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

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Thorgal said:

I used the link above from the same poster (@ Seppius) of The Dailymail 

 

I also used Googlemaps+Google Earth & common sense.

 

Look at the impact of the damaged building of the family + size of the Iskandr missiles, I conclude (without link) that this type of missile (minimal 800 kg) would have obliterated (+50 meters) the whole (neighboring) building(s), included the 1st & 2nd level.

 

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PFZcigcB1og

 

Right.  Youtube as a source.

 

I should have specified a credible source.

 

I usually don't do this, but I watched enough of the video to hear "Hroza itself, that village that was hit, has got no military significance at all."

 

What is your source for your claim "There was a military target at the Reikartz hotel some +/-100m of the house of the family."

Edited October 6, 2023 by heybruce

[Thorgal]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Right.  Youtube as a source.

 

I should have specified a credible source.

 

I usually don't do this, but I watched enough of the video to hear "Hroza itself, that village that was hit, has got no military significance at all."

 

What is your source for your claim "There was a military target at the Reikartz hotel some +/-100m of the house of the family."

The YT source is a copy from the original Russian army footage from the drone and the launcher camera set of the Iskandr missile system. This was just to give some insight of the impact and fire ball produced by this kind of missiles.

 

Hroza (small town) and Kharkov (city) are two different places and some 79 kms from each other. Both were mentioned in the Dailymail link posted above by another poster.

 

Why asking credible links if you don't read them?

[Bkk Brian]

6 hours ago, Thorgal said:

I used the link above from the same poster (@ Seppius) of The Dailymail 

 

I also used Googlemaps+Google Earth & common sense.

 

Look at the impact of the damaged building of the family + size of the Iskandr missiles, I conclude (without link) that this type of missile (minimal 800 kg) would have obliterated (+50 meters) the whole (neighboring) building(s), included the 1st & 2nd level.

 

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PFZcigcB1og

 

"I also used Googlemaps+Google Earth & common sense."

 

Shameful nonsense, attempting to minimize the horrors of these direct attacks on civilians by the Russians

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Thorgal said:

The YT source is a copy from the original Russian army footage from the drone and the launcher camera set of the Iskandr missile system. This was just to give some insight of the impact and fire ball produced by this kind of missiles.

 

Hroza (small town) and Kharkov (city) are two different places and some 79 kms from each other. Both were mentioned in the Dailymail link posted above by another poster.

 

Why asking credible links if you don't read them?

Your reply is totally irrelevant to the question asked:  What is your source for your claim "There was a military target at the Reikartz hotel some +/-100m of the house of the family."

 

Also, once again, you gave YouTube videos for your source.  There is nothing to read.  This in spite of the fact that you claim to read many varied sources for your information.  Your posts indicate otherwise.

Edited October 7, 2023 by heybruce

[Seppius]

More from the BBC, with drone footage about the village hit. UN inspectors now investigating, direct hit, nothing else around it

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNpBQyj4dk0

 

 

[retarius]

On 10/1/2023 at 10:56 AM, Tug said:

It certainly re vitalized nato big time!putin must be crushed and his expansionist dreams must be denied this isent the 40s it’s a different world 

Grow up man. Putin isn't going to be crushed. The Ukrainians are going to be crushed. Yesterday. 17 Ukrainians soldiers called the Russian hotline to surrender. Reason: their commanders had ordered them to hold a position, but they had no ammo, zero bullets, no grenades etc etc and no artillery cover. Ukraine has serious issues at the strategic management level of the conflict and are running out of everything: men, ammo and morale. You think 31 stripped down US tanks will turn the tide? They'll be burnt with all in them by the Russians who are simply superior people. 

[candide]

23 minutes ago, retarius said:

Grow up man. Putin isn't going to be crushed. The Ukrainians are going to be crushed. Yesterday. 17 Ukrainians soldiers called the Russian hotline to surrender. Reason: their commanders had ordered them to hold a position, but they had no ammo, zero bullets, no grenades etc etc and no artillery cover. Ukraine has serious issues at the strategic management level of the conflict and are running out of everything: men, ammo and morale. You think 31 stripped down US tanks will turn the tide? They'll be burnt with all in them by the Russians who are simply superior people. 

