly enough to destroy it. The West is not 'using' the Ukranians for anything more than a slightly more cost-effective way of reducing the cost of destroying out of date ammunition.
If that were the sole issue that would be a problem, but Russia has to contend with the prospect of running out of political will, citizen patience and cash.
It won't have to. It may or may not choose to step in if it seems as though Ukraine is in imminent danger, but it's not obliged to.
That's your take on it based on the 'antics of David Cameron'. I suppose he is a more reliable source than Vladimir Putin... technically.
China benefits from Russia being ground down, they want more destitute vassal states - that's the potential downside for Western democracies (and, more to the point, their economies).
Still no mention of Putin's duty not to instigate warfare and kill people for his personal and national vanity, then?
O.
I hear that recently the commander of the 14th mechanised brigade on the northern front line got orders to attack the Russians, but without artillery support. He refused, and a woman who was the psychologist for the brigade tried to motivate them to do it, calling them cowards etc. The commander shot her.
So this suggests the actual soldiers on the ground are not willing to fight without weapons.
So western weapons supply is escalating the war.
Yes I see the enthusiasm for using up old ammo, is that ethical if it leads to increased deaths on the defending side?
Seems like escalation to me.
I think both sides will fight on until one army collapses, and that will be Ukraine's.
Putin is popular and their economy is good, despite sanctions.
China has committed to supporting Russia, iirc.
So while I can understand your reasoning, I think strategically it is flawed.
As for Putin being a bully. He comes across as a gentleman in interviews on "Ukraine on Fire".
Comparing him with the thugs who led the Maidan revolt
I think there is a side to the story you are ignoring, and this is continually manifest in the current shelling of civilians in Donetsk, and the lies used by Ukrainian politicians to win sympathy.
Yes I know the Russian army has some foul characters in it but there are also a lot of gentlemen. I will stop there as don't want to get into a massive argument with you.
They wouldn't be able to fight without western weapons, so all the west has done is increase the number of Ukrainians who will die. Apparently then the west is using Ukrainians to weaken Russia. Weaken, as opposed to defeat, because the problem remains that Ukraine will run out of manpower faster than Russia. So when that time comes, the west will have to replace the defeated Ukrainian forces and carry on the attrition until Russia is defeated. Given Cameron's latest antics at NATO, that seems to be the likely outcome - unless the west doesn't want to commit manpower in the latter stages. And unless China or other countries ally with Russia.
Did you hear that, did you? More to the point, did you believe that?Even if Putin is the bad guy he will die eventually. And your strategy relies on the death of a large proportion of the Ukrainian population, women and teenagers included at which point Russia will still take the four oblasts it annexed. Mine says that Putin is not Hitler, he is not coming for Europe and we should step back and provide non-lethal aid only.
It suggests that there's someone here willing to listen to Russian propoganda. I don't doubt that there are Ukrainians unwilling to fight without sufficient weaponry, there's ample evidence of Ukrainians unwilling to fight even if there is sufficient weaponry, but I've not seen anything credible to suggest that Ukrainian leadership has resorted to shooting malcontents.
Western weaponry is allowing the Ukrainian people to fulfil their choice of response, namely fighting for their freedom from corrupt Russian oppression.
I don't think you understand how ammunition works. Notwithstanding your 'totally happened' story above, the Ukrainians use the ammunition on their invaders. It leads to increased deaths on the attackers side.
Giving people the means to defend themselves is not escalation, Russia should have expected resistance. NATO forces invading Russia would be an escalation, that hasn't happened.
That's a distinctly unfortunate possibility at this point.
Putin has a propoganda wing that is selling the story that he's popular - he has a strong following, but there is also a strong (if understandably understated) opposition. Their economy is in the shitter, it wasn't strong before.
You trust all the reliable sources. China hasn't committed to very much at all, China has issued a lot pleasantries that fail to criticise Russia, it's said some encouraging things, it's bought Russian exports at bargain-basement prices, but it's committed very, very little.
I think, strategically, it's not fantastic for Ukraine, but the only way to make things any better for them is to actually escalate the situation, which pretty much everyone agrees would be a bad thing.
I'm sure that's very convincing for the people of the country that he's indiscriminately bombing to prop up his failing regime.
You mean the protesters who were shot at by the pro-Russian politician who defied the will of is own people? Just so we're clear we're talking about the same thing.
So the Ukranians who have Russians in their country are lying, but the Russians who have crossed a clearly defined border are being totally honest? The independent media outlets of countries around the world are retelling Ukranian lies, whilst the state-sponsored outlets of the Russian police-state are telling the unvarnished truth. Are you really that credulous? Do you really expect anyone else to be?
It's a bit late for that. You've continually supported a regime that has repeatedly invaded neighbouring countries on patently absurd pretexts, you parrot the lies of that regime and you still, now, can't find it in yourself, even if your motivation is just to stop the bloodshed, to actually admit that the underlying cause of all this is Russian aggression.
You're a shill for an imperialist bully - I have every interest in arguing with you on this, because what you're doing is morally indefensible.
O.
Even if Putin is the bad guy he will die eventually.
And your strategy relies on the death of a large proportion of the Ukrainian population, women and teenagers included at which point Russia will still take the four oblasts it annexed.
Mine says that Putin is not Hitler, he is not coming for Europe and we should step back and provide non-lethal aid only.
General Mark Milley is based AF!Before I commit fully to a take on this, did he qualify Russian in any way? Adult? Soldier? Soldier involved in Ukariane invasion?
https://x.com/Jamie04381095/status/1732221590379680028?s=20
Before I commit fully to a take on this, did he qualufy Russian in any way? Adult? Soldier? Soldier involved in Ukariane invasion?NS,
On a frigid U.S. air base in Germany, the top U.S. military officer was in his element. Striding along the training area in his fatigues, Army Gen. Mark Milley bellowed at the Ukrainian troops gathered around him.https://apnews.com/article/mark-milley-chairman-joint-chiefs-legacy-31aa4818229448a5b5aa687fa10819dd
“Slava Ukraini!” he hollered, again and again, the “glory to Ukraine” battle cry.
Before I commit fully to a take on this, did he qualufy Russian in any way? Adult? Soldier? Soldier involved in Ukariane invasion?
I assume he's referring to occupiers, seeing this was addressed to Ukrainian special forces. Still, who knows? Former Rada member Kiva, a traitor who fled to Russia on the eve of the full scale invasion, was found dead in a pool of blood in Moscow today. He got his wages. All those who actively work for the war, whether in Ukraine or not, should not feel safe.Let's for the sake of sanity assume he meant something like that. Then he wants to commit war crimes. It's not 'based' unless we take that to mean psychopathic thug.
Let's for the sake of sanity assume he meant something like that. Then he wants to commit war crimes. It's not 'based' unless we take that to mean psychopathic thug.
We'll have to agree to disagree.He wants to murder prison conscripts by individual attack purely to kill them. That would be a war crime.
He wants to murder prison conscripts by individual attack purely to kill them. That would be a war crime.
There should not be a single Russian who goes to bed without wondering if his throat will be cut in the middle of the night — U.S. 🇺🇸 General Mark Milley(From twitter)
Soon they’ll be back on the front lines fighting the Russians, he (Gen Milley) told them, ...My reading is that it's any Putin 'no' men who should worry about being murdered (as order by Putin.)?Edited, back to presumptive texting again...
As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Milley has spent the better part of the last two years rallying allies to provide weapons for the Ukrainian forces.
Either I am or everybody is misreading this.(From twitter)Don't see how in talking to the Ukrainians who he supports, he's not talking about Ukrainian action to create fear in Russians.
Reading the article from the earlier link I posted, My reading is that it's any Putin 'no' men who should worry about being murdered (as order by Putin.)?Edited, back to presumptive texting again...
First they came for the Ukraine, but I was not Ukrainian so I stood by... You're an apologist for an atrocity.And why did they 'come for Ukraine'?. Because they wouldn't stand by.
And why did they 'come for Ukraine'?. Because they wouldn't stand by.
https://youtu.be/2AqijdHFyOM?si=LmRQFdLlXkfbdCf4
Putin is popular and their economy is good, despite sanctions. China has committed to supporting Russia, iirc.
So while I can understand your reasoning, I think strategically it is flawed.
As for Putin being a bully. He comes across as a gentleman in interviews on "Ukraine on Fire". Comparing him with the thugs who led the Maidan revolt, I think there is a side to the story you are ignoring, and this is continually manifest in the current shelling of civilians in Donetsk, and the lies used by Ukrainian politicians to win sympathy.
Yes I know the Russian army has some foul characters in it but there are also a lot of gentlemen. I will stop there as don't want to get into a massive argument with you.
And why did they 'come for Ukraine'?. Because they wouldn't stand by.
https://youtu.be/2AqijdHFyOM?si=LmRQFdLlXkfbdCf4
So you believe might is right?No, but if everyone decided to fight against anyone who did evil against them, people would be fighting all the time. "Do not repay evil for evil". Don't you think it's better to resist the temptation to retaliate?
Even for you, that makes no sense.Did you watch the video? It's in Russian but it seems to be saying that Russia is fighting fascism, for which it shows evidence. The one clip with English subtitles is from a BBC report on nationalists who took part in the Maidan riots. The man said that anyone who 'likes Russia should move to Russia". The people with him were brandishing guns - what does that tell us?
Let me remind you that Hitler was a dog-lover and a vegetarianPutin doesn't want to invade NATO countries - he doesn't have the military capability. Unlike Hitler who tried to occupy pretty much the whole of Europe.
No, but if everyone decided to fight against anyone who did evil against them, people would be fighting all the time. "Do not repay evil for evil". Don't you think it's better to resist the temptation to retaliate?
Did you watch the video? It's in Russian but it seems to be saying that Russia is fighting fascism, for which it shows evidence.
The one clip with English subtitles is from a BBC report on nationalists who took part in the Maidan riots. The man said that anyone who 'likes Russia should move to Russia". The people with him were brandishing guns - what does that tell us?
Putin doesn't want to invade NATO countries - he doesn't have the military capability.
Unlike Hitler who tried to occupy pretty much the whole of Europe.
Defending yourself is not retaliation, it's (and the clue is in the name) self-defence. If every slight was met with violence that would be an issue, but this is not a disproportionate response.Self-defence is instinctive but ultimately has to be consciously controlled.
That they're prepared to defend themselves against a hostile invasion by the dictator of a failed state propping up his regime would be my first guess.It suggests they wanted to ethnically cleanse Ukraine.
Self-defence is instinctive but ultimately has to be consciously controlled.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.
It suggests they wanted to ethnically cleanse Ukraine.That is exactly what Russia wants to do.
Putin doesn't want to invade NATO countries - he doesn't have the military capability. Unlike Hitler who tried to occupy pretty much the whole of Europe.
Did you watch the video? It's in Russian but it seems to be saying that Russia is fighting fascism, for which it shows evidence. The one clip with English subtitles is from a BBC report on nationalists who took part in the Maidan riots. The man said that anyone who 'likes Russia should move to Russia". The people with him were brandishing guns - what does that tell us?
Self-defence is instinctive but ultimately has to be consciously controlled.
It suggests they wanted to ethnically cleanse Ukraine. The interview was (posted) 28 Feb 2014 after Maidan. https://youtu.be/5SBo0akeDMY?si=hpugj7FIqwponHHP
No? You could have fooled me! Russia has only spent billions on a disinformation campaign, trying to undermine the institutions of the West, including NATO. He now has the likes of Orban, Trump (and his MAGA morons) doing his work.How does that show that he wants to invade NATO countries?
How does that show that he wants to invade NATO countries?
Irrelevant. We're considering whether it's justifiable or unjustifiable.If you watch the bit at 4:49 on the video in #1407, it shows a school in Kiev some time around March/April 2014, where a big crowd of kids is shouting "hang the Russians" while jumping up and down.
Let's presume, for a moment, that it does suggest that. Do you trust that it's genuine, given Russia's well-established propaganda and misinformation campaigns. Given that we've seen no reliable evidence, nothing from any neutral parties, to suggest that anything about Ukraine's activities would have supported that goal, and plenty to suggest that it's Russia with a goal of eliminating the concept of independent statehood from the former Soviet countries, this doesn't seem credible.
O.
By weakening NATO. Trump has already threatened to leave, and Orban is Putin's bitch.That could just be to enable Russia to achieve it's stated aims, though.
If you watch the bit at 4:49 on the video in #1407, it shows a school in Kiev some time around March/April 2014, where a big crowd of kids is shouting "hang the Russians" while jumping up and down.
Evidence that they still have that they have the goal of ethnic cleansing would be the continual indiscriminate shelling of Donesk civilians. Of course there isn't evidence of it having directly taken place, because it was checked after Maidan by pro-Russian Separatists supported by Russia.
The BBC doesn't report on this as it is only interested when Ukrainian civilians are hit by Russia.
By weakening NATO. Trump has already threatened to leave, and Orban is Putin's bitch.Hungary is landlocked and relies on Russian gas etc, so it would obviously not allow weapons to pass to ukraine through it.
Hungary is landlocked and relies on Russian gas etc, so it would obviously not allow weapons to pass to ukraine through it.
I wonder what might have prompted that outburst just following the first Russian invasion of Ukraine, by way of their annexation of Crimea.The Russian annexation of Crimea could have provoked it, yes.
Huge swathes of Europe were reliant on Russian gas at the start of the conflict, that hasn't stopped them arming Ukraine. Hungary, under Orban, has his own vested interests in splitting EU and NATO opinion on issues. Whilst the financial impact of gas supplies is, undoubtedly, one of those issues (especially as the EU continues to hold up funds as a result of Orban's authoritarian legislative measures) it's not the only reason.Right. So Russia wants to do business with Europe, not invade it as Biden claims in his latest attempt to persuade Congress to continue to fund the war.
O.
If you watch the bit at 4:49 on the video in #1407, it shows a school in Kiev some time around March/April 2014, where a big crowd of kids is shouting "hang the Russians" while jumping up and down.
Evidence that they still have the goal of ethnic cleansing would be the continual indiscriminate shelling of Donesk civilians.It' Russia doing the indiscriminate shelling.
Of course there isn't evidence of ethnic cleansing having directly taken place, because it was checked after Maidan by pro-Russian Separatists supported by Russia.They covered up the ethnic cleansing by Russia?
They are rounding up anyone they like and send them to the front line, they also form anti-retreat squads.
The Russian annexation of Crimea could have provoked it, yes.
There is daily reporting of shelling of civilian areas in Tass website, backed up by independent journalists.
Would Tass make these up every day?
The reason the nationalists are characterized as neo-nazis is because even though they are a small minority, they enjoy killing (admitted by Andre Biletsky) and use extreme violence to achieve their aims.
So they have a large influence over the country. They are rounding up anyone they like and send them to the front line, they also form anti-retreat squads.
Right. So Russia wants to do business with Europe, not invade it as Biden claims in his latest attempt to persuade Congress to continue to fund the war.
Hungary is landlocked and relies on Russian gas etc, so it would obviously not allow weapons to pass to ukraine through it.
EU to open membership talks with Ukraine and Moldova.
Interesting
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67722252
Hungary blocks EU aid to Ukraine
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357
You sure you're talking about Ukrainian nationalists here?Yes, there's video evidence of people being kidnapped. This is a capital offence in the Bible.
"Rounding up anyone and sending them to the front line" was a standard policy of the Soviet Union, and Putin has cold-bloodedly followed suit.They have compulsory conscription between 18-30 I think, with penalties for dodging it, but afaik they don't kidnap people do they?
In the former case, the free world actually benefited from this policy to beat the German Nazis. I doubt anyone is likely to benefit from Putin's implementation of it; neither Russian, Ukrainian nor the rest of the world."With Ukraine’s military facing mounting deaths and a stalemate on the battlefield, army recruiters have become increasingly aggressive in their efforts to replenish the ranks, in some cases pulling men off the streets and whisking them to recruiting centers using intimidation and even physical force." - New York Times
Yes, there's video evidence of people being kidnapped. This is a capital offence in the Bible.
They have compulsory conscription between 18-30 I think, with penalties for dodging it, but afaik they don't kidnap people do they?
Who gives a shit what your book of fairy stories says, it's the agreed upon principles of warfare that apply. I presume you're talking about the approximately 1.9 million Ukrainian's 'deported' to Russia, including over 300,000 children? Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War)Deportation wouldn't be right, unless the people in Donbass weren't safe due to constant risk of being hit by Ukrainian bombs.
Russia recently passed a bill increasing the upper age limit for conscription from 27 to 30, so yes that's the age range from January 1st next year. As to kidnap, I'm not aware of Russians being kidnapped - prevented from leaving the country if they're not rich enough to bribe the officials - but there are reports of kidnapped Ukrainian orphans being forced into service. Link 1 (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12732857/Ukrainian-orphan-17-abducted-Kremlin-forced-citizenship-faces-conscription-Russian-army.html) Link 2 (https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/11/08/russia-about-to-conscript-teen-it-kidnapped-from-ukraine/)
There are opposition members in Russia being forcibly conscripted, but I'm not sure enforcing the regulations entail 'kidnapping' as such, despite the headlines to some of these depressing stories. Link (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50912822)
Any luck with that admission that Putin's ultimately at fault for his continued invasion of neighbouring countries, or are you still liberally spreading the blame around Ukraine and the West?
O.
Deportation wouldn't be right, unless the people in Donbass weren't safe due to constant risk of being hit by Ukrainian bombs.
The principles of warfare do not include shooting your own soldiers if they retreat in battle or your population if they refuse to be conscripted.
I'm not condoning Russia for their war crimes, of which I know there are plenty, I'm just pointing out that Ukraine is equally guilty of them. For evidence, see Patrick Lancaster (particularly his latest video),. As per my position at the start of the war, Ukraine should have surrendered regardless of whether Russia was justified in invading.
Deportation wouldn't be right, unless the people in Donbass weren't safe due to constant risk of being hit by Ukrainian bombs.
The principles of warfare do not include shooting your own soldiers if they retreat in battle or your population if they refuse to be conscripted.
I'm not condoning Russia for their war crimes, of which I know there are plenty, I'm just pointing out that Ukraine is equally guilty of them.
As per my position at the start of the war, Ukraine should have surrendered regardless of whether Russia was justified in invading.
Deportation wouldn't be right, unless the people in Donbass weren't safe due to constant risk of being hit by Ukrainian bombs.The people of Donbas aren't safe because there is a Russian invasion force on their land.
The principles of warfare do not include shooting your own soldiers if they retreat in battle or your population if they refuse to be conscripted.But Russians do it. How about that?
I'm not condoning Russia for their war crimes,I'd use the word "excusing" rather than "condoning". You excuse the Russians. You are an apologist for Russian aggression.
Leonid Gozman writes : http://tinyurl.com/4n7d9ej4
Do you think Putin will stop?Russia's actions will be influenced by the US and NATO's actions; we know this to be true because, as I previously noted in this thread, after it was announced in 2008 that Ukraine would one day join NATO, the then US ambassador to Moscow William Burns warned that this could provoke Russia to intervene militarily. His warning went unheeded and what he predicted, happened
Despite the use of the word "damaged" in the headline, the ship was actually turned into a submarine or sunk, in layman's terms. Russia's Black Sea fleet is slowly but surely dwindling. Moskal propagandists are coping hard. Imagine what Ukraine could do if we actually gave them everything they needed!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67821515
The trouble is that the Black Sea Fleet is largely irrelevant in this war.They would want a legally binding guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO before they would hand Crimea back.
I suppose you could argue that, once it's all gone, the Russians won't need Sevastopol any more and can thus leave Crimea.
They would want a legally binding guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO before they would hand Crimea back.Putin has illegally annexed Crimea, illegally invaded Ukraine and illegally murdered dissidents with radioactive poison (again illegal), suspicious windows and and suspiciously exploding airplanes.
Also they would demand that the people of Crimea decide whether they want to be part of Ukraine again.
Putin has illegally annexed Crimea, illegally invaded Ukraine and illegally murdered dissidents with radioactive poison (again illegal), suspicious windows and and suspiciously exploding airplanes.See my last post. NATO provoked Russia. It would therefore have to work out how to regain Russia's trust.
Just how legally binding could any agreement with Putin and Ukraine be? You're willful naivety is beyond contempt.
See my last post. NATO provoked Russia. It would therefore have to work out how to regain Russia's trust.Because appeasing a murderous dictator is so on brand for you.
See my last post. NATO provoked Russia. It would therefore have to work out how to regain Russia's trust.Russia would 'gain trust' if Putin was arrested and put on trial in the International Court of Justice.
They would want a legally binding guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO before they would hand Crimea back.
Also they would demand that the people of Crimea decide whether they want to be part of Ukraine again.
See my last post. NATO provoked Russia. It would therefore have to work out how to regain Russia's trust.
Because appeasing a murderous dictator is so on brand for you.It's not appeasement.
Russia would 'gain trust' if Putin was arrested and put on trial in the International Court of Justice.NATO would have gained Russia's trust if it had backed off.
See my last post. NATO provoked Russia. It would therefore have to work out how to regain Russia's trust.
It's not appeasement.
NATO would have gained Russia's trust if it had backed off.
Oh, you mean ask Russian occupiers what they want? Tell me, do you know anything about Crimean Tartars?Yes, a little; they refused to vote in the referendum iirc. I think the main issue was about preventing the US from having access to Crimea, though, hence its immediate seizure in March 2014.
Yes it is.Not if Crimea was given back to Ukraine in return for NATO weapons being removed from Ukraine and there was a no NATO membership guarantee.
NATO never provoked Russia. Russia is paranoid.Russia perceives encirclement.
Yes, a little; they refused to vote in the referendum iirc. I think the main issue was about preventing the US from having access to Crimea
Russia perceives encirclement.What 'perverted values'?
Thing is, the West will not give Ukraine what it needs. Read about how Zedekiah turned to Egypt at the time of the Babylonian invasion. The West needs to repent of it's perverted values, then there will be peace.
Not if Crimea was given back to Ukraine in return for NATO weapons being removed from Ukraine and there was a no NATO membership guarantee.
What 'perverted values'?
Russia perceives encirclement.
Thing is, the West will not give Ukraine what it needs. Read about how Zedekiah turned to Egypt at the time of the Babylonian invasion. The West needs to repent of it's perverted values, then there will be peace.
This is a joke, isn't it? As for "perverted values", do you know what the Russian army does when it's not looting, raping, torturing and murdering civilians? It spends it's time sticking their dicks in each others' mouths and arses, or sends conscripts out on the game. But don't worry, it's totally not gay. It's just rape!You and Spud seem like mirror images on occasion.
This is a joke, isn't it? As for "perverted values", do you know what the Russian army does when it's not looting, raping, torturing and murdering civilians? It spends it's time sticking their dicks in each others' mouths and arses, or sends conscripts out on the game. But don't worry, it's totally not gay. It's just rape!
Biggest Russian terror attack of the war. All civilian targets. Over a hundred missiles and drones. In a just world Ukraine's hands would be untied and Moscow would be burning.In a just world, Kyiv and Moscow would be working together for the good of their citizens.
https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1740639525993414808?s=19
Biggest Russian terror attack of the war. All civilian targets. Over a hundred missiles and drones. In a just world Ukraine's hands would be untied and Moscow would be burning.
https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1740639525993414808?s=19
Russia perceives encirclement.
Thing is, the West will not give Ukraine what it needs. Read about how Zedekiah turned to Egypt at the time of the Babylonian invasion. The West needs to repent of it's perverted values, then there will be peace.
Rumours Gerasimov may have been killed in a Storm Shadow missile strike on a command post in Sevastopol. Big, if true. The Ukrainian Air Force is cat posting on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/KpsZSU/status/1742940339504091416?s=19
What does posting a cat mean?
It's kind of gloat. I did something, at the expense of someone else.
Btw, cats are based because they are the most naturally ruSSophobic animal.
Thanks. Never heard of that before.
Would be big if true as said.
US says Russia using North Korea ballistic missiles.
It's all such a jolly start to the new year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67888793
This is so infuriating. While Russia's allies are supplying Russia with weapons, Ukraine's allies (mainly US and Germany) are still dithering about providing Ukraine with missiles that could reach Russia's launch sites. This is costing lives.There is confusion as to whether Russia would invade a NATO ally; Biden says (to justify continuing to send weapons to Ukraine) they will, if they are allowed to win in Ukraine. Yet Jeremy says they won't invade Ukraine if it joins NATO.
There is confusion as to whether Russia would invade a NATO ally; Biden says (to justify continuing to send weapons to Ukraine) they will, if they are allowed to win in Ukraine. Yet Jeremy says they won't invade Ukraine if it joins NATO.
Any provision of such missiles would only provoke Russia into a bigger response that would weaken Ukraine more. The only way to defeat Russia would be by using stealth fighters and bombers which would require Western pilots. That would risk nuclear war which the West would lose. The only way to achieve peace is to agree to Russia's terms and trust that it will not invade further territories. Although its Western border is technically already encircled, Crimea seems to be a doorway that it will not allow to be closed, thus Russia will not give it up. William Burns predicted this in 2008.
Try to remember, Russia is a big (fairly flat-ish) country and Putin is a jumped up Demagogue, slowly going bald.
There are (or were) some Russians who demonstrated against Putin's wars and some of them were killed or are in prison. The more times anyone tried to accuse Russia, the more times I'll point out the protagonist is really a short arsed slaphead. Not a country.
Bollocks! Russia has broken every single agreement it ever made. Why would it not break the one you suggest?I am not saying it won't, only that the conflicting claims about them attacking NATO territory show that nobody knows whether they would or not. Your suggestion of giving Ukraine long range missiles won't work, it will just be a pr stunt to make it look as though Ukraine can win, and eventually Ukraine's manpower will dry up. The only other options are for NATO to collectively defeat Russia, which it doesn't have the stomach for, or to negotiate and see what happens. I don't believe Russia would want to extend the war into NATO territory, it only wants to keep NATO off it's front doorstep
I am not saying it won't, only that the conflicting claims about them attacking NATO territory show that nobody knows whether they would or not. Your suggestion of giving Ukraine long range missiles won't work, it will just be a pr stunt to make it look as though Ukraine can win, and eventually Ukraine's manpower will dry up. The only other options are for NATO to collectively defeat Russia, which it doesn't have the stomach for, or to negotiate and see what happens. I don't believe Russia would want to extend the war into NATO territory, it only wants to keep NATO off it's front doorstep
Russia's actions will be influenced by the US and NATO's actions; we know this to be true because, as I previously noted in this thread, after it was announced in 2008 that Ukraine would one day join NATO, the then US ambassador to Moscow William Burns warned that this could provoke Russia to intervene militarily. His warning went unheeded and what he predicted, happened
https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/27/us-nato-expansion-ukraine-russia-intervene/
They would want a legally binding guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO before they would hand Crimea back.
Also they would demand that the people of Crimea decide whether they want to be part of Ukraine again.
See my last post. NATO provoked Russia. It would therefore have to work out how to regain Russia's trust.
Russia perceives encirclement.
Thing is, the West will not give Ukraine what it needs.
Read about how Zedekiah turned to Egypt at the time of the Babylonian invasion.
The West needs to repent of it's perverted values, then there will be peace.
There is confusion as to whether Russia would invade a NATO ally; Biden says (to justify continuing to send weapons to Ukraine) they will, if they are allowed to win in Ukraine. Yet Jeremy says they won't invade Ukraine if it joins NATO.
Any provision of such missiles would only provoke Russia into a bigger response that would weaken Ukraine more.
The only way to defeat Russia would be by using stealth fighters and bombers which would require Western pilots.
That would risk nuclear war which the West would lose.
The only way to achieve peace is to agree to Russia's terms and trust that it will not invade further territories.
Although its Western border is technically already encircled, Crimea seems to be a doorway that it will not allow to be closed, thus Russia will not give it up. William Burns predicted this in 2008.
I am not saying it won't, only that the conflicting claims about them attacking NATO territory show that nobody knows whether they would or not.We now know they wouldn't because it has been demonstrated that they lack the military ability to take on NATO.
Your suggestion of giving Ukraine long range missiles won't work, it will just be a pr stunt to make it look as though Ukraine can winYou better hope that Ukraine can win because, if Russia wins, the genocide will be appalling.
Russia ... only wants to keep NATO off it's front doorstep
We now know they wouldn't because it has been demonstrated that they lack the military ability to take on NATO.So, to clarify, you don't agree with Biden that if we let Putin win then he will attack a NATO member?
The chronic drunk Medvedev made yet another nuclear threat yesterday (something he will no doubt be made accountable for in the Hague one day). How many is it now? But this is how we know it's all bullshit. If they were serious, they would have done it by now. We could bomb Moscow into the fucking stoneage tomorrow, if we wanted to, and Russia would do fuck all, because all Russia knows how to do is attack those it perceives to be weak (like a true bully). The question then is why aren't we doing more to help Ukraine win?
https://twitter.com/MedvedevRussiaE/status/1745469837906739677?s=19
Because the Western leaders have a more nuanced view of the situation than you do and are better informed.
