Thailand Refuses To Sign Document Of The Swiss 'Peace' Summit

[transam]

On 6/23/2024 at 10:48 AM, BobBKK said:

 They tell me I'm a Russian Bot, so all my time at Roots Hall supporting Southend was wasted (it probably was, lol).

No, you fitted in well, in football stands...........

[bradiston]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Move to a non EU non NATO country if you find them so offensive!

 

LOL. Many of us did just that by living in LOS. If my country had a pension agreement with Thailand I'd still be there.

Still get posters moaning because Thailand isn't on board with western sucking up to Ukraine. Good for Thailand not doing so.

But you, and most others, moved there long before the Ukraine war, so your reply is misleading. Did you really move there to escape NATO and the EU? Then you found your pension was frozen, so you moved back? Highly principled decision making.

 

Sucking up to Ukraine? Bizarre. And Thailand is good at sucking up when it needs to. Look at the quality tourists. Russians, Indians and Chinese. Suck on that!

[Hummin]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What "democracy" is that? Having a vote every few years is not "democracy", but you probably know that. Did Biden have a referendum before sending billions of US $ to Ukraine and israel? Did Sunak?

Did my local council ask us before building a useless cycle path that cost millions? No to all the above.

We vote on people who represent us, and take decisions on behalf of us. Thats the idea of  democracy. There is more to it, but I will save my energy

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, bradiston said:

But you, and most others, moved there long before the Ukraine war, so your reply is misleading. Did you really move there to escape NATO and the EU? Then you found your pension was frozen, so you moved back? Highly principled decision making.

 

Sucking up to Ukraine? Bizarre. And Thailand is good at sucking up when it needs to. Look at the quality tourists. Russians, Indians and Chinese. Suck on that!

What on earth are you blathering about? I never got the pension in Thailand as no pension agreement. Nothing to do with what you are wittering about.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, Hummin said:

We vote on people who represent us, and take decisions on behalf of us. Thats the idea of  democracy. There is more to it, but I will save my energy

LOL. Carry on drinking the Kool Aid. That's what they tell you democracy is, but it's not, IMO. When was the last time anyone asked you for your opinion on the laws the government passes?

Look to Switzerland for the most democratic nation.

[bradiston]

13 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

The USA guaranteed "no extension of NATO one inch to the east."

 

It did no such thing.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_in_Russia_regarding_the_legitimacy_of_eastward_NATO_expansion

 

1991 poor USSR collapsed. The whole of Eastern Europe went down with it but all states were keen to join the EU and NATO. And who can blame them? 50 years of Soviet jackboot, ignorance and stupidity had held them back. Their economies and their societies were a total mess. People who criticise the west, as it is so fashionable to do nowadays by an embittered generation, would do well to consider what life was like on the other side of the Berlin wall. Didn't see many climbing into East Germany. Did you?

[bradiston]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Carry on drinking the Kool Aid. That's what they tell you democracy is, but it's not, IMO. When was the last time anyone asked you for your opinion on the laws the government passes?

Look to Switzerland for the most democratic nation.

So you think every time parliament needs to vote on something, they should have a national referendum? Democracy involves electing representatives of the people and the delegation of powers to pass laws and act on their behalf etc etc. Got any better ideas? Totalitarianism? Dictatorship? Putinism, aka kleptocracy?

 

And do you know the origin of Kool Aid? As in The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test? The Grateful Dead? Ken Kesey? Owsley? West Coast? Oh there's that word again. Yeah. West. West. West. Where's the Russian Dylan? Motorhead? Pink Floyd? Spielberg. Apocalypse Now. Do they have anything to contribute? Nah. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. No culture. Nothing.

[bradiston]

22 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What on earth are you blathering about? I never got the pension in Thailand as no pension agreement. Nothing to do with what you are wittering about.

No pension in Thailand? You mean no pension rise. What beach are you on? Brighton?

[Hummin]

31 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Carry on drinking the Kool Aid. That's what they tell you democracy is, but it's not, IMO. When was the last time anyone asked you for your opinion on the laws the government passes?