Wow! 17 soldiers! It will surely change the fate of Ukraine! 

 

BTW, what's your source? RT  Sputnik, YouTube?

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, retarius said:

Grow up man. Putin isn't going to be crushed. The Ukrainians are going to be crushed. Yesterday. 17 Ukrainians soldiers called the Russian hotline to surrender. Reason: their commanders had ordered them to hold a position, but they had no ammo, zero bullets, no grenades etc etc and no artillery cover. Ukraine has serious issues at the strategic management level of the conflict and are running out of everything: men, ammo and morale. You think 31 stripped down US tanks will turn the tide? They'll be burnt with all in them by the Russians who are simply superior people. 

You got a link for that claim about those Ukrainian soldiers?

From the landing page of this forum:

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

https://aseannow.com/forum/158-world-news/

 

The Russians may or may not be superior people. But as their fiasco in the Ukraine demonstrates, they are certainly not superior soldiers.

 

[heybruce]

People posting in favor of Russia either don't provide links or attempt to distract with irrelevant links.  I'll leave it up to them to explain why that is.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, retarius said:

Grow up man. Putin isn't going to be crushed. The Ukrainians are going to be crushed. Yesterday. 17 Ukrainians soldiers called the Russian hotline to surrender. Reason: their commanders had ordered them to hold a position, but they had no ammo, zero bullets, no grenades etc etc and no artillery cover. Ukraine has serious issues at the strategic management level of the conflict and are running out of everything: men, ammo and morale. You think 31 stripped down US tanks will turn the tide? They'll be burnt with all in them by the Russians who are simply superior people. 

I agree with everything except the last sentence, as I don't think Russians are superior, but there are more of them, so they will win, in the end, short of the west giving Ukraine nukes, IMO.

 

The end was IMO obvious from the start, but some believe the western propaganda.

 

[impulse]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

People posting in favor of Russia either don't provide links or attempt to distract with irrelevant links.  I'll leave it up to them to explain why that is.

You don't guess that may be because everything that's pro-Russia is being swept from the interweb as fast as it goes up?  It's always easier to find links that go along with the narrative from those who pay $$ billions to monitor and censor and seed the net.  They're so in-your-face that it's hard to look past them for real information.

 

Edited October 7, 2023 by impulse

[sirineou]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

People posting in favor of Russia either don't provide links or attempt to distract with irrelevant links.  I'll leave it up to them to explain why that is.

Not true at all!!

I have methodically , advanced the theory that Russia was forced in this war by NATO expansion, that warning were given to the west that if the USA  persist in trying to bring Ukraine in it's sphere of influence.  Russia would have no choice but to respond. Yet when indeed Russia responded, the west fainted surprise. If nothing else , it begs the question, why?

But you all ignored all the quotes and links  having swallowed hook ,line and sinker US propaganda in support of this proxy war.

An independent Ukraine would had been a much better situation for the Ukranians than what they have now. And much better than all of us in the west.  And please don't start  with the  Russian imperialism, domino affect nonsense.  Russia can not pacify Ukraine yet it a danger to conquer Europe.  

  I know your intentions are good, but we all know how sometimes "the best of intentions " often result in negative consequences for those we try to help.  

.I am sorry, but your side is not only not helping Ukraine but is destroying it. 

  I am sure what I am saying above will fall in deaf ears and will be received with hostility.  If interested why , research Plato's allegory of "The Cave" for Plato's Republic. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nHj3gL_JN0

 

Burns is now CIA director and was US ambassador to Russia 1998 to 2001,)

"Among others, Biden’s CIA director, William J. Burns, has been warning about the provocative effect of NATO expansion on Russia since 1995. That’s when Burns, then a political officer in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, reported to Washington that “hostility to early NATO expansion is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.” "

 

"In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

Notice the "(not just Putin). " when spewing nonsense about "Putin's war" 

 

Burns was not and is not the only one ,

"In June 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts signed an open letter to Clinton, saying, “We believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions” that would “unsettle European stability.” "

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999#:~:text=Burns%2C has been warning about,the domestic political spectrum here.”