It's weakness, pure and simple. Russia knows only one language, force.
I'm sure Russia does know only one language but NATO attacking Moscow will cause a global war even if it doesn't go nuclear.
Despite my personal opinions regarding flattening Russian cities, that's not what I was saying. My point was, Russian threats are bollocks, therefore why are we still holding back regarding Ukraine military aid (especially long range missiles).Because such things are expensive, risk a further escalation, and are far from universally popular.
Because such things are expensive, risk a further escalation, and are far from universally popular.
We've learned nothing then. It seems Russia has better allies than Ukraine does. The "risking escalation" argument is bullshit. Russia launches daily attacks from Russian territory and we refuse to give Ukraine the means to stop them. That's Ukrainian blood on our hands.
And in order to stop having blood on our hands yoh want us to kill people. Hmm....
If you mean by "killing people" targeting the facilities and personnel Russia uses to launch its strikes on Ukraine, then yes!And accepting that innocents will die, and that even those 'personnel' you kill will in many cases have no choice doing what they are doing. The myth of a clean war is a tale cherished by thugs.
And accepting that innocents will die, and that even those 'personnel' you kill will in many cases have no choice doing what they are doing. The myth of a clean war is a tale cherished by thugs.
Forgive me if I don't give a shit. Just like the mobik on the frontline being blown up by drones, they could of just fucking stayed at home. Zero fucks given!Shiny shiny mirror.
Shiny shiny mirror.
Perhaps you can tell me why I should have any sympathy for a barbarian who went to loot, rape, torture and murder Ukrainians?Because dehumanising people like that is exactly the mirror of Russia.
Because dehumanising people like that is exactly the mirror of Russia.
Perhaps you can tell me why I should have any sympathy for a barbarian who went to loot, rape, torture and murder Ukrainians?These were the actions of some russian soldiers but not the purpose of the special military operation.
My point was, Russian threats are bollocks,
It's those neo-Nazis who are the target of the Russians. Keep in mind that's the purpose of the Russian government, even if individual soldiers are raping and looting etc.
No. Your opinion is that they are bollocks. Western leaders are probably better informed about the credibility of Russian threats than either of us.
And, even if they aren't, bombing civilian targets will not have the effect you want. In fact, it would be a propaganda windfall for Putin.
These were the actions of some russian soldiers but not the purpose of the special military operation.
I thought I would share a clip showing Evgeny Karas describing how the Ukrainian neo-Nazis made up a small proportion of the Maidan protests and how without their provocations the revolution wouldn't have happened.
See here from 15:30 (https://youtu.be/0C1O2WWqyPQ?si=y8mYdsQc8uMc56Va)
(The video mistakes him for Andriy Biletsky).
This proves, since it comes from the horse's mouth, that the provocateurs weren't planted by the Berkut in order to give them an excuse to beat the protesters so hard that they didn't come back (as claimed in the documentary 'Winter on fire'). Rather, their presence was somehow initiated by the US to ensure its anti-russian agenda was achieved (as the documentary 'ukraine on fire' describes).
Perhaps if the protests had continued peacefully, the issues around the signing of the agreement with the EU would have been resolved.
It's those neo-Nazis who are the target of the Russians. Keep in mind that's the purpose of the Russian government, even if individual soldiers are raping and looting etc.
Also keep in mind what Jeremy said, that attacking targets inside Russia will case a global war.
It's weakness, pure and simple. Russia knows only one language, force.I 'ad that Volodymir Zelensky in the back of the cab once.
I 'ad that Volodymir Zelensky in the back of the cab once.
Eh?"The only language they understand, innit?". You sounded a bit like a stereotypical taxi-driver.
"The only language they understand, innit?". You sounded a bit like a stereotypical taxi-driver.Ok, I get it.
No. Your opinion is that they are bollocks. Western leaders are probably better informed about the credibility of Russian threats than either of us.
And, even if they aren't, bombing civilian targets will not have the effect you want. In fact, it would be a propaganda windfall for Putin.
Again, despite my own views, I wasn't referring to civilian targets. Launch sites and their personnel are legitimate targets. We have one side (Russia) that doesn't care about the rules of war. Looting, raping, torturing and murdering are part of their war plan. Meanwhile we tie one of Ukraine's arms behind its back. Russia launches missiles, from within Russia, that target apartment buildings, hospitals, shopping malls, hotels etc and we won't give Ukraine the means to stop that. Fucking moral eunachs, no fucking balls!
I'll tell you what we should do. It would be easy and the quickest way to end the war. Everytime Russia bombs a hospital, or hotel, or apartment building, everytime a new mass grave is found, we kill the entire family of a Russian oligarch. As soon as they clock on the war would end and Putin would be drinking polonium tea or falling out of a tenth story window quicker than he could say blyat!
Well it failed at that when Finland joined NATO. Good job Putin.That's NATO's and Ukraine's fault for committing to Ukrainian membership, not Putin's fault. Ukraine wanted NATO membership as well as to get Crimea back, but that is a red line for Russia because it would mean America's military alliance would have a naval base on Russia's doorstep.
That's NATO's and Ukraine's fault for committing to Ukrainian membership, not Putin's fault.
Ukraine wanted NATO membership as well as to get Crimea back, but that is a red line for Russia because it would mean America's military alliance would have a naval base on Russia's doorstep.
Ukraine wanted NATO membership before Russia invaded Crimea"Polls conducted between 2005 and 2013 found low support among Ukrainians for NATO membership" - wiki
That's NATO's and Ukraine's fault
Ukraine wanted NATO membership as well as to get Crimea back, but that is a red line for Russia because it would mean America's military alliance would have a naval base on Russia's doorstep.Well, when the warr is over, Russia has virtually guaranteed that Ukraine will join NATO.
"Polls conducted between 2005 and 2013 found low support among Ukrainians for NATO membership" - wiki
What do you mean "fault"? NATO and Ukraine don't regard it as a bad thing that Finland joined. And Finland wouldn't have joined without the Russian murderous rampage.I suspect the people of NATO would hesitate to see Finland's membership as a good thing. For example, Biden recently said that America doesn't want to fight Russia.
Well, when the warr is over, Russia has virtually guaranteed that Ukraine will join NATO.
Not only that, but NATO already controls the entrance to the Black Sea, so, strategically, who owns Crimea is of little import.
I suspect the people of NATO would hesitate to see Finland's membership as a good thing.I'm part of the people of NATO. I think it's great, especially since Russia has shown itself as a major threat.
For example, Biden recently said that America doesn't want to fight Russia.
The war won't be over until Russia has it in writing that Ukraine won't join NATO.
Looking at it from another angle, I wonder how much the people of Crimea and Donbas would want to be part of NATO?Which people of Donbas and Crimea? The ones that Putin has moved in or the ones that he deported or murdered?
I suspect the people of NATO would hesitate to see Finland's membership as a good thing.
For example, Biden recently said that America doesn't want to fight Russia.
The war won't be over until Russia has it in writing that Ukraine won't join NATO.
Looking at it from another angle, I wonder how much the people of Crimea and Donbas would want to be part of NATO?
Don't believe any of the shit you hear about POW's being on the plane that crashed today. The media has been blindly repeating Russian claims.I haven't seen all.the media but what I have seen has reported that it is what is claimed by Russia, and not reported it as true.
https://twitter.com/SlavaUk30722777/status/1750154906554785998?s=19
https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1750172436996255984?s=19
I haven't seen all.the media but what I have seen has reported that it is what is claimed by Russia, and not reported it as true.
...it's important to remember that Russia specifically has a long history of brazen lies and disinformation. That was proven with the shooting down of MH17 and the Salisbury Novichok poisonings, to name just two major incidents in the past decade. Even the full-scale invasion of Ukraine was launched on a lie: the false claim that a "Nazi" regime was putting Russian speakers here at risk of "genocide". That doesn't mean every word from the Russian Defence Ministry and the Kremlin is untrue - or from MPs and the state media. But they often are, so they need checking carefully before repeating.Spud would do well to read the above and remember it before spouting more of his propaganda.
"Now assured there will be no intervention from the civilized world, Russians are now free to slowly destroy any Ukrainian city they choose."
Sounds about right. We could have finished this last year had we just given Ukraine everything it needed but I suppose there's nothing left to do but let Russia slowly genocide Ukrainians. We've let Ukraine down and we should hold our heads in shame. This, it seems, is what they gave up nuclear weapons for.
https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1750394129601749209?s=19
Please stop. We are treading a fine line here between a Russian victory and a global war. Your simplistic take on the situation is nauseating.I was going to say to ad that we have given Ukraine a lot. 'We' thought it would be enough.
I was going to say to ad that we have given Ukraine a lot. 'We' thought it would be enough.
But back to my point last year that this could have ended without half a million dead if Ukraine had agreed to Russia's terms, and your reply that there would have been genocide by Russia. If Ukraine had agreed and Russia had stopped attacking without committing genocide, would you have accepted that?
Please stop. We are treading a fine line here between a Russian victory and a global war. Your simplistic take on the situation is nauseating.
It has been enough - we supported Ukraine so that it wouldn't fall to Russia, and it hasn't fallen to Russia. We didn't give arms so that no-one else would die.I think it may be that the original objective of Ukraine was to take back Crimea - if it wasn't then, it is now. They haven't succeeded and that's what ad wants done.
And that's one of the decisions that people are having to make - if we concede to Russia, will that stop the military actions, will that stop the expansionism and the attacks and the deaths. Ukraine agreed to Russia's terms after the invasion of Crimea, and look where we are. The current Russian leadership cannot be trusted, they have a demonstrable history of breaching the agreements they make and invading neighbouring countries.
Even if I accepted the argument that who runs any given territory isn't relevant, and we should just try to limit the wars, conceding ground to Russia does not seem likely to achieve that, they will simply rearm, regroup and invade somewhere else.
O.
I think it may be that the original objective of Ukraine was to take back Crimea - if it wasn't then, it is now.
They haven't succeeded and that's what ad wants done.
I asked specifically if in March 2022 the two sides had agreed a peace deal and stuck to it, you would be ok with the loss of territory?
Jeremy was claiming there would have been genocide, but actually we don't know what would have happened.
I was reading the subtitles of Putin's speech on Feb 21 and 24 2022. He was calling for arms to be laid down and the West to stop flooding tje country with weapons, and Ukraine instead took them up, encouraged by the West. If they had done what Putin asked, there may well have been no, what you call genocide - which I interpret as attempts to root out anyone who sympathised with Bandera and the like, not all Ukrainians.
I was going to say to ad that we have given Ukraine a lot. 'We' thought it would be enough.
But back to my point last year that this could have ended without half a million dead if Ukraine had agreed to Russia's terms, and your reply that there would have been genocide by Russia. If Ukraine had agreed and Russia had stopped attacking without committing genocide, would you have accepted that?
Is this supposed to be some sort of westplaining?No, I'm just tired of your constant whining that we need to kill all Russians. The world is a complex place and a simplistic take like yours could get us all killed.
I think it may be that the original objective of Ukraine was to take back Crimea - if it wasn't then, it is now. They haven't succeeded and that's what ad wants done.Ukraine didn't start this war. Their objective was only to stop Russia from taking over their country.
I asked specifically if in March 2022 the two sides had agreed a peace deal and stuck to it, you would be ok with the loss of territory?That couldn't have happened because Russia still thought that they could get everything they wanted by using force.
Jeremy was claiming there would have been genocide, but actually we don't know what would have happened.Listen to the rhetoric coming out of Russia.
I was reading the subtitles of Putin's speech on Feb 21 and 24 2022. He was calling for arms to be laid downOf course he was. That would make it much easier to invade. Remember the BBC article I quoted?
and the West to stop flooding tje country with weapons, and Ukraine instead took them up, encouraged by the West. If they had done what Putin asked, there may well have been no, what you call genocide - which I interpret as attempts to root out anyone who sympathised with Bandera and the like, not all Ukrainians.
No, I'm just tired of your constant whining that we need to kill all Russians. The world is a complex place and a simplistic take like yours could get us all killed.
That couldn't have happened because Russia still thought that they could get everything they wanted by using force.But if, for the sake of argument, they had stuck to it, and with the hindsight that fighting would cause half a million dead, would you have accepted the loss of territory (Donbas and Crimea) and Russia's other terms?
But if, for the sake of argument, they had stuck to it, and with the hindsight that fighting would cause half a million dead, would you have accepted the loss of territory (Donbas and Crimea) and Russia's other terms?
I sense that pride is stopping Ukraine and the West from surrendering, not threat of genocide or risk of Russia invading NATO countries.
And let's also bear in mind here the admission by Merkle regarding the Minsk agreement.
But if, for the sake of argument, they had stuck to it, and with the hindsight that fighting would cause half a million dead, would you have accepted the loss of territory (Donbas and Crimea) and Russia's other terms?
I sense that pride is stopping Ukraine and the West from surrendering, not threat of genocide or risk of Russia invading NATO countries.
And let's also bear in mind here the admission by Merkle regarding the Minsk agreement.
Ukraine didn't start this war. Their objective was only to stop Russia from taking over their country.More likely, to prevent regime change. I doubt Russia can take over the whole country, but it can take the four eastern territories and perhaps effect regime change by defeating Ukraine's army on the battlefield.
More likely, to prevent regime change. I doubt Russia can take over the whole country, but it can take the four eastern territories and perhaps effect regime change by defeating Ukraine's army on the battlefield.
But if, for the sake of argument, they had stuck to it, and with the hindsight that fighting would cause half a million dead, would you have accepted the loss of territory (Donbas and Crimea) and Russia's other terms?It's not for me to say. I'm not Ukrainian.
I sense that pride is stopping Ukraine and the West from surrendering, not threat of genocide or risk of Russia invading NATO countries.No, it's pride that is stopping Putin from surrendering. He's failed, but he won't accept it. The war would stop tomorrow if Russia withdrew to the pre-2014 borders. Ukraine might even let them keep Crimea in exchange for no opposition to NATO membership.
And let's also bear in mind here the admission by Merkle regarding the Minsk agreement.
I still don't really see the strategic significance of Crimea for Russia, except for bullying its neighbours around the Black Sea. A NATO member controls the only way in or out.Same here, but maybe we should be open to the idea? It could be to do with Russia being able to prevent unwanted naval forces approaching it's Black Sea shores?
Next, notably, Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that deploying foreign military bases on its territory is illegal. However, as it turns out, this is just a conventionality that can be easily circumvented.
Ukraine is home to NATO training missions which are, in fact, foreign military bases. They just called a base a mission and were done with it.
Kiev has long proclaimed a strategic course on joining NATO. Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one's own security at the expense of the security of other states. This is stated in the 1999 OSCE Charter for European Security adopted in Istanbul and the 2010 OSCE Astana Declaration.
In other words, the choice of pathways towards ensuring security should not pose a threat to other states, whereas Ukraine joining NATO is a direct threat to Russia's security.
Finally, after the US destroyed the INF Treaty, the Pentagon has been openly developing many land-based attack weapons, including ballistic missiles that are capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 5,500 km. If deployed in Ukraine, such systems will be able to hit targets in Russia’s entire European part. The flying time of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Moscow will be less than 35 minutes; ballistic missiles from Kharkov will take seven to eight minutes; and hypersonic assault weapons, four to five minutes. It is like a knife to the throat. I have no doubt that they hope to carry out these plans, as they did many times in the past, expanding NATO eastward, moving their military infrastructure to Russian borders and fully ignoring our concerns, protests and warnings. Excuse me, but they simply did not care at all about such things and did whatever they deemed necessaryhttp://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828
Same here, but maybe we should be open to the idea?What? Open to the idea that Russia should be allowed to bully its neighbours in the Black Sea?
It could be to do with Russia being able to prevent unwanted naval forces approaching its Black Sea shores?That's just Russian paranoia again. There's no danger of NATO approaching its Black Sea shores except in time of war and if NATO was at war with Russia, Russia would no longer have a Black Sea fleet.
Note the idea that if countries in a neutral zone between two opposing alliances join on alliance, that alliance gets stronger at the expense of the other.And Putin's actions have led to two neutral countries in the "neutral zone" joining NATO. Good job Putin.
On to a Russian transport plane.
Also, this morning a video was shown on the military summary channel which claims to show the loading of pows onto the Russian transport plane. Not sure how visible the pows are as it only shows a clip.
Next, notably, Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that deploying foreign military bases on its territory is illegal. However, as it turns out, this is just a conventionality that can be easily circumvented.
What? Open to the idea that Russia should be allowed to bully its neighbours in the Black Sea?That's just Russian paranoia again. There's no danger of NATO approaching its Black Sea shores except in time of war and if NATO was at war with Russia, Russia would no longer have a Black Sea fleet.Yes but (he is saying) it was NATO's actions that led to Putin's actions. Good job NATO.
And Putin's actions have led to two neutral countries in the "neutral zone" joining NATO. Good job Putin.On to a Russian transport plane.
Also, this morning a video was shown on the military summary channel which claims to show the loading of pows onto the Russian transport plane. Not sure how visible the pows are as it only shows a clip.
No, open to the possibility that Russia had genuine security concerns.
I never will be open to that because it's all bullshit. Russia's concerns flow from pure paranoia, the kind of paranoia that comes from fearing having done to you that which you've done to others. The solution was always simple: if you don't want NATO to expand, don't invade your neighbours. Everything else is just excuses and victim blaming.Okay, in principle you have a point, however I'm not sure whether the timing of Russian wars and NATO expansion of the last 3 decades was such that we can say that the latter was the result of the former, as your statement claims.
Yes but (he is saying) it was NATO's actions that led to Putin's actions.But that would be a lie. It wasn't NATO's actions that led to Putin's actions. Putin did what he did to distract his population from domestic issues.
No, open to the possibility that Russia had genuine security concerns.But they didn't. You know as well as I do that there was no chance of NATO invading Russia.
Yes but (he is saying) it was NATO's actions that led to Putin's actions.
No, open to the possibility that Russia had genuine security concerns.
Yer Da sells Avon for PutinThat’s it. I’m boycotting Avon’s products.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67425366
But if, for the sake of argument, Russia hadn't invaded in the first place... we can't deal with the authoritarian, expansionist dick-bags we wish we had, we have to deal with the ones we have.If the rearming was purely for defence, why are the weapons being used for terror attacks? The latest was in Lisichansk (https://tass.com/politics/1741877) and killed 28. So if NATO expansion couldn't justify the invasion, can these attacks on civilians?
I sense that a desperate need to somehow shift the blame onto Ukraine and the west has you scrabbling for the most bat-shit crazy excuses you can find. Even if pride were the major element of it, it just change the fundamental, unalterable, unavoidable reality that the blame for all of this lies on Russia for its - checks records - eighth* invasion of a foreign nation in the last thirty or so years.
*Transnistra/Moldova 1992-94, Abkhazia/Georgia 1993, Chechnya 1994-96, Chechnya 2 1999-2009, Georgia 2 2008, Syria 2015-22, Ukraine 2014-15, Ukraine 2 2022-???
Which is what? Angela Merkel said a lot of things, not least in her sixteen years as a Chancellor having to deal with a world made more dangerous by, amongst other things, Russian expansionism, militarism and sabre-rattling.
Are you referring to her commentary that the pause in fighting between 2015 and 2022 gave Ukraine the opportunity to re-arm and prepare defences? So what, that's an appropriate response to a recent invasion, and is further justified by the reality that the invasion it was preparing for came exactly as predicted. Ukraine didn't rearm in order to invade Russia, but Russia did rearm to reinvade Ukraine. Exactly where is the problematic part of Ukraine engaging in diplomatic measures to build up what it hoped would be a deterrent to prevent exactly the bloodshed that you keep trying to pin on them?
O.
If the rearming was purely for defence, why are the weapons being used for terror attacks?It's the Russians doing the terror attacks.
The latest was in Lisichansk (https://tass.com/politics/1741877) and killed 28. So if it can't be NATO expansion that justified the invasion, can it be these attacks on civilians?Unfortunately, civilians often get caught in the cross fire. Do not assume that the propaganda service of Putin is telling the truth.
NATO only represents a threat to Russia's security because it's a mutual defence alliance and he keeps on invading places.Ditching the ABM treaty was quite a big factor. If the US puts ABMs near the border with launch pads that can be converted to support offensive missiles within hours or days, Russia has to respond by making better missiles that can evade the ABMs.
If the rearming was purely for defence, why are the weapons being used for terror attacks?
The latest was in Lisichansk (https://tass.com/politics/1741877) and killed 28. So if it can't be NATO expansion that justified the invasion, can it be these attacks on civilians?
Ditching the ABM treaty was quite a big factor.
If they put ABMs near the border with launch pads that can be converted to support offensive missiles within hours or days, Russia has to respond by making better missiles than can evade the ABMs.
Ditching the ABM treaty was quite a big factor. If the US puts ABMs near the border with launch pads that can be converted to support offensive missiles within hours or days, Russia has to respond by making better missiles that can evade the ABMs.Wouldn't Russia only need missiles that could evade America's ABM's if Russia intended attacking American interests?
Wouldn't Russia only need missiles that could evade America's ABM's if Russia intended attacking American interests?After America ditched the treaty, Russia then needed to make their missiles better because America could launch at Russia and also prevent (with its ABMs) Russia responding.
After America ditched the treaty, Russia then needed to make their missiles better because America could launch at Russia and also prevent (with its ABMs) Russia responding.
If the rearming was purely for defence, why are the weapons being used for terror attacks? The latest was in Lisichansk (https://tass.com/politics/1741877) and killed 28. So if NATO expansion couldn't justify the invasion, can these attacks on civilians?
Let's assume, though, that worst case scenario it's the first of those, that Ukraine deliberately targetted a civilian target - Firstly, the are retaliating for the ongoing invasion and indiscriminate bombing of their country. Secondly, whether or not you consider them 'terrorist' attacks or not is somewhat subjective, but certainly they're no more so than the attacks of the INVADING RUSSIAN FORCES IN THEIR COUNTRYThe Lysychansk bombing was an example of what the Ukrainians have been doing since 2014 .
The Lysychansk bombing was an example of what the Ukrainians have been doing since 2014 .
After America ditched the treaty, Russia then needed to make their missiles better because America could launch at Russia and also prevent (with its ABMs) Russia responding.
The Lysychansk bombing was an example of what the Ukrainians have been doing since 2014 .
Or how about the attack on a market in Donetsk 2 weeks ago?
The Lysychansk bombing was an example of what the Ukrainians have been doing since 2014 .
Or how about the attack on a market in Donetsk 2 weeks ago?
Are you referring to her commentary that the pause in fighting between 2015 and 2022 gave Ukraine the opportunity to re-arm and prepare defences? So what, that's an appropriate response to a recent invasion, and is further justified by the reality that the invasion it was preparing for came exactly as predicted. Ukraine didn't rearm in order to invade Russia, but Russia did rearm to reinvade Ukraine. Exactly where is the problematic part of Ukraine engaging in diplomatic measures to build up what it hoped would be a deterrent to prevent exactly the bloodshed that you keep trying to pin on them?Yes, rearming for defense may have been a justified response to events in Donbas and Crimea, but it was actually to enable those regions to be brought under the complete control of Kiev.
O.
Kyiv: no peace-building without full central control of separatist areas.https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2019RP05/#hd-d16096e2468
From Kiev’s point of view, peace-building “will only be possible once the territories have been liberated, i.e., once they are once again completely under Ukrainian control.”
Yes, rearming for defense may have been a justified response to events in Donbas and Crimea, but it was actually to enable those regions to be brought under the complete control of Kiev.
https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2019RP05/#hd-d16096e2468
So the buildup of weapons would ultimately have been used offensively to regain control of Donbas, if we take the quote from the above German paper in 2019 to it's logical conclusion.
So, my point about Ukraine not being willing to cede control of Donbas was right. Scott Ritter was right in saying that had they ceded control of Donbas at the start, they could have avoided the half a million casualties they now have suffered without achieving their aim.
Yes, rearming for defense may have been a justified response to events in Donbas and Crimea, but it was actually to enable those regions to be brought under the complete control of Kiev.
So the buildup of weapons would ultimately have been used offensively to regain control of Donbas, if we take the quote from the above German paper in 2019 to it's logical conclusion.
So, my point about Ukraine not being willing to cede control of Donbas was right.
Scott Ritter was right in saying that had they ceded control of Donbas at the start, they could have avoided the half a million casualties they now have suffered without achieving their aim.
"The missile defense capabilities we are developing are not designed to defend against Russia. Just as the new NATO we are building is not designed to defend against Russia; the cold war is over"
George W Bush, April 2008.
So NATO expansion was not due to Russian aggression, according to this statement?
The point is that the separatists would not live under the Ukrainian government because it wouldn't represent their interests.
They didn't vote in the 2019 election, presumably?
So for Ukraine, Germany etc to sign the Minsk agreements while Ukraine planned to continue the war after rearming was deceitful.
According to the statement - do you believe him? I'd suggest that it probably wasn't entirely, solely or specifically with Russia in mind, but I suspect it was perhaps a general purpose system which could be deployed to defend against hostilities from anyone.I can link you to the statement if you like, I'm not sure where he was but it was a speech at some large conference and the context of the comment was, I think, the missile defence systems NATO was planning. I edited in what he said that I missed out, which was "Russia is not our enemy". Just something to bear in mind when claiming NATO expanded due to Russian aggression. Maybe he didn't mean it.
"The missile defense capabilities we are developing are not designed to defend against Russia. Just as the new NATO we are building is not designed to defend against Russia; the cold war is over. Russia is not our enemy"
George W Bush, April 2008.
So NATO expansion was not due to Russian aggression, according to this statement? Perhaps it was with other states such as Iran in mind?
Outrider and jeremyp,
The point is that the separatists would not live under the Ukrainian government because it wouldn't represent their interests. They didn't vote in the 2019 election, presumably? So for Ukraine, Germany etc to sign the Minsk agreements while Ukraine planned to continue the war after rearming was deceitful.
"The missile defense capabilities we are developing are not designed to defend against Russia. Just as the new NATO we are building is not designed to defend against Russia; the cold war is over. Russia is not our enemy"
George W Bush, April 2008.
So NATO expansion was not due to Russian aggression, according to this statement? Perhaps it was with other states such as Iran in mind?
He was obviously wrong, though it's important to note he said that some months before Russia's invasion if Georgia. Nevertheless, despite his faults, were he president today he would be arming Ukraine to the teeth. I would take him over a weak Biden or a Kremlin run GOP any day.Though it is Bush's party that is the issue about US support so who knows
Though it is Bush's party that is the issue about US support so who knows
Though it is Bush's party that is the issue about US support so who knows
The Republicans today are not the Republicans of the Bush era. They've since been bought by Putin.So taking him over Biden is pointless. His party would block any action just as they do with Biden. Therefore talking about a 'weak Biden' as ad_o did, misses the point.
I can link you to the statement if you like, I'm not sure where he was but it was a speech at some large conference and the context of the comment was, I think, the missile defence systems NATO was planning. I edited in what he said that I missed out, which was "Russia is not our enemy".
Just something to bear in mind when claiming NATO expanded due to Russian aggression. Maybe he didn't mean it.
That's not a justification for Russia to invade. Russia can, for instance, offer them an alternative place to live, but they aren't justified in sowing dissent or in sending in troops to an internal Ukrainian matter.
Perhaps, you're assuming the knew that Ukraine intended to continue fighting - even now the Ukraine's commentary is that they wanted to build up their forces to stand firm against further aggression, not to retake Crimea. In order to recover Crimea they were pursuing diplomatic means.
What separatists? There weren't any until Russia started interfering.Interfering, as in "Yats is the guy, **** the EU" (Nuland)
But the separatists had declared independence from Ukraine, and Russia recognized this, then agreed to help them because Ukraine had massed 110,000 troops near the front line, outnumbering their 10,000, and they believed Ukraine was about to attack and feared reprisals.
As the German paper showed, Ukraine was always intending to regain control over Donbas.
Even then, it's still an internal Ukrainian matter. Like the Scottish independence referendum, it operates within a legal framework.If there was a legal framework then they should have stuck to it; they lost Donbas because they violated their own constitution.
If there was a legal framework then they should have stuck to it; no wonder they lost some territory.
New theme song for Tucker CarlsonI've watched about 50 minutes of it. I've also watched 3 out of 4 episodes of "The Putin Interviews" with Oliver Stone. They are similar, except Carlson's is more up to date.
