Word Association (2024)

[heybruce]

32 minutes ago, Sydebolle said:

As said, Sir, the Russians are no choirboys either but the canvassing of Europe under the umbrella of NATO; latter securing whatever in this North Atlantic alliance, is a different thing.
If such an umbrella keeps inching East despite having engraved 30 years earlier NOT to do so ....... 

I also query the UN with its Blue Helmets peace force; the structure of the UN with Russia in the security council vetoing everything (like Israel throwing all Palestine resolutions into the shredder) with 25% of the funds from the US ....... another seriously failed organization. 

Maybe it is time for WW3 to clean up this tremendous mess all over the planet; I always hoped, that it could be done differently though .......... 

"umbrella keeps inching East despite having engraved 30 years earlier NOT to do so ....... "

 

As noted earlier, you have not shown any commitment to not expand membership to the east, or any other direction.

 

Also, Russia has shown itself to be a terrific recruiter for NATO membership.  Countries bordering Russia are very eager to join.

Edited June 29, 2022 by heybruce

[Rimmer]

An unattributed claim and largely off topic post has been removed

[candide]

2 hours ago, Sydebolle said:

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner. Woerner was Secy General of NATO at the time; the Yeltsin notes as well as the treaty of Minsk all refer to the same - NO expansion to the East. 

“Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view).” https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16144-document-30-memorandum-boris-yeltsin)

Under the guided baton of the US, inched its way across the East and by 2009 all former Warsaw Pact members ...... were NATO members. This was totally contrary to what was agreed. Based on what else would Gorbachev and Shevardnadze have agreed to the unification of Germany?  

A promise (so to say, no agreement signed, only verbal assurances or opinions) made to a Union which has been dissolved (initiated by its own members, with the Russian Federation playing a key role in it).

As to the "guided baton"! ???? You conveniently forget to mention that these Eastern Europe countries have been under the guided baton of the Soviet army for decades. By adhering to NATO, they wanted to make sure it wouldn't happen again with Russia.

 

The Soviet Union and Putin's Russia are responsible for their own fate. Nobody wants to be associated with backward  regimes which, on top of being imperialist, are unable to ensure their own economic development and the well-being of their citizen. 

 

The Soviet Union was a failure, and Putin's Russia is a failure. When you are failing, you cannot expect to win!

Edited June 29, 2022 by candide

[Harveyboy]

On 6/28/2022 at 7:36 AM, Bkk Brian said:

Please explain who has been the war monger here?

sorry i thought it was Russia that invaded another country ..please explain Who you think ot was 

[Harveyboy]

Please don't poke the bear to much ...not yet lets see what we can do to rectify  this first eh

[Seppius]

32 minutes ago, Harveyboy said:

Please don't poke the bear to much ...not yet lets see what we can do to rectify  this first eh

Who poked first?

[kwonitoy]

18 hours ago, jayceenik said:

NATO and its EU vassal states.

 

Приємна спроба товариша Слава Українан  (Hint, it's in Ukrainian)

 

Slava Ukraine

Edited June 29, 2022 by kwonitoy

[Bkk Brian]

As we all know already, his plans are empire building and do not stop at Ukraine

 

Russia invasion: Putin still wants to take most of Ukraine - US

 

Mr Putin still has the same goals as the ones he held at the start of the conflict, the US's top intelligence officer Ms Haines said - to take most of Ukraine.

 

"Russian troops are unlikely to be able to conduct multiple simultaneous operations" for as long as the war grinds on, Ms Haines said, based on US intelligence assessments.

 

It may mean Moscow becomes more dependent on "asymmetric tools" to target its enemies; including cyber attacks, efforts to control energy resources and even nuclear weapons.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61990495

[placeholder]

19 hours ago, Sydebolle said:

As said, Sir, the Russians are no choirboys either but the canvassing of Europe under the umbrella of NATO; latter securing whatever in this North Atlantic alliance, is a different thing.
If such an umbrella keeps inching East despite having engraved 30 years earlier NOT to do so ....... 

I also query the UN with its Blue Helmets peace force; the structure of the UN with Russia in the security council vetoing everything (like Israel throwing all Palestine resolutions into the shredder) with 25% of the funds from the US ....... another seriously failed organization. 

