Jump to content

‘No turning back’: how the Ukraine war has profoundly changed the EU


Recommended Posts

Posted
59 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Did you miss where I asked SPECIFICALLY about WESTERN countries? Instead you posted a list that had ZERO to do with my question which you actually posted, but apparently didn't read.

 

As for Korea, as no Russian troops were involved, to my knowledge, they were only doing the same thing as America is doing in Ukraine, and supplying military aid. Is it different when it's not America?

Did you not see Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Germany on the list?

 

BTW:  How many WESTERN countries has the US invaded since WWII?

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
41 minutes ago, Tug said:

Soo a country being invaded looted families being murdered wives and daughters being raped asks the free world to help it defend itself translates in your mind to the weapons industry and their shareholders making money hummm………how do you feel about the country that’s doing the invading raping and looting hummm………seems to me you are ok with that,am I mistaken?

Yes.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Posted
24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

States or not, they were in the Soviet sphere of influence, and controlled by Russian aligned governments.

Were Churchill and Roosevelt fooled by Stalin, or did they abandon those countries? I'm going for the latter. The Uk has a history of abandoning countries when it suits them, eg Palestine.

 

So perhaps you can inform us as to which western countries not in the Soviet sphere of influence were invaded by Russia post WW2.

And now you want to surrender Ukraine (and who knows what other countries) to Putin's empire building.

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
1 hour ago, heybruce said:

You boast about the number of news sources you read yet you never post any links to support your claims and opinions.  That's ok when you're preaching to the converted, but it doesn't work here.

 

You like to throw out the name Nuland and suggest there is something sinister there.  There isn't.  Here is the most "sinister" thing I could find on Nuland, a discussion between her and Ambassador Pyatt in which it is clear that they would prefer that the pro-western opposition come out ahead in the protests.  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

 

That's it.  If you have anything more substantial please share it.  But use credible sources, don't claim you have superior knowledge and expect us to believe you.

I've nothing personal against Victoria Nuland.

 

To understand this conflict you have to research on the Bretton Woods agreement first.

There's also the (Halford John) Mackinder Heartland theory that seems to be deployed the last 10 years.

 

I read as well only unbiased Western as unbiased Russian media to better understand what's happening in reality. That's not a crime I think...

 

 

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

States or not, they were in the Soviet sphere of influence, and controlled by Russian aligned governments.

Once again, absolute nonsense and factually incorrect.

 

There was never any concession by Churchill or Roosevelt that Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland should be considered part of the "Soviet sphere of influence".

 

As I stated previously Stalin agreed that, post WW2, there should be free elections held in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland (and also Romania and Bulgaria). An agreement that he did not keep. 

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Were Churchill and Roosevelt fooled by Stalin, or did they abandon those countries? I'm going for the latter. The Uk has a history of abandoning countries when it suits them, eg Palestine.

Imo those statements are not without substance. However, they are an altogether different conversation.

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

So perhaps you can inform us as to which western countries not in the Soviet sphere of influence were invaded by Russia post WW2.

As I stated above, there was no agreed "Soviet sphere of influence".

 

So far as Western countries invaded by the Soviet Union is concerned, as I and others have pointed out on umpteen occasions: Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Other nations in the Warsaw Pact may not have been occupied forcibly by Soviet military forces post WW2, but the installation of puppet governments could be seen as effectively an occupation.

Edited by RayC
Clarification
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Spent a lot of time in mental institutions?

No, trying to understand people when they ask me questions...

  • Confused 2
Posted
Just now, RayC said:

Once again, absolute nonsense and factually incorrect.

 

There was never any concession by Churchill or Roosevelt that Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland should be considered part of the "Soviet sphere of influence".

 

As I stated previously Stalin agreed that, post WW2, there should be free elections held in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland (and also Romania and Bulgaria). An agreement that he did not keep. 

 

Imo those statements are not without substance. However, they are an altogether different conversation.

 

As I stated above, there was no agreed "Soviet sphere of influence".

 

So far as Western countries invaded by the Soviet Union is concerned, as I and others have pointed out on umpteen occasions: Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Other nations in the Warsaw Pact may not have been occupied by Soviet military forces, but the installation of puppet governments could be seen as effectively an occupation.

Carry on your deflection without me. You are obviously not going to answer my question.

  • Confused 1
  • Love It 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Tug said:

Well your country is on the wrong side of history it’s a shame your government is allowing this slaughter of not only the Ukrainians but of your people as well.I’m rooting for the Ukrainians obviously but it’s sad to see the Russian guys getting killed all to satisfy one man’s vision.

I agree with you completely.

 

My country is on the wrong side of the history because my government decided to supply arms and money to Ukraine in a war that is not ours.

 

Some kids in my country can't afford a lunch at school.

University students can't pay their school fees.

Elder people (retirement) can't pay their rent, food, etc...

End the list is longer, but you get my point that we have our financial priorities for our own people instead of foreign conflicts with huge economic backlashes (energy prices after Nord stream 1/2 skyrocketed)

  • Sad 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Carry on your deflection without me. You are obviously not going to answer my question.

And cue the usual deflection card.

 

I have no idea what is your question?

 

My question to you is are you going to continue to attempt to rewrite historical facts?

  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Thanks for the Kremlin talking points, in future please supply a link to them. There's so much false info there I think you've just thrown what you can against the wall to see what sticks.

I've checked again, and everything still sticks pretty well...

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

"Leaked U.S. strategy on Ukraine sees corruption as the real threat "

"10/02/2023 05:00 AM EDT "

"Biden administration officials are far more worried about corruption in Ukraine than they publicly admit, a confidential U.S. strategy document obtained by POLITICO suggests.

The “sensitive but unclassified” version of the long-term U.S. plan lays out numerous steps Washington is taking to help Kyiv root out malfeasance and otherwise reform an array of Ukrainian sectors. It stresses that corruption could cause Western allies to abandon Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s invasion, and that Kyiv cannot put off the anti-graft effort."

 

"Ukrainian graft has long been a concern of U.S. officials all the way up to President Joe Biden. But the topic was deemphasized in the wake of Russia’s February 2022 full-scale invasion, which Biden has called a real-life battle of democracy against autocracy. "

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/02/biden-admin-ukraine-strategy-corruption-00119237

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

"The UAF shelling on civilians of Donbas region started before 2014 and didn't stop."

 

Like I said, nothing of yours sticks without credible links:

 

Civilian casualties in Donbas from 2014 in both government controlled areas and in territory controlled by the self-proclaimed 'republics'

 

image.png.b8cb6f551b189fde88e1d96e47d3cc53.png

https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Conflict-related civilian casualties as of 31 December 2021 (rev 27 January 2022) corr EN_0.pdf

Many ethnic Russians from Donbas fled to Russia since 2014.

Decrease of Donbas causalities is due to people living in bomb shelters (caves) and counterattacks of it's own militia.

 

Show me one US state that bombed for +8 years it's own people because of their ethnicity in full impunity.

  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Haha 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...