Oh Putin, you're so fine
You're so fine you blow my mind, hey Putin,
Hey Putin
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68248740
He was obviously wrong, though it's important to note he said that some months before Russia's invasion of Georgia. Nevertheless, despite his faults, were he president today he would be arming Ukraine to the teeth. I would take him over a weak Biden or a Kremlin run GOP any day.You wanted a response on Georgia. I have this (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/europe/26georgia.html) which says Georgia had planned to start the wars in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
You wanted a response on Georgia. I have this (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/europe/26georgia.html) which says Georgia had planned to start the wars in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Also this (https://www.dailysabah.com/syrian-crisis/2017/01/07/us-watched-daesh-gaining-power-kerry-admits-in-leaked-audio) which says John Kerry stated that Russia went into Syria to prevent Isis from reaching Damascus.
You wanted a response on Georgia. I have this (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/europe/26georgia.html) which says Georgia had planned to start the wars in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
That's been the established consensus since about 2010 - along with the clear understanding that the Russian response was disproportionate and involved an illegal occupation and sponsorship of separatist and puppet politicians ever since.So it is established that Georgia started the wars against the separatists. Yes I'm aware that Russia's response was disproportionate, but that is generally the way wars are won.
Also this (https://www.dailysabah.com/syrian-crisis/2017/01/07/us-watched-daesh-gaining-power-kerry-admits-in-leaked-audio) which says John Kerry stated that Russia went into Syria to prevent Isis from reaching Damascus.
... because Isis were in opposition in the area to the Assad regime, who were pro-Russian. When the rest of the world was looking on and seeing that there wasn't a 'right' side, Russia invaded - again - to support their preferred bad option. It's literally spelt out in the article that you're citing.
O.
So it is established that Georgia started the wars against the separatists.
Yes I'm aware that Russia's response was disproportionate, but that is generally the way wars are won.
So head-chopping, caliphate-forming extremists are preferable to a fascist dictator?
So it is established that Georgia started the wars against the separatists. Yes I'm aware that Russia's response was disproportionate, but that is generally the way wars are won.If you don't start a war, you don't have to win it.
So head-chopping, caliphate-forming extremists are preferable to a fascist dictator?They are both bad options. Also a bad option: invading your neighbour to distract your own population from the piss poor job you are doing and to inflate your own ego.
.I'm pretty sure the rest of the world was glad to see the defeat of ISIS, which was thanks to Russia
Which part of 'no right side' confused you, because I'm not sure I can make that any clearer.
O.
I'm pretty sure the rest of the world was glad to see the defeat of ISIS, which was thanks to Russia
You really are a fool! The only reason Russia is in Syria is to help prop up the Assad regime, mainly by killing Syrian opposition, also guilty of numerous war crimes (neo-nazi wagner).The Syrian insurgency, which had the goal of deposing Assad, was party armed by NATO. So that war (Syrian civil war) was started by the West, as well.
I'm pretty sure the rest of the world was glad to see the defeat of ISIS, which was thanks to Russia
Do you see much evidence that ISIS has been defeated? We are not going to defeat a religious and political movement with bullets - even if you want to make the case that Russia helped drive ISIS out of that region it's not as though they've improved the quality of life or the stability of the region by doing it, they've just removed one of the obstacles restraining Assad's regime. That you think something in this is a 'win', whilst at the same time decrying Ukraine's resistance because of the damage it does in terms of lives lost and damaged just highlights your hypocrisy.ISIS has no territory left.
O.
The Syrian insurgency, which had the goal of deposing Assad, was party armed by NATO. So that war (Syrian civil war) was started by the West, as well.
Ukraine's resistance is unnecessary. They brought it on themselves by attacking the breakaway republics in Donbas. Stop pretending that Russia initiated the war.
ISIS has no territory left.
If ISIS would have committed genocide against Assad supporters, then their defeat is good.
Ukraine's resistance is unnecessary. They brought it on themselves by attacking the breakaway republics in Donbas. Stop pretending that Russia initiated the war.
ISIS has no territory left.
If ISIS would have committed genocide against Assad supporters, then their defeat is good.
Ukraine's resistance is unnecessary.
They brought it on themselves by attacking the breakaway republics in Donbas.
Stop pretending that Russia initiated the war.
Medvedev raises previous threats to the West to deranged proportions:
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrLAolmgdNlx4owglVLBQx.;_ylu=Y29sbwNpcjIEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj/RV=2/RE=1708388838/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fuk.news.yahoo.com%2frussia-threatens-unleash-entire-arsenal-175940269.html/RK=2/RS=i3aKAX_jm4GqkvspzAW52JbHX_A-
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr.rCaOgNNl_kEwqA5LBQx.;_ylu=Y29sbwNpcjIEcG9zAzUEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1708388623/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.reuters.com%2fworld%2feurope%2fputin-ally-medvedev-warns-nuclear-war-if-russia-defeated-ukraine-2023-01-19%2f/RK=2/RS=UzFmFgk4QQLEaXtUTe13S6vwKu4-
Russia started the war when it invaded CrimeaPutin denied invading Crimea, saying the people of Crimea voted to join Russia after the Maidan coup, because they didn't want to be part of Ukraine anymore.
Russia's invasion was unnecessaryIt was reported yesterday that following the capture of Avdiivka, no shells fell on civilians in Yasynuvata, just north of Donetsk city, for the first time.
If you're going by 'who first fired a shot' the separatists caused it. It's the Ukrainian government's job to enforce peace within its territory.If government buildings in Kiev can be taken over by force, why can't government buildings in Donetsk and Luhansk?
Legally it was none of Russia's business (although, on a practical level, of course, they'd already been financially, politically, morally and logistically supporting those separatists to foment unrest).Territory that was previously Russian is Russia's business.
Putin denied invading Crimea, saying the people of Crimea voted to join Russia after the Maidan coup, because they didn't want to be part of Ukraine anymore.
It was reported yesterday that following the capture of Avdiivka, no shells fell on civilians in Yasynuvata, just north of Donetsk city, for the first time.
If government buildings in Kiev can be taken over by force, why can't government buildings in Donetsk and Luhansk?
Territory that was previously Russian is Russia's business.
The unrest didn't need fomenting, though. People saw the Maidan riots on their TVs and made their decision.
Because the Russians have already achieved their aim in that area, and are relocating? Because the Russians were all drunk after celebrating their great military victory of losing somewhere between 10 and 12 times as many soldiers during the capture of (checks notes) rubble that they've reduced a thriving community to. Because they've run out of shells that actually work? Because they've run out of guns that work having tried to fire even poorer quality than their own munitions that they've overpaid for from North Korea? Because their propoganda machine sees an opportunity to try to bolster the obvious bullshit by ceasing shelling for a day or two? Or, perhaps, because it was really the Ukraine all along.
Wasn't Spud referring to Ukrainian shelling of Yasynuvata?
That was his allegation, yes. The Russians and the Ukrainians have been consistently blaming each other for the shelling of civilian targets. Ukraine has had a number of off-target shelling incidents which have resulted in civilian casualties - whether they've admitted to all of them isn't entirely clear at this stage, but in principle they're acknowledging that they do happen. Russia has not, but evidence from elsewhere in the conflict suggests that they have employed a policy of deliberately targetting civilian infrastructure repeatedly, as well as having a higher rate of inaccurate fire.
Who is more likely to have been shelling civilians in this area - that's a question many, both military and journalists, have been asking. Ukraine is targetting military targets in the area, Russia has fewer 'valid' targets but has been alleged to shell areas it ostensibly controls, with motives suggested ranging from quelling resistance to setting up these very allegations against Ukraine. That the Ukrainians have withdrawn from Avdiivka doesn't put them out of range of Yasynuvata, so it's not that they're incapable of maintaining any shelling they've been undertaking (although it does not serve any immediately useful tactical purpose following the withdrawal).
It could be that they've stopped shelling, in part to preserve stocks with their current ammunition concerns, and that it was a significantly higher rate of inaccuracy from them than we've seen anywhere else in the conflict that was causing this, or it could be that the Russians have stopped firing in this area for their own ammunition preservation and/or to relocate and this has caused the cessation of shells hitting the civilian areas. Or it could be that the Russian leadership has identified a potential story to sell and has decided to stop shelling in conjunction with the change in circumstances to try to paint the Ukrainian forces in a bad light.
It's difficult to be definitive this close to the events, especially with deliberate misdirection and information management on both sides, but I know which of those I give more credence to, under the circumstances.
O.
Thanks - missed the subtlety of your response. Not for the first time :)
Putin denied invading Crimea, saying the people of Crimea voted to join Russia after the Maidan coup, because they didn't want to be part of Ukraine anymore.
Territory that was previously Russian is Russia's business.
The unrest didn't need fomenting, though. People saw the Maidan riots on their TVs and made their decision.
Wasn't Spud referring to Ukrainian shelling of Yasynuvata?Yes, I read it on that terrible website, Tass. Oher journalists located in Donbas verify it and post on YouTube. One thing the Ukrainians do is hit a civilian building, then fire again at first responders.
Yes, I read it on that terrible website, Tass. Oher journalists located in Donbas verify it and post on YouTube. One thing the Ukrainians do is hit a civilian building, then fire again at first responders.
Yes, I read it on that terrible website, Tass. Oher journalists located in Donbas verify it and post on YouTube. One thing the Ukrainians do is hit a civilian building, then fire again at first responders.
Yes, I read it on that terrible website, Tass. Oher journalists located in Donbas verify it and post on YouTube. One thing the Ukrainians do is hit a civilian building, then fire again at first responders.
Sweden clear to join NATO after Hungary agrees.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68405893
Hardly surprising that ground troops as an option are being scorned
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68417223
Macron is right. Nothing should be ruled out. It doesn't mean that we want to send troops there, juwhat would st that we're prepared to if we have to in order to stop Russia's imperial ambitions. Otherwise, we just send the message that we don't have the stomach to defend the values we believe in.I don't think 'we' do in that sense. I think if most of the nations of NATO were to send troops to kill and be killed in what would amount to a world war, then their govts would lose any elections following that.
I don't think 'we' do in that sense. I think if most of the nations of NATO were to send troops to kill and be killed in what would amount to a world war, then their govts would lose any elections following that.
'We' live each day with a world where thr 'values we believe in' are compromised because there is not s realistic way of avoiding that. And any action that is taken to degend such values jeopardises other values we hold.
I'd say the risk of a world war is preferable to the alternative, that being a world where nations like Russia are not held accountable for their crimes and nations are sacrificed for fear of escalation.Which is a false dichotomy. The support for the Ukraine, while you may not think it enough, is an attempt to hold Russia accountable. The type of purity you are arguong for in politics only happens in video games.
Rumours Gerasimov may have been killed in a Storm Shadow missile strike on a command post in Sevastopol. Big, if true. The Ukrainian Air Force is cat posting on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/KpsZSU/status/1742940339504091416?s=19
Cough.The last bit about just being interested in conquest of Ukraine. If this was the case Putin would have invaded earlier than 2022.
The last bit about just being interested in conquest of Ukraine. If this was the case Putin would have invaded earlier than 2022.
The last bit about just being interested in conquest of Ukraine. If this was the case Putin would have invaded earlier than 2022.
Just in case it was in any doubt. Take look at the map behind as well.According to Medvedev's view, then, Canada is America.
https://twitter.com/saintjavelin/status/1764603975402135578?s=19
He was already busy invading other place under spurious justifications for much of the time, but as has been pointed out he did invade Ukraine before.Arguably, if he was planning in 2014 to continue a conquest of Ukraine, he wouldn't have 'invaded' those other places?
O.
Arguably, if he was planning in 2014 to continue a conquest of Ukraine, he wouldn't have 'invaded' those other places?So it's ok to randomly invade and murder people, as long as it's not planned too far on advance.
So it's ok to randomly invade and murder people, as long as it's not planned too far on advance.I was offering evidence that Putin originally wanted Donetsk and Luhansk to be independent territories rather than intended to occupy them and move on into the rest of Ukraine. As I see it, Ukraine started the murdering. Neither side should have continued it, but these are secular governments whose policy is to meet aggression with aggression.
I was offering evidence that Putin originally wanted Donetsk and Luhansk to be independent territories rather than intended to occupy them and move on into the rest of Ukraine. As I see it, Ukraine started the murdering. Neither side should have continued it, but these are secular governments whose policy is to meet aggression with aggression.
I was offering evidence that Putin originally wanted Donetsk and Luhansk to be independent territories rather than intended to occupy them and move on into the rest of Ukraine. As I see it, Ukraine started the murdering. Neither side should have continued it, but these are secular governments whose policy is to meet aggression with aggression.
I was offering evidence that Putin originally wanted Donetsk and Luhansk to be independent territories rather than intended to occupy them and move on into the rest of Ukraine. As I see it, Ukraine started the murdering. Neither side should have continued it, but these are secular governments whose policy is to meet aggression with aggression.
Arguably, if he was planning in 2014 to continue a conquest of Ukraine, he wouldn't have 'invaded' those other places?
I plan on having lasagne for dinner tomorrow, that doesn't in any way stop me from having dinner today, nor from making sure my Asda delivery has beef mince included. Activity today is a reason to plan for tomorrow but to not fulfil those plans today, that's a reality that even Putin can't spin.Planning invasions of neighbouring countries is not comparable with with planning essential activities like meals.
You, apparently, want to try, though, so crack on.
O.
Planning invasions of neighbouring countries is not comparable with with planning essential activities like meals.
Planning invasions of neighbouring countries is not comparable with with planning essential activities like meals.
Okay, but that we plan meals in advance doesn't prove that Russia was planning a conquest of Ukraine in 2014.
But the fact that Russia didn't recognise the sovereignty of Donetsk and Luhansk until 2022, eight years after they declared independence, is strong evidence that Russia wasn't planning that conquest.
You are still making the mistake of assuming that we are going to believe the Russian party line - I can't tell if you do or if you're just willing to lie for them.
O.
My guess: Spud is genuinely pro-Russian because, being alt-right, he sees the FSB agent Kirill backs Putin, Russia has anti gay laws, people beat up gays on the street, and domestic abuse has been decriminalised. tRaDiTiOnAl VaLuOos!
The fact that they had troops in Crimea eight years earlier is stronger evidence that they had their eyes on annexing at least parts of Ukraine, if not all of it.The troops made a referendum possible, so the people could decide whether to go back to being part of Russia.
The troops made a referendum possible, so the people could decide whether to go back to being part of Russia.
The troops made a referendum possible
, so the people could decide whether to go back to being part of Russia.
The troops made a referendum possible, so the people could decide whether to go back to being part of Russia.
They didn't recognise the sovereignty of Donetsk or Luhansk because a) it gave them a political veil of deniability, and b) they didn't need to because they had functional control already.Neither of which, if true, prove Putin was planning a conquest of Ukraine. Also, the troops were there already, as well as others who came as a result of the insurrection in Kiev, not because of plans to annex other regions.
Neither of which, if true, prove Putin was planning a conquest of Ukraine.
Also, the troops were there already,
...as well as others who came as a result of the insurrection in Kiev, not because of plans to annex other regions.
The invasion of Ukraine proves that Putin was (badly) planning an invasion. We couldn't have proven it then, but we sure as hell can now.Of course it was an insurrection, plus it was used by the US to get the people they wanted into government. Remember, "Yats is the guy".
Russian troops? In Ukraine? That's, like, an invasion... does Putin know?
There was not an 'insurrection' in Kiev. There was a massed protest that the authorities of the time attempted to quell with armed troops. That led to a political situation where the ruling party stepped down and new elections were held. I can see how the idea of protest leading to free and fair elections would confuse you, maybe you should Google the concept.
O.
Of course it was an insurrection, plus it was used by the US to get the people they wanted into government.
Of course it was an insurrection, plus it was used by the US to get the people they wanted into government. Remember, "Yats is the guy".
My interpretation - and it seems to gel with a few quick checks - is that the difference between an insurrection and a protest is the use of violence against the state's operations and operatives. The Maiden protests which occured after Yanukovych defied the will of Parliament, turned his back on the Ukraine-EU agreement that had been negotiated and tried to tie Ukraine to Russia were peaceful until Yanukovych ordered their violent suppression, resulting ultimately in the death of over a hundred protesters."You are free to join the EU, but we're not going to pay for it" - Putin to Yanukovich
Late February parliament votes to remove Yanukovych from office and within a month Putin has annexed Crimea. Given what we've seen of Russia's logistical ineptitude, do you expect anyone to believe that the invasion of Ukraine wasn't already planned?
The US had preferred candidates, so did many other nations. Russia had its preferred candidate, the one they'd already influenced after his election to turn his back on his election promises of further ties to Europe and instead pivoting towards Russia. That's what international politics is.
That the US's (and our) preferred candidates ended up winning is not indicative of any sort of undue influence; for balance, to date Yanukovych hasn't been convicted of taking any sort of bribe or such from Russia so far as I'm aware, just treason for ordering the killing of protestors.
O.
"You are free to join the EU, but we're not going to pay for it" - Putin to Yanukovich
So Yanukovich delayed signing the EU treaty.
He agreed to hold early elections but the far right wanted him gone,
forcing him out using violence.
An insurrection.
"We heard, we still want to go with the EU plan rather than continue with the Russian-style corruption we have now." Ukrainian Parliament to Yanukovych.
Yanukovych defied the will of parliament - that he was bound by his oath of office to uphold - and tried to circumvent the legal process and sign up with Putin anyway.
This was not 'the far right', it was a centre-right parliament and a wide range of centrist- to left-leaning organisations and a general populace that was fairly evenly split.Yes, but the far right (by which I meant Right Sector) didn't give up once he had agreed to the early elections.
Please supply the source for your quote?
Here's the transcript of Oliver Stone's interviews with Yanukovich and Putin in 2016, from "Ukraine on Fire" (around 26-29 minutes in).
Stone: November 2013... Ukraine is in bad economic shape. You have a trade agreement with Russia, and now you're seeking to make a better agreement with the EU, and you are negotiating. Can you bring me to that moment, and what you're thinking?
Yanukovich: It was, indeed, a very complicated period of time for Ukraine, and we had to find the solution for the problems in 2013. We had two partners. First of al, we counted on the IMF. But throughout the whole year of negotiations the IMF suggested to us unacceptable solutions: a significant rise in utility rates, first and foremost for the electricity and natural gas. This would mean a lot more expenses for the people, while their income would stay at the same level. We didn't go there. We suggested other solutions, but got an official refusal from the IMF in November 2013. This left us with Russia. Russia told us that it was ready for partnership if we took its interests into consideration.
Putin: The economies of Ukraine and Russioa emerged as a united economy. We had developed absolutely unique special economic relationships, Russian markets were wide open for Ukrainian produce as well as our custom borders. Therefore it would mean that the EU with all its goods would enter our markets without any negotiations.
Yanukovich: We started calculating the balances, we realized that the agreement, offered by Europe to Ukraine, required essential economic expenses, and Europe didn't provide any loss balancing, and in the meantime the Russian market would be significantly limited or even shut down.
Putin: We said: "of course, if Ukraine has come to this decision, this is its choice and we respect this choice. But we don't have to pay for it.
Yanukovich: Our negotiations with Europe didn't succeed so we decided to take a pause.
Yes, but the far right (by which I meant Right Sector) didn't give up once he had agreed to the early elections.
The generally accepted account is that the initially peaceful protests were put down violently by the police
Spud,Not that long ago I posted a film of a leader of the neo-fascists admitting that they were the reason why the protests succeeded in ousting the government; he said without them it would have been a gay parade.
Ukraine On Fire is a Russian propaganda piece and if you followed Twitter, you'd also be aware of the vile stuff Igor Lopatonok, the film's producer, says about Ukrainians. It's not to be trusted in any way, shape or form. How complicit Oliver Stone is in the film's lies, I don't know, but he has his own agenda.
So it appears the opposition leader and chief of staff planned to clear protestors from the square on the pretext of bringing in the Christmas tree. But Right Sector's provocation prevented this and turned the protests into riots.
Interesting to see what if anything happens with Macron and Scholz here.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68573441
More Russian double tapping.I'm getting page does not exist for that.
https://twitter.com/U24_gov_ua/status/1768613574392340958?s=19
I'm getting page does not exist for that.
Try this. Browser version rather than application.Got it to work but only by actually logging on (which I am loathe to do. Maybe a new Musk thing. Thanks.
https://x.com/U24_gov_ua/status/1768625696258011324?s=20
Correction. It seems Twitter got the original post remived because it was "too graffic". Fuck them! Twitter works for Russia under Musk.
Or, conversely, following escalations that turned into violent confrontations, heavy-handed police have tried to retrospectively claim violent intent, and Russian media has been over-emphasising the influence of Right Sector ever since.Evgeny Karas boasting about it on Feb 5 2022 (6 minute video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03AqKuCg96I))
It may never become absolutely clear who instigated the violence, although by and large the neutral press seems to be leaning towards the notion that it was police activity that escalated the situation, and the Ukrainian Parliamentary investigation put the responsibility for that squarely on Yanukovych, that's why he was prosecuted.
Even if that were a cover-up for an insurrection, which I don't accept... how does that justify an invasion from Russia?
O.
Evgeny Karas boasting about it on Feb 5 2022 (6 minute video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03AqKuCg96I))
A far right nationalist claiming some sort of effectiveness in politics! Imagine my shock. He can claim, he can boast, and he may well have been there and even involved, but the general consensus of impartial media is that police over-reaction was what escalated the protests into violence.It seems the whole idea is to infiltrate the crowd, provoke the police into over-reacting, and then claim 'the police fired the first shots'. Don't forget the protestors had already attacked the police on 24-25 Nov. Also the 'impartial media' included three TV channels that had seemingly been formed specially to cover those events. Also the provocateurs used bulldozers in the weeks after Nov 30. These were well trained militia.
Which is not to say that C14 didn't go with the intention of starting violence, but that's the sort of threat that innumerable other police forces deal with in relation to large protests, and it doesn't then escalate in that way.
O.
My guess: Spud is genuinely pro-Russian because, being alt-right, he sees the FSB agent Kirill backs Putin, Russia has anti gay laws, people beat up gays on the street, and domestic abuse has been decriminalised. tRaDiTiOnAl VaLuOos!It's more about gender identity, from the interviews I've seen from people in Donbas. People want their children to grow into the gender they were born with. It might also be worth saying that God does not allow the kinds of sin in this category to go unpunished. I don't think one can interpret Leviticus 18:25 any other way.
It's more about gender identity, from the interviews I've seen from people in Donbas. People want their children to grow into the gender they were born with. It might also be worth saying that God does not allow the kinds of sin in this category to go unpunished. I don't think one can interpret Leviticus 18:25 any other way.Oh look your homophobia is showing.
It's more about gender identity, from the interviews I've seen from people in Donbas. People want their children to grow into the gender they were born with. It might also be worth saying that God does not allow the kinds of sin in this category to go unpunished. I don't think one can interpret Leviticus 18:25 any other way.
It seems the whole idea is to infiltrate the crowd, provoke the police into over-reacting, and then claim 'the police fired the first shots'.
Don't forget the protestors had already attacked the police on 24-25 Nov.
Also the 'impartial media' included three TV channels that had seemingly been formed specially to cover those events.
Also the provocateurs used bulldozers in the weeks after Nov 30. These were well trained militia.
It's more about gender identity, from the interviews I've seen from people in Donbas. People want their children to grow into the gender they were born with. It might also be worth saying that God does not allow the kinds of sin in this category to go unpunished. I don't think one can interpret Leviticus 18:25 any other way.
It's more about gender identity, from the interviews I've seen from people in Donbas.
People want their children to grow into the gender they were born with.
It might also be worth saying that God does not allow the kinds of sin in this category to go unpunished.
I don't think one can interpret Leviticus 18:25 any other way.
Donald Tusk argues that war is a real threat and Europe isn't ready
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68692195
The return of military service?A bit of advice on that, from Billy Connelly, quite apt at this point in time:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68728096
A bit of advice on that, from Billy Connelly, quite apt at this point in time:Apt at any time, I would agree, though it's Brian Cox, not sciencey one, but then I suppose all hairy Scotchmen look alike, even if one of them was a drunk antisemitic paedophile.
https://youtu.be/8APUM-b4-ns?si=4rjXajNwENn6c7F_
A bit of advice on that, from Billy Connelly, quite apt at this point in time:
https://youtu.be/8APUM-b4-ns?si=4rjXajNwENn6c7F_
God! This woman is dumb. An amendment to the Ukraine aid bill.
https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1780767303732199917?s=19
God! This woman is dumb. An amendment to the Ukraine aid bill.
https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1780767303732199917?s=19
And here are some more. This is not a joke. These are real amendments MTG has tabled.She's a grifter.
https://twitter.com/KareemRifai/status/1780754606944891242?s=19
US aid to Ukraine approved
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-68866766
'Kyiv can use British weapons inside Russia - Cameron'.UK leading the way. Main Bastards rule (Medvedev called us that). I also like what Macron is saying. Russia's threats are all bluffs. We need to realise this.
Doesn't feel like a surprise, at the same time, it's part of the diplomatic chess going on. Macron's continued hawkishness is very interesting but I see little backing from others.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c163kp93l6po
North Korea supplying weapons to Russia
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68933778
All the big guns out today issuing nuclear threats, including the chronic drunk Medvedev. It means they're worried. This is exactly the time we need to double down in our support of Ukraine. Their threats are just empty bluffs.But undeniably, Cameron has contradicted the UK's original assurance that UK missiles wouldn't be used to strike Russia. He might as well have added to his comments, "and don't believe any talk that Russia will attack UK military bases in response".
https://twitter.com/MedvedevRussiaE/status/1787427096320430252?s=19
But undeniably, Cameron has contradicted the UK's original assurance that UK missiles wouldn't be used to strike Russia. He might as well have added to his comments, "and don't believe any talk that Russia will attack UK military bases in response".
https://youtu.be/l1vNFEKEKKg?si=du1jDAARZCmcJUqM
Has he contradicted the original stance, or has he updated the world that the UK policy has changed in response to the developing situation? I'd suggest it's the latter, but given Russia's demonstrated history for the norms of international relations, British military establishments were at risk already.The French, Polish and Italian climbdown after Russia's warnings suggests they believe Russia would indeed risk attacking their military facilities beyond Ukraine. UK and US both have elections this year, so they want to minimise talk of direct war with Russia - for the moment. I guess Cameron, not running for election, would be more likely to say something provocative.
The reality is, though, given Russia's struggles to prosecute an effective campaign in Ukraine, it's extremely unlikely that they'll risk extend their efforts to the UK, especially with the likelihood that would trigger a NATO response. Even if Trump were to somehow smuggle himself into the Whitehouse early next year, with the implications for NATO that come with that, I still don't see Russia being that stupid.
They might surprise us, and be that stupid, but it seems unlikely.
O.
The French, Polish and Italian climbdown after Russia's warnings suggests they believe Russia would indeed risk attacking their military facilities beyond Ukraine.
UK and US both have elections this year, so they want to minimise talk of direct war with Russia - for the moment. I guess Cameron, not running for election, would be more likely to say something provocative.
What 'climb-down'?As I understand it, the climbdown follows Russia's warnings to the French and British ambassadors, and announcing it will begin drills with tactical nuclear weapons. Russia was responding to Cameron's comments, and also to two recent articles in the Asia Times. One said that France is sending 1500 troops to Ukraine, the other said that the US would eventually also have to send troops. France, US, Italy and Poland subsequently stated that they will not be sending troops to Ukraine.
As I understand it, the climbdown follows Russia's warnings to the French and British ambassadors, and announcing it will begin drills with tactical nuclear weapons. Russia was responding to Cameron's comments, and also to two recent articles in the Asia Times. One said that France is sending 1500 troops to Ukraine, the other said that the US would eventually also have to send troops. France, US, Italy and Poland subsequently stated that they will not be sending troops to Ukraine.
What climbdown?If Macron says he is sending troops to fight Russia, he's effectively saying France is at war with Russia .
As I understand it, the climbdown follows Russia's warnings to the French and British ambassadors, and announcing it will begin drills with tactical nuclear weapons. Russia was responding to Cameron's comments, and also to two recent articles in the Asia Times. One said that France is sending 1500 troops to Ukraine, the other said that the US would eventually also have to send troops. France, US, Italy and Poland subsequently stated that they will not be sending troops to Ukraine.
If Macron says he is sending troops to fight Russia, he's effectively saying France is at war with Russia .
If a French official then denies that they are sending troops, and also says they are not at war with Russia, they recognise Putin as the president and send a delegate to his inauguration - that climbdown.