Maybe it is time for WW3 to clean up this tremendous mess all over the planet; I always hoped, that it could be done differently though .......... 

Has it occurred to you that there's a reason why countries bordering Russia want to be members of NATO?

 

Israel is not a permanent member of the Security Council so it couldn't have thrown "all Palestinian resolutions into the shredder."

[Sydebolle]

20 hours ago, candide said:

A promise (so to say, no agreement signed, only verbal assurances or opinions) made to a Union which has been dissolved (initiated by its own members, with the Russian Federation playing a key role in it).

As to the "guided baton"! ???? You conveniently forget to mention that these Eastern Europe countries have been under the guided baton of the Soviet army for decades. By adhering to NATO, they wanted to make sure it wouldn't happen again with Russia.

 

The Soviet Union and Putin's Russia are responsible for their own fate. Nobody wants to be associated with backward  regimes which, on top of being imperialist, are unable to ensure their own economic development and the well-being of their citizen. 

 

The Soviet Union was a failure, and Putin's Russia is a failure. When you are failing, you cannot expect to win!

Excellent and I certainly agree to what you wrote. There is (.... ahem ....) was respective paperwork as it was reported all over the German news back in the day. It cleared the reunification of the latter. 
Correct is also, that the Soviet Union disintegrated on own behest; a political transitions most, if not all countries went through over the centuries. The UK looked, politically speaking, completely different 500 years ago, 250 years ago the US did not exist. East Pakistan became Bangladesh, Burma became Myanmar and we would live in a country called Siam - if not for historically rooted changes. This all does not mean, that all the previous agreements are nil and void (see 1954 Geneva treaty on the separation of Vietnam; latter having been a three kingdom state 200 years earlier) ....

What I miss is the willingness of higher ups (like i.e. US-controlled NATO or even higher UNO) to mediate. Kofi Annan flew to Baghdad and Tripoli and talked to Hussein and Ghadaffi; today we know it was a useless endeavour as the US needed to steamroller the region for cheap oil. Hans Blix did not clear his desk in Baghdad and told Bush to stick it up his bottom. Did not work for the same oil deprivation "mania". 

With all this tree-hugging and do-good attitude in the West we are not getting anywhere; it takes professional negotiations. One could turn the Ukraine into a neutral, sovereign, independent country and see, if and how Putin reacts. Latter is toast already but he might need a face-saving exit possibility and putting 300'000 NATO troops on alert is possibly only the second-best option. 

I follow German, French and British news on the subject and the disagreement among the West Europeans in reporting lots of fake news is mind-boggling. The real victims of all this are the Ukrainians who leave their home country (irrespective of name) for survival reasons and that needs to be stopped with all possible means. Warmongering and threatening is only one of the solutions.

To this day I - for one - cannot see the Russian script behind all this and hence resort to treaties, written agreements/promises, inked by all the actors at the time and only Gorbachev is still alive today ..........

[candide]

1 hour ago, Sydebolle said:

Excellent and I certainly agree to what you wrote. There is (.... ahem ....) was respective paperwork as it was reported all over the German news back in the day. It cleared the reunification of the latter. 
Correct is also, that the Soviet Union disintegrated on own behest; a political transitions most, if not all countries went through over the centuries. The UK looked, politically speaking, completely different 500 years ago, 250 years ago the US did not exist. East Pakistan became Bangladesh, Burma became Myanmar and we would live in a country called Siam - if not for historically rooted changes. This all does not mean, that all the previous agreements are nil and void (see 1954 Geneva treaty on the separation of Vietnam; latter having been a three kingdom state 200 years earlier) ....

What I miss is the willingness of higher ups (like i.e. US-controlled NATO or even higher UNO) to mediate. Kofi Annan flew to Baghdad and Tripoli and talked to Hussein and Ghadaffi; today we know it was a useless endeavour as the US needed to steamroller the region for cheap oil. Hans Blix did not clear his desk in Baghdad and told Bush to stick it up his bottom. Did not work for the same oil deprivation "mania". 

With all this tree-hugging and do-good attitude in the West we are not getting anywhere; it takes professional negotiations. One could turn the Ukraine into a neutral, sovereign, independent country and see, if and how Putin reacts. Latter is toast already but he might need a face-saving exit possibility and putting 300'000 NATO troops on alert is possibly only the second-best option. 

