Russia has plans to annex Belarus, says former Ukrainian foreign minister Klimkin

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

And you know that this is the definition that Ukrainian former Foreign Minster was using how?

LOL

 

I am using the definition of the words he used.

 

Now, any luck on that previous request I made.

[BangkokReady]

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I am using the definition of the words he used.

You're using a definition of the word he used, LOL.

 

It's pretty clear from the article they aren't talking about Russia invading Belarus.  They're allies. ????‍♂️

 

It's OK to be wrong sometimes.  Don't take it so personally. ????‍♂️

[Kwasaki]

I wish someone, somebody, get them to talk and stop this unecessary slaughter.

 

It seems human nature never wants peace only conflict. 

[Bluespunk]

19 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

You're using a definition of the word he used, LOL.

 

It's pretty clear from the article they aren't talking about Russia invading Belarus.  They're allies. ????‍♂️

 

It's OK to be wrong sometimes.  Don't take it so personally. ????‍♂️

LOL

 

I wasn't wrong, I gave you the legal definition of the word annex...you on the other hand.

 

Can't answer my question, well never mind. I didn't think you would be able to do so.

 

Keep digging and deflecting though.

[spidermike007]

There is little doubt the madman Vlad is power hungry and has expansionist ambitions. Perhaps his misadventure in Ukraine will wean him of the delusion that Russia is a powerful state. It appears they are closer to an antiquated, and failed state. 

[BangkokReady]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Keep digging and deflecting though.

LOL.  You're deflecting, bringing in definitions that you have no idea are even being used.

 

"Keep digging and deflecting by referring to what was said in the OP."  LOL

 

You have no idea if the commenter was using that definition, and they mentioned Belarus allowing it to happen.

 

Clearly they aren't talking about Russia invading Belarus, so you're wrong. Simple. ????‍♂️

 

Just re-read the article if you aren't sure.

[Bluespunk]

9 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

LOL.  You're deflecting, bringing in definitions that you have no idea are even being used.

 

"Keep digging and deflecting by referring to what was said in the OP."  LOL

 

You have no idea if the commenter was using that definition, and they mentioned Belarus allowing it to happen.

 

Clearly they aren't talking about Russia invading Belarus, so you're wrong. Simple. ????‍♂️

 

Just re-read the article if you aren't sure.

LOL

 

Is light still reaching the bottom of that hole?

 

Tell me an annexation that took place without an invasion and occupation. 

[BangkokReady]

6 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Tell me an annexation that took place without an invasion and occupation.

Sure, right after you prove that Klimkin meant that Russia would invade Belarus...

 

The fact that the two countries are allies and he mentions the Belarus president allowing it seem to go against you.

[Bluespunk]

18 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Sure, right after you prove that Klimkin meant that Russia would invade Belarus...

 

The fact that the two countries are allies and he mentions the Belarus president allowing it seem to go against you.

You can’t find another example can you?

 

Enough of your whataboutary…

[BangkokReady]

12 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Enough of your whataboutary…

Discussing what was actually said is whataboutary???  But you selecting one definition because it supports your claims with no solid connection with what is being discussed isn't??? ????‍♂️

 

Hilarious!

 

Supply some proof to support your claim (as I have), or be assumed to be wrong, again.  Simple as that. ????‍♂️

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

You're using a definition of the word he used, LOL.

 

It's pretty clear from the article they aren't talking about Russia invading Belarus.  They're allies. ????‍♂️

 

It's OK to be wrong sometimes.  Don't take it so personally. ????‍♂️

Russia didn't invade Belarus, their military comes and goes freely. That's the price Lukashenko paid for asking Russia to put down an insurrection with their troops not long ago.

 

Vassal state might be more accurate than allies.

[placeholder]

50 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

LOL.  You're deflecting, bringing in definitions that you have no idea are even being used.

 

"Keep digging and deflecting by referring to what was said in the OP."  LOL

 

You have no idea if the commenter was using that definition, and they mentioned Belarus allowing it to happen.

 

Clearly they aren't talking about Russia invading Belarus, so you're wrong. Simple. ????‍♂️

 

Just re-read the article if you aren't sure.

This is what Klimnik said about Lukashenko:

"And he also understands and feels with his animal sense of power that at some point Putin will conduct an operation to incorporate Belarus into Russia on terms of (making it a) federal district, or by some other means. I think that the plans are 100% ready in Russia.”

It's blindingly clear that Klimnik is saying Russia will make Belarus part of Russia whether Lukashenko approves or not. 

[Bluespunk]

46 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Discussing what was actually said is whataboutary???  But you selecting one definition because it supports your claims with no solid connection with what is being discussed isn't??? ????‍♂️

 

Hilarious!

 

Supply some proof to support your claim (as I have), or be assumed to be wrong, again.  Simple as that. ????‍♂️

Still can’t find an example eh.

 

 So wrong but guess that holes so deep now you just can’t see it. 

[BangkokReady]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Still can’t find an example eh.

Waiting for your proof...

[BangkokReady]

36 minutes ago, placeholder said:

This is what Klimnik said about Lukashenko:

"And he also understands and feels with his animal sense of power that at some point Putin will conduct an operation to incorporate Belarus into Russia on terms of (making it a) federal district, or by some other means. I think that the plans are 100% ready in Russia.”

