comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 8 hours, 1 minute ago
comment by 7 (U23088)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by EVERYTHING’S POTE! (U17054)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by 7 (U23088)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by 7 (U23088)
posted 4 minutes ago
Could there be a coup in Israel to dispose of this maniac?

How would it happen?

What would Trump do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who would lead this coup?
IDF? Doubt that.
And weren't you on about democracy?
How does a coup fit in with democracy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not a proponent of democracy. I'm not rabidly against it, but I'm not like the western governments are who think it's so good that they can impose it by force on other countries that don't want it, even if it means the deaths of 10s or 100s of thousands of people.

With regards Ukraine, I was simply saying that a reasonable ground for ending the war is that most of the people in the areas directly affected were in favour of Russia in any case, regardless of the west's war to champion so called democratic rights.

But it would be 'democratic' I suppose on the same basis, that the majority of Israelis are opposed to Netanyahu and opposed to his war.

And in terms of who would lead it, that's basically part of what I was asking! But there must be a point somewhere, where regardless of the 'constitution' or whatever, somebody with a reasonable chance of making it happen decides this has got to end.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“I was simply saying that a reasonable ground for ending the war is that most of the people in the areas directly affected were in favour of Russia in any case.”

You can repeat that as many times as you want, but it simply isn’t true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Simply?

Why has there never been the kind of anti-Russia protests that were seen in Mariupol and Kherson, in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, people in Crimea, for example, enjoy sturdy and well-defended human and civil rights; and Tatars and anti-Russian activists absolutely have not been subject to “disappearances; torture, including punitive psychiatric incarceration; mistreatment of persons in detention as punishment or to extort confessions; harsh prison conditions and transfer of prisoners to Russia; arbitrary arrest and detention; political [imprisonment] ; pervasive and arbitrary interference with privacy; severe restrictions on free expression, the press, and the internet, including violence against journalists and website blocking; gross and widespread suppression of freedom of assembly and religion; severe restriction of freedom of association, including barring the Crimean Tatar Mejlis; significant restrictions on freedom of movement; restrictions on political participation; systemic corruption; and violence and systemic discrimination against Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians.”

I cannot imagine why people would not openly protest against the occupation…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, Rosso. AllI can say to that is "What have the Russians done for us lately."

If Putin is handed all of Donbas, Crimea and a land bridge between the two, we may have a temporary peace in Ukraine.

Putin will shift his imperialist focus back to the Caucuses for a little while and annex a little territory there, then in five years he’ll pivot back to Europe, and look to Moldova or to Ukraine again.

In the meantime, at the same time as Trump will be demanding his Noble (as Leavitt calls it) Peace Prize, he’ll be emboldened by the precedent in his own pursuit of Greenland, as will Israel in its aim of annexing Gaza and the West Bank, and China in its aim of territorially dominating the South China Sea.

It’s Sudetenland and the Munich Agreement all over again, and the problem this time is not that Trump doesn’t know his history; it’s that whether he’s aware of it or otherwise, he doesn’t care.

It's the perpetuation of the lie that Russia will invade the whole of Europe if it isn't stopped, which has caused pretty much all of these 100s of thousands of deaths and injuries.
Lies mostly told by people to whom actually, Ukrainian and Russian lives are just disposable.
Russia has never had any intention of or desire to conquer Europe (and as had been demonstrated would not be remotely capable of doing so anyway), it just does not want NATO and the CIA on its borders.
The war was caused because NATO and the US, with Ukraine's support, refused any diplomatic concessions with Russia on the matter, and basically just told it to fkuc off.

NATO has been on Russias borders for decades so that excuse doesn’t make any sense. And no one thinks that Russia will invade all of Europe but people are worried that Russia will encroach into Eastern Europe at some point. The difference being it will be by force whereas the countries that ‘encroached’ Russia by joining NATO did it by choice and as seen with Ukraine it was a wise choice by them.

