RayC

June 6

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

I think everyone here needs to stop, focus, and not lose sight of the fact that the issue at hand is not right or wrong. The issue at hand is not about internationally recognized borders, or who started the war or for what justification. At this point, that's all history.

I'm sure that it is what Putin would prefer. Far from being history, the issue of right or wrong should be an active concern.

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

Russia currently holds all the cards, so to speak. The war on the ground is all but over, and parts of the Donbas have been annexed to Russia, along with Crimea. That's not going to be undone. Right or wrong, it's a done deal.

Others believe that NATO involvement on the ground would change things

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

So what happens now? Is the world going to experience WWIII and likely nuclear annihilation?

See my reply to Impulse

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

Everyone dead simply because some clowns in the UK are living in the past and think they still have an empire? Everyone dead because the bankers and the US war machine need more and more money to sustain a fiat money Ponzi scheme that's now entering it's last years?

So the cause - and ongoing nature of this war - can be attributed to imperialists in the UK and US bankers and arms manufacturers?

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

It's not hard to understand why the Ukrainians want to fight to the death, regardless. Ukraine is their "motherland."

Agreed

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

And unfortunately for them, they're being used simply as pawns in a proxy war.

Only if you consider Ukraine's right to self-determination to be a proxy war

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

It's a human tragedy and didn't have to happen. Over a million young kids, dead. God knows how many more crippled for life.

Yes it is a human tragedy and the responsibility for that lays at the feet of Russia.

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

The time to stop is now, before any more people die needlessly. Eight billion people would probably agree with me.

Agreed. An immediate ceasefire and Russian agreement that they will withdraw from Ukraine on condition that measures are put in place to protect and safeguard the interests of any Russian speakers left in Ukraine should do the trick. Only problem is Putin won't agree to that.

June 6

47 minutes ago, impulse said:

So, can I presume you're in favor of NATO boots on the ground and risking WW3 and Armageddon? Because that's what you're advocating. Risking the end of the world as we know it.

It's only a risk if you believe that Putin is insane. He would have to be to risk MAD. Even if Putin is mad enough to contemplate such action, are all the rest of the Russian high command also insane?

And what's your alternative? Appease Putin, no matter what? What if he decides he wants more than just Ukraine? The only logical thing would be to give him everything he demands as the alternative is Armageddon as it's already been decided that Putin is insane enough to risk it.

June 6

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Perhaps more money should have been spent on upgrading the grid so that it could handle input from all types of generators before planting so many of these windmills? Just a thought.

Agreed.

There has been a lack of investment in the infrastructure by National Grid since privatisation. The same is true in France, which was one of the reasons why they renationalised EDF. Unfortunately, due to our current financial constraints, it's not really an option for the UK at this time.

June 6

1 hour ago, impulse said:

To the folks celebrating the attack on the Russkie bombers, it's not going so well for the people of Kiev last night,..

Depending one whose (very early) reports you read, it's either a major or a minor attack.

Personally, I think it's tragic and wrong. But very predictable. That's what happens when you poke the bear.

Russia launches missile, drone attack on Kyiv days after Ukraine’s audacious strike on bomber fleet | CNN

It's long past time to concede the facts and out an end to it. The only way Russia loses this is NATO boots in Ukraine and the risk of WW3 and nuclear annihilation. Anyone ~~postulating~~ dreaming otherwise is fooling themselves.

I agree that it is long past time to concede the facts: In 2014 - with no moral or legal justification - Russia annexed Crimea, which was recognised under international law as forming part of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. The only 'poking of the bear' was Ukraine's desire to have closer economic ties with the West i.e. the EU.

I know little about the military side of things so, unfortunately, you might be correct that Russia is winning the war. If so, it is to the West's shame: It should have taken tougher action in support of Ukraine in 2014.

June 5

3 hours ago, riclag said:

Google ai:Can Wilders free the Dutch from the EU migrant crisis?

There are some good examples of what he wants to do! Heres 3 from 8 bullet points

1.Making the Netherlands "as unattractive as possible" for migrants.

2.using the army at the border.

3.Suspending the asylum process.

It Looks like a very difficult situation because the EU& international forces involved .

1) and 2) would be unattractive for Dutch citizens and residents as well, many of whom would be against 3).

