Poll: Do you feel sympathetic to Putin? Did he really have no choice?

[BobBKK]

3 minutes ago, transam said:

Would you be happy giving half your country away to an invader......?  🤔

Certainly not, but I would have kept my country neutral and out of the hands of the US. 

[transam]

Just now, BobBKK said:

Certainly not, but I would have kept my country neutral and out of the hands of the US. 

Oh, so you are an ant-USA chap.

So which countries are neutral regarding your hero Putin....?  🤔

[pub2022]

USA, Europe and UK, Canada, Australia have all touched the lowest point of their history and culture after WWII.

Russia is clearly in a better position.

[transam]

6 minutes ago, pub2022 said:

USA, Europe and UK, Canada, Australia have all touched the lowest point of their history and culture after WWII.

Russia is clearly in a better position.

Yeh, riiiiiiiight.................

[Wobblybob]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

 I'm not patronising, Bob. I just have a little humour, which is beyond you, obviously. I have never heard Putin claim Ukrainians are Satanists. By the way, talk for yourself, Bob. None of this  "we." We are all individual posters with individual opinions—I never say "we"; I talk about my observations and experiences.

Don't confuse humour with a superiority complex, they are completely different. You join a band of Putin apologists that struggle with displaying links or sources and on top of that they are very economic with the truth, and you equally blaming Ukraine for Russia invading them is very disingenuous, you don't make sense. 

[GroveHillWanderer]

4 hours ago, BobBKK said:

 False equivalence - Finland and Sweden were always allied to USA/Europe and Ukraine to Russia (Slavs and all that). I can confidently say Ukraine will never be in NATO or WW3 will be here, and if that happens, it will all be irrelevant.

Finland was always allied to USA/Europe? Where the heck did you learn your history from? 

 

Finland was part of the Russian Empire from 1809 to 1917 and then, in 1948 signed a treaty with Russia, according to which Finland agreed to resist armed attacks by "Germany or its allies" against Finland, or against the Soviet Union through Finland. (Germany's allies of course, included the USA and most of the rest of Western Europe).

 

Through this treaty, which remained the basis of Finno-Russian relations until 1992, the Soviet Union tied Finland into its security system and secured a guarantee that Finland would not join the Western bloc.

 

Dismantling the Soviet Security System. Soviet–Finnish Negotiations on Ending Their Friendship Agreement, 1989–91

 

So no, Finland was not always allied to Europe and the USA - not by a long shot.

[KhunLA]

[Danderman123]

11 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

There wouldn’t have been any conflict if Ukraine had decided to stay neutral. Even my dog knows that. Not some posters though…

Why should neutrality be forced on Ukraine?

[Danderman123]

5 hours ago, pub2022 said:

USA, Europe and UK, Canada, Australia have all touched the lowest point of their history and culture after WWII.

Russia is clearly in a better position.

What city in Russia are you posting from?

[JoseThailand]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

What city in Russia are you posting from?

 

Olgino, I suppose

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency

[RayC]

16 hours ago, jayceenik said:

Sorry, no links I can find right now. This is more of the stuff I found about in WWII books and that nobody wants to remember.

As for France, the plan was for Alsace-Lorraine to revert to Germany and most parts on the East side of the Rhone to go to Italy.

Note that the US-UK had planned early on for France to be a military protectorate run by US and British generals. A new currency had already been printed - the AMGOT Franc. Fortunately for France De Gaulle put a quick end to these imperialistic dreams

What I want to say is that all these accusations about Putin being an new Empire builder came from people who are themselves citizens of hegemonist countries.

There are maps you can find on the Internet about the US planned dismemberment of the present Federation of Russia into a multitude of mini states that, it is hoped by the US will welcome Black Rock and associates. Just like Zelensky is now.

 

 Where is the evidence to support your contentions that the Allies planned for Alsace-Lorraine to revert to German control and other parts of France to be ceded to Italy?

 

Whilst it is true that Roosevelt wanted AMGOT implemented in France, it was Eisenhower's opposition to the policy - with the aid of allies in Washington - which caused it to be dropped. Given De Gaulle's weak position, imo I doubt that his opposition was of any great import.