I follow German, French and British news on the subject and the disagreement among the West Europeans in reporting lots of fake news is mind-boggling. The real victims of all this are the Ukrainians who leave their home country (irrespective of name) for survival reasons and that needs to be stopped with all possible means. Warmongering and threatening is only one of the solutions.

To this day I - for one - cannot see the Russian script behind all this and hence resort to treaties, written agreements/promises, inked by all the actors at the time and only Gorbachev is still alive today ..........

Putin's intent is very clear: annexion of the two Eastern provinces (It's already done for Crimea and, let's be realistic, will not be reversed ) and initially a regime change (I guess they have lost this hope). The Russian economy is not wealthy enough, and the population is decreasing (it lost 1 million inhabitants in 2021). So these two wealthy provinces and their population would be a good addition to Russia.

 

There have been some attemps to negotiate, or to help negotiations ex U.N., Turkey, etc... The problem is that both  Ukraine  and Russia are not ready to give up the Eastern regions. It is also that Putin doesn't understand anything else than force and pressure. Additionally, even if Putin gets the Eastern provinces, There is also the risk that he will not have another try elsewhere, as it has worked in Ukraine (and before in Georgia, etc....)

 

In the cases you mentioned, it was easier to negotiate. The objective was a regime change, an access to oil, etc... It was not the permanent annexion of a part of these countries

Edited June 30, 2022 by candide

[heybruce]

20 hours ago, Sydebolle said:

Excellent and I certainly agree to what you wrote. There is (.... ahem ....) was respective paperwork as it was reported all over the German news back in the day. It cleared the reunification of the latter. 
Correct is also, that the Soviet Union disintegrated on own behest; a political transitions most, if not all countries went through over the centuries. The UK looked, politically speaking, completely different 500 years ago, 250 years ago the US did not exist. East Pakistan became Bangladesh, Burma became Myanmar and we would live in a country called Siam - if not for historically rooted changes. This all does not mean, that all the previous agreements are nil and void (see 1954 Geneva treaty on the separation of Vietnam; latter having been a three kingdom state 200 years earlier) ....

What I miss is the willingness of higher ups (like i.e. US-controlled NATO or even higher UNO) to mediate. Kofi Annan flew to Baghdad and Tripoli and talked to Hussein and Ghadaffi; today we know it was a useless endeavour as the US needed to steamroller the region for cheap oil. Hans Blix did not clear his desk in Baghdad and told Bush to stick it up his bottom. Did not work for the same oil deprivation "mania". 

With all this tree-hugging and do-good attitude in the West we are not getting anywhere; it takes professional negotiations. One could turn the Ukraine into a neutral, sovereign, independent country and see, if and how Putin reacts. Latter is toast already but he might need a face-saving exit possibility and putting 300'000 NATO troops on alert is possibly only the second-best option. 

I follow German, French and British news on the subject and the disagreement among the West Europeans in reporting lots of fake news is mind-boggling. The real victims of all this are the Ukrainians who leave their home country (irrespective of name) for survival reasons and that needs to be stopped with all possible means. Warmongering and threatening is only one of the solutions.

To this day I - for one - cannot see the Russian script behind all this and hence resort to treaties, written agreements/promises, inked by all the actors at the time and only Gorbachev is still alive today ..........

"With all this tree-hugging and do-good attitude in the West we are not getting anywhere; it takes professional negotiations. One could turn the Ukraine into a neutral, sovereign, independent country and see, if and how Putin reacts. "

 

Ukraine was a neutral, sovereign, independent country.  We saw how Putin reacted.

[Sydebolle]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

"With all this tree-hugging and do-good attitude in the West we are not getting anywhere; it takes professional negotiations. One could turn the Ukraine into a neutral, sovereign, independent country and see, if and how Putin reacts. "

 

Ukraine was a neutral, sovereign, independent country.  We saw how Putin reacted.

So where is all that NATO stuff coming from? Neutrality with NATO? Explain that to German widows who lost their husbands in Afghanistan ....... during a NATO mission. 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Sydebolle said:

So where is all that NATO stuff coming from? Neutrality with NATO? Explain that to German widows who lost their husbands in Afghanistan ....... during a NATO mission. 

Ukraine did not belong to NATO when Putin invaded, and was years from membership, if it ever did join.

