Saanim

What a discussion with you. How the Germans are deciding about themselves? Even the "strongman" Scholz had been reluctant so long about the 11 tanks...

This you call the evidence? It's a usual cheap shot to place insinuations when no plausible arguments against truth. Do we see similar technique from the other side? But we do not have the same meter for everybody, do we? Why the Germans should fight against Russians? Actually, they could make use of the occasion and of the strong support from the West, to try what they did not achieved during WW2. However, most of them are pretty aware of the mischief in the past, killing 20M of Russians, among others. That's why the old man Helmut Schmidt - the last decent German Chancellor - said when asked on the EU crisis: EU does not have a strong leader and Germany cannot be it because of their past of the industrial killing. So, the decent population is rather reluctant to follow the politicians, they haven't been asked. Why they should fight for Ukraine? They have known a lot about them. And even without the fighting they have been suffering a lot at home.

Some are very easy with insinuations (as per above link): "Since its foundation, it was no secret to German political observers that the party was almost openly funded by the Kremlin.," Whether they can provide any evidence? BTW, the co-leader of the Party Alice Weidel is higher on the poll approval (end of 2022) than the Green war mongerin.. And even higher than the Chancellor in the East states (former GDR).

The lady from the Green Party (since when the Greeners are warmongers?) did dare to say what her Chancellor has been hesitating for a while (she had wanted so much his job) - why are the women so keen for a war? Didn't we see it recently in UK? After all, what have the Russians done to the Germans? Apart from enjoying the cheap gas for decades? Not everybody is happy with the declaration: an MP from AfD (Alternative for Germany), the party many insinuate being right-wing, nationalist: "German tanks against Russia in Ukraine. Your grandfathers already tried that, by the way, back then with the Melnyks and Banderas, and what is the result?"

I have been asking for a link by a reputed politician or a war expert on the possible outcome. Apart from the above comments to the 3 possible scenarios, I do not think that anybody would hope on the #3. Whether somebody believes the #2 - similarly to the outcome of Iraq? Have we read that somebody would predict that? In contrary, there are many saying just the opposite, just recently Japan's ex-PM Yoshimo Mori expressed doubt https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2023/01/3def4e19e4dc-japans-ex-pm-mori-casts-doubt-on-excessive-support-for-ukraine.html . So if the world does not think that #1 is also not possible (and desired), so why to further support the war? Only to get a result in-between #1 and #2? That's a huge disaster not only for Russia but mainly for Ukraine. And moreover, also for Europe. So who is fully for this #1/2 outcome?

And some of them - alive - returned luckily to their homeland, not so clear how they did it. However, not so publicised as the one deflecting to Norway since not so excited experience of their fighting for Ukraine. I do not dare to place here a respectable link but one returning to Florida can be found by Boneface Kent McLellan.

It would be interesting to read the possible scenarios of this war ending? By some war experts, whatever they think could happen. Any link?

That's the expression "unprovoked" what was mentioned many times recently by Noah Chomsky (who else has the guts to call a spade a spade?) that he has googled and received thousands of results at the Ukraine conflict. Not so at other wars (and there were just not few), never was spoken about a provocation. Asking why it's so?

You are a good example how to debate. If do not like what the other says, the best to stick a label on him. Then, perhaps you will label also the old man Noah Chomsky after his remarks about war crimes and war criminals.

It's quite a good example how to adjust one's ideas about a country according to a talk with people who run away their country. What a surprise to find thousands (or hundred thousands) of those - among 150M - who are not excited by their leader. Especially when they have got a chance to live in such an easy - and warm - country as Thailand. Rather then to go into a muddy war. What about the millions of other foreigners who prefer to live in Thailand (and in other easy and cheap countries) than staying at their homeland under its - not so excited - conditions. But they (the other foreigners) had not escaped their beloved leaders who they are truly believer of, had they?