 

But me telling you and giving you links ,will have no affect on your thinking. You will call me a liar, a dupe, an apologist etc. No different the during the Gulf war, Everyone has seen the light now, but regardless what you say, I know most of you were for it back then. In fact when having a conversation about my opposition to it and the reasons why, I was told by a friend to keep my voice down people will hear you.   Imagine !!!!    Not much different now. 

So do your research, don't only read that which agrees with you, but more importantly that which challenges your thinking . It is the only way to validate what you think you know 

 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

Not true at all!!

I have methodically , advanced the theory that Russia was forced in this war by NATO expansion, that warning were given to the west that if the USA  persist in trying to bring Ukraine in it's sphere of influence.  Russia would have no choice but to respond. Yet when indeed Russia responded, the west fainted surprise. If nothing else , it begs the question, why?

But you all ignored all the quotes and links  having swallowed hook ,line and sinker US propaganda in support of this proxy war.

An independent Ukraine would had been a much better situation for the Ukranians than what they have now. And much better than all of us in the west.  And please don't start  with the  Russian imperialism, domino affect nonsense.  Russia can not pacify Ukraine yet it a danger to conquer Europe.  

  I know your intentions are good, but we all know how sometimes "the best of intentions " often result in negative consequences for those we try to help.  

.I am sorry, but your side is not only not helping Ukraine but is destroying it. 

  I am sure what I am saying above will fall in deaf ears and will be received with hostility.  If interested why , research Plato's allegory of "The Cave" for Plato's Republic. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nHj3gL_JN0

 

Burns is now CIA director and was US ambassador to Russia 1998 to 2001,)

"Among others, Biden’s CIA director, William J. Burns, has been warning about the provocative effect of NATO expansion on Russia since 1995. That’s when Burns, then a political officer in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, reported to Washington that “hostility to early NATO expansion is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.” "

 

"In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

Notice the "(not just Putin). " when spewing nonsense about "Putin's war" 

 

Burns was not and is not the only one ,

"In June 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts signed an open letter to Clinton, saying, “We believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions” that would “unsettle European stability.” "

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999#:~:text=Burns%2C has been warning about,the domestic political spectrum here.”

 

But me telling you and giving you links ,will have no affect on your thinking. You will call me a liar, a dupe, an apologist etc. No different the during the Gulf war, Everyone has seen the light now, but regardless what you say, I know most of you were for it back then. In fact when having a conversation about my opposition to it and the reasons why, I was told by a friend to keep my voice down people will hear you.   Imagine !!!!    Not much different now. 

So do your research, don't only read that which agrees with you, but more importantly that which challenges your thinking . It is the only way to validate what you think you know 

 

 

 

 

It's rare to read a sensible post about the conflict on here. Well done.

[impulse]

42 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's rare to read a sensible post about the conflict on here. Well done.

But... But... Commies is bad.

 

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, sirineou said:

Not true at all!!

I have methodically , advanced the theory that Russia was forced in this war by NATO expansion, that warning were given to the west that if the USA  persist in trying to bring Ukraine in it's sphere of influence.  Russia would have no choice but to respond. Yet when indeed Russia responded, the west fainted surprise. If nothing else , it begs the question, why?

But you all ignored all the quotes and links  having swallowed hook ,line and sinker US propaganda in support of this proxy war.

An independent Ukraine would had been a much better situation for the Ukranians than what they have now. And much better than all of us in the west.  And please don't start  with the  Russian imperialism, domino affect nonsense.  Russia can not pacify Ukraine yet it a danger to conquer Europe.  

  I know your intentions are good, but we all know how sometimes "the best of intentions " often result in negative consequences for those we try to help.  