Look to Switzerland for the most democratic nation.

I live in Norway, and if every social media, beer monger, world politics expert, wannabe scientists be responsible for our future, 

 

God bless us all. There is challenges with democracy, and it can be done better, but the fault is not the politicians, it is the the people who cant make better choices. Cant blaim the democracy for peoples bad judgement.

 

 

Edited June 24 by Hummin

[Gweiloman]

5 hours ago, bradiston said:

 

It did no such thing.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_in_Russia_regarding_the_legitimacy_of_eastward_NATO_expansion

 

1991 poor USSR collapsed. The whole of Eastern Europe went down with it but all states were keen to join the EU and NATO. And who can blame them? 50 years of Soviet jackboot, ignorance and stupidity had held them back. Their economies and their societies were a total mess. People who criticise the west, as it is so fashionable to do nowadays by an embittered generation, would do well to consider what life was like on the other side of the Berlin wall. Didn't see many climbing into East Germany. Did you?

He said, she said. Who to believe? What is really the truth? I’m definitely not accepting a Wikipedia article as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is but an expression of an opinion, citing references to try to shore up its arguments. Are any of the people involved still alive today? They would know but if they are dead, then they have taken their secrets to the grave. So all we can do is to try and think logically.

 

Why do you think Russia went into Ukraine? Land grab? Ridiculous. To rule over Ukraine? Even more laughable. Stepping stone to invade the rest of Europe? John McEnroe.

 

The most logical, plausible, probable reason that I have come across is to defend itself, from America in particular. The US’s actions around the world is proof of that, in my opinion. America claims to want peace. Yeah, sure, at the end of a barrel. No lasting peace can ever be achieved that way. As we can see with our own eyes, unless you’re propagandised.

[bradiston]

15 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

He said, she said. Who to believe? What is really the truth? I’m definitely not accepting a Wikipedia article as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is but an expression of an opinion, citing references to try to shore up its arguments. Are any of the people involved still alive today? They would know but if they are dead, then they have taken their secrets to the grave. So all we can do is to try and think logically.

 

Why do you think Russia went into Ukraine? Land grab? Ridiculous. To rule over Ukraine? Even more laughable. Stepping stone to invade the rest of Europe? John McEnroe.

 

The most logical, plausible, probable reason that I have come across is to defend itself, from America in particular. The US’s actions around the world is proof of that, in my opinion. America claims to want peace. Yeah, sure, at the end of a barrel. No lasting peace can ever be achieved that way. As we can see with our own eyes, unless you’re propagandised.

Twisted. As usual, unless you agree with me you're "propagandised". Same old anti American rubbish repackaged for every argument. Tedious.

[Gweiloman]

5 minutes ago, bradiston said:

Twisted. As usual, unless you agree with me you're "propagandised". Same old anti American rubbish repackaged for every argument. Tedious.

Care to respond with a mildly intelligent comment instead of the above?

[bradiston]

1 minute ago, Gweiloman said:

Care to respond with a mildly intelligent comment instead of the above?

Nope. I'm through arguing nonsense with you. It serves no purpose. It changes nothing. I despise every sentence you write. I don't have time nor interest to dismantle your silly arguments.

[Gweiloman]

2 hours ago, bradiston said:

Nope. I'm through arguing nonsense with you. It serves no purpose. It changes nothing. I despise every sentence you write. I don't have time nor interest to dismantle your silly arguments.

In other words, you can’t come up with a reason other than NATO expansion. Glad you finally saw the truth.

[bradiston]

1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

In other words, you can’t come up with a reason other than NATO expansion. Glad you finally saw the truth.

No, not in other words. In your words.

 

[bradiston]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What on earth are you blathering about? I never got the pension in Thailand as no pension agreement. Nothing to do with what you are wittering about.