It seems russia is trying to move on Kharkiv. They have 50,000 teoops on the border. Initial reports aren't great for the russians though.
https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1788947734923247708?s=19
He didn't say he is sending troops did he? Rather that it could happen and shouldn't be ruled out. Has he changed that stance?He seems to have softened it, yes. https://youtu.be/oCPmiNUeNXQ?si=Cl_gMdjDFeQTnyRm
He didn't say he is sending troops did he? Rather that it could happen and shouldn't be ruled out. Has he changed that stance?True, he only said he would consider sending them. But the response from Russia seems to suggest that there is no way Ukraine can win the war. Western countries will not send troops if they know they will be attacked on their own territory. Once Ukraine has no soldiers left to use Western equipment, they will have to surrender. That's how it will end, unless we stop arming them soon.
True, he only said he would consider sending them. But the response from Russia seems to suggest that there is no way Ukraine can win the war. Western countries will not send troops if they know they will be attacked on their own territory. Once Ukraine has no soldiers left to use Western equipment, they will have to surrender. That's how it will end, unless we stop arming them soon.
In your dreams. Almost half a million katsaps dead.50,000 Russians, according to the BBC in April, not including militia from DPR and LPR. Even if your figure is right, Ukraine has lost as many, and has a quarter of the population of Russia.
True, he only said he would consider sending them. But the response from Russia seems to suggest that there is no way Ukraine can win the war. Western countries will not send troops if they know they will be attacked on their own territory. Once Ukraine has no soldiers left to use Western equipment, they will have to surrender. That's how it will end, unless we stop arming them soon.
True, he only said he would consider sending them. But the response from Russia seems to suggest that there is no way Ukraine can win the war.
Western countries will not send troops if they know they will be attacked on their own territory.
Once Ukraine has no soldiers left to use Western equipment, they will have to surrender. That's how it will end, unless we stop arming them soon.
Well of course that's Russia's response, it has to be under the circumstances. Whether anyone believes them or not is a fundamentally different matter.The more weapons we give Ukrainians, the more they become targets, which is why I'm agitating to stop arming them. They are slowing the Russians down, but not stopping them. Once Russia has taken the historically Russian, and strategically important, territory, I imagine it will go defensive (not push on into the rest of Ukraine or Europe) and focus on destroying any military hardware entering the country. When it clicks in the West that Russia isn't steamrolling Europe, the West will agree to Ukrainian neutrality.
Western countries will not be seen to be escalating without sufficient grounds - in practical reality, at least as things stand at the moment, I don't see western nations sending troops unless Russia can be shown to have directly struck against one of the NATO alliance countries. At the moment there seems to be more restraint than I think is good, but I'm not the one making the decisions and some of that apparent restraint might be posturing.
One errant missile falling in to somewhere like Poland, however, and that might change significantly. The front is a long way from that border at the moment, though.
Well, Russia's chewing through troops faster, but has a better reserve. What Russia doesn't have is money - it's a race between Ukraine running out of troops and Russia running out of capacity to keep its populace placid in the face of increasing shortages and struggles. The more it has to fall back on the likes of North Korean munitions, the safer Ukrainian troops are. The more it needs to rely on worse and worse standards of reluctant conscripted troops and early-release prisoners the safer Ukrainian troops are.
Of course, if saving the lives of Ukrainian troops were important, you'd be agitating for the Russian withdrawal from it's illegally occupied Ukrainian territories that would solve everyone's problems...
O.
The more weapons we give Ukrainians, the more they become targets, which is why I'm agitating to stop arming them.
They are slowing the Russians down, but not stopping them.
Once Russia has taken the historically Russian, and strategically important, territory, I imagine it will go defensive (not push on into the rest of Ukraine or Europe) and focus on destroying any military hardware entering the country.
When it clicks in the West that Russia isn't steamrolling Europe, the West will agree to Ukrainian neutrality.
The more Russia keeps sending troops and weapons into a foreign country, the more people are going to die. You keep forgetting to mention that bit. Ukrainians will die if we don't send them weapons, they don't want to be Russians, and they will continue to resist Russian invasion, just less effectively.Answering your points in order,
The front-lines have been relatively static for about six months now - seems fairly 'stopped' to me.
Whether or not Russian state propoganda has picked a particular time period when Ukraine was under Russian influence to glom onto is irrelevant. Right now Ukraine is an independent state, and Russia has invaded it now, not 'historically'. Previous affiliations are not a justification for an invasion.
If Russia takes Ukraine, that battle is lost and the West will no longer have anyone to supply arms to openly - Russia destroying Ukrainian capabilities to defend itself and installing a puppet regime isn't 'Ukrainian neutrality' it's an occupation with a thin veneer of dried shit spread over the top to try to camouflage it.
As to the implication that Russia will stop there, that's what was said after Georgia. And Moldova. And Chechnya. And Chechnya the other time. And... Are you still not appreciating the pattern?
O.
"The more Russia keeps sending troops and weapons into a foreign country, the more people are going to die. You keep forgetting to mention that bit. Ukrainians will die if we don't send them weapons, they don't want to be Russians, and they will continue to resist Russian invasion, just less effectively."
This can only be true if the nationalists in Ukraine force the population to fight, and there is plenty of evidence that they are.
The front lines may not be moving much, but Russia isn't in a hurry and in that sense is steamrolling through Donbas.
I wasn't saying that previous affiliations are justification for invasion, except to the extent that when the USSR broke up, millions of Russians were left in some areas of Ukraine and the majority of them weren't happy about the nationalist coup in 2014.
They broke away and formed a collective self-defence treaty with Russia.
There is also the strategic aspect whereby Russia will not allow NATO to control Crimea, hence the need to have a land corridor to Crimea in southern Ukraine.
So you think Russia will attack a NATO country and trigger article 5?
Not all neutrality is enforced neutrality, but all enforced neutrality is neutrality.
How is Ukrainian people being willing to fight for their freedom causitive of a Russian invasion?They are being compelled to fight. Whatever the reason for the invasion, Ukraine could either sensibly say ok, what do you want, and give it to Russia; or it could try and stop them and face inevitable defeat. Us arming them made them think they could win.
You've (badly) dealt with the second bit, by implying that there's some small sliver of nationalist agitators motivating the entire country to fight back when the majority would be willing to submit, but you've completely ignored the fact that it's all prompted by an ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED INVASION BY A COUNTRY WITH A DEMONSTRATED RECENT HISTORY OF MILITARY EXPANSIONISM.You can shout all you like, it isn't going to stop Russia or help Ukraine win.
George Kennan, May 2, 1998 (to New York Times):
"Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are"
They are being compelled to fight. Whatever the reason for the invasion, Ukraine could either sensibly say ok, what do you want, and give it to Russia; or it could try and stop them and face inevitable defeat. Us arming them made them think they could win.How about Russia not invading in the first place.
You can shout all you like, it isn't going to stop Russia or help Ukraine win.
But on the subject of Russian expansionism: in my musings I found an article in the NYT from the time of the first round of NATO expansion. George Kennan told the paper that if NATO expanded, Russia would react, and that then the NATO expanders would say, 'look, this is typical russian aggression'. Well it looks as though he was right.
They are being compelled to fight.
Whatever the reason for the invasion, Ukraine could either sensibly say ok, what do you want, and give it to Russia; or it could try and stop them and face inevitable defeat.
Us arming them made them think they could win.
You can shout all you like, it isn't going to stop Russia or help Ukraine win.
But on the subject of Russian expansionism: in my musings I found an article in the NYT from the time of the first round of NATO expansion. George Kennan told the paper that if NATO expanded, Russia would react, and that then the NATO expanders would say, 'look, this is typical russian aggression'. Well it looks as though he was right.
Are you meaning by the Ukrainian leadership, or are you meaning by virtue of having their country invaded? Some, probably, are reluctant to fight, others are accepting that it's a necessary act in the face of unwarranted military incursion by a foreign military power.Countless videos show kidnapping of civilians for mobilization. Why? Because they are desperate. They have no more reserves to draw on (to quote Budanov)
Yes. And. The difference is that NATO invites countries to join, and they make a decision. Russia decides other countries territory will join and it doesn't extend an invitation, it extends a supply line to troops. These are not equivalent things, and it's morally and logically dishonest of you to even attempt the equivocation.Poke a bear and it will attack you.
Chamberlain treated Hitler's threats against the countries of Eastern and Central Europe with that same 'peace in our time' accommodation attitudeThen he tried to save face by making a pact with Poland. If he hadn't don't that, we wouldn't have been drawn into the war, neither would the US. Iirc, Hitler wanted some cities where there were Germans living, and to make up for Germany being humiliated after WW1. We don't know that he wanted the rest of Europe and Russia.
Then he tried to save face by making a pact with Poland. If he hadn't don't that, we wouldn't have been drawn into the war, neither would the US. Iirc, Hitler wanted some cities where there were Germans living, and to make up for Germany being humiliated after WW1. We don't know that he wanted the rest of Europe and Russia.Do you have a wee shrine to Hitler?
Poke a bear and it will attack you.
Then he tried to save face by making a pact with Poland. If he hadn't don't that, we wouldn't have been drawn into the war, neither would the US. Iirc, Hitler wanted some cities where there were Germans living, and to make up for Germany being humiliated after WW1. We don't know that he wanted the rest of Europe and Russia.
Unjustified invasion is not a reason to commit collective suicide.
Poke a bear and it will attack you.
Then he tried to save face by making a pact with Poland.
If he hadn't don't that, we wouldn't have been drawn into the war, neither would the US.
Iirc, Hitler wanted some cities where there were Germans living, and to make up for Germany being humiliated after WW1.
We don't know that he wanted the rest of Europe and Russia.
I've provided the exact words above. It was Bill Clinton that started the expansion. You can also read Nyet Means Nyet by William Burns, written after they invited Ukraine and Georgia in 2008. Both Kennan and Burns predicted this.
Eh? Did NATO expand because Russia keeps invading its neighbours or does Russia keep invading its neighbours because NATO expanded? A quick look at history and any reasonable person will immediately know the answer.According to Kennan in the same 1998 interview, 'I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.'
According to Kennan in the same 1998 interview, 'I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.'
Except their occupation of Transnistra in 1992. And the Abkhazi war later in 1992. And the Chechen War in 1994. Nobody threatening anyone there.Except for Syria, these are all ex-Soviet countries. Kennan was talking about the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary.
And they didn't continue with a second war against Chechnya in 1999. And then a war with Georgia in 2008. And an invasion of Syria in 2015.
Those are just the actual combat actions, it's not 'mere' threats...
O.
Except for Syria, these are all ex-Soviet countries. Kennan was talking about the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary.
The problem with NATO expansion is that it can potentially lead to weapons being placed much closer to the Russian border.
If you have a neutral zone in central Europe, those weapons are far enough away to not threaten Russia, and likewise Russian weapons are far from NATO borders.
This is like what the Russians are currently doing in Kharkov region, creating a buffer zone to prevent Ukraine shelling Belgorod.
Which, to many ex-Soviets with an eye on expansionism, are also 'ex-Soviet' countries. The point here is the 'Ex' - they no longer are, and Russia doesn't get to unilaterally decide that it doesn't like that decision.If those countries feared future Russian aggression, perhaps an independent Central and Eastern European alliance would have made more sense as a deterrent, rather than expanding NATO up to Russia's borders which has led to a new cold war?
If those countries feared future Russian aggression, perhaps an independent Central and Eastern European alliance would have made more sense as a deterrent, rather than expanding NATO up to Russia's borders which has led to a new cold war?
The existence of a growing cold war is what led them to seek NATO membership, not what resulted from it.For the avoidance of doubt that's the other Vlad, not our Vlad.
Perhaps Russia respecting countries borders and not invading any flat surface bigger than a fucking dining table would have made more sense, but hey ho, you keep blaming everyone except good ol' Vlad.
O.
For the avoidance of doubt that's the other Vlad, not our Vlad.
The existence of a growing cold war is what led them to seek NATO membership, not what resulted from it.The cold war had ended, but they understandably feared future Russian threats. You can't however pretend that expanding NATO to Russia's border would not be seen by Russia as a threat, and ultimately lead to conflict.
Perhaps Russia respecting countries borders and not invading any flat surface bigger than a fucking dining table would have made more sense, but hey ho, you keep blaming everyone except good ol' Vlad.
O.
The cold war had ended, but they understandably feared future Russian threats. You can't however pretend that expanding NATO to Russia's border would not be seen by Russia as a threat, and ultimately lead to conflict.
I'm not suggesting that Russia wouldn't see it as a threat, although I will say that they shouldn't see it that way. What I'm saying is that the Russian aggression was there anyway, and the implication here that if NATO hadn't expanded Russia would have been a peaceable neighbour is nonsense. We can see that in the fact that they invaded countries that were nothing to do with NATO or its expansion, they invaded countries long before the expansion of NATO.From what I have heard about the Russian 'invasions' of those countries, these were not 'expansionist' in nature, but rather just getting involved in disputes on its own borders. That's what is happening here, there is no threat to European countries unless they get involved in the war.
That in this particular episode they have invaded a country that seemed interested in joining NATO does not make it about NATO - Russian propoganda is trying to make it about that, but the evidence doesn't support that.
O.
From what I have heard about the Russian 'invasions' of those countries, these were not 'expansionist' in nature, but rather just getting involved in disputes on its own borders. That's what is happening here, there is no threat to European countries unless they get involved in the war.
From what I have heard about the Russian 'invasions' of those countries, these were not 'expansionist' in nature, but rather just getting involved in disputes on its own borders.
That's what is happening here, there is no threat to European countries unless they get involved in the war.
Scott Ritter on what would happen if the US marines got into a fight with the Russians, from 10 minutes into the video:
https://youtu.be/tJjtFmohu3Q?si=8j_zSCOPHR23Rx5M
Russians break through US forward unit threatening rest of US troops. Marines automatically fire nuclear-tipped artillery round to ensure they can't go any further. Russians respond with SS20s; this followed by thermonuclear war and end of the world. That seems a good enough reason to keep nuclear armed countries out of alliances with countries near Russia or China.
Maybe you need to be a bit more critical on what sources you listen to. If they weren't expansionist in nature, why does Russia still occupy so much of the territory? Why is Russia making further territorial claims?I'll keep reading about the invasions of Georgia etc.
NATO's a defensive alliance, there's no threat to Russia from NATO unless it invades. Again. And again. And again. And again...
I think you meant to post that on the jokes thread, right? Notwithstanding the scary-sounding paraphrasing of depleted uranium rounds (which are problematic, don't get me wrong) as 'nuclear-tipped artillery'... I'm not sure there's a single element of that which bears up to reality. The idea that the Russian military which STILL hasn't managed to make significant gains against the Ukrainian armed forces utilising redundant NATO hardware would somehow prevail against the best equipped military in the world is not even laughable. It falls into the oft-quoted category here of 'not even wrong'.
Russia's best hope in a conflict against the American military is to hope that the rest of NATO does join in, because then there's at least a chance that American friendly-fire incidents will make it look like they actually managed to damage some enemy units.
O.
I'll keep reading about the invasions of Georgia etc.
NATO is backed by a country with just as violent a record (the US).
I'm not sure what type of weapon Ritter was referring to, but his point was that while Russia would be wiped out in a war with the West, it would ensure that the West was wiped out along with it.
Reports have been slowly coming out of Vovchansk, Kharkiv region, near the Russian border, of new attrocities being carried out by Russian soldiers. Civilians being herded into cellars for God knows what, and executions. Another Bucha, Irpin etc.According to the Russians their invasion of Kharkov is a response to ongoing Ukrainian shelling from the Kharkov region, of civilian targets in Belgorod in Russia. On 12 May they hit a 9 storey block of flats, reportedly killing 18 civilians.
https://kyivindependent.com/minister-russia-takes-civilians-captive-in-northern-vovchansk-executions-reported/
People have always talked about the "mysterious Russian soul", that we don't underatand it and all that rubbish. There's nothing mysterious about it, we know it's a genocidal barbarian.
According to the Russians their invasion of Kharkov is a response to ongoing Ukrainian shelling from the Kharkov region, of civilian targets in Belgorod in Russia. On 12 May they hit a 9 storey block of flats, reportedly killing 18 civilians.
Similarly, they said one of the reasons for the invasion of Donbas was that it was in response to ongoing shelling of civilians in Donetsk city.
It does look like their overall objective is to create a buffer zone.
I'm not sure how they intend to prevent the rest of Ukraine from joining NATO - do they intend to keep fighting until they take over Kiev? That would be very costly.
The apartment building was blown up from the inside. Watch the video. Certainly not from a missile or shelling.Sure looks like it. But there have been many other attacks on the city.
https://x.com/yasminalombaert/status/1789602946742641140?s=19
Sure looks like it. But there have been many other attacks on the city.
So you have hypothetical other incidents now that the singular instance you've cited appears not actually to be what you suggested.Well first of all, if the above incident was some kind of bomb inside the building, who planted it?
Is that like how this invasion is different from the other unjustified invasions?
O.
Well first of all, if the above incident was some kind of bomb inside the building, who planted it?
Well first of all, if the above incident was some kind of bomb inside the building, who planted it?
Who has invaded the country and appears intent on trying to destroy significant portions of the infrastructure in wanton acts of terrorism? Is it possible that this was some sort of guerilla activity on the part of a local militia; yes, I suspect that's possible.Thanks.
So you have hypothetical other incidents now that the singular instance you've cited appears not actually to be what you suggested.My original point was, "According to the Russians their invasion of Kharkov is a response to ongoing Ukrainian shelling from the Kharkov region of civilian targets in Belgorod in Russia. On 12 May they hit a 9 storey block of flats, reportedly killing 18 civilians."
Is that like how this invasion is different from the other unjustified invasions?
O.
Thanks.My original point was, "According to the Russians their invasion of Kharkov is a response to ongoing Ukrainian shelling from the Kharkov region of civilian targets in Belgorod in Russia.
On 12 May they hit a 9 storey block of flats, reportedly killing 18 civilians."
"Pressure on Biden to let US weapons strike Russia" - it feels that no matter the decision he takes here that any action or inaction will benefit Trump.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c844g9eyzz7o
But what benefits Trump or not shouldn't be a factor. I'm not so sure the problem is Biden but rather his advisor Sullivan. Blinken has quite a lot of authority though and I think he'll get this pushed through. This is the most stupid and immoral self-imposed red line.If you think thar a Trump presidency would reduce support for the Ukraine, then it's surely a factor on the longer term?
If you think thar a Trump presidency would reduce support for the Ukraine, then it's surely a factor on the longer term?
Then he tried to save face by making a pact with Poland. If he hadn't don't that, we wouldn't have been drawn into the war, neither would the US. Iirc, Hitler wanted some cities where there were Germans living, and to make up for Germany being humiliated after WW1. We don't know that he wanted the rest of Europe and Russia.Yes we do. We know it because he invaded Eastern Europe and Russia. Had he been successful, by the way, his plans were to kill everybody who lived there to make room for Germans.
I'm not really sure how this would benefit Trump.Because if Biden doesn't act he will be portrayed as soft, and if he does it will just be claimed that the only reason he has to is because of previous weakness
Because if Biden doesn't act he will be portrayed as soft, and if he does it will just be claimed that the only reason he has to is because of previous weakness
Yes we do. We know it because he invaded Eastern Europe and Russia. Had he been successful, by the way, his plans were to kill everybody who lived there to make room for Germans.If the Poles had ceded Danzig (90% German population at the time) and the corridor to it, to Germany, and if Poland had ended their alliance with France (or if the French had ended it, as the French foreign minister was advocating), he might not have invaded.
If the Poles had ceded Danzig (90% German population at the time) and the corridor to it, to Germany, and if Poland had ended their alliance with France (or if the French had ended it, as the French foreign minister was advocating) the war might not have happened.And Germany could have just got on with the Holocaust in peace.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danzig_crisis#:~:text=In%201939%2C%20the%20population%20of,Jewish%2C%20with%20380%2C000%20being%20German.
And Germany could have just got on with the Holocaust in peace.No because the Jews could have escaped to Western Europe if they had needed to. But if Poland had negotiated, there may not have been a war and in that case would the holocaust still have happened?
If the Poles had ceded Danzig (90% German population at the time) and the corridor to it, to Germany, and if Poland had ended their alliance with France (or if the French had ended it, as the French foreign minister was advocating), he might not have invaded.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danzig_crisis#:~:text=In%201939%2C%20the%20population%20of,Jewish%2C%20with%20380%2C000%20being%20German.
No because the Jews could have escaped to Western Europe.
No because the Jews could have escaped to Western Europe.Because the Nazis would just have waves them through. Stealing their belongings, persecuting them, removing their rights, killing those who didn't manage to escape is all fine on your moral compass.
Because the Nazis would just have waves them through. Stealing their belongings, persecuting them, removing their rights, killing those who didn't manage to escape is all fine on your moral compass.no war, no holocaust
no war, no holocaust
Are you seriously trying to rehabilitate Hitler's Nazis in order to try to make Putin look semi-reasonable? Is that really the path you want to take here?I did some reading, like you suggested. In particular I read about the Glazyev tapes and how they showed that Russia was involved in the counter-demonstrations in Southern and eastern Ukraine following the maidan revolution. But even this appears to have been Russia's response to a perceived threat from NATO (the conversations were held the week after the coup). And I also read that it goes back further, to 2009. But that was after NATO committed to allowing Ukraine and Georgia to join.
O.
no war, no holocaustSince they were already persecuting Jews before the war that seems to be a mere assertion.
Firstly, why do you think they would have stopped at Danzig? They didn't stop at any of the other lines they drew, they just drew another line.There is no point in me trying to keep up with your spin machine, bro. You misrepresent me too much - I am nowhere near holocaust denial, and I'm only answering yours and others' comparison of Putin with Hitler. I'm fundamentally arguing that Britain and the West should stay out of the war, that's why I started the thread. In fact, Dominic Cummings agrees with me on this point, so I must be right!
Secondly, the persecution of the Jewish people, and other groups, started long before the wars started - we have no way to know definitively if there wouldn't have been a holocaust without a war, but I'm nowhere near as confident as you are seeming that this is the case.
And stop and look at what you're doing - "Putin can't be that bad because he's not doing anything the Nazi's didn't do" is not the rhetoric masterpiece you seem to think it is. You aren't some radical revisionist historian who's suddenly understood fundamental elements that the rest of history has missed, you're a deluded tool who's a hair's breadth from holocaust denial in a quest to justify Russian expansionist aggression.
O.
I did some reading, like you suggested. In particular I read about the Glazyev tapes and how they showed that Russia was involved in the counter-demonstrations in Southern and eastern Ukraine following the maidan revolution.
But even this appears to have been Russia's response to a perceived threat from NATO (the conversations were held the week after the coup).
And I also read that it goes back further, to 2009. But that was after NATO committed to allowing Ukraine and Georgia to join.
Russia's reaction to US and Germany allowing Ukraine to hit targets in Russia with their weapons.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqq2zn3zw6o
Confirmation that this is the right decision.I do have to wonder if Biden decided it was a good day to announce it since it was definitely not going to be the headline.
The Estonian view
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c722zxj0kyro
Firstly, why do you think they would have stopped at Danzig? They didn't stop at any of the other lines they drew, they just drew another line.I'm basically taking my information from Scott Horton who is anti war, and looking it up as I go along. He says that yes Hitler was mad for power, but that his request was reasonable so wouldn't it have been better to appease him just on that request for Danzig and Poland leaving the treaty with France?
I'm basically taking my information from Scott Horton who is anti war, and looking it up as I go along. He says that yes Hitler was mad for power, but that his request was reasonable so wouldn't it have been better to appease him just on that request for Danzig and Poland leaving the treaty with France?
I'm basically taking my information from Scott Horton who is anti war, and looking it up as I go along. He says that yes Hitler was mad for power, but that his request was reasonable so wouldn't it have been better to appease him just on that request for Danzig and Poland leaving the treaty with France?You see, I'm a pacifist, but that doesn't mean either that I think you can avoid war just by giving any random dictator what they want and expect them to be happy with it or that the Nazi regime was anything other than built to persecute Jews. And you know what backs that up? History.
I'm basically taking my information from Scott Horton who is anti war, and looking it up as I go along. He says that yes Hitler was mad for power, but that his request was reasonable so wouldn't it have been better to appease him just on that request for Danzig and Poland leaving the treaty with France?
I'm basically taking my information from Scott Horton who is anti war, and looking it up as I go along. He says that yes Hitler was mad for power, but that his request was reasonable so wouldn't it have been better to appease him just on that request for Danzig and Poland leaving the treaty with France?
A report on the effect of sanctions on the Russian economy - not good short term signs for Ukraine. An effective long-term strategy, perhaps, but it's debatable whether they have that long.Not sure it's effective in the long term either.
BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nn7pej9jyo#)
O.
Letting Johnny join your club isn't a threat to Billy. Billy feeling attacked because he wanted Johnny in his club is what, in technical terms, is called tough shit.This argument seems to be refuted by the fact that in 1991, Western leaders promised the Soviets that NATO would not expand Eastwards after the reunification and inclusion into NATO of Germany. It was acknowledged by the West that the Soviets had security concerns.
This argument seems to be refuted by the fact that in 1991, Western leaders promised the Soviets that NATO would not expand Eastwards after the reunification and inclusion into NATO of Germany. It was acknowledged by the West that the Soviets had security concerns.
That has been denied hasn't it?I haven't read all of the following article, but it says they did make that promise. For example, it quotes John Major as telling Gorbachev, "we are not talking about the strengthening of NATO".
I haven't read all of the following article, but it says they did make that promise. For example, it quotes John Major as telling Gorbachev, "we are not talking about the strengthening of NATO".
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
This argument seems to be refuted by the fact that in 1991, Western leaders promised the Soviets that NATO would not expand Eastwards after the reunification and inclusion into NATO of Germany.
It was acknowledged by the West that the Soviets had security concerns.
Farage joins the pro-Putin brigade (or at least does not strive officiously to condemn):
https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/05/21/nigel-farage-defends-putin-from-royal-hitler-attack/
No, it wasn't promised at all. It was considered, and rejected.As the article above shows, multiple verbal assurances were given, in response to concerns voiced by Russia about NATO expansion. If those concerns were unfounded, why were the assurances given?
And that they were as unfounded then as they are now. Soviet/Russian security isn't threatened, Russian regional ambitions are threatened. That's not a security threat for Russia, that's a security threat for European nations, particularly those closest to Russia. Like Ukraine. And Moldova. And Georgia.
O.
Gorbachev himself refuted that any such agreement had been made. If it was so important to the Russians, they would have made such an agreement formal. It just seems like a whole lot of butthurt from the Russians. Eternal victims!Butthurt meaning they would not accept any potential for military build-up, including nuclear weapons, near its borders?
Do you think he would have stopped there?I don't know. Listening to a few of his speeches translated into English, he seemed most concerned about not allowing Germany to become weak. The point is though, our current actions are based on the assumptions, firstly, that Hitler would have continued invading other countries if appeased, and secondly, that Putin would do the same. But Putin knows the line he can't cross, that is, invading a NATO country. Also, from listening to Putin's speeches: although they are long and rambling like Hitler's, he doesn't talk in such a murderous way, so another assumption, that Russians would commit genocide if their security demands had been agreed to, is not reasonable.
I don't know. Listening to a few of his speeches translated into English, he seemed most concerned about not allowing Germany to become weak. The point is though, our current actions are based on the assumptions, firstly, that Hitler would have continued invading other countries if appeased, and secondly, that Putin would do the same. But Putin knows the line he can't cross, that is, invading a NATO country. Also, from listening to Putin's speeches: although they are long and rambling like Hitler's, he doesn't talk in such a murderous way, so another assumption, that Russians would commit genocide if their security demands had been agreed to, is not reasonable.
As the article above shows, multiple verbal assurances were given, in response to concerns voiced by Russia about NATO expansion. If those concerns were unfounded, why were the assurances given?
The point is though, our current actions are based on the assumptions, firstly, that Hitler would have continued invading other countries if appeased,
and secondly, that Putin would do the same.
But Putin knows the line he can't cross, that is, invading a NATO country.
Also, from listening to Putin's speeches: although they are long and rambling like Hitler's, he doesn't talk in such a murderous way, so another assumption, that Russians would commit genocide if their security demands had been agreed to, is not reasonable.
To get them to shut up and sign somethingIn which case they lied, so how do you expect Russia to respond? But actually they weren't lying, they were quite serious. It seems that generation of leaders understood the potential problems expansion could cause.
In which case they lied, so how do you expect Russia to respond?
But actually they weren't lying, they were quite serious.
It seems that generation of leaders understood the potential problems expansion could cause.
No, they were lying. They were saying that they might have toI meant that the Western leaders weren't lying, they were serious.
Former US nuclear weapons inspector on the possible consequences of allowing Ukraine to strike targets in Russia:
https://youtu.be/JcXDaLktm6s?si=STu-yzQv9-iQ2DR0
Note: the title is misleading.