 

To suggest that the US planned to "dismember" Russia overstates matters and presents only one side of the story. The following quote gives a more nuanced and imo, accurate description:

 

"In 1991, two positions emerged in Washington. The first, embodied by US Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, saw the breakup of the Soviet Union as a historic opportunity for the West to free itself from the  Russian threat. The other, backed by US Secretary of State Jim Baker, argued for caution, focusing on the risks involved in the disintegration of a superpower, especially a nuclear one. As is well known, the latter position was the one adopted by President George H.W. Bush." (Source: https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/after-fall-must-we-prepare-breakup-russia)

 

Whether those suggesting that Putin is a new Empire builder are nationals of what you claim are hegemonist countries is irrelevant. It doesn't make the statement any less true.

[ChicagoExpat]

19 hours ago, BobBKK said:

 So could Zelensky; it is called "NEUTRALITY".

Russia doesn't get to decide what other countries think and do.  And Russia doesn't demand "neutrality" -- it demands vassalage.  If you ACTUALLY knew anything about Russia, like you claim you do, you'd know that.

[ChicagoExpat]

12 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Even then he was a freak.

[BobBKK]

13 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Finland was always allied to USA/Europe? Where the heck did you learn your history from? 

 

Finland was part of the Russian Empire from 1809 to 1917 and then, in 1948 signed a treaty with Russia, according to which Finland agreed to resist armed attacks by "Germany or its allies" against Finland, or against the Soviet Union through Finland. (Germany's allies of course, included the USA and most of the rest of Western Europe).

 

Through this treaty, which remained the basis of Finno-Russian relations until 1992, the Soviet Union tied Finland into its security system and secured a guarantee that Finland would not join the Western bloc.

 

Dismantling the Soviet Security System. Soviet–Finnish Negotiations on Ending Their Friendship Agreement, 1989–91

 

So no, Finland was not always allied to Europe and the USA - not by a long shot.

Modern-day Finland - yes, Finland fought against Germany and then allied with Europe in the 1990s, which was the obvious and most sensible thing to do.

[BobBKK]

1 hour ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Russia doesn't get to decide what other countries think and do.  And Russia doesn't demand "neutrality" -- it demands vassalage.  If you ACTUALLY knew anything about Russia, like you claim you do, you'd know that.

And the USA does?  I don't think vassalage was on the table at all, but I think implementing the 2014 accords would have avoided all this. It's too late now, and Ukraine is lost. Watch this space.

If NATO gets involved, your kids and grandkids will have no future. It will be WW3. I think this is very close, and China will join Russia, India, etc. This is almost unthinkable but possible, unfortunately. 

Be careful what you wish for.

[ChicagoExpat]

14 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

And the USA does?  I don't think vassalage was on the table at all, but I think implementing the 2014 accords would have avoided all this. It's too late now, and Ukraine is lost. Watch this space.

If NATO gets involved, your kids and grandkids will have no future. It will be WW3. I think this is very close, and China will join Russia, India, etc. This is almost unthinkable but possible, unfortunately. 

Be careful what you wish for.

Ah, yes, the earnest peace proponent who just deplores all this violence... whose aims and solutions to the crisis just happen to align perfectly with the Kremlin's.

 

What I wish for?  All I'm wishing for is for Russia to stop invading its neighbors and creating fake new countries as a way of punishing them for, you know, having their own opinions.

 

Putin has been very clear that he wants a vassal state if not outright absorption into Russia, and, again, for someone who claims to understand what's happening there, it's surprising you don't know this.

[Gweiloman]

19 hours ago, connda said:

This has been in the public domain since published by Wikileaks.
Then US Ambassador Bill Burns sent this diplomatic cable on Feb 1, 2008:

"NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES
Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains “an emotional and neuralgic” issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene."
Source:  https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html and various other internet links if you search on "Nyet means nyet: Russia's NATO enlargement redlines"

 

This is in response to the security assurances against NATO expansion given to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev from George H.W. Bush, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Helmut Kohl, Robert Gates, François Mitterrand, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, and Manfred Woerner and various other US, British, French, and German leaders and diplomats. The promise by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker on on February 9, 1990 was that "NATO would not move one inch to the East" in return for the Soviet pull back allowing for the reunification of Soviet occupied East Germany with West Germany.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

 

This was reiterated by Putin on February 10, 2007 at Munich Security Conference, and again during a December 17, 2021 meeting with the US where Russia forwarded a proposed draft security agreement precluding NATO's expansion to Ukraine and the deployment of the military alliance's weapons which Russia considered to be an existential threat and which was rejected by US.  The logic here was Russia didn't want NATO and NATO weapons deployed on it's border.  Imagine if an alliance of Russia, China, and BRICS+ nations push up against the US border and threatened to deploy weapons to Mexico, Latin America, and the Caribbean?
What would happen? Exactly what happened in 1962 "Cuban Missile Crisis." 