It’s weird to still see these weird, debunked Russia talking points. Is this a returning user? Peks?

comment by Robb Cunha (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
NATO has been on Russias borders for decades so that excuse doesn’t make any sense. And no one thinks that Russia will invade all of Europe but people are worried that Russia will encroach into Eastern Europe at some point. The difference being it will be by force whereas the countries that ‘encroached’ Russia by joining NATO did it by choice and as seen with Ukraine it was a wise choice by them.

It’s weird to still see these weird, debunked Russia talking points. Is this a returning user? Peks?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Debunked theories that Russia doesn't want increasing NATO presence on its borders. Yeah, good one

There was a widespread belief spread in 2022 that Russia's intention was to invade the whole of Europe. This is what we were told by the government etc.
It was that lie that was used as propaganda for the need to militarily support Ukraine, i.e. as a defence to our own liberty (when in fact it was to defend our right to encroach upon Russia).
The people of the UK and western Europe didn't buy in on the basis that they were desperate to protect the independence of Moldova and Lithuania.

comment by Robb Cunha (U22716)
posted 18 minutes ago
NATO has been on Russias borders for decades so that excuse doesn’t make any sense. And no one thinks that Russia will invade all of Europe but people are worried that Russia will encroach into Eastern Europe at some point. The difference being it will be by force whereas the countries that ‘encroached’ Russia by joining NATO did it by choice and as seen with Ukraine it was a wise choice by them.

It’s weird to still see these weird, debunked Russia talking points. Is this a returning user? Peks?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking peks. Certainly sounds like peks.

Too articulate for Peks, maybe his line manager.

comment by 7 (U23088)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Robb Cunha (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
NATO has been on Russias borders for decades so that excuse doesn’t make any sense. And no one thinks that Russia will invade all of Europe but people are worried that Russia will encroach into Eastern Europe at some point. The difference being it will be by force whereas the countries that ‘encroached’ Russia by joining NATO did it by choice and as seen with Ukraine it was a wise choice by them.

It’s weird to still see these weird, debunked Russia talking points. Is this a returning user? Peks?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Debunked theories that Russia doesn't want increasing NATO presence on its borders. Yeah, good one

There was a widespread belief spread in 2022 that Russia's intention was to invade the whole of Europe. This is what we were told by the government etc.
It was that lie that was used as propaganda for the need to militarily support Ukraine, i.e. as a defence to our own liberty (when in fact it was to defend our right to encroach upon Russia).
The people of the UK and western Europe didn't buy in on the basis that they were desperate to protect the independence of Moldova and Lithuania.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“There was a widespread belief spread in 2022 that Russia's intention was to invade the whole of Europe.”

That’s a complete fabrication, and as such, patently unsupportable by any evidence.

“The people of the UK and western Europe didn't buy in on the basis that they were desperate to protect the independence of Moldova and Lithuania.”

Speak for yourself. You don’t think that the international community has a moral and ethical responsibility to protect the independence of Moldova, Lithuania, or any other sovereign country?

How about Denmark? How about Palestine? How about the UK?

Or we just have a free-for-all under which the world’s great imperial powers are at liberty to invade, occupy and annex whatever territory they fancy?

Some background info (taken from an LSE essay available online):

In 2013 (before Ukraine’s President Yanukovych was overthrown in 2014) , Carl Gershman, Director of National Endowment for Democracy (NED), wrote: “Ukraine is the biggest prize.” He explained that if it could be pulled away from Russia and into the West, “Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”

This larger strategy for containing Russia is the context to understand the expansion of Nato members all along Russia’s borders, from the Baltics to Bulgaria, and the presence of 30,000 Nato-designated troops.

Since 2015 the CIA has been overseeing a secret intensive training programme in the US for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel. On 13 January, it was reported that the CIA-trained forces “could soon play a critical role on Ukraine’s eastern border, where Russian troops have massed in what many fear is preparation for an invasion.” A former CIA official explained, “The United States is training an insurgency.” It is no surprise that Moscow has long read US and Nato actions as being deeply hostile and intended to produce “regime change” in the Kremlin.