June 5

16 hours ago, Cameroni said:

These people who burn religious texts just to provoke some group they hate clearly have a screw loose and should be locked up for a long time. That's not normal behaviour.

For once I agree with you.

It is provocation; it isn't normal behaviour and these types of people probably do have a screw loose. Lock them up for a long time? Possibly, depending on the circumstances.

Equally, the lunatic who appeared brandishing a knife and assaulted the protester also wasn't acting normally and is arguably more of a danger to society.

Provocation isn't just limited to the burning of religious texts. What about the burning of a national flag? I am not being flippant but what about the burning of a football shirt? Many supporters would see that as provocation. Where do we draw the line?

In any event, there must be numerous laws under which they can be prosecuted.

June 4

1 hour ago, Lancelot01 said:

By the same people who vote for the government in the lower House?

Yes. Would you prefer that the Commons was also unelected?

June 4

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular bill, the HoL should be abolished.

The UK needs a second House which is elected.

June 3

5 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

FlorCs link was about the Amsterdam violence last year .

I wasnt talking about any violence from Belgium ( I didnt even know it occurred)

FlorC's post had a link about the Belgian violence.

As I said no one group has a monopoly on political violence.

June 3

18 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

In the Holland Amsterdam case though , it was Anti semites attacking Jews .

They traveled to Amsterdam just to confront the Israelis

I'm not denying that the Amsterdam riot was anti-Jewish but your initial reply could be read as implying both the Belgian and Dutch riots were anti-Jewish which is not the case.

In a similar vein to Amsterdam, there was no need for the Brugge "supporters" to go to Molenbeek. They also went there just for confrontation.

There's no monopoly when it comes to political violence.

June 3

On 6/2/2025 at 9:57 AM, Nick Carter icp said:

Again, that wasn't a football riot .

That was Muslims/Sympathisers attacking Jews , nothing to do with the football game .

That was political violence , just like the Paris riot

In the Belgium case, it was far-right thugs attacking Muslims.

June 3

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

That's complete nonsense. Putin has repeatedly said the exact opposite, affirmed Ukraine's right to exist, denied the USSR can be revived or should be revived, all that is cheap NATO propaganda

Really? Straight from the horse's mouth. Sounds a lot like 'A Greater Russia' to me:

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Russia has no intention to invade the Baltics or Poland, again just more scaremongering nonsense.

Not in the slightest. You were the one who stated that the West only understands force. Given that, it would only be rational for countries neighbouring Russia to look at them with trepidation.

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

No, as was made clear , despite claims of "non-alignment" Ukraine was very deeply co-operating with NATO in the many ways listed above.

You cannot disagree just because the FACTS do not fit your narrative. Actually you can and have done so here. Nothing you posted remotely justified Russia's annexation of Crimea. "Very deeply co-operating" = agreeing to potentially take part in NATO peacekeeping activities in Afghanistan and Kosovo. Yes, a real threat to Russia's security.

The FACT remains that Ukraine was 1) not seeking NATO membership and 2) was non-aligned at the time of Russia's annexation of Ukraine.

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

An explosive New York Times exposé by Adam Entous and Michael Schwirtz sheds light on major developments preceding the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. According to the report, the Ukrainian government entered into a wide-ranging partnership with the CIA against Russia. This cooperation, which involved the establishment of as many as 12 secret CIA “forward operating bases” along Ukraine’s border with Russia, began not with Russia’s 2022 invasion, but just over 10 years ago.

Within days of the February 2014 Euromaidan Revolution that culminated with the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych and ushered in a firmly pro-Western government, the newly appointed head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, reportedly proposed a “three-way partnership” with the CIA and MI6, the UK’s foreign intelligence service. Ukrainian security officials gradually proved their value to the U.S. by feeding the CIA intelligence on Russia, including “secret documents about the Russian Navy,” leading to the establishment of CIA bases in Ukraine to coordinate activities against Russia and various training programs for Ukrainian commandos and other elite units.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/cia-ukraine-russia/

You mean this explosive expose?

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

Again nothing in this article - assuming that it is all true - justifies annexing another sovereign country's territory.