.I am sorry, but your side is not only not helping Ukraine but is destroying it. 

  I am sure what I am saying above will fall in deaf ears and will be received with hostility.  If interested why , research Plato's allegory of "The Cave" for Plato's Republic. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nHj3gL_JN0

 

Burns is now CIA director and was US ambassador to Russia 1998 to 2001,)

"Among others, Biden’s CIA director, William J. Burns, has been warning about the provocative effect of NATO expansion on Russia since 1995. That’s when Burns, then a political officer in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, reported to Washington that “hostility to early NATO expansion is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.” "

 

"In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

Notice the "(not just Putin). " when spewing nonsense about "Putin's war" 

 

Burns was not and is not the only one ,

"In June 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts signed an open letter to Clinton, saying, “We believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions” that would “unsettle European stability.” "

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999#:~:text=Burns%2C has been warning about,the domestic political spectrum here.”

 

But me telling you and giving you links ,will have no affect on your thinking. You will call me a liar, a dupe, an apologist etc. No different the during the Gulf war, Everyone has seen the light now, but regardless what you say, I know most of you were for it back then. In fact when having a conversation about my opposition to it and the reasons why, I was told by a friend to keep my voice down people will hear you.   Imagine !!!!    Not much different now. 

So do your research, don't only read that which agrees with you, but more importantly that which challenges your thinking . It is the only way to validate what you think you know 

 

I give you credit for providing links to written sources.  Many posters are reluctant to do so.

 

However I'm not sure what your links are supposed to accomplish.  The first and last ones were informed opinions on a controversial topic over 20 years ago.  The last one was someone speculating 15 years ago about the consequences of the distant and uncertain prospect of Ukraine's possible entry into NATO.

 

Events of these times have little to do with the current reality:  Some countries that border on Russia feel threatened, with good reasons.  If Russia hadn't been a threat, they wouldn't have been as eager in joining NATO.  Perhaps they would have been completely uninterested.

 

Ukraine doesn't appear to want to be in Russia's "sphere of influence".  Ukraine has the right to make that choice.

 

 

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Events of these times have little to do with the current reality: 

Events of these times have lisle to do with current reality??

It is exactly those events that brought us to the current reality. 

If I told you. "if you do X I will clobber you"  and you do x

Then someone else you respect and is an expert on the subject tells 

Dude , if you continue to do  X he lull clobber you , and you continue to do X, then many experts tell you, "stop doing X or he will clobber you, but you continue to do X. Then you are totally surprised and indignant that he clobers you. 

Saying your above is like saying WW1 had very little to do with WW2

 

Of course you can come back to me and say " But doing X was the right thing"  and I sat well That's debatable. "he is doing X, why cant' I do X?"  

I am sure you are familiar with the monroe doctrine,

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/monroe-doctrine

also that what is good for the goose is good for the gander 

or are in the camp of American exceptionalism? 

 

[candide]

6 hours ago, sirineou said:

Not true at all!!

I have methodically , advanced the theory that Russia was forced in this war by NATO expansion, that warning were given to the west that if the USA  persist in trying to bring Ukraine in it's sphere of influence.  Russia would have no choice but to respond. Yet when indeed Russia responded, the west fainted surprise. If nothing else , it begs the question, why?

But you all ignored all the quotes and links  having swallowed hook ,line and sinker US propaganda in support of this proxy war.

An independent Ukraine would had been a much better situation for the Ukranians than what they have now. And much better than all of us in the west.  And please don't start  with the  Russian imperialism, domino affect nonsense.  Russia can not pacify Ukraine yet it a danger to conquer Europe.  

  I know your intentions are good, but we all know how sometimes "the best of intentions " often result in negative consequences for those we try to help.  

.I am sorry, but your side is not only not helping Ukraine but is destroying it. 