Explain yourself. You never got the pension in Thailand because no pension agreement? Did you ever actually move there? And don't accuse me of "blathering" and "wittering" when you seem to have no idea about how the UK pension works. After your move to Thailand to escape NATO and the EU, you went home again with your tail between your legs because you thought you couldn't get your pension in Thailand. 🤣🤣🤣. What an appalling shower.

[bradiston]

3 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

In other words, you can’t come up with a reason other than NATO expansion. Glad you finally saw the truth.

NATO expansion? What a joke!

Edited June 24 by bradiston

[bradiston]

5 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

In other words, you can’t come up with a reason other than NATO expansion. Glad you finally saw the truth.

In all honesty I have no idea why he invaded Ukraine. I don't think anyone really knows. Maybe not him even. He wanted to make his mark on the world stage. He's certainly done that. But at what cost? What has it really achieved territorially? The price people have had to pay for his egotistical ambition is completely out of order. I don't care to argue about this any further as your guess is as good as mine. There's no right answer. If you want to believe it was because of NATO expansion, who am I to disagree? But I do, vehemently. It seems the least likely reason, considering the costs in human life and misery. For whatever reason, he went ahead. But, actions have consequences, and they are really quite appalling. And I don't believe he foresaw the disastrous toll it would  take on his own people, let alone the Ukrainians. In that sense I consider it was a massive blunder that has achieved nothing, and caused absolute havoc for millions. I don't see anything justifiable there. There was no "clear and present danger". NATO wasn't "on the move". Far from it. But that's all I have to say.

[Gweiloman]

4 hours ago, bradiston said:

In all honesty I have no idea why he invaded Ukraine. I don't think anyone really knows. Maybe not him even. He wanted to make his mark on the world stage. He's certainly done that. But at what cost? What has it really achieved territorially? The price people have had to pay for his egotistical ambition is completely out of order. I don't care to argue about this any further as your guess is as good as mine. There's no right answer. If you want to believe it was because of NATO expansion, who am I to disagree? But I do, vehemently. It seems the least likely reason, considering the costs in human life and misery. For whatever reason, he went ahead. But, actions have consequences, and they are really quite appalling. And I don't believe he foresaw the disastrous toll it would  take on his own people, let alone the Ukrainians. In that sense I consider it was a massive blunder that has achieved nothing, and caused absolute havoc for millions. I don't see anything justifiable there. There was no "clear and present danger". NATO wasn't "on the move". Far from it. But that's all I have to say.

This conflict wasn’t meant to last as long as it has. Putin had calculated correctly that Zelensky would have capitulated within days and an agreement reached. What he hadn’t calculated on was the war mongering neo-cons in Washington scuppering the deal and the Europeans being so weak as to allow the destruction of their own economies and depletion of their own arms and ammunition to support an unwinnable war. Russia has no choice but to see it to the end as this is perceived by it as an existential threat.

[Gweiloman]

7 hours ago, bradiston said:

NATO expansion? What a joke!

 

What word/s would you use to describe the above? Enlargement? Encroachment? Growth? Extension? Or maybe reduction or contraction?

 

[JBChiangRai]

11 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

This conflict wasn’t meant to last as long as it has. Putin had calculated correctly that Zelensky would have capitulated within days and an agreement reached. What he hadn’t calculated on was the war mongering neo-cons in Washington scuppering the deal and the Europeans being so weak as to allow the destruction of their own economies and depletion of their own arms and ammunition to support an unwinnable war. Russia has no choice but to see it to the end as this is perceived by it as an existential threat.

 

I think the Americans aim is to denude the armed capability of Russia. If that is the case, they want it to grind on.

 

We never get a clear story from Putin about why he did, it's been to stop NATO expansion, it's been to stop the alleged slaughter of Russian's in Donbas, it's been to de Nazify Ukraine, it's been to remove their armed capability. I remember Putin saying early on in a public interview, Shoigu said we want Ukraine as Russian territory to which Putin replied "We're not talking about that Sergei".

 

I think part of the reason was Zelensky, he stuck a very visible 2 fingers up to Putin and one thing we do know is Putin bears grudges and wants Ukraine aligned with Russia, not Europe/the West.  I think his initial aim was to install a Russian friendly government, when he couldn't do that he wanted a land grab.