No, they were playing the same game the Russians were. Lots of nonsense is said and pitched to the domestic media and the international media, and then what counts actually goes on paper. Comments in negotiation like that are always somewhere between a perspective on the truth and absolute nonsense.Aren't you thinking of general election campaigns? What happens when governments don't do what they pledged in their manifestos is that they get voted out next time round. Likewise, since NATO did what it assured the Soviets it wouldn't do, the Soviets, or as it now is, Russia, has gone back on its agreement to keep its troops out of Europe (380,000 withdrew from East Germany).
No. They, like we, understand the problems Russian territorial ambitions have caused, were causing then, and are still causing now.Wrong. Russia signed the Minsk agreements which kept Donbas in Ukraine.
Aren't you thinking of general election campaigns?
What happens when governments don't do what they pledged in their manifestos is that they get voted out next time round.
Likewise, since NATO did what it assured the Soviets it wouldn't do, the Soviets, or as it now is, Russia, has gone back on its agreement to keep its troops out of Europe (380,000 withdrew from East Germany).
Hence the Russian army crossing into Donbas in 2022.
Then Ukraine decided to attack them.
Wrong. Russia signed the Minsk agreements which kept Donbas in Ukraine.
It happens anywhere politics intersects with public opinion.
Or they get civil disobedience and protests and new elections are called. Or there are armed revolutions. That's what happens when governments don't do what they've pledged to their electorate - that's not what you're alleging, here, though, you're alleging that government didn't do what they'd pledged to a potential enemy, except that (and this is the important bit) IT'S NOT IN THE AGREEMENT.
NATO is alleged to have considered agreeing not to expand towards the Soviet Union, but didn't actually sign any agreement to that effect. The Soviet Union is gone and has been for over thirty years, but Putin wants NATO to be constrained now by an agreement that didn't exist with a state that no longer exists.
I told my mother I'd think about studying law, but instead I studied engineering. She's dead now, so my Aunt feels justified in moving into my garage - you see how, even if you accept the nonsense of the former, the conclusion to the story doesn't follow. That's the Russian illegal SECOND invasion of Ukraine, following it's military interventions in other nations over the past three decades.
Russias invasions were the attack - Ukrainian troops resisting foreign troops inside Ukraine is not 'attacking' it's 'defending Ukrainian soil'. That's their job, that's their right, that's their duty.
And invaded Moldova. And Georgia. And Chechnya. And Ukraine. And Ukraine again. Hitler signed peace deals and non-aggression treaties and territorial agreements, and then went ahead and invaded anyway, and Putin seems to be adopting the same arrangement.
Why should the fact that he signed an agreement seem to mean anything, when the agreements that other people don't sign appear to mean more to him?
O.
Lots of nonsense
Lots of nonsense.
Aren't you thinking of general election campaigns? What happens when governments don't do what they pledged in their manifestos is that they get voted out next time round. Likewise, since NATO did what it assured the Soviets it wouldn't do, the Soviets, or as it now is, Russia,Russia is not the Soviet Union. Some parts of the former Soviet Union are now in NATO.
has gone back on its agreement to keep its troops out of Europe (380,000 withdrew from East Germany).FTFY
Hence the Russian armycrossing intoinvading Donbas in 2022. Then Ukraine decided toattack themdefend themselves.
NATO is alleged to have considered agreeing not to expand towards the Soviet Union, but didn't actually sign any agreement to that effect. The Soviet Union is gone and has been for over thirty years, but Putin wants NATO to be constrained now by an agreement that didn't exist with a state that no longer exists.Documented as having agreed, and so no less binding than a signature. Those verbal assurances were a condition on which Soviet troops would be withdrawn from East Germany. Russia has the same security concerns as the Soviet Union. So the West still needs to honour those assurances.
Documented as having agreed, and so no less binding than a signature. Those verbal assurances were a condition on which Soviet troops would be withdrawn from East Germany. Russia has the same security concerns as the Soviet Union. So the West still needs to honour those assurances.Nope.
Documented as having agreed, and so no less binding than a signature.
Those verbal assurances were a condition on which Soviet troops would be withdrawn from East Germany.
Russia has the same security concerns as the Soviet Union.
So the West still needs to honour those assurances.
Absolute horseshit. If it's not signed in the final agreement it's part of the discussion that, for whatever reason, were not carried forward - if anything, that makes it even more explicitly not part of the agreement, because it's not that it wasn't thought about or discussed, it was actively rejected from the final agreement.The written agreement was that Germany could be in NATO. The agreement that NATO wouldn't expand further was a verbal agreement, which Russia was seeking to get signed off before 2022. The point is, NATO was warned but didn't heed the warning.
The written agreement was that Germany could be in NATO. The agreement that NATO wouldn't expand further was a verbal agreement, which Russia was seeking to get signed off before 2022. The point is, NATO was warned but didn't heed the warning.In international law a verbal agreement is ... err ... not an agreement. And an agreement that one side sought to, but failed to get signed off is ... err ... not an agreement.
The written agreement was that Germany could be in NATO.
The agreement that NATO wouldn't expand further was a verbal agreement, which Russia was seeking to get signed off before 2022.
The point is, NATO was warned but didn't heed the warning.
In the information provided by the National Security Archives, there is documented verbal agreement that NATO will not expand. I don't know whether the following applies in international law, but according to this blog (https://patronlaw.co.uk/are-verbal-agreements-legally-enforceable/) "it is a common misconception that verbal agreements hold no legal weight and therefore cannot be enforced but, this is not necessarily the case." If parties make an agreement by telephone, for example, it is possible that this can be enforced in a court of law. Key elements for enforcibility include: something offered; that thing accepted; an exchange takes place; the agreement is intended to be subject to the law of contract.The specific and limited cases where verbal agreements are accepted do not apply in international law. Even if they were to be, if you had read the link on when they apply, it's clear that the above would not be such a case.
Now read documents 6 and 7 here (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early)
Quoting from document 6, "Thus, in this conversation, the U.S. secretary of state three times offers assurances that if Germany were allowed to unify in NATO, preserving the U.S. presence in Europe, then NATO would not expand to the east."
In the information provided by the National Security Archives, there is documented verbal agreement that NATO will not expand. I don't know whether the following applies in international law, but according to this blog (https://patronlaw.co.uk/are-verbal-agreements-legally-enforceable/) "it is a common misconception that verbal agreements hold no legal weight and therefore cannot be enforced but, this is not necessarily the case." If parties make an agreement by telephone, for example, it is possible that this can be enforced in a court of law. Key elements for enforcibility include: something offered; that thing accepted; an exchange takes place; the agreement is intended to be subject to the law of contract.
Now read documents 6 and 7 here (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early)
Quoting from document 6, "Thus, in this conversation, the U.S. secretary of state three times offers assurances that if Germany were allowed to unify in NATO, preserving the U.S. presence in Europe, then NATO would not expand to the east."
You're mistaking contract law with international treaties.Fair enough, but back to my original point - that the negotiators in the West in 1990 understood that further NATO expansion would be perceived by Russia as a threat to its security. I am using that to argue against the claim that Russia's invasion was unprovoked. And you are answering that it isn't really security concerns but territorial ambitions. When I refute this with Russia signing the Minsk agreements, keeping Donbas in Ukraine, you resort to comparing Putin with Hitler.
Fair enough, but back to my original point - that the negotiators in the West in 1990 understood that further NATO expansion would be perceived by Russia as a threat to its security.
I am using that to argue against the claim that Russia's invasion was unprovoked.
And you are answering that it isn't really security concerns but territorial ambitions.
When I refute this with Russia signing the Minsk agreements, keeping Donbas in Ukraine, you resort to comparing Putin with Hitler.
And that is a very serious allegation, especially when we see symbolism from 1930s Germany on the flesh and equipment of Ukrainians.
And we don't see Russia mass murdering people with little hats or prisoners of war.
Plus, Farage agrees that Russia was provoked.
I am now thinking that Russia might have done something similar to the Baltic states to prevent them joining NATO, if they had been strong enough at the time.
I just don't think you can explain their current actions as due to territorial ambitions.
Unnecessary paranoia, maybe.
But I will finish by saying that I once went up to a circus elephant (which was in a pen) to pat it on the trunk. It sent me flying: it didn't know that I didn't want to harm it, and so it assumed that I was a threat. I think that's the case with Russia - it only wants one thing at the end of the day: a buffer zone.
lo and behold, 2022, Russia decides to recognise those two territories as independent.And that was because they asked Russia to help, because Ukraine was concentrating troops near the front line, and LPR and DPR had reduced their deployment to only 10,000.
Fair enough, but back to my original point - that the negotiators in the West in 1990 understood that further NATO expansion would be perceived by Russia as a threat to its security. I am using that to argue against the claim that Russia's invasion was unprovoked. And you are answering that it isn't really security concerns but territorial ambitions. When I refute this with Russia signing the Minsk agreements, keeping Donbas in Ukraine, you resort to comparing Putin with Hitler.
And that is a very serious allegation, especially when we see symbolism from 1930s Germany on the flesh and equipment of Ukrainians. And we don't see Russia mass murdering people with little hats or prisoners of war.
Plus, Farage agrees that Russia was provoked.
I am now thinking that Russia might have done something similar to the Baltic states to prevent them joining NATO, if they had been strong enough at the time. I just don't think you can explain their current actions as due to territorial ambitions. Unnecessary paranoia, maybe. But I will finish by saying that I once went up to a circus elephant (which was in a pen) to pat it on the trunk. It sent me flying: it didn't know that I didn't want to harm it, and so it assumed that I was a threat. I think that's the case with Russia - it only wants one thing at the end of the day: a buffer zone
And that was because they asked Russia to help, because Ukraine was concentrating troops near the front line, and LPR and DPR had reduced their deployment to only 10,000.
And Merkel admitted their intention was to rearm Ukraine - presumably so they could take back all their territory and end LPR/DPR autonomy, after which, of course, they would be able to join NATO. So actually it was the West that wasn't serious about Minsk.
Fair enough, but back to my original point - that the negotiators in the West in 1990 understood that further NATO expansion would be perceived by Russia as a threat to its security.
I am using that to argue against the claim that Russia's invasion was unprovoked.
And you are answering that it isn't really security concerns but territorial ambitions. When I refute this with Russia signing the Minsk agreements, keeping Donbas in Ukraine, you resort to comparing Putin with Hitler.
And we don't see Russia mass murdering people with little hats or prisoners of war.Yes we do.
Plus, Farage agrees that Russia was provoked.Farage is a fuckwit.
Wrong.Russia is the successor state to the USSR. It inherited its nuclear arsenal.
The USSR might have perceived them as a threat. The USSR and Russia are not the same thing.
What if it was provoked? Does that make it right? Don't you think they should have pursued peaceful means?Ideally, yes.
You seem to think Ukraine should be pursuing only peaceful means even though its territory has been actually invaded. Why do you not apply the same standard to Russia.Because I want to avoid millions of people dying.
This is one part of the former Soviet Union invading another part.So it is not NATO's business.
I don't know how you can connect this with negotiations between the USSR and NATO in 1990.read the documents in the link I gave.
Was Gorbachev threatening that the USSR would invade the USSR if NATO expanded? Because that is what has happened.Gorbachev told James Baker on Feb 9 1990, "It goes without saying that a broadening of the NATO zone is not acceptable" see document 6 in the link.
Putin and Hitler are certainly similar when it comes to keeping to international agreements. Neither can be trusted.But it's the West that cannot be trusted, see my previous post.
Yes we do.
Farage is a fuckwit.
You seem to think Ukraine should be pursuing only peaceful means even though its territory has been actually invaded. Why do you not apply the same standard to Russia.There is also the wisdom in Luke 14:31-32
And that was because they asked Russia to help, because Ukraine was concentrating troops near the front line, and LPR and DPR had reduced their deployment to only 10,000.
And Merkel admitted their intention was to rearm Ukraine - presumably so they could take back all their territory and end LPR/DPR autonomy, after which, of course, they would be able to join NATO.
So actually it was the West that wasn't serious about Minsk.
Russia is the successor state to the USSR. It inherited its nuclear arsenal.
Ideally, yes. Because I want to avoid millions of people dying.
So it is not NATO's business.
read the documents in the link I gave.Gorbachev told James Baker on Feb 9 1990, "It goes without saying that a broadening of the NATO zone is not acceptable" see document 6 in the link.But it's the West that cannot be trusted, see my previous post.
Russia is the successor state to the USSR.Well, one of them.
It inherited its nuclear arsenal.Actually, many of the weapons were on Ukrainian soil. Ukraine gave them up in return for certain assurances for Russia. It seems that agreement wasn't with the paper it was written on.
Ideally, yes. Because I want to avoid millions of people dying.So it is not NATO's business.But NATO or not, Russia invaded another former part of the USSR.
read the documents in the link I gave.Gorbachev told James Baker on Feb 9 1990, "It goes without saying that a broadening of the NATO zone is not acceptable"30 years ago. Times change. Now Russia is ruled by a gangster.
see document 6 in the link.But it's the West that cannot be trusted, see my previous post.
Nobody agreed to that.Actually, according to the link, (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early) James Baker, the US secretary of state, to whom the comment was made, replied, "We agree with that."
'They' aren't international entities to ask Russia for help, according to the agreement that Russia signed which didn't recognise them, remember.Putin said the Minsk agreements no longer existed (22 Feb 2022) having recognized those entities' independence the day before; he claimed that as a UN member, Russia could now form a collective defense treaty with LPR and DPR.
LPR and DPR didn't have automony, that was the point of the agreement. And, yes, part of the agreement was to provide a route to Ukraine joining NATO to defend itself against the obvious bullshit of Russia. This, of course, is notwithstanding the demonstrable attempts of Russia to foment the very 'autonomy' claims in those regions which were destabilising Ukraine in the first place.It does look as though fomenting autonomy claims has been Russia's strategy to prevent any more ex-Soviet states from joining NATO?
How so? It agreed those regions should not have independence recognised, and that Ukraine was to be seen as a single, unified, political entity with the freedom to enter into whatever international agreements it wanted - Russia signed up to that, but didn't appear to actually accept it for very long. The West, generally, still does.Ukraine joining international military alliances was not in the agreement, so Russia did not sign up to it.
Some of it. Ukraine inherited some, as well, which it surrendered to Russia in return for security guarantees. Look how that worked out for them.Russia has no intention of using nuclear weapons against Ukraine - it wouldn't need to. What happened was that in 2014 Ukrainians used force against its president, who had a policy of military neutrality (non-NATO membership) for Ukraine; this initiated the civil war and raised the potential for Ukraine to be under the NATO nuclear umbrella, which along with the threat posed by Ukrainian nationalists could ultimately lead to nuclear conflict.
No, it wouldn't. It would just mean they died in a gulag on their knees instead of fighting for their country. It would mean all the deaths would be Ukrainian, rather than some from both sides.That is wrong. Russia does not send POWs to die in gulags.
Only to the extent that it raises its alert levels at Russian aggression, and decides whether to offer assistance that's being requested by an outside state.Which is I suppose, fair play if Russia is assisting DPR/LPR. But by arming Ukraine they are indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of the people they are claiming to help.
Nobody agreed to that. Gorbachev could dislike the expansion, Putin can dislike the expansion, who gives a shit. If you don't see a Russian invasion of Ukraine as grounds for Ukraine defending itself because it will foreseeably result in deaths, how can you justify Russian invasion of Ukraine in the first place on the basis of Putin doesn't like Ukraine's new friends?If you call it an invasion, it isn't justified; however, a Special Military Operation is about eliminating the threat from the violent nationalist wing, as described above; there was no intention to harm civilians or even occupy; that happened as a result of Boris Johnson pushing Ukraine to reject Russia's terms for peace.
O.
Putin said the Minsk agreements no longer existed (22 Feb 2022) having recognized those entities' independence the day before; he claimed that as a UN member, Russia could now form a collective defense treaty with LPR and DPR.Why are you criticising officials from NATO countries verbal statements but not doing the same where Putin tears up an actual written down treaty?
Actually, according to the link, (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early) James Baker, the US secretary of state, to whom the comment was made, replied, "We agree with that."
So back to Jeremy's comment, "This is one part of the former Soviet Union invading another part. I don't know how you can connect this with negotiations between the USSR and NATO in 1990. Was Gorbachev threatening that the USSR would invade the USSR if NATO expanded? Because that is what has happened."
We don't know what Gorbachev had in mind about what would happen if there was a broadening of the NATO zone. We just have his clear statement that it would be unacceptable, and agreement from Baker.
My point to you is that when you say, "Gorbachev could dislike the expansion, Putin can dislike the expansion, who gives a shit", it's a bit like a kid testing his parents. And I bet all the Ukrainian soldiers forced to die as a result of NATO saying that, do give one.
Actually, according to the link, (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early) James Baker, the US secretary of state, to whom the comment was made, replied, "We agree with that."
So back to Jeremy's comment, "This is one part of the former Soviet Union invading another part. I don't know how you can connect this with negotiations between the USSR and NATO in 1990. Was Gorbachev threatening that the USSR would invade the USSR if NATO expanded? Because that is what has happened." We don't know what Gorbachev had in mind about what would happen if there was a broadening of the NATO zone. We just have his clear statement that it would be unacceptable, and agreement from Baker.
My point to you is that when you say, "Gorbachev could dislike the expansion, Putin can dislike the expansion, who gives a shit", it's a bit like a kid testing his parents. And I bet all the Ukrainian soldiers forced to die as a result of NATO saying that, do give one.
Putin said the Minsk agreements no longer existed (22 Feb 2022) having recognized those entities' independence the day before; he claimed that as a UN member, Russia could now form a collective defense treaty with LPR and DPR.
It does look as though fomenting autonomy claims has been Russia's strategy to prevent any more ex-Soviet states from joining NATO?
Ukraine joining international military alliances was not in the agreement, so Russia did not sign up to it.
Russia has no intention of using nuclear weapons against Ukraine - it wouldn't need to.
What happened was that in 2014 Ukrainians used force against its president, who had a policy of military neutrality (non-NATO membership) for Ukraine; this initiated the civil war and raised the potential for Ukraine to be under the NATO nuclear umbrella, which along with the threat posed by Ukrainian nationalists could ultimately lead to nuclear conflict.
That is wrong. Russia does not send POWs to die in gulags.
Which is I suppose, fair play if Russia is assisting DPR/LPR.
But by arming Ukraine they are indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of the people they are claiming to help.
If you call it an invasion, it isn't justified; however, a Special Military Operation is about eliminating the threat from the violent nationalist wing, as described above; there was no intention to harm civilians or even occupy; that happened as a result of Boris Johnson pushing Ukraine to reject Russia's terms for peace.
But Baker wasn't the final decision maker, and by the time that came around it was no longer in the agreement, was it.But the problem is that if NATO have not kept their word regarding expansion, how can they be trusted when they assure Russia they are purely a defensive alliance.
....
And an agreement signed by both sides which didn't reflect that.
And a situation where the USSR no longer exists anyway, and has been replaced by a range of independent nations who have their own rights and treaties.Indeed, they are free to make treaties but they are also required to respect the interests of other states, which may necessitate military neutrality.
But the problem is that if NATO have not kept their word regarding expansion, how can they be trusted when they assure Russia they are purely a defensive alliance.No, the problem is that you seem to be utterly unable to see that Putin cannot be trusted.
Indeed, they are free to make treaties but they are also required to respect the interests of other states, which may necessitate military neutrality.Is this Russia you are talking about?
No, the problem is that you seem to be utterly unable to see that Putin cannot be trusted.And the West can be trusted? Expansion started before Putin, anyway.
And the West can be trusted? Expansion started before Putin, anyway.What on earth do you mean by 'expansion'.
And the West can be trusted?More so than Putin.
Expansion started before Putin, anyway.No, it's Putin who has these grand ambitions to restore the Russian Empire. His predecessors seemed less interested.
But the problem is that if NATO have not kept their word regarding expansion, how can they be trusted when they assure Russia they are purely a defensive alliance.
Indeed, they are free to make treaties but they are also required to respect the interests of other states, which may necessitate military neutrality.
Everyone else benefits from knowing they can buy arms to defend themselves from RussiaNot necessarily, as the money could be spent on other things.
What on earth do you mean by 'expansion'.
Surely those countries that chose to join the EU or chose to join NATO did so out of choice - they weren't forced to do so (indeed in several cases it has been pretty difficult for them to join and in some cases despite wanting to join they've not been able to - e.g. Turkey and the EU). So the 'expansion' is through choice and democratic mandate. That is a world of difference to Russia annexing parts of Ukraine through military means.
"Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one's own security at the expense of the security of other states. This is stated in the 1999 OSCE Charter for European Security adopted in Istanbul and the 2010 OSCE Astana Declaration".
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828
Not necessarily, as the money could be spent on other things.
"Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one's own security at the expense of the security of other states. This is stated in the 1999 OSCE Charter for European Security adopted in Istanbul and the 2010 OSCE Astana Declaration".
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828
If there wasn't an imminent threat of invasion from Russia, yes they could. But there is. So they can't.If there was no actual threat of invasion by Russia of any of the countries that joined NATO after the cold war, then the money they spend on defence to meet their obligations is a gamble.
Those countries are required to spend more money on defense than they otherwise would. This creates the appearance of hostility.
And which bit of countries joining NATO threatens Russia's security? 'International Documents' have lots of articles with expectations like 'not invading your neighbours', but they don't seem to register with Putin's Russia...
O.
If there was no actual threat of invasion by Russia of any of the countries that joined NATO after the cold war, then the money they spend on defence to meet their obligations is a gamble.
Those countries are required to spend more money on defense than they otherwise would.
This creates the appearance of hostility.
If there was no actual threat of invasion by Russia of any of the countries that joined NATO after the cold war, then the money they spend on defence to meet their obligations is a gamble.It's not a gamble because there is actual threat of invasion by Russia. I mean: they keep invading other countries.
Those countries are required to spend more money on defense than they otherwise would. This creates the appearance of hostility.Russia invading other countries creates a worse appearance of hostility.
You've missed the bit where the Ukrainian president of the time was elected on a platform of increased alignment with the West, particular the EU and NATO, and then when he got to power on that promise he gradually changed his tune, slid back on democratic freedoms, imprisoned the opposition, professed neutrality and started sucking up to Russia. Then the populace rose up in protest. Why he did that we don't know for sure, although the Ukrainian courts convicted in absentia for treason and now is harboured by Russia. So not wrong, but not really giving the proper context.According to this (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10229626), Yanukovich was elected in 2010 on a platform of military neutrality, which was then made law by parliament.
According to this (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10229626), Yanukovich was elected in 2010 on a platform of military neutrality, which was then made law by his government.
But a commitment to political and economic affiliation with the West "However, the new law will not affect Ukraine's political and economic integration with Europe.So his not signing the EU agreement caused the protests. But he had reasons for not signing, and subsequently agreed to hold elections. But Right Sector used violence to force him out: so why do you condemn Russia's use of force but not the people that first used force?
Joining the European Union remains a priority, Mr Azarov said."
When Yanukovych turned his back on that is when the protests started. Once he was ousted, and his subsequent trial showed the scale of Russian interference, his successors campaigned on a more formal military alliance with the West.
O.
So his not signing the EU agreement caused the protests. But he had reasons for not signing, and subsequently agreed to hold elections. But Right Sector used violence to force him out: so why do you condemn Russia's use of force but not the people that first used force?
On the subject of land grabbing, recently Douglas Macgregor gave a different perspective on the annexation of the south-eastern territories:
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxfEkL_jqkSuiilRIxzLwd1SmPIYnBi2wY?si=6bxWoTHZ4pTDyYFP
Maidan was a people's revolution,I agree, but the violent aspect of it was bound to provoke a reactionary violence from the pro-russian population.
but it was Girkin and his infiltrators that caused most of the troubles. Girkin even admitted himself. Yanukovyck essentially abdicated when he fled.Yes and he formed a militia of 28,000, about 70% of whom, iirc, were from Donetsk and Luhansk.
As for MacGregor, he's nothing more than a paid russian shill. He doesn't even hide it. I'm surprised he's not in prison as a traitor.He seems a respectable person to me. Note that he was talking about the 2022 invasion. He said that the Russians were initially welcomed in Donbas, but when they said they planned to push back the Ukrainian army, get a deal, then leave, the Donbas locals told them that once they'd left, the Ukrainian secret police would come and kill anyone who had collaborated. So that is why the Russian government decided to occupy and eventually annex Donbas - to protect the population. Not because of imperial ambitions (although Girkin himself and other Russian nationalists did have imperial ambitions)
So his not signing the EU agreement caused the protests.
But he had reasons for not signing, and subsequently agreed to hold elections.
But Right Sector used violence to force him out: so why do you condemn Russia's use of force but not the people that first used force?
On the subject of land grabbing, recently Douglas Macgregor gave a different perspective on the annexation of the south-eastern territories:
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxfEkL_jqkSuiilRIxzLwd1SmPIYnBi2wY?si=6bxWoTHZ4pTDyYFP
A big missile and drone attack on Kyiv this morning by russia. A childrens hospital has been hit. How are you going to justify this, Spud?
https://x.com/United24media/status/1810231718370254994?s=19
https://x.com/igorlachenkov/status/1810228760483901464?s=19
https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1810228430434132348?s=19
'Britannia' was once part of the Roman Empire, after all.
There are many, many pro-EU voices in Scotland, in Brighton, in London - if Italian troops suddenly marched in and put them on the news it wouldn't in any way justify an invasion. Same thing here.
O.
Spud is usually quiet. No doubt absorbing all the russian propaganda. It was definitely a russian cruise missile.Presume you mean unusually?
Presume you mean unusually?
It was definitely a russian cruise missile.I agree, but I don't think the hospital was targeted deliberately. The other targets hit were military facilities. 1.2 km to the north.
I agree, but I don't think the hospital was targeted deliberately. The other targets hit were military facilities. 1.2 km to the north.
I agree, but I don't think the hospital was targeted deliberately. The other targets hit were military facilities. 1.2 km to the north.
So are you saying that russian cruise missiles only have and accuracy of around 1,2km? Kinzhals are actually quite accurate. Somebody programmed the coordinates knowing it was going to hit a childrens hospital.
Here is an analysis, by a Belorussian:
https://youtu.be/UVRLI1vVVEQ?si=sNvqrkCPGM7kFI-c
There are no signs of any damage on the missile. And we know it's definitely a kh-101. The telltale sign is the jet exhaust on the underside at the back end of the missile.I agree with that, assuming the photo hasn't been manipulated. But there are still questions, if you don't mind? I think a doctor and a child were killed by that particular missile. Would Russia deliberately use an expensive missile for that purpose? Would they not want to hit the main building where more patients would be?
I agree with that, assuming the photo hasn't been manipulated. But there are still questions, if you don't mind? I think a doctor and a child were killed by that particular missile. Would Russia deliberately use an expensive missile for that purpose? Would they not want to hit the main building where more patients would be?Well of course, they didn't have to launch the missile at all or start the war.
If it was deliberate, I would also point out that it may have been a revenge attack following the recent Sevastopol incident.
Just saying, we don't know either way, at this point.
And he obviously has no idea what he's talking about. There are no signs of any damage on the missile. And we know it's definitely a kh-101. The telltale sign is the jet exhaust on the underside at the back end of the missile.Here is a screenshot from a video that shows three kh 101s hitting the Artyom plant. It looks different - shorter and wider, and wings clearly visible.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2024/07/09/russian-missile-identified-in-kyiv-childrens-hospital-attack/?utm_source=twitter
https://x.com/RyanMcbeth/status/1810622414650270178?s=19
Is Orban the man to bring peace? I have my doubts but at some point there has to be some form of peace.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxw2k9dnjmno
Here is a screenshot from a video that shows three kh 101s hitting the Artyom plant. It looks different - shorter and wider, and wings clearly visible.
The other missile has small stabilisers in the middle, rather than wings. And it seems more slender. But apparently the damage to the surrounding buildings suggests a more powerful warhead than a SAM carries.
https://x.com/Osint613/status/1810427503401480486/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1810427503401480486¤tTweetUser=Osint613
"Chief of Staff of the Azov Regiment Krotevich says: "No peace without victory. There is only one victory – not a single Russian soldier on Ukrainian territory. We will not leave this war to our descendants, and you won't either because if you try, it will be bad. For you and for them. If this is a test, don't even think about it. I wrote this calmly."
https://x.com/Zlatti_71/status/1807764739604234320
Azov based as always!What do you mean?
What do you mean?
Based. As in well founded. In this case, no land for peace.Thanks. Yes, as an ideal, maybe it is well founded. In practical terms, I don't see how they can succeed. And the more they refuse to negotiate, the more land they will end up losing.
Thanks. Yes, as an ideal, maybe it is well founded. In practical terms, I don't see how they can succeed. And the more they refuse to negotiate, the more land they will end up losing.
From the message it looks like they are threatening Zelensky.