This could have been avoided had the West been sincere about the two Minsk Agreements, but both France and Germany had signed in bad faith.  They never planned to allow them to be implements.  Instead as this quote for Reuters, "Putin had been asked about remarks by former German chancellor Angela Merkel, one of the agreements' sponsors, who told the Zeit magazine in an interview published on Wednesday that the 2014 agreement had been "an attempt to give Ukraine time" - which it had used to become more able to defend itself," in other word they signed the Minsk Agreement to give Ukraine time to built its military - not to seek a peaceful resolution to the then civil war in Eastern Ukraine.

Then there was one last chance to settle this diplomatically during the Russian - Ukraine peace talks in April 2022 in Istanbul, Turkey which were acknowledged and initialed by both side - until Boris Johnson showed up and torpedoed the negotiations - then it was "War On!" 

So don't say this was unprovoked.  It could have been resolved by not expanding NATO all the way up to Russian-Ukraine negotiations in April 2022. 
There is a long history with the West reneging on it's promises and guarantees to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union and openly seeking the complete break-up of Russia, which would be an existential treat to any other country on Earth.  Again - there is no way the US would allow a military alliance of foreign countries to place bases on its border - that would be a provocation for war.  But it is always different when the US and the West is doing that to other sovereign countries. 

For those 87% of you?   You don't study history or Geo-politics.  86% of you read and watch Western news and all you get is the "official accepted narratives" which support Western unipolar expansionism globally. And all you do is parrot the slogans:  "Russian aggression," and "Unprovoked war."  Sloganism is propaganda people.  And it's effective when applied to people who can't think or do analysis on their own.
Don't ya'll ever stop to think that sovereign countries that are not aligned with Western countries (like Thailand) don't want any other country's militaries on their borders threatening them to do their bidding?

Now before you call me, "Putin's Puppet?"  No - I'm Anti-War veteran.  I believe in diplomacy.  I believe in peaceful resolutions to conflict.  And there are two sides to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, not just one.  And this could have been put to bed in April 2022 with Ukraine just ceding Crimea to Russia and accepting neutrality.  Now?  This could well end up in WWIII and global nuclear war.  I swear that many of you 87% want exactly that - World War.

Then what are you gonna do?  Because when World War comes, China will come down on Russia's side, and China will then exert it's own influence over Asia and South East Asia as it takes back Taiwan and all its claims in the South China Sea. Why not - the West will be stretch across the globe in a multi-front war which it is not prepared to fight - which leaves only nukes.  Then we all die.

Seriously - Where do you plan on going when the war breaks out and Chinese troops arrive in Thailand?  Gonna try to bribe your way on to one of the over-packed flights out of Thailand, and then go fight for your homeland? Or stay here and fight an insurgency against the Chinese? I seriously doubt it.  But really - what are you going to do, because most of you want war.  Best of luck with that.

 

 

Just what do you think you are doing, peddling truths and facts on this thread? Don’t you know that your view is extremely unpopular, you… you… communist!?

 

Did you notice that there has hardly been any response to your post? Truths, facts, reality… these are very inconvenient to most on here. The will either insult you in return or ignore it completely.

 

Where I beg to differ is China’s possible actions. In the ensuing chaos, it will almost certainly try to take back Taiwan like you said. Whether this happens militarily or diplomatically will depend on what the US tries to do. I am certain that China would like to avoid killing any Taiwanese or having its own troops killed. It’s impossible for Taiwan to fight China on its own so a surrender would be the best option all round.

 

However, that would be the extent of China’s military moves, with one possible action being the bombing of US military bases in the Philippines. This will of course bring China and US into direct conflict.