  I am sure what I am saying above will fall in deaf ears and will be received with hostility.  If interested why , research Plato's allegory of "The Cave" for Plato's Republic. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nHj3gL_JN0

 

Burns is now CIA director and was US ambassador to Russia 1998 to 2001,)

"Among others, Biden’s CIA director, William J. Burns, has been warning about the provocative effect of NATO expansion on Russia since 1995. That’s when Burns, then a political officer in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, reported to Washington that “hostility to early NATO expansion is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.” "

 

"In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

Notice the "(not just Putin). " when spewing nonsense about "Putin's war" 

 

Burns was not and is not the only one ,

"In June 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts signed an open letter to Clinton, saying, “We believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions” that would “unsettle European stability.” "

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999#:~:text=Burns%2C has been warning about,the domestic political spectrum here.”

 

But me telling you and giving you links ,will have no affect on your thinking. You will call me a liar, a dupe, an apologist etc. No different the during the Gulf war, Everyone has seen the light now, but regardless what you say, I know most of you were for it back then. In fact when having a conversation about my opposition to it and the reasons why, I was told by a friend to keep my voice down people will hear you.   Imagine !!!!    Not much different now. 

So do your research, don't only read that which agrees with you, but more importantly that which challenges your thinking . It is the only way to validate what you think you know 

 

 

 

 

It's one view of reality, which is coherent and well articulated.

However, there are other views:

- one view is that, if other Eastern Europe countries had not joined NATO (and the EU for the political and economic aspects), they could also have been attacked or put under Russian rule. There is no guarantee that it would have led to a more peaceful situation.

- another view is that Russian (and in particular their successive governments) are largely responsible for this situation. The Soviet Union was in decline and so is Russia. Incompetent leaders such as Putin have been unable to develop their country and the well-being of its citizen. No one is attracted by Russia. Just compare the standard of living and political system in former Warsaw treaty countries with those of Russia. Of course, they are not ready to accept they are in decline but that's mainly their fault (at least their government)

- There is also the legal and ethical view. These countries, including Ukraine, did not secede. They legally left according to the treaties signed. Ukraine left the Soviet Union, just like Russia did before, according to the treaty designed by Stalin. Legally and morally, Russia has no right on them.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

Events of these times have lisle to do with current reality??

It is exactly those events that brought us to the current reality. 

If I told you. "if you do X I will clobber you"  and you do x

Then someone else you respect and is an expert on the subject tells 

Dude , if you continue to do  X he lull clobber you , and you continue to do X, then many experts tell you, "stop doing X or he will clobber you, but you continue to do X. Then you are totally surprised and indignant that he clobers you. 

Saying your above is like saying WW1 had very little to do with WW2

 

Of course you can come back to me and say " But doing X was the right thing"  and I sat well That's debatable. "he is doing X, why cant' I do X?"  

I am sure you are familiar with the monroe doctrine,

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/monroe-doctrine

also that what is good for the goose is good for the gander 

or are in the camp of American exceptionalism? 

 

One out of context sentence is all that you can reply to?

 

Why not address the fact that Ukraine is an independent nation that can choose its own allies and alliances? 

 

Why not address the fact that Russia keeps driving its neighbors into seeking a defensive alliance?

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

One out of context sentence is all that you can reply to?

Apologies if I missed it, How was it out of context? You said it had litle to do with,. and I said it had everything to do with.

 

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Why not address the fact that Ukraine is an independent nation that can choose its own allies and alliances?

I never disputed thar Ukraine was an independents nation,.I dont . and it has every right to choose it's own alliances, amd like every other country suffer the consequences. 

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Why not address the fact that Russia keeps driving its neighbors into seeking a defensive alliance?

How is that?  i 

[retarius]

10 hours ago, sirineou said:

Not true at all!!

I have methodically , advanced the theory that Russia was forced in this war by NATO expansion, that warning were given to the west that if the USA  persist in trying to bring Ukraine in it's sphere of influence.  Russia would have no choice but to respond. Yet when indeed Russia responded, the west fainted surprise. If nothing else , it begs the question, why?

But you all ignored all the quotes and links  having swallowed hook ,line and sinker US propaganda in support of this proxy war.