In 2014 the democratically elected president Yanukovych – explicitly friendly to both the EU and to Moscow – was overthrown in a coup (with substantial US backing). On 23 February, the day after Yanukovych fled, the first act of the Ukrainian parliament was to revoke the legal status of Russian as a national language; and more broadly, to prevent regions from allowing the use of any other language than Ukrainian. The government set about blocking access to Russian news, TV channels and radio. All through the next months, the government, the broadcast media and large sections of the population chanted the motto “One Nation, One Language, One People”.

Scroll forward to December 2021. The Kremlin presented treaty proposals, which included implementation of the eight-year old Minsk peace accords (which include a commitment that Ukraine not join Nato); dissolving extreme right Ukrainian militias; and engaging in serious negotiations about a new security architecture in Europe. The US and Nato consistently refused to negotiate. As they refused, they also warned the world, from December 2021 onwards, that Russia would invade. And they transferred huge quantities of weapons and trained the Ukrainian military.

On 19 February, Ukrainian President Zelensky gave an impassioned speech at the Munich Security Conference insisting that Ukraine must have a clear path to join Nato, and expressing regret that Ukraine had given up its nuclear arsenal at the end of the Soviet Union, then the world’s third biggest. In the third week of February, the Ukrainian military dramatically increased its shelling of the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces, as reported by observers from the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe). It is likely that this step-up in the Ukrainian attack had the blessing of the US and Nato.
Until this point, the Kremlin had not recognised the two Donbas republics; it had held off for eight years. Now, as the Ukrainian military stepped up its attack, the Kremlin had to decide. It entered the on-going civil war in order to protect the Donbas republics from the stepped up Ukrainian military attacks, and on a scale big enough for it to replace the national government.

You’ve lost the debate when you’re reduced to copy and pasting out of context essays written by professional mischief makers

“Now, as the Ukrainian military stepped up its attack, the Kremlin had to decide. It entered the on-going civil war in order to protect the Donbas republics from the stepped up Ukrainian military attacks…”

"In 2014 the democratically elected president Yanukovych – explicitly friendly to both the EU and to Moscow – was overthrown in a coup (with substantial US backing). "

https://transparency.eu/corruption-opulence-and-decadence-in-ukraine/

Defender-Europe 21 was a large-scale, United States Army-led, multinational joint exercise designed to build readiness and interoperability between the United States, NATO and partner militaries.[1][2] Taking place between mid-March and June, it was one of the largest United States Army, NATO-led military exercises in Europe in decades. More than 28,000 personnel from 26 nations conducted nearly simultaneous operations across more than 30 training areas in a dozen countries.[3][4]

It included a greater number of NATO and partner nations conducting activities over a wider area than what was planned for in 2020. Defender-Europe 21 also included significant involvement of the United States Air Force and United States Navy. The exercise utilized key ground and maritime routes bridging Europe, Asia and Africa. It incorporated new or high-end capabilities including air and missile assets, as well as assets from the United States Army Security Force Assistance Brigades and the recently reactivated V Corps.[1]

Gen. Christopher G. Cavoli, commanding general of the United States Army Europe and Africa, said that "While we are closely monitoring the COVID situation, we've proven we have the capability to train safely despite the pandemic."[3] Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said that Russia has deployed troops to its western borders for "combat training exercises" in response to NATO "military activities that threaten Russia."[5]