 

Apart from this. I doubt that China has any desire to invade any other country. They have already won the hearts and minds of most, if not all, countries in SEA through trade and the BRI. Why bother to rule a country through force when that country is already on your side. The only instance we would see Chinese soldiers is if the US lands any troops on these countries.

[Gweiloman]

2 hours ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Russia doesn't get to decide what other countries think and do.  And Russia doesn't demand "neutrality" -- it demands vassalage.  If you ACTUALLY knew anything about Russia, like you claim you do, you'd know that.

As if you know anything about Russia. Care to share your credentials?

 

37 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Ah, yes, the earnest peace proponent who just deplores all this violence... whose aims and solutions to the crisis just happen to align perfectly with the Kremlin's.

 

What I wish for?  All I'm wishing for is for Russia to stop invading its neighbors and creating fake new countries as a way of punishing them for, you know, having their own opinions.

 

Putin has been very clear that he wants a vassal state if not outright absorption into Russia, and, again, for someone who claims to understand what's happening there, it's surprising you don't know this.

I have been following international and geopolitical matters for many years now. Nowhere have I seen credible evidence of your wild claims except on western msm which has a very clear anti Global South/Majority agenda.

 

It really amazes me that in spite of what’s happened all over the world the past 2-3 decades that some people still believe that countries like the US want global peace and a just, fair and equitable world. It really shows the power of narrative, especially on less intelligent and gullible folks.

[Gweiloman]

11 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Why should neutrality be forced on Ukraine?

It shouldn’t be forced on Ukraine. It would simply have been the best way forward, unless you think Ukraine is better today and tomorrow than it was before the SMO?

[seajae]

putin is just a power mad a hole, he wants the soviet union back and doesnt care who he has to kill to get what he wants, he is just like hitler.  He has milked the people to set himself up in luxury and doesnt want to let go of it, his opposition are killed and set up with false charges, he needs to be removed permanently the same as his chinese counter part, the two of them are pushing the world towards war just to satisfy their power crazed ego's.

[Wobblybob]

9 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

It shouldn’t be forced on Ukraine. It would simply have been the best way forward, unless you think Ukraine is better today and tomorrow than it was before the SMO?

Anyone that thinks Russias illegal invasion of Ukraine is a SMO is not in touch with reality and is just as deceitful as Putin! 

[connda]

20 hours ago, connda said:

This has been in the public domain since published by Wikileaks.
Then US Ambassador Bill Burns sent this diplomatic cable on Feb 1, 2008:

"NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES
Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains “an emotional and neuralgic” issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene."
Source:  https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html and various other internet links if you search on "Nyet means nyet: Russia's NATO enlargement redlines"

 

This is in response to the security assurances against NATO expansion given to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev from George H.W. Bush, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Helmut Kohl, Robert Gates, François Mitterrand, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, and Manfred Woerner and various other US, British, French, and German leaders and diplomats. The promise by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker on on February 9, 1990 was that "NATO would not move one inch to the East" in return for the Soviet pull back allowing for the reunification of Soviet occupied East Germany with West Germany.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

 

This was reiterated by Putin on February 10, 2007 at Munich Security Conference, and again during a December 17, 2021 meeting with the US where Russia forwarded a proposed draft security agreement precluding NATO's expansion to Ukraine and the deployment of the military alliance's weapons which Russia considered to be an existential threat and which was rejected by US.  The logic here was Russia didn't want NATO and NATO weapons deployed on it's border.  Imagine if an alliance of Russia, China, and BRICS+ nations push up against the US border and threatened to deploy weapons to Mexico, Latin America, and the Caribbean?
What would happen? Exactly what happened in 1962 "Cuban Missile Crisis." 

This could have been avoided had the West been sincere about the two Minsk Agreements, but both France and Germany had signed in bad faith.  They never planned to allow them to be implements.  Instead as this quote for Reuters, "Putin had been asked about remarks by former German chancellor Angela Merkel, one of the agreements' sponsors, who told the Zeit magazine in an interview published on Wednesday that the 2014 agreement had been "an attempt to give Ukraine time" - which it had used to become more able to defend itself," in other word they signed the Minsk Agreement to give Ukraine time to built its military - not to seek a peaceful resolution to the then civil war in Eastern Ukraine.