 

1 minute ago, Gweiloman said:

 

What word/s would you use to describe the above? Enlargement? Encroachment? Growth? Extension? Or maybe reduction or contraction?

 

 

Above all we have to remember NATO is a defensive pact.  Non-aggressors have nothing to fear from NATO.

[jayceenik]

Your post is a spoof right?

[bradiston]

15 minutes ago, jayceenik said:

Your post is a spoof right?

Whose post?

[mistral53]

44 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

I think the Americans aim is to denude the armed capability of Russia. If that is the case, they want it to grind on.

 

We never get a clear story from Putin about why he did, it's been to stop NATO expansion, it's been to stop the alleged slaughter of Russian's in Donbas, it's been to de Nazify Ukraine, it's been to remove their armed capability. I remember Putin saying early on in a public interview, Shoigu said we want Ukraine as Russian territory to which Putin replied "We're not talking about that Sergei".

 

I think part of the reason was Zelensky, he stuck a very visible 2 fingers up to Putin and one thing we do know is Putin bears grudges and wants Ukraine aligned with Russia, not Europe/the West.  I think his initial aim was to install a Russian friendly government, when he couldn't do that he wanted a land grab.

 

 

Above all we have to remember NATO is a defensive pact.  Non-aggressors have nothing to fear from NATO.

That is a ton of conjecture you are trying to sell as facts...... but I bite: Please give me the sources cited, in Russian, so the actual meaning of what Putin said can be verified.

 

There is so much manipulation and 'lost in translation' applied in Western propaganda, it's nigh impossible to get facts. Or to be clear - in all propaganda, east and west.

 

Case in point is a recent presser of Meloni which a translator turned into 'If Russia does not agree to the terms, we will force her to surrender.' - was totally made up.

[JBChiangRai]

10 minutes ago, mistral53 said:

That is a ton of conjecture you are trying to sell as facts...... but I bite: Please give me the sources cited, in Russian, so the actual meaning of what Putin said can be verified.

 

There is so much manipulation and 'lost in translation' applied in Western propaganda, it's nigh impossible to get facts. Or to be clear - in all propaganda, east and west.

 

Case in point is a recent presser of Meloni which a translator turned into 'If Russia does not agree to the terms, we will force her to surrender.' - was totally made up.

 

I don't speak Russian so you will have to have it in English.  Incidentally, I watched and remembered this.

 

Putin’s made-for-TV security debate gives him answers he wants to hear on Ukraine (ft.com)

[bradiston]

57 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

 

What word/s would you use to describe the above? Enlargement? Encroachment? Growth? Extension? Or maybe reduction or contraction?

 

Actually your map is out of date. It doesn't show Finland or Sweden. A large proportion, if not all, of the post 1990 additions to NATO came as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. If the Russians made themselves that unpopular in eastern Europe, which they obviously did, then it is quite understandable that those countries, Poland, Czechoslavakia, Hungary, Romania, East Germany and the Baltic states, and latterly Finland, would want to realign themselves away from their hated overlords. Russia didn't lose anything it hadn't already lost. Sure, those ex Soviet satellite countries ran straight into the arms of the EU and subsequently NATO. So what? Anything was better, and on some cases, an order of magnitude better, than what the previous 50 years had entailed.

 

If Putin wants to cry foul over that, well, he was a senior KGB agent in East Germany I believe when the Berlin wall came down. Seems like it's just sour grapes to then accuse NATO of expansionism. If you get a divorce because your marriage has failed, you don't get to say what the other party does after the divorce, do you? It was probably because of such control freak illusions that the marriage failed in the first place. Neither the Soviets were, nor the Russians are, competent or intelligent enough to run their empire. So be it. Vae victis.

[mistral53]

10 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

I don't speak Russian so you will have to have it in English.  Incidentally, I watched and remembered this.