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I think the key issue is that Russia, for many years prior to 2008 made it clear that Ukraine joining NATO was as red line that could not be crossed. At the Bucharest announcement Putin voiced his clear opposition. He was ignored. When Ukraine persisted in co-opearting with NATO, whilst telling Russia it was non-aligned, obviously Russia could see what Ukraine was really doing. This was a grave concern because Ukraine is the key to the great European plains, which are impossible to defend if Ukraine joins NATO. So yes, it was legitimate on every level.

What you are saying amounts to, Ukraine should have ceased all contact with NATO even concerning such activities as peacekeeping in countries such as Kosovo. And on the economic front? Should Ukraine have withdrawn from the Association Agreement with the EU?

For an independent country, it doesn't seem like it would have had much independence.

June 3

3 minutes ago, jvs said:

Maybe have a look at the laws in the Ukraine?

Elections are not held during time of war.

It's not just the laws that prevent elections being held in Ukraine, it's the small matter of a large part of its' infrastructure has been destroyed and a huge number of the electorate displaced.

Holding elections in Ukraine now is one of the most bone-headed suggestions I have heard in a long while.

June 3

On 6/2/2025 at 9:17 AM, impulse said:

Don't you mean after the coup?

No, the coup had nothing to do with Ukraine - EU relations whereas the Russian annexation of Crimea had a huge bearing on them.

However, I will correct myself. Ukraine withdrew its' application for NATO membership in 2010 and was non-aligned until December 2014 when the Ukrainian parliament voted to end its' neutrality. Imo hardly surprising given that her neighbour had annexed its' terrority and was actively supporting separatist rebels. Ukraine did not actually formally re-apply for NATO membership until May 2022 following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

June 3

On 6/2/2025 at 9:18 AM, Cameroni said:

On 24 June 2010 the Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers approved an action plan to implement an annual national program of cooperation with NATO that year.[82] This included:[82]

Involvement of Ukrainian aviation and transport material in the transportation of cargo and personnel of the armed forces of NATO's member states and partners participating in NATO-led peacekeeping missions and operations;

The continuation of Ukraine's participation in a peacekeeping operation in Kosovo;

Possible reinforcing of Ukraine's peacekeeping contingents in Afghanistan and Iraq;

Ukraine's participation in a number of international events organized by NATO;

Training of Ukrainian troops in the structures of NATO members.

Ukraine and NATO continued to hold joint seminars and joint tactical and strategical exercises and operations during the Yanukovych Presidency.

And you think that any of that should have been viewed in Moscow as a threat to Russia's security and a justification for an invasion of a neighbouring sovereign nation?

On 6/2/2025 at 9:18 AM, Cameroni said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations

So whilst Ukraine was briefly non-aligned, this came to a swift end when Yanukovych was ousted in the CIA formented Maidan uprising.

Ukraine was non-aligned for 4 years from 2010 up until Russia's annexation of Crimea.

The coup was not CIA 'formented'. The Maiden uprising was a direct result of Yanukovych refusing to sign the EU - Ukraine Association Agreement, which had been passed by the Ukrainian parliament and had the support of > 80% of the Ukrainian electorate. Instead, negating the platform to forge closer ties with the EU on which he was elected, Yanukovych - under pressure from Moscow - did a complete volte face and unilaterally decided to align Ukraine with Russia

On 6/2/2025 at 9:18 AM, Cameroni said:

And even during this "non-alignment" Ukraine was co-operating closely with and aiding NATO.

Over and over what you outlined previously? Can you supply details please?

On 6/2/2025 at 9:18 AM, Cameroni said:

But all that is irrelevant, Ukraine had shown it was receptive to switching sides to Europe and NATO. NATO had shown that it had lied, and deceived Russia that it would not expand eastwards. When NATO brazenly announced in Bucharest that Ukraine would become a NATO member, it was only THEN that Russia understood it was lied to and the danger of Ukraine becoming more friendly with the West than Russia was very real. Only THEN did Russia resolved to take military action, when years and years of making clear that Ukraine was a red line, when years of diplomatic efforts were shown to be fruitless.

And the vast majority of that is irrelevant and much is incorrect. Wrt Europe, Ukraine had long been looking to develop closer ties with the EU. A signing of the Association Agreement would have, no doubt, lead to a formal application to join the bloc if the annexation of Crimea had not occurred.