An independent Ukraine would had been a much better situation for the Ukranians than what they have now. And much better than all of us in the west.  And please don't start  with the  Russian imperialism, domino affect nonsense.  Russia can not pacify Ukraine yet it a danger to conquer Europe.  

  I know your intentions are good, but we all know how sometimes "the best of intentions " often result in negative consequences for those we try to help.  

.I am sorry, but your side is not only not helping Ukraine but is destroying it. 

  I am sure what I am saying above will fall in deaf ears and will be received with hostility.  If interested why , research Plato's allegory of "The Cave" for Plato's Republic. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nHj3gL_JN0

 

Burns is now CIA director and was US ambassador to Russia 1998 to 2001,)

"Among others, Biden’s CIA director, William J. Burns, has been warning about the provocative effect of NATO expansion on Russia since 1995. That’s when Burns, then a political officer in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, reported to Washington that “hostility to early NATO expansion is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.” "

 

"In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

Notice the "(not just Putin). " when spewing nonsense about "Putin's war" 

 

Burns was not and is not the only one ,

"In June 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts signed an open letter to Clinton, saying, “We believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions” that would “unsettle European stability.” "

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999#:~:text=Burns%2C has been warning about,the domestic political spectrum here.”

 

But me telling you and giving you links ,will have no affect on your thinking. You will call me a liar, a dupe, an apologist etc. No different the during the Gulf war, Everyone has seen the light now, but regardless what you say, I know most of you were for it back then. In fact when having a conversation about my opposition to it and the reasons why, I was told by a friend to keep my voice down people will hear you.   Imagine !!!!    Not much different now. 

So do your research, don't only read that which agrees with you, but more importantly that which challenges your thinking . It is the only way to validate what you think you know 

 

 

 

 

I've learned on here that there is no point in putting forward any reasoned arguments. The vast majority of folk on here are immune to reason. They get their news from the BBC and CNN and believe it implicitly, and do no further reading around the subject. Most have lived in Thailand for years and years and can hardly speak a word of the language. Intellectual dullards, dead from the neck up.

[transam]

3 minutes ago, retarius said:

I've learned on here that there is no point in putting forward any reasoned arguments. The vast majority of folk on here are immune to reason. They get their news from the BBC and CNN and believe it implicitly, and do no further reading around the subject. Most have lived in Thailand for years and years and can hardly speak a word of the language. Intellectual dullards, dead from the neck up.

I always thought you were in that bracket.......

[sirineou]

3 hours ago, candide said:

However, there are other views:

- one view is that, if other Eastern Europe countries had not joined NATO (and the EU for the political and economic aspects), they could also have been attacked or put under Russian rule.

The "also" does not apply because Nato expansion had started in 2008 at the Bucharest summit ,

" At a summit in Bucharest in April 2008, NATO declared that both Ukraine and Georgia would join the U.S.-led defence alliance -"

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/natos-ukraine-debate-still-haunted-by-bucharest-pledge-2023-07-10/#:~:text=At a summit in Bucharest,for how to get there.

 

even though after the fall of the Soviet Union and for the cooperation of Russia in the reunification of Germany the west  had given  assurances to Russia. of no eastward expansion of NATO

"On February 10, 1990, negotiations took place between the Soviet and West German sides, at which German Chancellor Kohl and German Foreign Minister Genscher gave assurances about the non-expansion of NATO,  "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_in_Russia_regarding_the_legitimacy_of_eastward_NATO_expansion#:~:text=On February 10%2C 1990%2C negotiations,a number of difficult issues.

 

"On 27 May 1997, at the NATO Summit in Paris, France, NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, a road map for would-be NATO-Russia cooperation. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO–Russia_relations#:~:text=Soviet nuclear arsenal.-,NATO–Russia Founding Act,-be NATO-Russia cooperation.

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, sirineou said:

The "also" does not apply because Nato expansion had started in 2008 at the Bucharest summit ,

" At a summit in Bucharest in April 2008, NATO declared that both Ukraine and Georgia would join the U.S.-led defence alliance -"

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/natos-ukraine-debate-still-haunted-by-bucharest-pledge-2023-07-10/#:~:text=At a summit in Bucharest,for how to get there.