Then there was one last chance to settle this diplomatically during the Russian - Ukraine peace talks in April 2022 in Istanbul, Turkey which were acknowledged and initialed by both side - until Boris Johnson showed up and torpedoed the negotiations - then it was "War On!" 

So don't say this was unprovoked.  It could have been resolved by not expanding NATO all the way up to Russian-Ukraine negotiations in April 2022. 
There is a long history with the West reneging on it's promises and guarantees to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union and openly seeking the complete break-up of Russia, which would be an existential treat to any other country on Earth.  Again - there is no way the US would allow a military alliance of foreign countries to place bases on its border - that would be a provocation for war.  But it is always different when the US and the West is doing that to other sovereign countries. 

For those 87% of you?   You don't study history or Geo-politics.  86% of you read and watch Western news and all you get is the "official accepted narratives" which support Western unipolar expansionism globally. And all you do is parrot the slogans:  "Russian aggression," and "Unprovoked war."  Sloganism is propaganda people.  And it's effective when applied to people who can't think or do analysis on their own.
Don't ya'll ever stop to think that sovereign countries that are not aligned with Western countries (like Thailand) don't want any other country's militaries on their borders threatening them to do their bidding?

Now before you call me, "Putin's Puppet?"  No - I'm Anti-War veteran.  I believe in diplomacy.  I believe in peaceful resolutions to conflict.  And there are two sides to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, not just one.  And this could have been put to bed in April 2022 with Ukraine just ceding Crimea to Russia and accepting neutrality.  Now?  This could well end up in WWIII and global nuclear war.  I swear that many of you 87% want exactly that - World War.

Then what are you gonna do?  Because when World War comes, China will come down on Russia's side, and China will then exert it's own influence over Asia and South East Asia as it takes back Taiwan and all its claims in the South China Sea. Why not - the West will be stretch across the globe in a multi-front war which it is not prepared to fight - which leaves only nukes.  Then we all die.

Seriously - Where do you plan on going when the war breaks out and Chinese troops arrive in Thailand?  Gonna try to bribe your way on to one of the over-packed flights out of Thailand, and then go fight for your homeland? Or stay here and fight an insurgency against the Chinese? I seriously doubt it.  But really - what are you going to do, because most of you want war.  Best of luck with that.

 

 

And there you have it kids:  Thailand just came down in the multipolar BRICS+ camp in case you were wondering whom Thailand was going to align with in any future conflicts.

 

"Bangkok sees Thailand’s future in a multipolar world, the Asian country’s government has said Thailand will apply to become a member of the BRICS economic bloc, the government of the Southeast Asian country announced on Tuesday"
Source: https://thepressunited.com/updates/brics-receives-new-membership-bid/
You can find multiple sources if you do an Internet search on "Thailand approves official BRICS membership bid"

Now wait for the threats of US, EU, and UK sanctions.

[ChicagoExpat]

1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

It shouldn’t be forced on Ukraine. It would simply have been the best way forward, unless you think Ukraine is better today and tomorrow than it was before the SMO?

"SMO"?  Are you kidding?  You just lost whatever credibility you had.

 

🤡

[ChicagoExpat]

1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

As if you know anything about Russia. Care to share your credentials?

 

I have been following international and geopolitical matters for many years now. Nowhere have I seen credible evidence of your wild claims except on western msm which has a very clear anti Global South/Majority agenda.

 

It really amazes me that in spite of what’s happened all over the world the past 2-3 decades that some people still believe that countries like the US want global peace and a just, fair and equitable world. It really shows the power of narrative, especially on less intelligent and gullible folks.

I certainly know more than you.  If not from living there 2019-2022 then from, you know, actually reading something other than Russian agitprop.

 

“Credible evidence of wild claims”?  Creation of the fake country of Transdniestra in 1990 (granted, before Putin but supported since then by him, along with the fake vote in 2006).  Invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the creation of two fake new countries out of Georgian territory.  Three invasions of Ukraine by Russia – hostile takeover of Crimea in 2014, war in Donbass, full invasion in 2022.  None of this is an invention of "western msm" -- it's all an invention of Russia.  No one disputes these events, Gweiloman.  Except you, because you are an ignoramus on this subject.

 

It's incredible that you claim I know nothing about Russia, and yet you and your simp friends are ignorant of even basic facts.