As I say to everyone who insists that Ukraine should give up land for peace against their will, do this one thing as a sign of good will and solidarity: Give up 20% of your home to russian rapists and murderers, whilst at least one of your nearest and dearest are in that occupied part as well. Do this first, then I'll might consider taking you seriously.Everybody experiences loss, whether it's the type you describe or something else. I've learned through what I've experienced that fighting against something that is stronger than you doesn't work. If no-one is willing to fight with you or for you then it's better to accept it gracefully and trust that God will bring good out of the situation.
Everybody experiences loss, whether it's the type you describe or something else. I've learned through what I've experienced that fighting against something that is stronger than you doesn't work. If no-one is willing to fight with you or for you then it's better to accept it gracefully and trust that God will bring good out of the situation.How many rapes and murders are you happy with?
For example, my Dad left my Mum 35 years ago. I thought if I rejected him he might change his mind and go back to Mum, but he didn't. For a while we just hated each other. That just leads to disease, social, psychological and physical. There has to be compromise and live and let live.
I don't agree that Russia wants to murder and rape all Ukrainians, even if it has happened in some instances.
How many rapes and murders are you happy with?I'm not happy with any, but I'm much less happy (if that's possible) with hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded forced conscripts.
I'm not happy with any, but I'm much less happy (if that's possible) with hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded forced conscripts.
Yeah! And that could stop today if russian forces just went the fuck home. Until then, they're destined to become part of the meat cube.If it wasn't obvious at the beginning, it should be by now that the Russians aren't going home, not even if you use the f-word at them.
If it wasn't obvious at the beginning, it should be by now that the Russians aren't going home, not even if you use the f-word at them.
If it wasn't obvious at the beginning, it should be by now that the Russians aren't going home, not even if you use the f-word at them.... even if you use any words against those in power if you are a Russian, it seems......
So what's your solution in such situations?Not to kidnap males over 20-odd and send them to the front. Would you agree that this is never right, even if the other side does it? Nor to try and drag the rest of the world into war. Personally I think that the only justifiable response is sanctions.
Not to kidnap males over 20-odd and send them to the front. Would you agree that this is never right, even if the other side does it? Nor to try and drag the rest of the world into war. Personally I think that the only justifiable response is sanctions.
If Ukraine had agreed to Russia's terms in March 2022, there would have been no murder, rape and torture, and Donbas would have been two independent states. Zapporozhia and Kherson would still be Ukrainian territory.
Yes, stopping the invasion would have been possible with NATO's modern air capabilities, but never rely on another nation for your own nation's security. That's what the West is doing with Ukraine, and we are now more at risk of nuclear war than we were before.
We are only at risk of nuclear war if Russia decides to use them.
Not to kidnap males over 20-odd and send them to the front.You mean like Russia does?
Nor to try and drag the rest of the world into war.You mean like Russia does?
Personally I think that the only justifiable response is sanctions.Russia is invading Ukraine. You'll excuse the Ukrainians if they don't believe your sanctions are not going to work in time.
If Ukraine had agreed to Russia's terms in March 2022, there would have been no murder, rape and torture, and Donbas would have been two independent states. Zapporozhia and Kherson would still be Ukrainian territory.And if Russia hadn't oillegally invaded Ukraine there would have been no murder rape and torture and Donbas, Zapporozhia and Kherson would not be occupied by an evil empire.
Yes, stopping the invasion would have been possible with NATO's modern air capabilities, but never rely on another nation for your own nation's security. That's what the West is doing with Ukraine, and we are now more at risk of nuclear war than we were before.
You mean like Russia does?Even if Russia kidnaps civilians, it is wrong for Ukraine to do the same, and they do. (https://youtube.com/shorts/LvCnZZEXCD4?si=jAk-KUBkxy-4YO2Q)
And if Russia hadn't oillegally invaded Ukraine there would have been no murder rape and torture and Donbas,Sure but my point was that there's nothing they can do to stop it.
Sure but my point was that there's nothing they can do to stop it.
Even if Russia kidnaps civilians, it is wrong for Ukraine to do the same, and they do. (https://youtube.com/shorts/LvCnZZEXCD4?si=jAk-KUBkxy-4YO2Q)
It's called conscription and everybody does it when there is a war that is an existential threat. We did it in the First and Second World Wars.
It's called conscription and everybody does it when there is a war that is an existential threat. We did it in the First and Second World Wars.It's called kidnapping and if it leads to death, murder.
So they should just roll over and get murdered. Gotcha.Would they have been murdered if they had agreed to peace terms?
But don't forget, according to Spud, both wars could have been avoided if we had just given in to the aggressor's territorial demands again, and again, and again...ad infinitum!You're living in the past.
You're living in the past.
Would they have been murdered if they had agreed to peace terms?
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" George Santayana.Might that be what Bush and Blair said when they went looking for Iraqi WMD? (since Iraq used them in the 80s)
Yes. We already know that from the areas Ukraine has liberated. Abductions, torture, rape, murder. Mass graves, children's torture chambers. Properties seized, deportations, being forced to take russian passports. Being forced to fight against your own country. Do you know that in Donetsk and Luhansk there are hardly any men left between the ages of 25-50? Russian forces forced them all into meat waves. These are all systematic, deliberate breaches of the Geneva Conventions.But that was after Ukraine rejected the peace agreement. Yes both sides are contravening the Geneva convention, and the individuals responsible should face justice. But the point in question is that if someone else does something that doesn't mean it's acceptable for me to do it.
Might that be what Bush and Blair said when they went looking for Iraqi WMD? (since Iraq used them in the 80s)
But that was after Ukraine rejected the peace agreement. Yes both sides are contravening the Geneva convention, and the individuals responsible should face justice. But the point in question is that if someone else does something that doesn't mean it's acceptable for me to do it.
It's called kidnapping and if it leads to deathYou know that the Russians are the worst offenders at this, right?
murder.Would they have been murdered if they had agreed to peace terms?Knowing the current regime in Russia, there would have been much murder. For a start they would have found an excuse to carve out more and more Ukrainian territory. Then they would have gone on to other nearby non NATO states.
You should be aware that you are an apologist for a brutal murderous lying regime.Perhaps he should change his name to 'kartoshka' ... the Russian for 'spud' ;)
Wtf are you going on about, Spud? No, both sides are not contravening the Geneva Conventions! Only one side is, and systematically at that: russia.You originally said that the Russians would have tortured and murdered Ukrainians if Kiev had agreed to Russia's peace terms. Then you cited as evidence tortures and murders that took place after they refused the peace terms.
You originally said that the Russians would have tortured and murdered Ukrainians if Kiev had agreed to Russia's peace terms. Then you cited as evidence tortures and murders that took place after they refused the peace terms.
And, Ukraine is kidnapping men around the country and beating them up. So you can't claim that it's just the Russians who are committing war crimes.
You originally said that the Russians would have tortured and murdered Ukrainians if Kiev had agreed to Russia's peace terms. Then you cited as evidence tortures and murders that took place after they refused the peace terms.
And, Ukraine is kidnapping men around the country and beating them up. So you can't claim that it's just the Russians who are committing war crimes.No it isn't.
"Agree to our terms or we will torture and murder your people" - Vladimir Putin probably.If Russia takes territory, they are violent towards 'Banderites'. (And if Ukraine recapture territory, they are violent towards people who didn't resist, or collaborated with, the Russians.)
Will you listen to yourself.
No it isn't.
No it isn't.https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/ukrainian-officers-kidnap-14-y-o-amid-forced-conscription-dr#:~:text=Amid%20a%20dire%20need%20for,their%20enlistment%20with%20the%20military.&text=Ukrainian%20conscription%20officers%20kidnapped%20a,enlist%20him%20with%20the%20military.
If Russia takes territory, they are violent towards 'Banderites'. (And if Ukraine recapture territory, they are violent towards people who didn't resist, or collaborated with, the Russians.)This is a lie.
But fighting back has a worse outcome; it has already led to death on a much greater scale and no territory recaptured (in last year's counteroffensive, that is)
https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/ukrainian-officers-kidnap-14-y-o-amid-forced-conscription-dr#:~:text=Amid%20a%20dire%20need%20for,their%20enlistment%20with%20the%20military.&text=Ukrainian%20conscription%20officers%20kidnapped%20a,enlist%20him%20with%20the%20military.
Let's have some confirmation from a reputable source.I have seen perhaps a dozen instances of men being kidnapped in Ukraine, caught on camera by onlookers. These are all buried in a forest of twice-daily videos by the same YouTuber, and I can't find them - sorry. That was why I posted the link to the 14-year old instead.
🤣
https://x.com/exileoftza/status/1821789148321058887?s=19
A convoy of wagner terrorists got wasted on their way from Belarus to Kursk yesterday.
https://x.com/SvengerdHoek/status/1821801417490702804?s=19
Neither of those links work for me.
Try these:
https://x.com/SvengerdHoek/status/1821801417490702804
https://x.com/exileoftza/status/1821789148321058887
Yes, because there's a clear pattern. It also happened in the pre-2022 occupied territories. Get your head out of the sand and stop victim blaming. This is all russia's fault. It did not have to invade and it can still go home.Okay so supposing this did happen to Ukrainians in the occupied territories, pre-2022.
They are not the same thing. Conscripting citizens of occupied territories is a war crime. Conscripting your own citizens isn't.Agreed, however, kidnapping people and and compelling them to fight is still morally wrong.
Okay so supposing this did happen to Ukrainians in the occupied territories, pre-2022.The war was started by Russia. Ukraine didn't want it.
Do you think that that, plus any that might have happened had a peace agreement been made, is greater than the slaughter that has occurred since war started in 22?
Agreed, however, kidnapping people and and compelling them to fight is still morally wrong.Tell that to Putin. He's the one doing all the kidnapping.
The war was started by Russia. Ukraine didn't want it.But compare Russia with the Taliban, who attacked the Afghans in 2020. Afghans didn't want the war, and most of them decided not to fight, to avoid bloodshed. If there was a threat of genocide, had Ukraine agreed to peace terms, then it would have made sense to fight. But as it is, there was no threat of genocide, and the Ukrainian rulers have forced the people to fight, which is itself akin to genocide.
Tell that to Putin. He's the one doing all the kidnapping.
But compare Russia with the Taliban, who attacked the Afghans in 2020. Afghans didn't want the war, and most of them decided not to fight, to avoid bloodshed.You think Afghanistan is some sort of paradise on Earth now, do you? I hope you don't have any female relatives there.
If there was a threat of genocide, had Ukraine agreed to peace terms, then it would have made sense to fight. But as it is, there was no threat of genocide, and the Ukrainian rulers have forced the people to fight, which is itself akin to genocide.Please stop being so stupid.
You think Afghanistan is some sort of paradise on Earth now, do you? I hope you don't have any female relatives there.If there is a universal right to flee persecution and war (https://www.amnesty.org.uk/right-asylum#:~:text=Article%2014%20of%20the%201948,Refugees%20elaborates%20upon%20this%20right.) why is the Ukrainian government preventing its male citizens leaving the country? You are right about other things, so I'm sure you can explain this.
Please stop being so stupid.
If there is a universal right to flee persecution and war (https://www.amnesty.org.uk/right-asylum#:~:text=Article%2014%20of%20the%201948,Refugees%20elaborates%20upon%20this%20right.) why is the Ukrainian government preventing its male citizens leaving the country? You are right about other things, so I'm sure you can explain this.
If there is a universal right to flee persecution and war (https://www.amnesty.org.uk/right-asylum#:~:text=Article%2014%20of%20the%201948,Refugees%20elaborates%20upon%20this%20right.) why is the Ukrainian government preventing its male citizens leaving the country? You are right about other things, so I'm sure you can explain this.
Are you not aware that Ukraine is fighting an existential war? This is unlike Russia where the persecution of people who don’t want to fight is much worse.Assuming you mean its existence as an independent nation, yes I realise that. My point is that if doing that is going to result in them being wiped out, it would be better to accept loss of independence.
Assuming you mean its existence as an independent nation, yes I realise that. My point is that if doing that is going to result in them being wiped out, it would be better to accept loss of independence.
Yes, I'm aware that Russia has mandatory conscription. But they also have more manpower, so are more likely to win a war of attrition. Whether Ukraine uses forced conscription or not, they can't win.
Therefore the only thing that would justify continuing to fight is if on surrendering they would be killed, and you haven't shown that to be the case.
So you subscribe to the notion of "might not right" then?... and his advice to women might seem to be - rape is OK provided you don't fight against it?
Assuming you mean its existence as an independent nation, yes I realise that. My point is that if doing that is going to result in them being wiped out, it would be better to accept loss of independence.No, I mean they are in an existential crisis. Their way of life will cease to exist and so might they.
Yes, I'm aware that Russia has mandatory conscription. But they also have more manpower, so are more likely to win a war of attrition. Whether Ukraine uses forced conscription or not, they can't win.
Therefore the only thing that would justify continuing to fight is if on surrendering they would be killed, and you haven't shown that to be the case.
Ukraine has developed a new jet powered long range attack drone.Have they developed it or have the specifications been given to them to avoid the restrictions on what is being supplied?
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/37934
Have they developed it or have the specifications been given to them to avoid the restrictions on what is being supplied?
Assuming you mean its existence as an independent nation, yes I realise that. My point is that if doing that is going to result in them being wiped out, it would be better to accept loss of independence.
Yes, I'm aware that Russia has mandatory conscription. But they also have more manpower, so are more likely to win a war of attrition.
Whether Ukraine uses forced conscription or not, they can't win.
Therefore the only thing that would justify continuing to fight is if on surrendering they would be killed, and you haven't shown that to be the case.
Biden allows russia to bomb Ukrainian hospitals. Fuck them all! Someone have the balls to glass russia already.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/09/03/three-killed-by-russian-strikes-across-ukraine
What are you proposing that Biden does about this that he is not doing already?
Allow Ukraine to use the weapons they've been given to destroy the airfields and launch sites inside of russia that are used to attack Ukraine and murder its innocent civilians.
Militarily, that is a waste of time. Whilst it is a tragedy that Russia is killing civilians in Ukraine, that is of little consequence as far as the war effort is concerned. It could be argued that Russia should be targeting the Ukrainian defence forces if they want to advance their invasion.
Also, you may not be aware but Ukraine is using Western hardware inside Russia. If you remember they have invaded the Kursk oblast with it. This is far more effective than targeting airfields.
Tell that to the families of the 41 killed and 180 injured today.One reason why war is considered very bad is because things like this happen all the time during it. It's an absolute tragedy, but Ukraine losing would be a far worse tragedy.
They're doing this every single fucking day, including targeting civilian infrastructure. That could all stop in a matter of days. We're letting russia commit genocide.
One reason why war is considered very bad is because things like this happen all the time during it. It's an absolute tragedy, but Ukraine losing would be a far worse tragedy.
We are doing pretty much everything we can short of putting our own troops on the ground. We aren't letting Russia commit genocide.
I already gave one example of what we could do more. Lift those stupid immoral restrictions. We're protecting russian air fields better than Ukraine.I heard that the reason NATO will not consent to allowing Ukraine to attack Russian airfields (etc) is because the equipment used in doing so will have to be operated, or coordinated, by NATO personel. That is NATO attacking Russia, and will lead to Russia attacking NATO airfields (etc) in response.
I heard that the reason NATO will not consent to allowing Ukraine to attack Russian airfields (etc) is because the equipment used in doing so will have to be operated, or coordinated, by NATO personel. That is NATO attacking Russia, and will lead to Russia attacking NATO airfields (etc) in response.
Changing that particular restriction would not be difficult - whilst some officials might be using it as part of the justification, the reality is that politically it's not seen as an appropriate move to escalate the situation in that way, at this time. I disagree, but I haven't been elected to make those decisions.NATO troops are in danger anywhere in Ukraine, and Russia wouldn't need additional capabilities. It could attack a target in Poland in the same way as it does in Ukraine.
However, the idea that NATO forces attacking Russian military capacity would result in the Russian military suddenly developing capability they've not shown in the past two years of conflict in Ukraine is laughable. NATO troops in NATO countries would be in no real danger at all - the danger is to civilian targets near the border, and to NATO troops on any front lines in Russia, and that's a political risk that the Western leaders don't appear to be willing to take right now.
O.
Do you realise that the state of the war shows that there is a reasonable chance, though, that they will not be wiped out? So it makes sense.So what you're implying is that NATO should go in and defend Ukraine, and as per my previous two posts, avoiding expanding the conflict outside Ukraine.
Only if they can be effective enough that they are killing the opposition at a faster rate than their own politics will accept them losing their own people, and if they can keep their economy afloat in the meantime. It's a war of attrition, but it's a asymmetric one, and manpower isn't the only critical resource.
Why? They are holding their ground, they are imposing far more significant casualties on the Russians than they are suffering, their technical capacity to prosecute the war is increasing, they have taken the strategic advantage by spreading the Russian front line even thinner, they have changed the Russian domestic narrative by occupying actually Russian territory, and their foreign support is stronger and more widespread than Russia's (for now, there are potential fractures in that support).
Even if everything you said was true, and it's not, your conclusion still isn't valid. Evil will only flourish when good men stand by and do nothing, after all. In terms that you might appreciate more than I do they are choosing:
“Defend the lowly and fatherless; render justice to the afflicted and needy. Rescue the lowly and poor; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” (Psalm 82:3-4)
"Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, and please the widow's cause" (Isaiah 1:17)
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." (Proverbs 31:8-9)
O.
I heard that the reason NATO will not consent to allowing Ukraine to attack Russian airfields (etc) is because the equipment used in doing so will have to be operated, or coordinated, by NATO personel. That is NATO attacking Russia, and will lead to Russia attacking NATO airfields (etc) in response.
So what you're implying is that NATO should go in and defend Ukraine, and as per my previous two posts, avoiding expanding the conflict outside Ukraine.
The problem with this as I see it is that other countries could help Russia in the same way, so it would be never-ending.
I agree that Ukraine are holding their ground to an extent, but they are slowly being pushed out of Donbas.
On the evidence that's available to the public, my take is that NATO members should go in and support Ukraine more forcefully than they have been. I don't think it should be a NATO operation - NATO is a defensive alliance, and Russia hasn't attacked NATO, but obviously there's a degree of crossover between the groups.Yes, I see what you mean.
It's a possibility, but not I think a strong likelihood. There may be information that is not in the public domain to this effect which would start to explain why European governments are not moving in that direction.I recall that when Western countries started signing mutual defence agreements with Ukraine earlier this year, Russia did a similar thing with China, and this seemed to startle the West iirc.
I recall that when Western countries started signing mutual defence agreements with Ukraine earlier this year, Russia did a similar thing with China, and this seemed to startle the West iirc.
Speaking earlier in the day, Russian President Vladimir Putin said: “The key point, is that only servicemen of Nato countries can input flight missions into these missile systems.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgxgvw38xjo
"Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this. Therefore this is not about permitting or not permitting the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons.
"This is about whether or not Nato countries take the decision to directly participate in the military conflict
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgxgvw38xjo
Putin said: “The key point, is that only servicemen of Nato countries can input flight missions into these missile systems.
The midget in the Kremlin is talking bullshit again, Spud. ATACMS, for instance, uses the same launch systems as HIMARS and Ukrainians have full control over them.But who has control over the launch system of a storm shadow?
But who has control over the launch system of a storm shadow?
The launch system is a fighter jet. The missiles themselves are preprogrammed. That can be done by Ukrainians.I hear that Putin is saying they will shoot down the satellites that guide the missiles, which are apparently American. Can Ukraine operate them without that?
I hear that Putin is saying they will shoot down the satellites that guide the missiles, which are apparently American. Can Ukraine operate them without that?
I hear that Putin is saying they will shoot down the satellites that guide the missiles, which are apparently American. Can Ukraine operate them without that?That’s the standard GPS satellites. He’s bullshittting as usual.
Listening to Ben Wallace being interviewed on Ukraine yesterday, I can't help but think he's an outlier not only in terms of where the US is, but most of the Tory Party. I don't agree with him but I have to admire the clarity.
What did Ben Wallace say about Ukraine?A little detail here
Further confirmation that Trump fully intends to bendover to Putin at the first opportunity. He's the bitch of every dictator around.Doesn't stop it always having been crass.
Really don't understand the objection to signing bombs. It's always been done.
Doesn't stop it always having been crass.
People should save their self-righteousness for condemning russian crimes instead.Amazingly you can do both, rather than indulging in stupid vacuous arsery.
Amazingly you can do both, rather than indulging in stupid vacuous arsery.
Sure, if you don't really understand what's going on. Meanwhile, I feel an urge to make a donation to "sign my rocket".Wankery squared.
https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1838654612385206734?s=19
Wankery squared.
The problem is that these things are weapons of war and they are designed to kill people. This exercise is childish and pointless because, if the recipient is close enough to read the signature, they are probably going to be killed by the shell. And they won't be the people responsible for the mess. Putin will be hundreds of miles away, in a bunker if there is any sign of incoming munitions.
Most of the people who are killed by these things are conscripts who have been herded together and then force to run at the Ukrainian positions with little chance of survival. They had families and friends and they would rather be there with them than being killed by shells with amusing artwork.
Wankery indeed.
Poor things! Could have just stayed at home.No, they weren't given that choice.
No, they weren't given that choice.
They always had a choice. However, the meat cube doesn't discriminate.they're conscripts of a corrupt state. They have no choice. As so often your attitude mirrors that which you despise.
they're conscripts of a corrupt state. They have no choice. As so often your attitude mirrors that which you despise.
Poor things! Could have just stayed at home.
They had a choice. They could have refused.And gone to prison - or to the front anyway.
Not an easy choice but the choice was there. Instead, they chose to loot, rape and murder Ukrainians.Most of them don't get that far. They die in meat wave attacks.
One of Orban's top aides, also called Orban but no relation, says that if in Ukraine's shoes Hungary wouldn't resist a russian invasion. Couldn't make it up!🤡 At least it means Nato soldiers don't have to risk their lives for Hungary. Someone tell me why Hungary is in Nato again?
https://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-russia-viktor-orban-balazs-orban-ukraine-war-volodymyr-zelenskyy-vladimir-putin/
Russian war crime number 156,472.
https://x.com/cossackgundi/status/1841143020369952815?s=19
And a big welcome to North Korean troops
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3vkqwe9wwdo
And a big welcome to North Korean troopsMaybe they will help in Kursk but not cross into Ukraine?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3vkqwe9wwdo
Maybe they will help in Kursk but not cross into Ukraine?
Maybe they will help in Kursk but not cross into Ukraine?
Given their displays so far, the immediate question is help who?'their' meaning the Russians, pr North Koreans?
O.
'their' meaning the Russians, pr North Koreans?
Someone on YouTube speculated that the Koreans would help Russia to recapture Kursk.
Iirc the two countries have a defence agreement which was in place before Ukraine's incursion into Kursk.
Biden thinks time to have 'some fun'?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/biden-authorizes-ukraine-to-use-us-supplied-long-range-missiles-for-deeper-strikes-inside-russia/ar-AA1ufshn
So effectively UK follows Biden?Britain apparently needs US permission to use them because they have US-made components.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c20726y20kvt ;So
Britain apparently needs US permission to use them because they have US-made components.
Isn't it because they need the US satellites for targeting?
Only partially. Storm Shadow has a semi-autonomus guidance system.
'Ukraine says Russia launched an intercontinental ballistic missile for first time in the war' - though this seems not necessarily to have been an ICBM.Apparently a new missile
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-21/ukraine-says-russia-launched-ballistic-missile-for-first-time/104632948
Apparently a new missile
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4n9vgwnnyo
Release the Tomahawks! They have a destiny to be fulfilled in Moscow.I would imagine that the moment tomahawk missiles were detected, Russian submarines would launch their equivalent in response. Surely after yesterday you don't still believe they are bluffing?
I would imagine that the moment tomahawk missiles were detected, Russian submarines would launch their equivalent in response. Surely after yesterday you don't still believe they are bluffing?
So Russia has weapons that can take out any target in Europe without being intercepted. Question: if they target the UK's store of nuclear warheads with conventional hypersonic missiles like the Hazel, would those nuclear warheads detonate?
So Russia has weapons that can take out any target in Europe without being intercepted. Question: if they target the UK's store of nuclear warheads with conventional hypersonic missiles like the Hazel, would those nuclear warheads detonate?
Oh yeah, because russia is the only country with nuclear weapons. In fact, russian weapons are so good and fast that they arrive at their destination before they press the launch button. The west can only retaliate by throwing stones at them. Well, that's what you lot would have us believe, anyway.Un-interceptable missiles are Russia's answer to the US pulling out of the ABM treaty, iirc. They allow Russia to be able to strike back in the event that they are attacked. This ensures mutually assured destruction.
The detonation process for nuclear weapons is very specific and so highly unlikely they would actually detonate.Thanks, I hope you're right.
Un-interceptable missiles are Russia's answer to the US pulling out of the ABM treaty, iirc. They allow Russia to be able to strike back in the event that they are attacked. This ensures mutually assured destruction.
In the event that Trump pulls US support from Ukraine, and Europe went to war with Russia without the US, the first thing Russia would do is destroy our nuclear deterrent. That would probably cause Europe to think again.
The British nuclear deterrent is in submarines under the sea.Most of it is in bunkers in Scotland, but yes, some is in submarines.
Most of it is in bunkers in Scotland, but yes, some is in submarines.No, it's all in the submarines, which do dock in Scotland but not in bunkers.
So Russia has weapons that can take out any target in Europe without being intercepted.
Question: if they target the UK's store of nuclear warheads with conventional hypersonic missiles like the Hazel, would those nuclear warheads detonate?
Some details on the Russian general killed in the bomb explosion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyx4kvz4l0o
Wasn't it the USA withdrawing from the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty that made Russia develop these weapons, and wasn't it the US's use of nuclear weapons that made Russia and China develop them?
So they claim and it's possible, though not guaranteed. It's also not a new situation, that's been a concern for decades; it's such a concern, most of Western Europe has been strongly invested in an organisation building a military alliance to make Russia question using such weapons, it's called NATO.
Wasn't it the USA withdrawing from the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty that made Russia develop these weapons, and wasn't it the US's use of nuclear weapons that made Russia and China develop them?
Another day, another russian war crime. Evidence of russian soldiers executing POW's has increased dramatically recently. You can't negotiate peace with these savages, a nation of rapists and murderers. Russia needs to be burned to the ground.The comment I noted said that if Ukraine surrendered, this would happen on a much wider scale.
https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/1882364306928619559
Wasn't it the USA withdrawing from the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty that made Russia develop these weapons,Possibly
and wasn't it the US's use of nuclear weapons that made Russia and China develop them?
PossiblyPutin told Oliver Stone that from the USSR's perspective it was necessary to have nuclear technology to prevent the US from using theirs to intimidate other countries.
No.RussiaThe USSR had its own nuclear programme as well as spies inside the Los Alamos project.
And, by the way, at that time, the USSR's fears might have been justified. It was many years before they had more than a handful of atom bombs or any effective delivery system. Some of the more agressive Americans were arguing that the USSR should be obliterated before they caught up.
Today, nobody is threatening Russia. There's nobody seriously suggesting we should obliterate them (at least there wasn't before they invaded Ukraine). The so called security fears are just straw men invented by Russia's leaders to try to lend some legitimacy to their attrocities. Stop shilling for them.
Putin told Oliver Stone that from the USSR's perspective it was necessary to have nuclear technology to prevent the US from using theirs to intimidate other countries.
Putin told Oliver Stone that from the USSR's perspective it was necessary to have nuclear technology to prevent the US from using theirs to intimidate other countries.So what? Ukraine was no threat to Russia and NATO is only a threat to Russia in that they won't let Russia invade any of their members.
Putin told Oliver Stone that from the USSR's perspective it was necessary to have nuclear technology to prevent the US from using theirs to intimidate other countries.
Well he would, wouldn't he.The point he was making was that once the genie (nuclear bomb technology) was out of the bottle it couldn't be put back in, but it can be controlled, by having a balance of power instead of one country having the ability to annihilate others unhindered.
The point he was making was that once the genie (nuclear bomb technology) was out of the bottle it couldn't be put back in, but it can be controlled, by having a balance of power instead of one country having the ability to annihilate others unhindered.
Bollocks! That way of thinking is completely detached from any kind of morality and sovereignty. It's just justification for imperialism, whether that be US, russia or any other kind. If you're against one form of it, you're against all forms of it. There is no finite amount of security in the world, whereby the only way to make yourself feel more secure is by making others less secure.I'm not sure you understand. If the US develops and uses a nuclear bomb, they make the Soviet Union feel less secure. The USSR answers by developing the same technology so the US can't threaten them. Then the two sides can negotiate on limiting the numbers of warheads to lower the potential for destroying the whole of civilization.