What is DEFENDER-Europe 21:
DEFENDER-Europe is an annual large-scale U.S. Army-led, multinational, joint exercise designed to build
readiness and interoperability between U.S., NATO and partner militaries. This year’s exercise:
• Focuses on building operational readiness and interoperability with a greater number of NATO allies
and partners over a wider area of operations
• Is defensive in nature and focused on responding to crisis if necessary
• Demonstrates that the U.S. commitment to NATO is iron clad
• Integrates approximately 28,000 multinational forces from 26 nations to conduct nearly simultaneous
operations across more than 30 training areas in 12 countries.
• Includes strict COVID prevention and mitigation measures, such as pre-deployment COVID testing and
quarantining.
• Has significant involvement of the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy.
• Utilizes key ground and maritime routes bridging Europe, Asia and Africa
• Exercises new high-end capabilities such the new U.S. Army Security Force Assistance Brigades, air
and missile defense assets and the recently reactivated V Corps
• Demonstrates our ability to serve as a strategic security partner in the western Balkans and Black Sea
regions while sustaining our abilities in northern Europe, the Caucasus, Ukraine and Africa.

26 countries participating in exercise activities: ....Ukraine

https://www.europeafrica.army.mil/Portals/19/documents/DEFENDEREurope/DE21%20Factsheet.pdf?ver=Lfkvd8zMhx3xuJhiNk-l8Q%3D%3D

Nearly a week later on 30 March, Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Colonel General Ruslan Khomchak revealed intelligence reports suggesting a military buildup by Russia close to Ukraine in preparations for the Zapad Exercises.[154][155] The buildup consisted of 28 Russian battalion tactical groups (BTGs) situated primarily along the Russo-Ukrainian border in Rostov, Bryansk, and Voronezh Oblasts, as well as Russian-occupied Crimea,[156] and was ultimately expected to increase to 53 BTGs.[157][158] It was estimated that over 60,000 Russian troops were stationed in Crimea and Donbas,[159] with 2,000 military advisors and instructors in separatist-controlled Donbas alone.[160][161]...

Between late March and early April 2021, significant quantities of weapons and equipment from various regions of Russia, including the far-eastern parts of Siberia, were transported towards the Russo-Ukrainian border and into Crimea.

Yanukovych was one of the most prolific kleptocrats in European history.

For anyone who doesn't know the story already, I recommend having a quick Google and reading about his TV obsession. Oliver Bullough wrote about it in his excellent Moneyland (a must-read on corruption, power and the movement and laundering of money around the globe).

On 17 December 2021, during the prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia published a list of demands to the West for security guarantees in the form of two draft treaties with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United States. The proposals included a ban on Ukraine and other ex-Soviet countries from joining NATO, and a roll-back in deployments of NATO troops and weapons in Central and Eastern Europe. Russia had long been concerned with the decline in its self-regarded sphere of influence in the former Soviet republics, which were aligning themselves with the West economically and politically, and had been dissatisfied with the existing security architecture and NATO expansion. The demands, issued during a period of high tensions during which about 100,000 Russian troops were massed on Ukraine's borders, were widely seen as an ultimatum and attempt by Russia to exert pressure and influence on Western countries. The main demands were rejected by NATO and the United States on 26 January 2022; the Russian invasion of Ukraine followed less than a month later on 24 February.[1]

On 15 December 2021, Putin submitted "specific proposals" on Russia's demands for security guarantees from the West to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Karen Donfried.[15] Two days later, on 17 December, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs published the demands in the form of two draft treaties with NATO and the U.S., proposing limits on their influence and activities in Europe.[16] Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that "The line pursued by the United States and NATO over recent years to aggressively escalate the security situation is absolutely unacceptable and extremely dangerous". Ryabkov also stated that Russia was ready to begin negotiations as soon as 18 December, and suggested Geneva as a possible venue.[17]