 

even though after the fall of the Soviet Union and for the cooperation of Russia in the reunification of Germany the west  had given  assurances to Russia. of no eastward expansion of NATO

"On February 10, 1990, negotiations took place between the Soviet and West German sides, at which German Chancellor Kohl and German Foreign Minister Genscher gave assurances about the non-expansion of NATO,  "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_in_Russia_regarding_the_legitimacy_of_eastward_NATO_expansion#:~:text=On February 10%2C 1990%2C negotiations,a number of difficult issues.

 

"On 27 May 1997, at the NATO Summit in Paris, France, NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, a road map for would-be NATO-Russia cooperation. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO–Russia_relations#:~:text=Soviet nuclear arsenal.-,NATO–Russia Founding Act,-be NATO-Russia cooperation.

 

 

 

Some posters are apparently unable to understand history, or are unable to appreciate that they may not be right on a situation.

[heybruce]

13 hours ago, sirineou said:

Apologies if I missed it, How was it out of context? You said it had litle to do with,. and I said it had everything to do with.

 

I never disputed thar Ukraine was an independents nation,.I dont . and it has every right to choose it's own alliances, amd like every other country suffer the consequences. 

How is that?  i 

Your initial point was:

 

"I have methodically , advanced the theory that Russia was forced in this war by NATO expansion, that warning were given to the west that if the USA  persist in trying to bring Ukraine in it's sphere of influence."

 

I pointed out that Ukraine is an independent nation and has every right to seek allies when it feels threatened by Russia.  I could have further pointed out that NATO was ambivalent about admitting Ukraine before Russia's invasion.  The commitments made in 2008 were intentionally vague and conditional, with no timeline for membership. 

 

You have not explained how Russia was "forced' into this war.  I can only conclude that you think Russia has a right to engage in an aggressive war of imperial expansion.

 

Russia chose to invade Ukraine.  Now Russia is suffering the consequences.  As it should.

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, retarius said:

I've learned on here that there is no point in putting forward any reasoned arguments. The vast majority of folk on here are immune to reason. They get their news from the BBC and CNN and believe it implicitly, and do no further reading around the subject. Most have lived in Thailand for years and years and can hardly speak a word of the language. Intellectual dullards, dead from the neck up.

Your insulting the "vast majority" of people on ASEAN Now is on topic how?

 

I have learned that the vast majority of people who can't support their views with facts and logic accuse others of being dumb or brainwashed.

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, sirineou said:

The "also" does not apply because Nato expansion had started in 2008 at the Bucharest summit ,

" At a summit in Bucharest in April 2008, NATO declared that both Ukraine and Georgia would join the U.S.-led defence alliance -"

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/natos-ukraine-debate-still-haunted-by-bucharest-pledge-2023-07-10/#:~:text=At a summit in Bucharest,for how to get there.

 

even though after the fall of the Soviet Union and for the cooperation of Russia in the reunification of Germany the west  had given  assurances to Russia. of no eastward expansion of NATO

"On February 10, 1990, negotiations took place between the Soviet and West German sides, at which German Chancellor Kohl and German Foreign Minister Genscher gave assurances about the non-expansion of NATO,  "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_in_Russia_regarding_the_legitimacy_of_eastward_NATO_expansion#:~:text=On February 10%2C 1990%2C negotiations,a number of difficult issues.

 

"On 27 May 1997, at the NATO Summit in Paris, France, NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, a road map for would-be NATO-Russia cooperation. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO–Russia_relations#:~:text=Soviet nuclear arsenal.-,NATO–Russia Founding Act,-be NATO-Russia cooperation.

Now you've descended into classic trolling--state a lie, have it refuted, go quiet for a while then repeat the lie.  The lie that Russia was promised there would be no eastern expansion has been refuted repeatedly.  https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

 

[sirineou]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Some posters are apparently unable to understand history, or are unable to appreciate that they may not be right on a situation.