It's blindingly clear that Klimnik is saying Russia will make Belarus part of Russia whether Lukashenko approves or not. 

But he also said this:

 

Quote

At the same time, the diplomat noted that Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko had not yet "granted" the Russian dictator a final union of Belarus with Russia

 

“Previously, it was a ‘black’, ‘gray’ channel for exporting goods to Russia. And now Lukashenko is well aware that economically and in terms of security it is a road to nowhere for him.

Sounds like it is more likely to be economical than warfare related.

[Bluespunk]

6 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Waiting for your proof...

Thought not. 

[BangkokReady]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

Thought not. 

I thought you wouldn't be able to prove what you claimed.

 

I was right.

 

Your continued deflection only supports this. ????‍♂️

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

I thought you wouldn't be able to prove what you claimed.

 

I was right.

 

Your continued deflection only supports this. ????‍♂️

Deflection…ah the irony. 
 

No examples available of annexation without invasion and occupation, come I’m sure you can find one….once you emerge from that hole that is. 

[steven100]

To be honest,  I just don't get it  ....

the war is itching closer to Moscow ....  <deleted> is wrong with Ukraine bombing Moscow ?  Nothing in my book, they invaded UKRAINE.

so <deleted> won't the US & Nato just go in and destroy Moscow ?  it's no different from what Russia is doing ?

 

why are they just letting this drag on when they could stop it in one fowl swoop  ???????????????

 

 

 

 

 

[BangkokReady]

7 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Deflection…ah the irony.

It's very simple.  You just need to provide some evidence for your claim.

 

If you cannot, then of course bringing up unrelated evidence is deflection on your behalf.

 

I've pointed out quite clearly where Klimkin suggest that Russia will not invade Belarus, but you refuse to provide any evidence that he will.  Simple. ????‍♂️

[Bluespunk]

7 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

It's very simple.  You just need to provide some evidence for your claim.

 

If you cannot, then of course bringing up unrelated evidence is deflection on your behalf.

 

I've pointed out quite clearly where Klimkin suggest that Russia will not invade Belarus, but you refuse to provide any evidence that he will.  Simple. ????‍♂️

Just one example of annexation not involving invasion and occupation, that’s what I asked and you continue to avoid providing one or admitting you can’t. 
 

Oh and here’s a little something from the OP…

 

”In April, Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence reported that it had received documents indicating that the 1st Tank Army of Russia was preparing to invade and seize the territory of Belarus.”

 

[BangkokReady]

8 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

”In April, Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence reported that it had received documents indicating that the 1st Tank Army of Russia was preparing to invade and seize the territory of Belarus.”

How does that affect what Klimkin said?  A report claimed that Russian tanks were preparing to invade Belarus eight months ago, so Klimkin's recent comments definitely meant that Russia will invade Belarus?

 

Why not stop trying to deflect and provide some actual evidence to support your claim?

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

How does that affect what Klimkin said?  A report claimed that Russian tanks were preparing to invade Belarus eight months ago, so Klimkin's recent comments definitely meant that Russia will invade Belarus?

 

Why not stop trying to deflect and provide some actual evidence to support your claim?

LOL

 

Oh, still awaiting on that request from earlier. 

 

[BangkokReady]

26 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Oh, still awaiting on that request from earlier. 

But you aren't even willing to provide any kind of evidence to support your claim?

 

I think you will have a long wait.

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

But you aren't even willing to provide any kind of evidence to support your claim?

 

I think you will have a long wait.

Ah, I’d be waiting till the end of time itself, because you can’t provide an example. 

[BangkokReady]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

Ah, I’d be waiting till the end of time itself, because you can’t provide an example. 

I know that you can't provide any evidence to support your claim.  Is that any help?

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

I know that you can't provide any evidence to support your claim.  Is that any help?

LOL

 

From the OP once more

 

”Russia has plans to annex Belarus, says former Ukrainian foreign minister Klimkin”

 

“In April, Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence reported that it had received documents indicating that the 1st Tank Army of Russia was preparing to invade and seize the territory of Belarus.”

Still waiting for your example, though not anticipating one as you can’t find one. 

[placeholder]

13 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

But he also said this:

 

Sounds like it is more likely to be economical than warfare related.

False. What you cite is referring to the past and present. What Klimkin is warning about is referring to the Future.

[ballpoint]

15 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

It's the Vikings fault I reckon. ????

Yes. Wagner's Valkyries. 

[Bkk Brian]

Russia has unofficially annexed Belarus already and has been from the start of the year

 

It will also not be a shock-and-awe spectacle like the 2008 invasion of Georgia. Instead, we should be prepared for a slow, stealthy, and methodical operation that will be over before most people even know it is happening. It will be an annexation hiding in plain sight. Think of the old metaphor of a frog in boiling water.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/belarusalert/soft-annexation-inside-the-russian-takeover-of-belarus/

 

In the space of a month, Vladimir Putin has effectively managed to transform a former Soviet state into an extension of Russian territory, in full view of the United States and Europe, without firing a single shot in the country. This isn’t unfolding in Ukraine but neighboring Belarus

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/02/russia-creeping-annexation-belarus/622878/