The fact remains that Ukraine withdrew its' application for NATO membership in 2010, so the 'red line' which you use to justify Russia's actions not only hadn't been crossed but did not exist!

The truth of the matter is that Putin is a greater Russia zealot: He does not believe in Ukraine's right to exist as an independent nation. Russia was also not prepared to allow Ukraine to align economically with the West i.e. the EU, as doing so would have further weakened an already fragile Russian economy.

On 6/2/2025 at 9:18 AM, Cameroni said:

The only language the West understands, sadly is force.

So that justified the invasion of Ukraine? Would that also provide a justification for invading the Baltic states or reclaiming the land which Stalin 'gifted' to Poland?

Sadly, it appears that we have returned to the post-WW2 situation where Russia is led by an expansionist despot.

June 2

38 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Please.

NATO grandly announced Ukraine was on track to become a member. Ukraine has enshrined the goal of NATO membership in its very constitution.

in February 1994, Ukraine was the first post-Soviet country to conclude a framework agreement with NATO in the framework of the Partnership for Peace initiative, supporting the initiative of Central and Eastern European countries to join NATO.

During President Viktor Yushchenko's first official visit to the United States, President George W. Bush declared: "I am a supporter of the idea of Ukraine's membership in NATO.

On 27 April 2006 at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers, the representative of the NATO Secretary General, James Appathurai, stated that all members of the alliance support the speedy integration of Ukraine into NATO.

At the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, NATO decided it would not yet offer membership to Georgia and Ukraine; nevertheless, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said that those two countries would eventually become members.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations

An incomplete history. Why stop at 2008? Ahh .... here's why:

Ukraine voted to abandon the goal of NATO membership and re-affirm her neutral status in 2010.

Ukraine was a non-aligned country when Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014. She only reapplied for NATO membership in December 2014 following the annexation and Moscow's increased support for separatist rebels in Donbass.

June 1

36 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Ray, you will never change my mind with your western propaganda, I am surprised you still regurgitate it when knowing full well it's Boll ox

Frank, You are unwilling to accept facts.

It is irrational to dismiss facts that don't fit your pre-ordained narrative as nothing more than Western propaganda and boll ox and refuse to change your mind.

36 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Are you the same Ray that is halfcast dude profile picture on phangan conscious page?

(That was genuine question, not sure what is ok or racist anymore?

No.

(Half-caste is now considered a derogatory phrase. Mixed race is an alternative).

June 1

40 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Yes he fooled you all. He sold you a lie and you gobbled it up. Hook line and sinker.

Maybe you should learn something from this.

But I doubt you will.

I didn't think this was a thread about Brexit.

June 1

34 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Ray ray, go away, you are just regurgitating the BBC media BS, I am on Putins side 100%, nothing you say will change that. Putin is a strong world leader, you are backing up weak politicians from the UK, stamer vs Putin, I bet Vlad for the win.

USA orchestrated the 2014 coup. And antagonised the situation to where we are today

So facts are BS and they won't change your mind.

I'll just leave that there for all to see.

June 1

Just now, frank83628 said:

You can repeat the western propaganda machine as much as you want, it doesn't make it true.

Fact, noun: a thing that is known or proved to be true.

The events which I listed took place. That is known and undeniable. They are therefore, by definition, facts.

If you deny this you are, by definition, delusional.

Delusional, adjective: characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgements about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, typically as a symptom of a mental condition.

Just now, frank83628 said:

Even after WMDs, 911, , Assad gassing his people, Gaddafi, Saddam's babies in incubators, anthrax,

All completely irrelevant to the discussion of events in Ukraine in 2014.

Just now, frank83628 said:

you still vehemently back those that have lied to you and been proven liars.. fool me once and all that, gullible. Com

I vehemently back the Ukrainian people's right to self-determination. Something you obviously don't value.

You are peddling a conspiracy theory. Nothing more, nothing less.

June 1

4 hours ago, impulse said:

That's one version of history.

No it is not one version of history, it is a chronological listing of events.

4 hours ago, impulse said:

But I still remember when the CIA didn't foment any coups in Latin America, according to the approved history books of the time. (Edit: Nor SEA) Now, we all know better.

What the CIA did or didn't do in Latin America in the 1980s is completely irrelevant to the events in Ukraine in 2014.