It's understandable. They are not bad people, if they lived in my neighborhood, I would like all of them as friends,. And their attitude is one of concern and support for the Ukrainian people, not a bad attitude to have.

Who likes to see what is happenings to these people? I certainly don't it makes me sick to my stomach, and I am sure it does to you also. 

  We all have blind spots in our knowledge base, some of us might have a bit more knowledge in this subject but a lot less than others in other subjects. 

And how could they know more? Unless they are academics ot have a particular interest in the subject, they get their information from the media. 

  Where in the popular  media have you heard any of the information I posted? If a layperson such as me knows these things, is it possible that they don't?

   But the mainstream media ownership is concentrated in a few hands , and these hands , like all of us, have their own agenda. In today's cancel culture, what reporter would report anything contrary to the interests of those they work for and the popular sentiment of their market? 

They would be toast!! If you were a reporter , with a carrier, and a family to feed, would you? 

So most people get their information from mainstream media, and being the good people that they are for the most part , are outraged. 

  It is said that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." and it's true, and unfortunately a concept that applies to all of us. 

Propaganda is only effective when it contains a good portion of the truth. 

Based on what you know it sounds right. The problem lays with the

"Yes But"  but if you don't know the  " Yes but" . and how is it possible for most people to know the "Yes but"

Great book on the subject by Noam Chomsky "Manufacturing Consent", it is a bit of a heavy reading , and somewhat depressing. but if interested , a search of "Manufacturing consent" on YouTube will bring up a few condensed  documentaries. 

By the way , Noam Chomsky who is of Ukrainian descent has a similar to me view in the Ukrainian conflict. If you are interested , or anyone else is below is an  interview by  Lex Fridman :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uHGlfeCBbE&t=1557s 

 

So don't be critical of those on the other side of this issue. We might be right in this, but it's not like we have not been wrong in others. We are all victims in this disinformation war. 

   And it will not get better, I am afraid it will get worse , much worse!! AI manipulation can create video of any leader saying anything. There will be a time very soon that we will not even be sure that what we are seeing with our own eyes is true, 

 

 

[sirineou]

13 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I pointed out that Ukraine is an independent nation and has every right to seek allies when it feels threatened by Russia.  I could have further pointed out that NATO was ambivalent about admitting Ukraine before Russia's invasion.  The commitments made in 2008 were intentionally vague and conditional, with no timeline for membership.

First of all my reply started with The accusation that our side did not provide any links, yet I have provided multiple links in support of what I was saying, and your side has provided ZERO!! all I get is opinion, which like the proverbial bodily orifice we all have one.  

 

"The U.S. has already trained more than 3,100 Ukrainian troops on how to use and maintain certain weapons and other equipment, including howitzers, armored vehicles and the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, known as HIMARS. Other nations are also conducting training on the weapons they provide. Milley said the U.S. was doing this type of training prior to the Russian invasion last February"

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/16/1149372572/expanded-us-training-for-ukraine-forces-begins-in-germany

 

So anyway, It seems like I am doing all the heavy lifting why you all offer opinions. And a bit of spitting in the wind. Both unwise activities. 

History will prove who is wrong and who is right. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

35 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 And it will not get better, I am afraid it will get worse , much worse!! AI manipulation can create video of any leader saying anything. There will be a time very soon that we will not even be sure that what we are seeing with our own eyes is true, 

 

Already happening, and we won't be able to tell the difference.

It's not like the propaganda machine hasn't been inventing false scenarios for decades, but it won't even require faking a scene with AI.

 

I agree that not all on here are "bad" people, but some go too far with the attacks on those that disagree with them.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

 

History will prove who is wrong and who is right. 

 

100% correct.

 

Only thing certain about a war is that it does end, eventually, even if it goes on for 100 years ( Europe middle ages ).

Given that Ukraine depends entirely on western nations to continue the war, and given that western donor countries are broke, I can't see this war lasting more than one more year, or less.