 

Ukraine wanted to join NATO because shortly after it ejected the Russian stooge President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, Russia seized Ukrainian territory and started supporting thugs in eastern Ukraine with weapons and Russian soldiers.  It was difficult for Ukraine to remain neutral while it was under attack.

 

Afghanistan was the country from which an attack on the US, a NATO member, was planned and set in motion.  An attack on one NATO country is considered an attack on all.  That's why NATO troops were in Afghanistan.

 

You knew all this, you just want to deflect.

 

However if Russia is willing to withdraw from all Ukrainian territory, pay war reparations, and agree to international peacekeepers in Ukraine to guard it against future attacks, I'm sure Ukraine will agree to end the war and remain neutral.  What do you think the chances are of Putin agreeing to that?

[jayceenik]

I see that a lot of posters on this Hate-Russia thread are quite happy with NATO goading Putin enough to force him to go for a nuclear war on European soil.

How great the Glory of dying for Ukraine.

Or, rather for the geostrategic and economic goals of the US.

 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, jayceenik said:

I see that a lot of posters on this Hate-Russia thread are quite happy with NATO goading Putin enough to force him to go for a nuclear war on European soil.

How great the Glory of dying for Ukraine.

Or, rather for the geostrategic and economic goals of the US.

 

"goading Putin"?  Do you mean frustrating his attempts at empire building?  Do you suggest sacrificing Ukraine, and any other countries Putin wants to add to his empire, in an attempt to appease him?

 

Do you think rewarding nuclear blackmail leads to a safer world, or more nuclear blackmail?

[Bkk Brian]

2 hours ago, jayceenik said:

I see that a lot of posters on this Hate-Russia thread are quite happy with NATO goading Putin enough to force him to go for a nuclear war on European soil.

How great the Glory of dying for Ukraine.

Or, rather for the geostrategic and economic goals of the US.

 

NATO goading Putin? How exactly did they do that? Putin knew only too well that when he invaded Crimea, Ukraine would never be able to join NATO. Why? Because of Article 5.

 

NATO would not allow Ukraine joining and then being immediately sucked into a war directly with Russia. NATO has shown restraint. Putin has taken advantage of it deliberately emboldening him to carry on in 2014 and then of course his latest invasion.

[jayceenik]

Just curious.

Most posters on this thread hate Russia and hate Putin.

So, who do you think sabotaged the Nordstream gas pipelines ?

" A tremendous opportunity", said the US. Indeed...

Though not for Russia, not for Germany, not for Europe (except Poland and Norway with their just inaugurated Baltic Pipe).

 

 

 

[candide]

3 hours ago, jayceenik said:

Just curious.

Most posters on this thread hate Russia and hate Putin.

So, who do you think sabotaged the Nordstream gas pipelines ?

" A tremendous opportunity", said the US. Indeed...

Though not for Russia, not for Germany, not for Europe (except Poland and Norway with their just inaugurated Baltic Pipe).

 

 

 

Paradoxally, under international laws, Gazprom needs to pay penalties if it doesn't fulfill its contract obligations. That's why it never did officially cut supply. Previous cuts have been justified by the refusal of some countries to pay in Rubles (ex Finland), or technical problems (force majeure).

This sabotage creates another convenient case of "force majeure".

Edited October 17, 2022 by candide

[Gweiloman]

On 10/17/2022 at 2:19 PM, candide said:

Paradoxally, under international laws, Gazprom needs to pay penalties if it doesn't fulfill its contract obligations. That's why it never did officially cut supply. Previous cuts have been justified by the refusal of some countries to pay in Rubles (ex Finland), or technical problems (force majeure).

This sabotage creates another convenient case of "force majeure".

Does Germany’s refusal to certify NS2 breach any contractual terms?

[candide]

9 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

Does Germany’s refusal to certify NS2 breach any contractual terms?

I don't know. Did Gazprom file a suit?

[Gweiloman]

29 minutes ago, candide said:

I don't know. Did Gazprom file a suit?

I don’t know. I would imagine that that would be an option if there were contractual breaches. Of course, many contracts have act of war exclusions.

[candide]

21 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

I don’t know. I would imagine that that would be an option if there were contractual breaches. Of course, many contracts have act of war exclusions.

The trick being there's officially no war. Only a special operation!