 

Putin’s made-for-TV security debate gives him answers he wants to hear on Ukraine (ft.com)

Its behind a paywall (or registration trap), but even if I violate my own stated requirements, I would not be ready to take anything the FT publishes as even remotely as factual.

 

BTW, just for giggles, here is what ChatGPT 'thinks':

'"I remember Putin saying early on in a public interview, Shoigu said we want Ukraine as Russian territory to which Putin replied 'We're not talking about that Sergei'.
Factual Context: This specific exchange between Putin and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu is not a well-documented or widely reported incident. It could be a misremembering or misinterpretation of a public or private conversation that has not been verified by credible sources. However, it's important to note that official Russian rhetoric has not publicly acknowledged a goal of outright annexation of the entirety of Ukraine.

 

I suggest you go to YT and search for John Mearsheimer, watch his rather different view on the subject of the conflict, very enlightening.

 

 

[bradiston]

1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

This conflict wasn’t meant to last as long as it has. Putin had calculated correctly that Zelensky would have capitulated within days and an agreement reached. What he hadn’t calculated on was the war mongering neo-cons in Washington scuppering the deal and the Europeans being so weak as to allow the destruction of their own economies and depletion of their own arms and ammunition to support an unwinnable war. Russia has no choice but to see it to the end as this is perceived by it as an existential threat.

Well there you go again, blaming the west for Putin's stupidity and miscalculations. It's all on him and it's only your hatred of the "warmongering" haha West that prevents you from seeing that. Up til that point, you appear quite sane. Plus, the Re(tar)d Army turned out to be a complete joke. Remember the 40km tank column that got stuck? NATO could have struck then, it would have been curtains for Putin. The EU and NATO missed so many opportunities to do as you accuse them of, and block the Russian advance in the early days, it beggars belief. Putin presented a clear and present danger. Now, you say there is an existential threat to Russia. All I can say, I wish!

[bradiston]

15 minutes ago, mistral53 said:

Its behind a paywall (or registration trap), but even if I violate my own stated requirements, I would not be ready to take anything the FT publishes as even remotely as factual.

 

BTW, just for giggles, here is what ChatGPT 'thinks':

'"I remember Putin saying early on in a public interview, Shoigu said we want Ukraine as Russian territory to which Putin replied 'We're not talking about that Sergei'.
Factual Context: This specific exchange between Putin and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu is not a well-documented or widely reported incident. It could be a misremembering or misinterpretation of a public or private conversation that has not been verified by credible sources. However, it's important to note that official Russian rhetoric has not publicly acknowledged a goal of outright annexation of the entirety of Ukraine.

 

I suggest you go to YT and search for John Mearsheimer, watch his rather different view on the subject of the conflict, very enlightening.

 

 

Suggestions to watch YouTube videos are an insult to anyone's intelligence. I see the same recommendations on other platforms, same videos, same authors, same commentators, same put downs of any sources not Kremlin approved. I've checked a few of the authors out. Mostly discredited American professors. Why would I believe them? Don't believe anything on YouTube, end of.

[JBChiangRai]

1 hour ago, mistral53 said:

Its behind a paywall (or registration trap), but even if I violate my own stated requirements, I would not be ready to take anything the FT publishes as even remotely as factual.

 

BTW, just for giggles, here is what ChatGPT 'thinks':

'"I remember Putin saying early on in a public interview, Shoigu said we want Ukraine as Russian territory to which Putin replied 'We're not talking about that Sergei'.
Factual Context: This specific exchange between Putin and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu is not a well-documented or widely reported incident. It could be a misremembering or misinterpretation of a public or private conversation that has not been verified by credible sources. However, it's important to note that official Russian rhetoric has not publicly acknowledged a goal of outright annexation of the entirety of Ukraine.

 

I suggest you go to YT and search for John Mearsheimer, watch his rather different view on the subject of the conflict, very enlightening.

 

 

 

As I said, I watched that performance when it happened.  I am not misremembering it, I don't think anyone translated it incorrectly.  My memory is spot on.

 

I do watch Mearsheimer occasionally, but he's not credible.