I'm not sure you understand. If the US develops and uses a nuclear bomb, they make the Soviet Union feel less secure. The USSR answers by developing the same technology so the US can't threaten them. Then the two sides can negotiate on limiting the numbers of warheads to lower the potential for destroying the whole of civilization.
The point he was making was that once the genie (nuclear bomb technology) was out of the bottle it couldn't be put back in, but it can be controlled, by having a balance of power instead of one country having the ability to annihilate others unhindered.
MAD, yes. But was Russia (USSR) trying to develop it first (they were researching it before the US developed the bomb) for that reason or to try to be the first and to be able to do stuff before the US could develop theirs? Of course Putin suggests the USSR development was in order to balance the US development but if they had developed it first then the US could say the same. Putin presents Russia as having to defend themselves against the west and that Russia isn't a threat to anyone else - which is what I meant by saying he would, wouldn't he.After nuclear fusion was discovered in Germany in 1938, the USSR became interested in it to use in the war against Germany. When Truman told Stalin the US had tested an atomic bomb, Stalin told his scientists to hurry up their own research.
After nuclear fusion was discovered in Germany in 1938, the USSR became interested in it to use in the war against Germany. When Truman told Stalin the US had tested an atomic bomb, Stalin told his scientists to hurry up their own research.
Her is the bit in the interview which I was referring to. It's from 6:00-7:00 minutes here (https://youtu.be/bSymwkbfuZQ?si=ECzTtX1MY9QKfHUb). He is saying that an international team of nuclear scientists transferred information from the US to the USSR in order to create a nuclear balance because they understood the dangers of just one country having the bomb.
Yes, I know all that thanks. The point I am making is that you (and Putin) seem to be presenting Russia's/USSR's development of the atom bomb as purely a counter to the US development whereas they were looking to develop it anyway, as you acknowledge. If the USSR had developed it first they would have had the ability to annihilate others unhindered and it would have been important for the US to catch-up.They were not working on it urgently until the US began testing and using it. Wiki says that at the time, they were actually more focussed on radar. Perhaps it was the way it was used - on civilians - that was significant? Applying this to the present time, it's notable that Russia hasn't used its oreshnik missiles to attack civilians, yet has demonstrated that it can counter NATO's attacks against targets inside Russia.
They were not working on it urgently until the US began testing and using it. Wiki says that at the time, they were actually more focussed on radar. Perhaps it was the way it was used - on civilians - that was significant? Applying this to the present time, it's notable that Russia hasn't used its oreshnik missiles to attack civilians, yet has demonstrated that it can counter NATO's attacks against targets inside Russia.
Is that why russian oil refineries are burning? Btw, oreshnik is just another ballistic missile. Nothing special but hyped up as the new wonder weapon, much like the T-14 Armata (which didn't even make its way out of a parade because it broke down).As far as I know, the reason is because Ukraine gets intelligence from NATO about when Russia is about to launch a large-scale missile strike, and it attacks Russian oil refineries just before so that Russia can't fuel its bombers.
Applying this to the present time, it's notable that Russia hasn't used its oreshnik missiles to attack civilians
yet has demonstrated that it can counter NATO's attacks against targets inside Russia.
Any thoughts about #2074? Assuming Russia doesn't respond to being burned to the ground by burning the West to the ground, how is Ukraine supposed to survive if Zelensky keeps sacrificing manpower and weapons unnecessarily?
They were not working on it urgently until the US began testing and using it. Wiki says that at the time, they were actually more focussed on radar. Perhaps it was the way it was used - on civilians - that was significant? Applying this to the present time, it's notable that Russia hasn't used its oreshnik missiles to attack civilians, yet has demonstrated that it can counter NATO's attacks against targets inside Russia.
LOL! The only ones sacrificing manpower and weapons unnecessarily is russia. They could have all just stayed at home. Ukraine never had that choice.That they didn't have that choice doesn't mean they ought to sit and shoot at the Russians and wait until surrounded. Both sides are sacrificing them unnecessarily.
They are using glide bombs against civilians aren't they? No need to 'waste' the Oreshnk. Based on their record of levelling cities do you think the USSR wouldn't have used the atomic bomb if they had developed it first? You have already said they were looking to develop it to use against Germany.I don't think they were aware of its power at the time they thought about using it against Germany. We can't assume they would have used it as the Americans did, primarily against civilians. Russia's record of leveling cities is due to the defenders using them as fortresses.
Russia's record of leveling cities is due to the defenders using them as fortresses.
A truly disgusting human being.You're the disgusting human being, as we have seen from the obscenities you post. I was referring to the fact that Russia doesn't target buildings unless they are being used by the military for defense, in contrast to the Americans' use of nukes against civilians.
You're the disgusting human being, as we have seen from the obscenities you post. I was referring to the fact that Russia doesn't target buildings unless they are being used by the military for defense, in contrast to the Americans' use of nukes against civilians.
Are you on drugs? Russia is bombing hospitals, apartment buildings, shopping malls etc every fucking day! You're also arguing that Ukrainians shouldn't defwnd their home. Fuck you!We hear about that in the news from time to time. If it was every day, we would hear about it every day.
We hear about that in the news from time to time. If it was every day, we would hear about it every day.
We hear about that in the news from time to time. If it was every day, we would hear about it every day.
No, it's all in the submarines, which do dock in Scotland but not in bunkers.Not sure if I already said this, but I thought the 200 warheads were stored in the banks of Loch Lomond, except a few dozen that are in the submarines? If the stored ones were taken out, we would have only the ones that were at sea left.
So you accept that they are bombing buildings such as shopping malls which aren't being used for defence?I accept that they do from time to time, but it's possible that many of these incidents involve air defence or are for retaliation for Russian civilian targets being hit by Ukraine. Also, such buildings can be used for military purposes and targeted because of that. My point was that as a rule, Russia doesn't target civilians, only military. This is supported by the fact that when a hospital or shopping mall is hit, we hear about it on MSM; but those instances are rare, suggesting they are one-offs.
I accept that they do from time to time, but it's possible that many of these incidents involve air defence or are for retaliation for Russian civilian targets being hit by Ukraine. Also, such buildings can be used for military purposes and targeted because of that. My point was that as a rule, Russia doesn't target civilians, only military. This is supported by the fact that when a hospital or shopping mall is hit, we hear about it on MSM; but those instances are rare, suggesting they are one-offs.
My point was that as a rule, Russia doesn't target civilians, only military. This is supported by the fact that when a hospital or shopping mall is hit, we hear about it on MSM; but those instances are rare, suggesting they are one-offs.
Russia doesn't target buildings unless they are being used by the military for defense,That is a blatant lie.
in contrast to the Americans' use of nukes against civilians.The circumstances were very different. Japan was the aggressor in that war and the bombs were dropped to avoid having to make a full scale invasion of Japan. Many lives were saved - including civilians - by ending the war before that happened.
The circumstances were very different. Japan was the aggressor in that war and the bombs were dropped to avoid having to make a full scale invasion of Japan. Many lives were saved - including civilians - by ending the war before that happened.They didn't need to invade Japan; the US Navy proposed blockading it and capturing its airfields in China and Korea.
So to you Russia is noble and would never target civilian buildings - unless it was in retaliation. What makes you think this?I didn't say that. I said the low frequency of reports in MSM shows that it is rare.
Reality appears to disagree with your assessment. - Russian War Crimes - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_war_crimes)Russia didn't use cluster munitions in Ukraine until after Ukraine used them (supplied by the US). One example of how some crimes were initiated, and indeed Russia's crime of invading Crimea was in response to Western backed 2014 coup, and the 2022 invasion a response to the refusal of the US to rule out putting NATO bases on its doorstep.
O.
Russia didn't use cluster munitions in Ukraine until after Ukraine used them (supplied by the US). One example of how some crimes were initiated, and indeed Russia's crime of invading Crimea was in response to Western backed 2014 coup, and the 2022 invasion a response to the refusal of the US to rule out putting NATO bases on its doorstep.
Russia didn't use cluster munitions in Ukraine until after Ukraine used them (supplied by the US). One example of how some crimes were initiated, and indeed Russia's crime of invading Crimea was in response to Western backed 2014 coup, and the 2022 invasion a response to the refusal of the US to rule out putting NATO bases on its doorstep.And of course, the Ukrainians destroyed their own city of Mariupol all by themselves.
And of course, the Ukrainians destroyed their own city of Mariupol all by themselves.
I didn't say that. I said the low frequency of reports in MSM shows that it is rare.
Russia didn't use cluster munitions in Ukraine until after Ukraine used them .
Not according to this n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_cluster_munitions_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#:~:text=Use%20by%20Ukraine,-In%20early%20March&text=An%20August%202022%20Cluster%20Munition%20Coalition%20report%20noted%20that%20Ukraine,more%20on%20December%2030%202023. (http://n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_cluster_munitions_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#:~:text=Use%20by%20Ukraine,-In%20early%20March&text=An%20August%202022%20Cluster%20Munition%20Coalition%20report%20noted%20that%20Ukraine,more%20on%20December%2030%202023.)Ok
Just bought "Killer in the Kremlin" by John Sweeney from a Wells market stall. Anyone read this?
No. But I've been meaning to. You've brought to mind now. I'll have a look in my local library on Monday.
Ok
This edition has four extra chapters, leading up to just after the more recent full invasion. Flicking through the last few pages, Sweeney seemed optimistic, even expecting Putin to be dead by 2023. If only..
If you're interested in the subject, I can also recommend Keir Giles. He has a number of books about russia and why it acts as it does. Found them very insightful.Will look out for them.
Is that it? Ok. Do you accept that Russia used cluster ammunition first?That is what you are saying. I want to hear Russia's side of the story too. As it happens, Ukraine shelled a market place in Horlivka near the city of Donetsk 5 days ago with cluster rounds and killed five civilians. This type of attack over 10 years is what Russia says justifies its special military operation.
That is what you are saying. I want to hear Russia's side of the story too. As it happens, Ukraine shelled a market place in Horlivka near the city of Donetsk 5 days ago with cluster rounds and killed five civilians. This type of attack over 10 years is what Russia says justifies its special military operation.
That is what you are saying. I want to hear Russia's side of the story too. As it happens, Ukraine shelled a market place in Horlivka near the city of Donetsk 5 days ago with cluster rounds and killed five civilians. This type of attack over 10 years is what Russia says justifies its special military operation.
I'm not saying it, I am linking to a Wiki page which includes information about it. Fair enough to try to investigate the claims more but you do seem to just try to find things which show Russia in a good light. Regarding the incident in Horlivka, the only info I could find with a Google search came from Russian sources. In all wars there is propaganda and spin put on incidents. Do you recognise that? Do you recognise that claims of attacks over the past 10 years could be spin to justify the invasion? I'm not saying they are inaccurate - I don't know - but you seem to just accept the Russian claims regardless. Why?I would like to say I am neutral - I totally accept that Russia has committed many war crimes. However, AFU attacks on civilians in Donbas started long before 2022, during the time before Russia got heavily involved. It began when the Eastern Ukrainians refused to accept the new government after the Maidan protests and riots: that government was not democratically elected. They wanted to remain part of Ukraine, but also wanted to maintain the military neutrality that Ukraine had had since its independence from the Soviet Union. So they declared independence, and formed militia to defend against the new regime. Russia sent them weapons to enable them to do this, while at the same time recognizing the Poroshenko government in Kiev.
That is what you are saying. I want to hear Russia's side of the story too.
As it happens, Ukraine shelled a market place in Horlivka near the city of Donetsk 5 days ago with cluster rounds and killed five civilians.
This type of attack over 10 years is what Russia says justifies its special military operation.
I would like to say I am neutral - I totally accept that Russia has committed many war crimes.
However, AFU attacks on civilians in Donbas started long before 2022, during the time before Russia got heavily involved.
It began when the Eastern Ukrainians refused to accept the new government after the Maidan protests and riots: that government was not democratically elected.
They wanted to remain part of Ukraine, but also wanted to maintain the military neutrality that Ukraine had had since its independence from the Soviet Union.
So they declared independence, and formed militia to defend against the new regime.
Russia sent them weapons to enable them to do this, while at the same time recognizing the Poroshenko government in Kiev.
The Minsk Agreements were supposed to result in the Donbas being an autonomous region of Ukraine.
The Separatist militia only needed about 10,000 combat-ready troops for defensive purposes, because the Minsk agreements were meant to prevent offensives. For that reason they didn't mobilize more than that number. There came a point in November 2021 when they suspected that Kiev was not intending to keep to the agreements, and were ultimately intending to retake Donbas.
Kiev denied this, but we now know, from Merkel and Hollande, that France and Germany secretly intended the agreements to allow Kiev time to build up its military. I've seen a document online, outlining the reasons why Ukraine wanted to prepare for conflict with Russia. Their objective appears to have been to deter Russia from attacking. It could be that they were actually preparing to retake Donbas and Crimea, and anticipating a Russian response.
In November 2021 the separatists appealed to Russia to send 30,000 troops to help defend against a potential AFU offensive.
They did this because they didn't have enough troops ready in case of such an offensive. Again, this is because, with the Minsk agreements in place, they only needed 10,000 troops to keep the front line stable.
At the same time, Russia was trying to get security guarantees from the West; the Biden administration refused these and as I recall, NATO carried out massive exercises near Russia's borders.
This led to Russia massing over 100,000 troops near the Ukrainian border, whose purpose was to secure the autonomy of Donbas and to install a pro-Russian government in Kiev.
So the tipping point appears to have been the breakdown of the Minsk agreements, at which point the Separatists realized that resuming of the conflict was inevitable, and their appeal to Russia for help because they were not prepared for the coming AFU offensive. Notably, the Russians had told the Separatists that they would not occupy the territories. But the Separatists said that this would lead to the AFU coming back in again, and asked the Russians to keep troops there.
I hope that sounds at least a little bit unbiased?
I would like to say I am neutral - I totally accept that Russia has committed many war crimes. However, AFU attacks on civilians in Donbas started long before 2022, during the time before Russia got heavily involved. It began when the Eastern Ukrainians refused to accept the new government after the Maidan protests and riots: that government was not democratically elected. They wanted to remain part of Ukraine, but also wanted to maintain the military neutrality that Ukraine had had since its independence from the Soviet Union. So they declared independence, and formed militia to defend against the new regime. Russia sent them weapons to enable them to do this, while at the same time recognizing the Poroshenko government in Kiev.
The Minsk Agreements were supposed to result in the Donbas being an autonomous region of Ukraine. The Separatist militia only needed about 10,000 combat-ready troops for defensive purposes, because the Minsk agreements were meant to prevent offensives. For that reason they didn't mobilize more than that number.
There came a point in November 2021 when they suspected that Kiev was not intending to keep to the agreements, and were ultimately intending to retake Donbas. Kiev denied this, but we now know, from Merkel and Hollande, that France and Germany secretly intended the agreements to allow Kiev time to build up its military. I've seen a document online, outlining the reasons why Ukraine wanted to prepare for conflict with Russia. Their objective appears to have been to deter Russia from attacking. It could be that they were actually preparing to retake Donbas and Crimea, and anticipating a Russian response.
In November 2021 the separatists appealed to Russia to send 30,000 troops to help defend against a potential AFU offensive. They did this because they didn't have enough troops ready in case of such an offensive. Again, this is because, with the Minsk agreements in place, they only needed 10,000 troops to keep the front line stable.
At the same time, Russia was trying to get security guarantees from the West; the Biden administration refused these and as I recall, NATO carried out massive exercises near Russia's borders. This led to Russia massing over 100,000 troops near the Ukrainian border, whose purpose was to secure the autonomy of Donbas and to install a pro-Russian government in Kiev.
So the tipping point appears to have been the breakdown of the Minsk agreements, at which point the Separatists realized that resuming of the conflict was inevitable, and their appeal to Russia for help because they were not prepared for the coming AFU offensive. Notably, the Russians had told the Separatists that they would not occupy the territories. But the Separatists said that this would lead to the AFU coming back in again, and asked the Russians to keep troops there.
On the subject of cluster ammunition, I read that Ukraine had a lot of this left over from Soviet times, which it had started destroying. Last year it had almost run out of shells altogether: does that suggest that it had used up those old cluster rounds? And also, Russia being a more powerful country, of course it is going to use more of a type of weapon than Ukraine, whether artillery or whatever.
I hope that sounds at least a little bit unbiased?
Trump's art of the deal: say you'll give russia everything it wants before a single negotiation has taken the place. As long as you're willing to massage his ego, he'll suck you off and even pay you for the privilege.
Fuck Trump and fuck America! Oh! And btw, bomb moscow and Mar-a-Lago!
That's a little bombastic, even if it is essentially bang on the money.and bombtastic
and bombtasticAnd, damn you Aruntraveller and Shaggy, this would be the obvious follow up
ETA because of Aruntraveller',since remarkable, silver got this going round in my head with Trump singing it.
https://youtu.be/6W5pq4bIzIw?si=Wvqas0kxwHXZW2jx
Trump's art of the deal: say you'll give russia everything it wants before a single negotiation has taken place. As long as you're willing to massage his ego, he'll suck you off and even pay you for the privilege.
Fuck Trump and fuck America! Oh! And btw, bomb Moscow and Mar-a-Lago!
Not worthy of you, AO. :)
If, I thought for one minute, it was as you write above I would be worried to.
You know enough about God and history, so why worry when you know the truth that God has a purpose for all who come to power. Trump too hands on. He is always determined to say " Do as I say, or this will happen to you". I believe Trump tells them what will happen if they don't come to an agreement. They have a choice to make behind the eye covering wall of the press/public and if they don't heed to his threats then suffer the consequences.
We know how it ends. As humans we are responsible for not following pack mentality but the human way of doing things right and good. The people put them in power they can bring them out of their power too.
Not worthy of you, AO. :)
If, I thought for one minute, it was as you write above I would be worried to.
You know enough about God and history, so why worry when you know the truth that God has a purpose for all who come to power. Trump too hands on. He is always determined to say " Do as I say, or this will happen to you". I believe Trump tells them what will happen if they don't come to an agreement. They have a choice to make behind the eye covering wall of the press/public and if they don't heed to his threats then suffer the consequences.
We know how it ends. As humans we are responsible for not following pack mentality but the human way of doing things right and good. The people put them in power they can bring them out of their power too.
There is nothing outside of Russian propoganda to suggest that anyone asked Russia to send troops.
Believe me, I can be much worse. It's time we made russia pay, by making it not exist anymore.Here is the draught agreement which Russia wanted the US to sign back in December 2021:
Here is the draught agreement which Russia wanted the US to sign back in December 2021:
https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en
The logic is clear: Russia doesn't want any nuclear activity anywhere near its borders. The US would be the same, see Cuban missile crisis. Why doesn't Russia have such a problem with Finland joining NATO? Because Finland's constitution does not allow it to have any nuclear weapons on its territory. The US did not respect Russia's concerns about missiles that could carry nuclear warheads being deployed in Ukraine.
That's bullshit. There were never any nuclear weapons going to be deployed in Ukraine.I can agree on this, but iirc Biden would not guarantee it.
Also, it makes little difference where nuclear missiles are deployed with regards to closeness.It does, because if a missile launch is detected by Russia, it has to decide on a response, so the longer the time available for that, the safer the world is from destruction.
And remember, Ukraine was forced to give up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees, something it no doubt regrets now.Those weapons were controlled by Russia, so Ukraine could not have used them.
I can agree on this, but iirc Biden would not guarantee it.
It does, because if a missile launch is detected by Russia, it has to decide on a response, so the longer the time available for that, the safer the world is from destruction.
Those weapons were controlled by Russia, so Ukraine could not have used them.
That's bullshit. There were never any nuclear weapons going to be deployed in Ukraine.There were nuclear weapons deployed in Ukraine - Soviet ones.
Believe me, I can be much worse. It's time we made Russia pay, by making it not exist anymore.
Russia has to save face. I believe the powers that be, those hidden forced his hand. They have made him look a fool. There is nothing to gain.
Trump is determined to make USA look good. He doesn't care what others think but he knows how to wield his sword of power over their heads. My way or the highway.
Russia has to save face.
I believe the powers that be, those hidden forced his hand.
They have made him look a fool.
There is nothing to gain.
Trump is determined to make USA look good.
He doesn't care what others think but he knows how to wield his sword of power over their heads. My way or the highway.
Why would he abandon the possibility of former Soviet nations joining NATO in the face of Russian aggression, to appease and make easier Russian aggressionFrom what I've read, it's to do with not increasing your country's security at the expense of your neighbouring country's security. To paraphrase, "Mutual defence treaties would have been sufficient to ensure Ukraine's security, rather than expanding NATO to Russia's borders". I took this to mean something like a European defence pact.
Given how many US - and other - ballistic missile subs can park three hundred yards off Russian's coastline, that's not going to alleviate that issueThat was part of Russia's draft treaty in 2021, iirc. Each not bringing submarines or heavy bombers near the other's country.
From what I've read, it's to do with not increasing your country's security at the expense of your neighbouring country's security. To paraphrase, "Mutual defence treaties would have been adequate to ensure security, rather than expanding NATO to Russia's borders".
I took this to mean something like an Eastern European defence pact.That was part of the draft treaty in 2021, iiirc. Each not bringing submarines or heavy bombers near the other's country.
PUTIN wants - not needs, wants - to save face,
No, he needs to save face to avoid an accidental trip out of a window or a polonium cocktail. This is a matter of life and death for Putin on a personal level.But he has been controlling the defenestrations and polonium cocktail deliveries so far with impunity.
NATO IS A MUTUAL DEFENCE TREATY!A defence treaty containing two nuclear states who attacked and decimated Iraq and Afghanistan.
NATO Charter, article 3 - "In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack"
Of course Putin is trying to artificially create a difference, he's trying to delegitamise NATO, because NATO stands in the way of his Imperialist and territorial ambitions in Easter Europe.It does look that way, doesn't it. Except that the territory it has gained is the result of NATO expansion.
That's not a mutual defence agreement, that's the terms of a peace negotiation to bring about the cessation of war, in this instance a war of aggression by Russia. Why would Ukraine, which has twice been invade by Russia in the last decade, be considering its mutual defence pact to be with Russia? Why would any of the other former Soviet nations be interested in that, given Russia's track record in recent years?I didn't mean a defence pact between Russia and Ukraine. I meant between Ukraine and Europe without the US. In terms of conventional military strength, this would be a better balance. There could be a clause that says that if Russia uses nuclear weapons against Ukraine, the US would defend Ukraine. The thing here is that the Russian nuclear capability was always a response to the US developing and using it's nuclear weapons . We have to assume that Russia will not use them against Europe unless attacked first.
O.
From the military point of view, why is NATO allowed to fear Russian expansion (or aggression) and Russia is not allowed to fear NATO expansion (or aggression)?
Here's some help, seeing as you're unable to tell the difference.🤡From a military perspective, there is no difference. Russia is a defensive alliance just as much as NATO is.
From a military perspective, there is no difference. Russia is a defensive alliance just as much as NATO is.
From a military perspective, there is no difference. Russia is a defensive alliance just as much as NATO is.
A defence treaty containing two nuclear states who attacked and decimated Iraq and Afghanistan.
It does look that way, doesn't it. Except that the territory it has gained is the result of NATO expansion.
From the military point of view, why is NATO allowed to fear Russian expansion (or aggression) and Russia is not allowed to fear NATO expansion (or aggression)?
I didn't mean a defence pact between Russia and Ukraine. I meant between Ukraine and Europe without the US. In terms of conventional military strength, this would be a better balance.
There could be a clause that says that if Russia uses nuclear weapons against Ukraine, the US would defend Ukraine.
The thing here is that the Russian nuclear capability was always a response to the US developing and using it's nuclear weapons.
We have to assume that Russia will not use them against Europe unless attacked first.
NATO IS A MUTUAL DEFENCE TREATY!
NATO Charter, article 3 - "In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack"
Of course Putin is trying to artificially create a difference, he's trying to delegitamise NATO, because NATO stands in the way of his Imperialist and territorial ambitions in Easter Europe.
That's not a mutual defence agreement, that's the terms of a peace negotiation to bring about the cessation of war, in this instance a war of aggression by Russia. Why would Ukraine, which has twice been invade by Russia in the last decade, be considering its mutual defence pact to be with Russia? Why would any of the other former Soviet nations be interested in that, given Russia's track record in recent years?
O.
NATO did take actions which it can be argued were not defensive in bombing Yugoslavia though didn't it? I understand the argument was that it was in the interest of regional stability but this is debated.
And even more debatable in Iraq and Afghanistan, as Spud said. I'd like to think that at least some of the reluctance to take an active involvement in Ukraine has been because they learnt from those situations. Unfortunately, I think on balance some involvement in the Balkans was probably justified (if not, perhaps, all of that precise involvement in hindsight), but where Afghanistan and Iraq probably weren't, they're now applying those lessons to Ukraine which, like the Balkans, probably did warrant their involvement.
Thus Ukraine pays the penalty for the US' led errors in the middle-East.
O.
I wasn't sure if Afghanistan and Iraq was done under the name of NATO whereas I knew Yugoslavia was - but that may be semantics. The argument that NATO is purely defensive is hard to uphold given these actions.
Three. UK, USA, France.The territory Russia has gained is the result of NATO expansion.
NATO has no territory. NATO is not a state, it's an alliance. It has no government, not citizenry, it doesn't levy taxes, it owns no military equipment, it has not soldiers.
Why would a defensive alliance want to balance itself against an aggressive, imperialist neighbour with a history of invasions instead of presenting an overwhelmingly superior military alliance?Because if it did, the aggressive country wouldn't have the need to be aggressive.
There could be a clause that says if Russia uses any weapons against Ukraine the entirety of the Western hemisphere would retaliate. We could base it around the North Atlantic, and have a treaty about it...I prefer "The Parties [USA , Russia] shall cooperate on the basis of principles of indivisible, equal and undiminished security and to these ends:" see article 1 of draft treaty
The nuclear superpowers need to work towards reducing their nuclear arsenals, as that leads to a safer world. That's why their leaders need to be able to cooperate. While there are vast numbers of nukes, there needs to be as much distance between their respective deployment sites as possible, so as to not cause barriers to dialogue between the superpowers. Expanding the US nuclear umbrella closer and closer to Russia causes cooperation to break down. Key here is actions that could be perceived by the other side as causing a threat to its security, such as placing military infrastructure near each others' borders. That's why Russia wanted a treaty in 2021 in which the US committed to not doing that.
The Soviet nuclear programme was about developing a superior weapon - it was part of an arms race, it wasn't solely a response to the US having or using it, they would have attempted a nuclear programme regardless because it was a period of significant military investment. They might not have put quite so much emphasis on it if the US had not gotten there first, but it would still have happened.
Why do we? We have to assume, given his issues at home, his desperation to cling to power (in the face of a likely short lifespan should he fall from grace) and his history of military aggression and disregard for Western sensibilities or the norms of modern diplomacy and warfare, that Putin doesn't intrinsically take anything off the table.
O.
The nuclear superpowers need to work towards reducing their nuclear arsenals, as that leads to a safer world. That's why their leaders need to be able to cooperate. While there are vast numbers of nukes, there needs to be as much distance between their respective deployment sites as possible, so as to not cause barriers to dialogue between the superpowers. Expanding the US nuclear umbrella closer and closer to Russia causes cooperation to break down. Key here is actions that could be perceived by the other side as causing a threat to its security, such as placing military infrastructure near each others' borders. That's why Russia wanted a treaty in 2021 in which the US committed to not doing that.
The territory Russia has gained is the result of NATO expansion.
The nuclear superpowers need to work towards reducing their nuclear arsenals, as that leads to a safer world.
That's why their leaders need to be able to cooperate.
While there are vast numbers of nukes, there needs to be as much distance between their respective deployment sites as possible, so as to not cause barriers to dialogue between the superpowers.
Expanding the US nuclear umbrella closer and closer to Russia causes cooperation to break down.
Key here is actions that could be perceived by the other side as causing a threat to its security, such as placing military infrastructure near each others' borders. That's why Russia wanted a treaty in 2021 in which the US committed to not doing that.
No! We should be bombing the shit out of moscow, and if that worries you, you should go and build yourself a shelter!No point, although my neighbour unearthed one in his garden just last week. Problem with bombing Moscow is it would lead to a full-on exchange which even if anyone survived the explosions, the planet would apparently be uninhabitable.
reducing it below that arguably makes it more dangerous - someone might think it's worth the sacrifice.I don't follow your logic here.
That's not a mode of thought that can reliably be attributed to Putin or Trump.We have to give them a chance.
Knowing the opposition can launch from close and there's nothing Russia can do about it is, arguably, a better security consideration.Not going to happen though. You forgot about their submarines, for a start.