[Gweiloman]

21 hours ago, connda said:

And there you have it kids:  Thailand just came down in the multipolar BRICS+ camp in case you were wondering whom Thailand was going to align with in any future conflicts.

 

"Bangkok sees Thailand’s future in a multipolar world, the Asian country’s government has said Thailand will apply to become a member of the BRICS economic bloc, the government of the Southeast Asian country announced on Tuesday"
Source: https://thepressunited.com/updates/brics-receives-new-membership-bid/
You can find multiple sources if you do an Internet search on "Thailand approves official BRICS membership bid"

Now wait for the threats of US, EU, and UK sanctions.

It makes perfect sense for Thailand, and Indonesia, to join BRICS+. These are two of the largest economies in SEA and key trading partners with China.

 

I wonder what the haters would do when they see the growing influence of China And Russia in Thailand. Return to their home countries? 

[Gweiloman]

22 hours ago, Wobblybob said:

Anyone that thinks Russias illegal invasion of Ukraine is a SMO is not in touch with reality and is just as deceitful as Putin! 

Call it whatever you like. SMO, unprovoked invasion, teaching an errant child a lesson… can you answer the question? Reproduced here for your convenience:

 

unless you think Ukraine is better today and tomorrow than it was before the whatever you want to call it 

 

Is Europe also better off today? Having to pay more for energy, oil, gas, defense, billions of dollars of ammunition and weaponry up in smoke, weaknesses of the military, financial systems exposed, the list goes on.

 

What a major strategic miscalculation by the collective west, pushing the world ever further and faster into a multipolar world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gweiloman]

21 hours ago, ChicagoExpat said:

I certainly know more than you.  If not from living there 2019-2022 then from, you know, actually reading something other than Russian agitprop.

 

“Credible evidence of wild claims”?  Creation of the fake country of Transdniestra in 1990 (granted, before Putin but supported since then by him, along with the fake vote in 2006).  Invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the creation of two fake new countries out of Georgian territory.  Three invasions of Ukraine by Russia – hostile takeover of Crimea in 2014, war in Donbass, full invasion in 2022.  None of this is an invention of "western msm" -- it's all an invention of Russia.  No one disputes these events, Gweiloman.  Except you, because you are an ignoramus on this subject.

 

It's incredible that you claim I know nothing about Russia, and yet you and your simp friends are ignorant of even basic facts.

You don’t seem to understand the difference between a claim and a fact.

 

Fact:

- there is a conflict going on between Russia and Ukraine

 

Claim:

- Putin has been very clear that he wants a vassal state if not outright absorption into Russia

 

Unlike you, I won’t stoop to personal insults. I’ll leave that for the haters.

[Wobblybob]

8 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

Call it whatever you like. SMO, unprovoked invasion, teaching an errant child a lesson… can you answer the question? Reproduced here for your convenience:

 

unless you think Ukraine is better today and tomorrow than it was before the whatever you want to call it 

 

Is Europe also better off today? Having to pay more for energy, oil, gas, defense, billions of dollars of ammunition and weaponry up in smoke, weaknesses of the military, financial systems exposed, the list goes on.

 

What a major strategic miscalculation by the collective west, pushing the world ever further and faster into a multipolar world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is Europe also better off today? Having to pay more for energy, oil, gas, defense, billions of dollars of ammunition and weaponry up in smoke, weaknesses of the military, financial systems exposed, the list goes on

What in heavens sake are you on, lower gas prices justifies the genocide of Ukrainians, have you lost your marbles, what a ridiculous comment! 

Be honest with us, are you a Stalinist or Maoist because you certainly are not a realist! 

[Gweiloman]

4 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Is Europe also better off today? Having to pay more for energy, oil, gas, defense, billions of dollars of ammunition and weaponry up in smoke, weaknesses of the military, financial systems exposed, the list goes on

What in heavens sake are you on, lower gas prices justifies the genocide of Ukrainians, have you lost your marbles, what a ridiculous comment! 

Be honest with us, are you a Stalinist or Maoist because you certainly are not a realist! 

Oh, now it’s genocide 

 

 

[Wobblybob]

Just now, Gweiloman said:

Oh, now it’s genocide 

 

 

You'd better believe it!