What are you insinuating? Do you have some plausible source for that? As per Thai tourist authority figures the Russians are far from the top arrivals. Behind many countries with much less population. And in the last years the Russians have been increasingly arriving. What so surprising on that knowing how sever are their winters and after a century of isolation, they like it here. (As it had been hugely liked by Germans for decades.) When spoken with Pattaya shops and hotels, they have been always quite happy with their spending, they do not need to serve them just fish & chips. That's why most of the shops have inscriptions in Russian language. It's in a poor taste to jump on a bandwagon with anything that would fit the current official narrative. Perhaps you have some links that the Russians are not allowed to travel? Unlike the Ukrainians?

You surely have a link what Russia says... Whether mercenaries are so unusual to hear about? For a century we have known about French Foreign Legion, still in action in few countries. And in the past years we have read many stories about mercenary company in Afghanistan and Iraq, there were some congressional hearings about their actions, also a prosecution, the company name and ownership has changed many times, still further in operation in many countries. Do we have any international body deciding what case of mercenaries is legal and what's illegal?

What are your doubts? The Russian people surely know better for themselves how their life has changed within 30 years after the country had been on verge of a collapse. And that despite of the number of the sanctions within last few years (some say more than 10,000 and counting). That time everybody was happy with Russia and Russians, especially with the oligarchs bringing out the zillions into safe havens. How the sanctions are really working and for who? The ones who impose the sanctions do not ask their own population for their consent. And the people are the ones who are suffering. And who gets rich by the new situation with the energy?

In fact, the opposite is true. However, the scientists do not have the same tools of media as the politicians have. Although there is a certain contribution of humans to the climate change, the climate have been changing anyway, the human contribution is negligible. Much more damage is being caused by the forced "green dealing", killing the industry, harming the population wellbeing. I remember when 20 years ago when starting with this discussion, the GW Bush administration downplayed that for their part, arguing with their scientific study. Later it was discovered that the study was paid by the govt. Then, the politics have changed later dramatically. Don't we have other dictates enough? Much more worrying is the situation with marine life damaging.

But that's quite different what he said in November: Biden admin divided over path ahead for Ukraine as top US general Milley pushes for diplomacy https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/11/politics/ukraine-mark-milley-negotiations-biden-administration-debate/index.html

Dodging the question I have asked? But actually, it was not you who I asked. And I can no longer see his answer.

Please enlighten us more about this topic. It's not what's trumpeted every hour by MSM. What they do not tell us it has not happened. Usually it needs a certain time when also the MSM will report at last what has been labelled before as conspiracy theory or another misinformation. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10582805/Ukrainian-peace-negotiator-shot-dead-amid-claims-Russian-spy.html https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-spy-or-ukrainian-hero-the-strange-death-of-denys-kiryeyev-11674059395?mod=Searchresults_pos11&page=1

At the beginning (March 2022) of the conflict there were meetings organized in Belarus with the purpose of ceasefire and perhaps more. However, shortly after the first seance one of the Ukraine participants, a banker, was point blank executed on suspicion of Russian collaboration - as it was afterwards explained in Ukraine media. That despite the fact that days before he was instrumental in saving Kiev from a Russian attack. Now, after almost one year the official statement says that it was a mistake, a misunderstanding within the secret services. So, after such events, who will be so keen to further try to negotiate?

Is it your first time you have learned about a private military organisation (mercenaries) fighting along the regular armies?

Just wondering that - in these days when we (and the world) have learned so much about media "under thumb of its government" - somebody dares to place such an argument like you did. It seems that some members we see here daily discussing strongly - and blindly - the current world situation, have lost their touch with the reality. Anyway, I am well aware how such a RT link would be here classified within minutes, I would not waste my time. My links that haven't had long life - and the post with them - are from an "approved" source, unfortunately, many of them have gone from various reasons...

If you are sure you do not mind to get reported only about one side? Quite amazing to give in context your assumption to the other statement. BTW, how do you know that it is dodgy? And who is the approval body?

I am so sorry that you have been deprived of many of my links that have ended up somewhere in a lostness, together with my ingenious comments. Don't be desperate, you can surely live without...

Do you mean a torturing? But that was resolutely denied when reported by OSCE, wasn't it?

So, what was your assumption why he rather did not chose running to his cousins over the river? Surely much shorter way and much easier...

You "nailed me". Where did I say I do not believe his "four month contract"? It seems you like to twist my comments. Does it make any good for a fair debate?