4 hours ago, impulse said:

I'm not a Putin apologist. I'm a realist.

4 hours ago, impulse said:

The only way Crimea and Donbas are going back is to risk WW3, a NATO ground war, and nuclear Armageddon. I'd prefer that not happen.

No one in their right mind would welcome an escalation in hostilities but

that is a completely different topic. What is under discussion here are the events leading up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014.

June 1

3 hours ago, frank83628 said:

Yes, I dispute all the western propaganda you wrote.

RFK only yesterday spoke about the US coup and NATO expansion to Putins borders, and how the US provoked the war.

do you think you know more than him when it comes to Ukraine? Do I believe someone that is in US government or someone on an expat forum that reads the bbc

1. Yanukovych was elected on a pro-EU platform

2. In 2014 80% of the Ukrainian public were in favour of closer ties with the EU

3. The Ukrainian parliament had passed a bill approving the signing of the EU - Ukrainian Association Agreement

4. Yanukovych pulled out of a ceremony where this Agreement would be signed

5. Members of Yanukovych's own party voted to depose him as President

6. The Maïdan protests took place following these events

If you, RFK or anyone else denies that these events took place, then not only do you know less than me but you are living in an alternative universe.

It's ok to admit that you got something wrong. What is not ok is to deny the facts in order to act as an apologist for a despot.

June 1

6 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

As a Labour voter, I'm hugely disappointed by Starmer's leadership and the government in general...so far. Particularly his pandering to Reform which will prove very counter-productive. I can't see him resigning though, and it's fanciful to think there will be another election before 2029. A lot can happen, and will.

Thanks. My thoughts exactly. Imo you have summed up the thoughts of most Labour supporters.

June 1

4 hours ago, frank83628 said:

The US funneled 5 billion into Ukraine, the US orchestrated the coup, Victoria Nuland is on recorded telephone conversation discussing who they will put in power..

The US ousted the democratically elected pro Russian leader and installed a pro western/ EU one

3 hours ago, impulse said:

Never let facts get in the way of a good Commie bashing.

Indeed, never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy story.

Do you dispute that Yanukovych was elected on a pro-EU platform? Do you dispute that the Ukrainian public were overwhelming in favour of closer ties with the EU (>80% approval ratings)? Do you dispute that the Ukrainian parliament had passed a bill approving the signing of the EU - Ukrainian Association Agreement formally establishing economic and political ties between the parties? Do you dispute that despite Parliamentary approval and his own campaign promises, Yanukovych - under pressure from Moscow which had imposed restrictions on Ukrainian imports - unilaterally pulled out of a ceremony where this Agreement would be endorsed? Do you dispute that members of Yanukovych's own party voted to replace him as President in light of these events? Do you dispute that the Maidan protests were as a result of these events?

That is not opinion. That is fact. So If you do dispute any of that, then you are denying facts.

So while the US may well have funneled 5 billion into Ukraine and Victoria Nuland may well have discussed who the US's favoured Presidential replacement would be, the US did not orchestrate a coup, oust a democratically elected pro Russian leader and install a pro-EU one. The Ukrainian people ousted a President who had done a complete volte face and replaced him with someone who would implement the will of over 80% of the electorate.

Accept reality, take your heads out of the sand and stop acting as apologists for Putin.

May 31

1 hour ago, VBer said:

On January 6, 2021 ordinary US citizens took the streets and Capitol. However it was not accepted by US government.

Why did these particular Ukrainian citizens have not waited for the next presidential election to choose a president who represented the real wish of all Ukrainian citizens? Why have they decided it for all regions, including Crimea and Donbas?

Your country most likely will not face anything good if your current government overthrown by coup.

The analogy with the events in the US in January 2022 is a false one. That involved some US citizens refusing to accept the result of a free and fair election.

Imo a better analogy is Brexit and the 2019 British General Election. Boris Johnson was elected on a platform to 'Get Brexit done' I.e. implement the UK's electorate's decision to leave the EU. If Johnson had decided instead not to leave the EU but instead forge closer ties with the EU, then I don't think Brexit supporters could have been blamed for taking to the streets (and I say that as a Brit who is strongly pro-EU).

Sign In

Events

Forums

Downloads

Quizzes

Gallery

Blogs

Posts posted by RayC

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US