That's not happening. Even if Russia were worried about nukes in Ukraine, which seems unlikely, that's no closer than Poland or Latvia or Lithuania or on a sub in any one of a dozen maritime locations around Russia.While Russia put up with it, expanding the nuclear unbrella closer to Russia has indeed led to deteriorating East-West relations.
NATO already has access to the Russian border, making that potential border bigger makes no real difference to their potential access to Russia, but it makes a hell of a difference to Russia's capacity to invade Eastern Europe.So what is it about Ukraine that make Russia so averse to it joining NATO?
Again.
O.
No point, although my neighbour unearthed one in his garden just last week. Problem with bombing Moscow is it would lead to a full-on exchange which even if anyone survived the explosions, the planet would apparently be uninhabitable.
But he has been controlling the defenestrations and polonium cocktail deliveries so far with impunity.Because he's relatively strong. Show a bit of weakness and he will be the next one enjoying a trip from the fourth floor to the ground.
I don't follow your logic here.
We have to give them a chance.
Not going to happen though. You forgot about their submarines, for a start.
While Russia put up with it, expanding the nuclear umbrella closer to Russia has indeed led to deteriorating East-West relations.
So what is it about Ukraine that make Russia so averse to it joining NATO?
Crimea perhaps? That if Ukraine tried to recapture it, it would have NATO backing? Putin has mentioned this.
Again, what?
Someone might think that, if the enemy only has enough weapons to kill of half of your country rather than all of it, that sacrificing that half might be worth the risk of launching. There's a lower point at which 'enough' becomes 'not enough' deterrent before you get to full disarmament.Tricky indeed. Perhaps the advent of missiles which can't be intercepted will make a difference. These would not need to use nuclear warheads, so that nuclear weapons could all be dismantled and the risk to mankind eliminated. Maybe...
Tricky indeed. Perhaps the advent of missiles which can't be intercepted will make a difference. These would not need to use nuclear warheads, so that nuclear weapons could all be dismantled and the risk to mankind eliminated. Maybe...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/22/from-saviour-to-judas-how-trumps-pivot-on-russia-also-endangers-his-own-countryBrilliant article, which rings so true. Ends with a few positive suggestions, but really - what does Europe, what do the remaining supposed democracies do now? I keep hearing the tones of Private Frazer.
That is an admirably well-informed assessment, but you seem quite phlegmatic. Do you think things could really drag on for four years without some dramatic escalation? After Trump's recent brainless interventions, I can see Putin getting quite reckless.
In four years time, when Trump's been booted, perhaps someone with some sense will get into the White House, and Ukrainian acceptance into NATO will be viable again - or, earlier than that, if Trump decides he's had enough of NATO and convinces enough of Congress to withdraw from it.
O.
That is an admirably well-informed assessment, but you seem quite phlegmatic. Do you think things could really drag on for four years without some dramatic escalation?
After Trump's recent brainless interventions, I can see Putin getting quite reckless.
In the article Steve has posted, there is the suggestion that the American constitution has provision to get rid of obviously delinquent presidents before term, if enough influential Americans come to their senses.
Putin offers to sell rare earth minerals to the US, including from Russian-occupied Ukraine
'Ukraine official says minerals deal agreed with US' - will be interesting to see the details of this.Interesting to see on the map in the link, that the occupied territory doesn't have much compared to the rest of the country. I had wondered if Russia was really only interested in the Donbas for its mineral deposits.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c337461n3xlo
Interesting to see on the map in the link, that the occupied territory doesn't have much compared to the rest of the country. I had wondered if Russia was really only interested in the Donbas for its mineral deposits.
What, the map that says 'Russia controlled area includes large mineral deposits'? Putin wanted all of Ukraine anyway.Putin wants Ukrainian sovereignty, except the South-East which he now considers part of Russia, and on the condition of neutrality.
Putin wants Ukrainian sovereignty, except the South-East which he now considers part of Russia, and on the condition of neutrality.
Putin wants Ukrainian sovereignty, except the South-East which he now considers part of Russia, and on the condition of neutrality.
Putin wants Ukrainian sovereignty, except the South-East which he now considers part of Russia, and on the condition of neutrality.
You're referring to Trump's little party with prostitutes, in which he took great pleasure in "golden streams"? Wouldn't he just start blathering "Fake news" all over again?
,"avoiding Putin publishing sordid details,"
Putin is accepting Ukrainian sovereignty now, on the understanding that his immediate opportunity to annex the entire country is gone - he may or may not be planning to wait a while and try again, as he did last time, and he has his short-term goal which is a land corridor to the Black Sea port region of Crimea that he annexed on his first unjustified illegal invasion.From watching some of the interviews Putin has given over the last decade, his main concern was Russia's security, including Russian speakers across the border. This meant that Ukraine had to remain neutral. He was open to Ukraine's EU membership, as long as the EU remains purely an economic union. But now the EU is edging towards military union too, so it's less likely that Putin will be ok with Ukraine's membership.
Putin doesn't WANT Ukrainian sovereignty, but he'll accept that it continues and pitch it like it's some sort of beneficent gesture on his part while his stooge backstabs Ukraine and America's allies - it's up to you what you think Trump gets out of it, but the claim that he brokered peace (who cares who suffers for that ego trip), avoiding Putin publishing sordid details, favourable mineral deals for the US that he can claim as his doing, some of all of the above...
O.
From watching some of the interviews Putin has given over the last decade, his main concern was Russia's security, including Russian speakers across the border. This meant that Ukraine had to remain neutral. He was open to Ukraine's EU membership, as long as the EU remains purely an economic union. But now the EU is edging towards military union too, so it's less likely that Putin will be ok with Ukraine's membership.
He didn't intend to annex it. As I understand it, on the advice of his army chief he invaded as far as Kiev in order to prevent the Ukrainian army concentrating too many troops in Donbas. The Russians withdrew from Kiev after Ukraine initialed the draft peace treaty drawn up in Istanbul. Then the Ukrainians, seeing the Russians had withdrawn, refused to ratify the treaty.
His illegal invasion of Crimea was his response to the illegal US, Biden/Nuland-led "Yats is the guy" coup, which pushed out the neutral president and opened the door for Ukraine to join NATO.
We have yet to see what Trump and his team do. They and Russia have so far only established plans to reinstate respective embassies, the first step towards normalising relations. They wanted to recoup the money the previous administration gave Ukraine, while not taking part in the war, but (I think?) have accepted they won't get that money back. At the moment the plan seems to be that Ukraine will exchange rare minerals for reconstruction work, not military aid. Trump suggested that the US might protect it's people who will be involved in the reconstruction, and in that way give a security guarantee to the country. The problem is the Russians won't stop the fighting if it means allowing Western troops into Ukraine.
From watching some of the interviews Putin has given over the last decade, his main concern was Russia's security, including Russian speakers across the border.
This meant that Ukraine had to remain neutral.
He was open to Ukraine's EU membership, as long as the EU remains purely an economic union.
But now the EU is edging towards military union too, so it's less likely that Putin will be ok with Ukraine's membership.
He didn't intend to annex it.
As I understand it, on the advice of his army chief he invaded as far as Kiev in order to prevent the Ukrainian army concentrating too many troops in Donbas.
His illegal invasion of Crimea was his response to the illegal US, Biden/Nuland-led "Yats is the guy" coup, which pushed out the neutral president and opened the door for Ukraine to join NATO.
We have yet to see what Trump and his team do.
They and Russia have so far only established plans to reinstate respective embassies, the first step towards normalising relations.
They wanted to recoup the money the previous administration gave Ukraine, while not taking part in the war, but (I think?) have accepted they won't get that money back.
At the moment the plan seems to be that Ukraine will exchange rare minerals for reconstruction work, not military aid.
Trump suggested that the US might protect it's people who will be involved in the reconstruction, and in that way give a security guarantee to the country.
The problem is the Russians won't stop the fighting if it means allowing Western troops into Ukraine.
The Rada made an agreement with Yanucovych to see out the rest of his term as president on the condition he wouldn't seek a new term, but then he abandoned his presidency and fled to russia.yes, because the Right Sector wouldn't stand down?
The Russians were pushed back because their military - in particular their logistics - was incompetent. Ukraine drafted a peace deal - effectively a surrender - in case things went badlly, but their military (with materiel assistance) stepped up, so they didn't need it.I know they were incompetent, but the withdrawal was to do with the peace negotiations that were ongoing. Russia doesn't withdraw all that distance just because it is getting smoked.
yes, because the Right Sector wouldn't stand down?
LOL! Right Sector had exactly zero seats out of 450 at the time. Post Maidan election they got one.From Wikipedia:
I know they were incompetent, but the withdrawal was to do with the peace negotiations that were ongoing.
Russia doesn't withdraw all that distance just because it is getting smoked.
The point I was making though in response to Maeght was that Putin didn't 'want all of Ukraine'.
All sweetness and light at the White house
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c625ex282zzt
I wonder if Trump supporters will conclude that the fiasco today is an indicator that over-confident and under-informed bullying is not a good tactic for their beloved President to employ if he chooses is to wade into complex international problems - I suspect not.
I wonder too if the fancy footwork of Macron and Starmer to try and avoid upsetting Trump has now been rendered meaningless.
Disgusting treatment of Zelensky.Trump as Saruman and Vance as Grima Wormtongue. Except Saruman was reputed to have been wise once.
Trump as Saruman and Vance as Grima Wormtongue. Except Saruman was reputed to have been wise once.
Don't know who they are.Characters in Lord of The Rings
Characters in Lord of The Rings
I watched the drama and it looks like what happened is: Z started talking about how he hopes the deal will lead to 'real security guarantees'; Vance was responding that the Biden way didn't work, let's try diplomacy; Z asked what sort? Putin doesn't stick to ceasefires. Then Z intimated that if the US doesn't continue military aid packages, the US will at some point be at war and will feel what Ukraine feels. At which point Trump stepped in with, you're not gonna drag us into the war.
Still amazed by that press conference. The idiot asking about a suit, ffs!At least Zelensky managed ( before the yobs shouted him down) to get in a few words of riposte "After the war, I'll wear a costume, maybe like yours, maybe better..."
I wonder if Trump supporters will conclude that the fiasco today is an indicator that over-confident and under-informed bullying is not a good tactic for their beloved President to employ if he chooses is to wade into complex international problems - I suspect not.Some of them will.
I wonder too if the fancy footwork of Macron and Starmer to try and avoid upsetting Trump has now been rendered meaningless.
List of places to nuke:What don't you just add in Beijing and Jerusalem for luck
1. Moscow
2. The White House
What don't you just add in Beijing and Jerusalem for luck
Pretty much, which just goes to show that while Trump was talking about diplomacy, he wasn't practicing it. He wasn't listening to what Zelensky was saying, which was that Putin can't be trusted, and giving in to him now just encourages him that these invasions work. He'll re-arm, refinance and be back invading someone else, and that conflagaration may be bigger and more involved.Trump has a mandate to stop financing the war. The mineral deal would not have worked as long as Europe planned peacekeeping troops, as Russia would not agree to that and would attack them. Macron's "dear Donalds" and Starmer's arm touching, were to try and trick Trump into agreeing to something that would have led, assuming peacekeeping troops, to the US getting into a war with Russia; but Trump, thinking (or pretending to think?) that Russia would accept peacekeeping forces, played along until he saw that Zelensky had no interest in stopping the killing but insists on recapturing the lost territory. Paraphrasing what Z was saying in the buildup: "Putin invaded our land and we hope you can help us push him out" (continue arming us).
Trump's need to try and look tough and dictate the terms worked against him, and peace. He's telling Zelinsky that unless he takes a bad deal, he'll be at war and risk everything, and that risk extends to the US - 'You're risking World War III' - that's just giving Zelinsky leverage. Trump's offering him nothing for the lives already spent, and offering the perpetrator a cushy deal and all the land he's illegally annexed, why would anyone take that deal if it didn't come with some sort of guarantee that the peace is going to last or be enforced - which is what he was aTsking when he put to Vance 'what sort of diplomacy are we talking about'.
Putin can't be trusted, he knows that and he's not going to take the word of a proven liar and fraudster who stands to benefit personally that this time it will be different.
O.
until he saw that Zelensky had no interest in stopping the killing but insists on recapturing the lost territory.
Trump has a mandate to stop financing the war.
The mineral deal would not have worked as long as Europe planned peacekeeping troops, as Russia would not agree to that and would attack them.
Macron's "dear Donalds" and Starmer's arm touching, were to try and trick Trump into agreeing to something that would have led, assuming peacekeeping troops, to the US getting into a war with Russia; but Trump, thinking (or pretending to think?) that Russia would accept peacekeeping forces, played along until he saw that Zelensky had no interest in stopping the killing but insists on recapturing the lost territory.
Paraphrasing what Z was saying in the buildup: "Putin invaded our land and we hope you can help us push him out" (continue arming us).
I think if Vance hadn't mentioned the forced conscription and propaganda visits, it may not have turned into what it did.
In short, though, we now know that Trump is not going to be bribed into helping to continue the war.
Here he is the next day, summarizing what he thinks (from 1 minute onward): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t21OERWmxUY
Who started the killing you absolute Putin apologist?I'm aligned with England and the world. You're gambling with World War 3
Ukraine is a sovereign nation. What exactly are you not getting about the fact that they have been invaded by another country?
It certainly seems that way, yes. Where is it implicit or explicit in that he has to capitulate to Russia's demands and try to exclude Ukraine from negotiations about the war in their country?The US needs to stop arming Ukraine, as it emboldens them to keep fighting until the last Ukrainian.
1 - without some peacekeeping troops, and other security concessions, the deal will not work because Ukraine will not agree to it. It's almost like there needs to be a negotiation, here.
2 - That's Russia's STARTING POINT. The point of a negotiation is to start from what's wanted, and move to what will be acceptable. Ukraine starts from the point that it won't accept peace unless it gets all its land back, but I can't see that surviving a genuine negotiation at this stage, either.
No, no, and no. There is not attempt to 'trick' Trump, there's been an open expectation - based on broad and specific history - that the US would want to be part of any peacekeeping activity. As that becomes less likely, Europe is preparing to commit more. That's not a trick, there's no attempt at deception.
Nobody wants a war with Russia. However, everybody but Trump appears to be concerned that capitulating to Putin just makes another war with Russia involved at some point in the near future more likely. The US is unlikely to be directly affected, militarily, by that, so Trump doesn't give a shit - which is his remit. He's shaping the US presence on the World Stage - or, rather, in the wings instead of being on-stage.
Zelensky has a mandate, too - to defend Ukraine's integrity and peace by both diplomatic and military means. If he sees the possibility for peace and restoring some or all of Ukraine's territory, it's his moral obligation to try to take it. Again, that's not deception, that's his job, that's what he was elected to do.
Yep. That's what the US has been doing up until now, that's what he hopes the US will continue doing.
It wasn't the conscription or the propoganda visits that escalated the meeting into a confrontation - it was Vance (and, by implication, Trump who followed it up) suggesting that Putin's assertions were believable, and implying that the war was Ukraine's and Zelensky's fault in defiance of reality. Blaming the man for his country being attacked, and saying that he should just accept Putin's word that he won't attack when he's already breached exactly that promise to exactly that country to start this conflict was just insulting, and emblematic of the current US administration's attitude which is disdain.
No, but he does expect to be paid, either by Russia for selling Ukraine down the river, or by Ukraine for not selling them down the river. It's an extortion, pure and simple, but that's what we should expect from a con-man.
I saw it. He lies about the prospects, he lies about the implications of the current situation, and he blatantly sides with Russia. He's scum, he's acting like a coward and a bully, and he's selling Ukraine's future and the USA's heritage for a few roubles and shitty red baseball cap.
O.
I'm aligned with England and the world. You're gambling with World War 3
The US needs to stop arming Ukraine, as it emboldens them to keep fighting until the last Ukrainian.
I'm aligned with England and the world. You're gambling with World War 3
I'm aligned with England and the world. You're gambling with World War 3
I watched GB News for the 1st time for a year. The presenter, one Bev Turner had never heard of Neville Chamberlain. A Trump shill, of course, like the hilarious Carla Sands, who gets a lot of air time these days.
Appeasement is gambling with WW3, and that is all you and your blowjob mate Trump are offering the world at the moment.
The US needs to stop arming Ukraine, as it emboldens them to keep fighting until the last Ukrainian.
Putin invading Ukraine for GodYea, right.
https://biz.chosun.com/en/en-international/2025/02/23/H5YBBVSIBNDLXB5YLAJDTRIQZY/
Or, alternately, the US needs to keep up the embargo and sanctions on Russia, or Russia will keep fighting until the last Ukrainian. Your option is predicated on a few things that aren't certain by any means:I'm pretty sure most Ukrainians would prefer to compromise and agree to Russia's terms than fight on. The problem is that they are being forced to the front line, and not allowed to leave the country.
1 - Ukraine would rather surrender than die. US not providing arms to Ukraine doesn't guarantee Ukraine will stop resisting, it just means fewer Russians will likely die
2 - Ukraine is better off being alive and Russian than being dead. Some of them perhaps would agree with you, a significant portion (possibly the majority) would not, they remember what it was like to be under the Russian boot, and that was without the levels of overt corruption that are apparent now.
3 - Stopping the current conflict in any way possible means the end of fighting, as though Russia doesn't have a track-record of waiting a few years, re-arming, and then invading somewhere again.
O.
We call on the United States to uphold the guarantees made alongside Great Britain in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which established a direct obligation to defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for its relinquishment of nuclear weapons. These guarantees are unconditional—there is no mention of treating such assistance as an economic transactionFirstly, not guarantees, assurances.
Firstly, not guarantees, assurances.
Secondly, as Vance said, giving endless weapons hasn't brought peace.
I'm pretty sure most Ukrainians would prefer to compromise and agree to Russia's terms than fight on.
The problem is that they are being forced to the front line, and not allowed to leave the country.
Those who don't wish to fight should not be forced to.
That is wrong, whether it also happens in Russia or not.
Because Russia weren't able to take over all of Ukraine. Countries have the right to defend themselves.The point is that pumping weapons into Ukraine will provoke Russia to take all of the country, and millions more will die in the process.
The point is that pumping weapons into Ukraine will provoke Russia to take all of the country, and millions more will die in the process.
Russia wanted to take over all of Ukraine anyway. Putin has referred to Ukraine as an artificial state. He doesn't think it exists as a nation. Ukraine has a right to defend themselves.Maybe. That doesn't give Ukraine the right to force it's citizens to fight Russia or the right to other countries' weapons.
Maybe. That doesn't give Ukraine the right to force it's citizens to fight Russia or the right to other countries' weapons.
Maybe. That doesn't give Ukraine the right to force it's citizens to fight Russia or the right to other countries' weapons.
Part of the social contract of being in a country is realising you may be called upon to work for its benefit - in ideal circumstances that option would included things like non-combatant roles, but Russia has not created ideal circumstances.You are not free to force someone to kill people. If they want to leave the country, or retreat or surrender, they have that right.
Nations at war have often introduced conscription.That doesn't make it right
but countries have the right to supply weapons to Ukraine to allow them to defend themselves.And they have the right not to.
That doesn't make it right
And they have the right not to.
Firstly, not guarantees, assurances.
Secondly, as Vance said, giving endless weapons hasn't brought peace.
The point is that pumping weapons into Ukraine will provoke Russia to take all of the country, and millions more will die in the process.Russia isn't capable of taking the whole country. They tried that in 2022 when they were vastly more powerful than now and they failed.
You are not free to force someone to kill people. If they want to leave the country, or retreat or surrender, they have that right.
That doesn't make it right
What about the Russians? Do you think any of the Russian soldiers on the front lines want to be there?
You are not free to force someone to kill people. If they want to leave the country, or retreat or surrender, they have that right.
US pauses intelligence sharing with Ukraine, ffs!Trump is really putting pressure on Russia, isn't he?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cly28qvp83pt
Trump is really putting pressure on Russia, isn't he?I've written before about how I would advise sarcasm to be taken as my default tone. I also think as recent events have happened that the ffs should be taken as read.
Half my posts these days seem to be sarcastic.
I've written before about how I would advise sarcasm to be taken as my default tone. I also think as recent events have happened that the ffs should be taken as read.
Well, maybe his grand plan is to take over the whole of the Americas, plus Greenland - allowing Putin to take over all the Slavonic countries and then all Europe. China can have the rest.I suspect he sees them as Jinna's
Australia and NZ, it's all down to you.
.
Maybe not, but it is not unique to Ukraine.I know this, but we can't do much about that. We can stop arming a country that has been beating up men who resist conscription.
Russia isn't capable of taking the whole country. They tried that in 2022 when they were vastly more powerful than now and they failed.I agree they couldn't take the whole country. I think that once they have taken the four oblasts, they will concentrate on stopping the transport of Western weapons into the country.
According to whom?Deuteronomy 20:8 is clear that men were not forced to fight. The reason given is that if they were, they might make the rest of the men too afraid to fight.
I know this, but we can't do much about that. We can stop arming a country that has been beating up men who resist conscription.
We aren't arming Russia.Watch from 10 minutes on. At least 14 separate incidents caught on camera. This is what the UK is sponsoring.
Watch from 10 minutes on. At least 14 separate incidents caught on camera. This is what the UK is sponsoring.
https://youtu.be/VUuSfuTKHAg?si=ei3p6JP25HSdE-Xg
Watch from 10 minutes on. At least 14 separate incidents caught on camera. This is what the UK is sponsoring.
https://youtu.be/VUuSfuTKHAg?si=ei3p6JP25HSdE-Xg
Do you acknowledge that Russia has been conscripting hundreds of thousands of men against their will often using force? Yes or no.I'm aware that Russia is conscripting men. I don't know if they are using force, perhaps you have evidence to share? Point is two wrongs don't make a right, we should not be supporting any side that uses the methods shown in the video.
Until you do, you can shove your anti-Ukraine propaganda up your arse.
Poland looking to get nuclear weaponsApparently he had been asked to wear a suit. He was asked why he hadn't expressed thanks once during that particular press conference, which had been going 40 minutes
https://archive.vn/FTegI
Apparently he had been asked to wear a suit. He was asked why he hadn't expressed thanks once during that particular press conference, which had been going 40 minutes
Apparently he had been asked to wear a suit. He was asked why he hadn't expressed thanks once during that particular press conference, which had been going 40 minutesI think you may be confused as to the post you are replying to.
Poland looking to get nuclear weaponshttps://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/trump-says-it-would-be-great-if-china-russia-would-engage-in-denuclearization-talks/3502423
https://archive.vn/FTegI
I think you may be confused as to the post you are replying to.Your Darth Vader cartoon.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/trump-says-it-would-be-great-if-china-russia-would-engage-in-denuclearization-talks/3502423non sequitur
Your Darth Vader cartoon.it might help if you just said you had replied to the wrong post and reply to the one you meant to.
it might help if you just said you had replied to the wrong post and reply to the one you meant to.
I'm aware that Russia is conscripting men. I don't know if they are using force, perhaps you have evidence to share? Point is two wrongs don't make a right, we should not be supporting any side that uses the methods shown in the video.
That is disturbing, but in times of war bad things do happen sadly. No country is ever totally innocent during war. The UK isn't sponsoring such actions but supporting a country in their right to defend themselves and to act to contain Russia's territorial ambitions.Do you think the wives and mothers of those men being arrested would agree with you?
Do you think the wives and mothers of those men being arrested would agree with you?
Russia said in 2021 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato), NATO should move it's military back to pre-1997 positions. For Russia it's not about territory. The Ukrainian fanatics, who we see in these videos are desperate because they are running out of men.
Time to tell them to put down their weapons, time to stop sending them more.
Do you think the wives and mothers of those men being arrested would agree with you?
Russia said in 2021 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato), NATO should move it's military back to pre-1997 positions. For Russia it's not about territory. The Ukrainian fanatics, who we see in these videos are desperate because they are running out of men.
Time to tell them to put down their weapons, time to stop sending them more.
Meet the new wsr, same as the old war
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/clynp1nldmxt
If the only way russia can feel "safe" is by making its neighbours less safe, then their security concerns are not valid.The problem with this is that it is the same for Western countries which want to make Russia feel unsafe in order that they themselves can feel safe.
The problem with this is that it is the same for Western countries which want to make Russia feel unsafe in order that they themselves can feel safe.
The problem with that is that you are starting from a false premise.What I meant to say was that if the only way Western countries can feel "safe" is by making their neighbours less safe, then their security concerns are not valid.
Western countries do not want to make Russia feel unsafe for any reason. They just want the fuckers to stop invading other countries.
What I meant to say was that if the only way Western countries can feel "safe" is by making their neighbours less safe, then their security concerns are not valid.
The early NATO expansion wasn't a direct result of Russia invading other countries. It was more a preemptive measure, and Russia reluctantly accepted it.
My point was that the stationing of US military infrastructure in ex-Warsaw Pact countries is what Russia wants reversed.
It's not asking those countries to leave NATO or planning to invade and take control of those countries. In other words, Russia isn't seeking to annex more territory or to recreate the Soviet Union, as people seem to be claiming.
What I meant to say was that if the only way Western countries can feel "safe" is by making their neighbours less safe, then their security concerns are not valid.Yes. So they can invade and recreate the Russian empire.
The early NATO expansion wasn't a direct result of Russia invading other countries. It was more a preemptive measure, and Russia reluctantly accepted it. My point was that the stationing of US military infrastructure in ex-Warsaw Pact countries is what Russia wants reversed.
It's not asking those countries to leave NATO or planning to invade and take control of those countries. In other words, Russia isn't seeking to annex more territory or to recreate the Soviet Union, as people seem to be claiming.
10% of country in the form of the Crimean peninsula, and now they're illegally occupying a further 8% (ish), having confirmed in the ceasefire for the first invasion that they had no further expansionist intent. Russia lies, constantly, regularly, almost incessantly.Yes, but once the law is broken by one party, it's not realistic to expect the other to adhere to it. The annexing of Crimea was a response to the coup, and the annexing of Donbas and land bridge was to prevent the Ukrainians from shelling Crimea and the cities of Donetsk and Lugansk. The longer the range of the weapons supplied to Ukraine, the more territory Russia will take as a buffer zone.
Yes, but once the law is broken by one party, it's not realistic to expect the other to adhere to it.
The annexing of Crimea was a response to the coup,
and the annexing of Donbas and land bridge was to prevent the Ukrainians from shelling Crimea and the cities of Donetsk and Lugansk.
The longer the range of the weapons supplied to Ukraine, the more territory Russia will take as a buffer zone.
Yes, but once the law is broken by one party, it's not realistic to expect the other to adhere to it. The annexing of Crimea was a response to the coup, and the annexing of Donbas and land bridge was to prevent the Ukrainians from shelling Crimea and the cities of Donetsk and Lugansk. The longer the range of the weapons supplied to Ukraine, the more territory Russia will take as a buffer zone.
Yes, but once the law is broken by one party, it's not realistic to expect the other to adhere to it.Actually it is in general terms. Somebody stealing my car does not give me licence to set fire to their house.
The annexing of Crimea was a response to the coup, and the annexing of Donbas and land bridge was to prevent the Ukrainians from shelling Crimea and the cities of Donetsk and Lugansk. The longer the range of the weapons supplied to Ukraine, the more territory Russia will take as a buffer zone.
Ukraine wasn't shelling Donetsk or Lugansk before Russians invaded it, nor was there any indication that they would.If that is true then please explain why these elderly people from near the city of Donetsk say (on 3 February 2022) they've been living in a bomb shelter for nearly 8 years.
If that is true then please explain why these elderly people from near the city of Donetsk say (on 3 February 2022) they've been living in a bomb shelter for nearly 8 years.
https://youtu.be/-brDwwkHUdw?si=ywZ2xltYfWMtIDLx
If that is true then please explain why these elderly people from near the city of Donetsk say (on 3 February 2022) they've been living in a bomb shelter for nearly 8 years.
https://youtu.be/-brDwwkHUdw?si=ywZ2xltYfWMtIDLx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Lancaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Lancaster)
Ah! Patrick Lancaster, the proven liar. We've gone through this before. Also, many of these people were crisis actors.If you look at his YouTube channel, he has a lot of videos showing the aftermaths of shelling of residential areas in Donbass, between 2014-22. It doesn't make sense to say that these were carried out by Russia or separatists. Or that they were staged.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/02/28/exploiting-cadavers-and-faked-ieds-experts-debunk-staged-pre-war-provocation-in-the-donbas/
https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/07/14/victims-of-donbas-genocide-were-paid-actors-prigozhins-fired-trolls-reveal/
This is what really happened:
https://x.com/5G_Reptilian/status/1736224061121040788?s=19
If you look at his YouTube channel, he has a lot of videos showing the aftermaths of shelling of residential areas in Donbass, between 2014-22.
It doesn't make sense to say that these were carried out by Russia or separatists.
Or that they were staged.