The first draft treaty, titled "Agreement on Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation and Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization",[18] included the following provisions, among others:

that NATO members commit to no further enlargement of the alliance, including in particular to Ukraine
that NATO deploy no forces or weapons in countries that joined the alliance after May 1997[a]
a ban on deployment of intermediate-range missiles in areas where they could reach the other side's territory
a ban on any NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, or Central Asia
language on consultative mechanisms, such as the NATO–Russia Council, and on the establishment of a hotline[16]
The second, titled "Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees",[19] included the following:

a requirement that both countries "not implement security measures … that could undermine core security interests of the other Party"
a requirement that the United States undertake to prevent further NATO enlargement
a ban on deployment of U.S. intermediate-range missiles in Europe
limits on the ability of heavy bombers and surface warships to operate in and over international waters in range of the other side
a requirement that both side's nuclear weapons only be deployed on national territory[16]

Reception
The primary demand from Russia to halt NATO's eastward expansion was rejected by NATO and the U.S., which argued that Russia should not have a veto on the alliance's expansion and that it had the right to decide its own military posture, defending its open door policy as a fundamental principle of the organization.

(note: the open door policy only relates to european states)

(and excludes russia)

I think you think you’re presenting a story which nobody here has read before.

I don’t know if you’re new to the site or to this thread, but many of the people who post on here have been discussing the history of and more recent developments in Russia and Ukraine for decade or more.

* that NATO members commit to no further enlargement of the alliance, including in particular to Ukraine
* that NATO deploy no forces or weapons in countries that joined the alliance after May 1997
* a ban on deployment of intermediate-range missiles in areas where they could reach the other side's territory
* a ban on any NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, or Central Asia
* language on consultative mechanisms, such as the NATO–Russia Council, and on the establishment of a hotline
* a requirement that U.S. and Russia "not implement security measures … that could undermine core security interests of the other Party"
* a requirement that the United States undertake to prevent further NATO enlargement
* a ban on deployment of U.S. intermediate-range missiles in Europe
* limits on the ability of heavy bombers and surface warships to operate in and over international waters in range of the other side
* a requirement that both side's nuclear weapons only be deployed on national territory


Are these the demands of an aggresor?

7 - I would strongly encourage you to do some research on Finland, and the annexation of Karelia, if you wish to perpetuate the myth that Russia does not have and has not had imperialist tendencies.

comment by 7 (U23088)
posted 8 seconds ago
* that NATO members commit to no further enlargement of the alliance, including in particular to Ukraine
* that NATO deploy no forces or weapons in countries that joined the alliance after May 1997
* a ban on deployment of intermediate-range missiles in areas where they could reach the other side's territory
* a ban on any NATO military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, or Central Asia
* language on consultative mechanisms, such as the NATO–Russia Council, and on the establishment of a hotline
* a requirement that U.S. and Russia "not implement security measures … that could undermine core security interests of the other Party"
* a requirement that the United States undertake to prevent further NATO enlargement
* a ban on deployment of U.S. intermediate-range missiles in Europe
* limits on the ability of heavy bombers and surface warships to operate in and over international waters in range of the other side
* a requirement that both side's nuclear weapons only be deployed on national territory


Are these the demands of an aggresor?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trying to impose on an independent country what organisations it can’t join? What right has Russia to “demand” those things? And with such a set of demands there’s an implied threat.

I wonder what demands Ukraine had of Russia when they gave up their nukes

comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 2 minutes ago
7 - I would strongly encourage you to do some research on Finland, and the annexation of Karelia, if you wish to perpetuate the myth that Russia does not have and has not had imperialist tendencies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

since then the US has been involved in conflicts in:

China
Greece
Germany
Albania
Puerto Rico
Korea
Taiwan
Vietnam
Indonesia
Lebanon
Tibet
Laos
Guatemala
Cuba
Congo
Dominican Republic
Bolivia
Nicaragua
El Salvador
Afghanistan
Iran
Libya
Grenada
Panama
Iraq
Somalia
Yogoslavia
Haiti
Liberia
Yemen
Phillipines
Pakistan
Somalia
Sudan
Niger
Syria
Nigeria
de facto Palestine

End the warmongers' war that has killed over 100,000 people in Russia and Ukraine.