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

[JBChiangRai]

13 hours ago, frank83628 said:

so you can believe that, but deny the US would do such things. don't you think the CIA, mossad would ever do such things as false flags to gain public support?, only Putin specifically..... because some non Putin supporters said so

Did I deny that the US etc would do such things?

 

No I didn’t.

[connda]

"There are points of no return. The next thing that Russia will have to offer will be the document about [the Kiev government’s] surrender."

- Konstantin Gavrilov, Russian chief delegate to Vienna talks on military security and arms control

 

“Russia has already lost this war.”
- Jake Sullivan, US Security Advisor

 

Kick back on watch the nuclear fun.

 

Cue "Dualing Banjos"
https://youtu.be/NFutge4xn3w

 

 

[BobBKK]

23 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

Actually there is a wealth of evidence.

 

In July 1999, Russian journalist Aleksandr Zhilin, writing in the Moskovskaya Pravda, warned that there would be terrorist attacks in Moscow organised by the government. Using a leaked Kremlin document as evidence, he added that the motive would be to undermine the opponents of the Russian President Boris Yeltsin. These included Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov and former prime minister Yevgeny Primakov. However, this warning was ignored.

According to Amy Knight, "even more significant is the fact that a respected and influential Duma deputy, Konstantin Borovoi, was told on September 9, the day of the first Moscow apartment bombing, that there was to be a terrorist attack in the city. His source was an officer of the Russian military intelligence (GRU). Borovoy transmitted this information to FSB officials serving on Yeltsin's Security Council, but he was ignored."

 

Beginning 9th September 1999, a series of explosions hit four apartment blocks in the Russian cities of Buynaksk, Moscow, and Volgodonsk, killing more than 300, injuring more than 1,000, and spreading a wave of fear across the country. The bombings, together with the Invasion of Dagestan, triggered the Second Chechen War. The handling of the crisis by Vladimir Putin, who was prime minister at the time, boosted his popularity greatly and helped him attain the presidency within a few months.

 

A suspicious device resembling those used in the bombings was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan on 22 September. On 23 September, Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the inhabitants of Ryazan and ordered the air bombing of Grozny, which marked the beginning of the Second Chechen War. Three FSB agents who had planted the devices at Ryazan were arrested by the local police. The next day, FSB director Nikolay Patrushev announced that the incident in Ryazan had been an anti-terror drill and the device found there contained only sugar, and freed the FSB agents involved.

 

The official investigation of the Buynaksk bombing was completed in 2001, while the investigations of the Moscow and Volgodonsk bombings were completed in 2002.

 

Attempts at an independent investigation faced obstruction from the Russian government. State Duma deputy Yuri Shchekochikhin filed two motions for a parliamentary investigation of the events, but the motions were rejected by the State Duma in March 2000. An independent public commission to investigate the bombings was chaired by Duma deputy Sergei Kovalev. The commission was rendered ineffective because of government refusal to respond to its inquiries. Two key members of the Kovalev Commission, Sergei Yushenkov and Yuri Shchekochikhin, have since died in apparent assassinations. The commission's lawyer and investigator Mikhail Trepashkin was arrested and served four years in prison "for revealing state secrets".

 

A number of historians and investigative journalists have instead called the bombings a false flag attack perpetrated by Russian state security services to win public support for a new war in Chechnya and to boost the popularity of Vladimir Putin prior to the upcoming presidential elections.

 

 

 

 Cut and pastes are never impressive - this is OFF TOPIC and unrelated to my post - nice try.

[JBChiangRai]

11 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 Cut and pastes are never impressive - this is OFF TOPIC and unrelated to my post - nice try.

 

You said there was no evidence, I gave you the evidence.  You just don't like being proven wrong.

 

To avoid bias, there are about 5 cut/pastes in my reply, I assembled them into the right timeline, I won't apologise for posting facts that you found so easily verifiable.  The only assumption is that it was Putin himself behind it.

 

It's important to understand the kind of man Putin is, his morals, his scruples, his values, his grudges.  When you understand that, you can see the pattern and predict his actions.  No heinous act is beyond him if he thinks he can get away with it.

 

On a positive note, I'm pleased to see you're actually doing some research instead of spouting Kremlin propaganda.  Try posting some verifiable claims for a change.

[BobBKK]

22 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

You said there was no evidence, I gave you the evidence.  You just don't like being proven wrong.

 

To avoid bias, there are about 5 cut/pastes in my reply, I assembled them into the right timeline, I won't apologise for posting facts that you found so easily verifiable.  The only assumption is that it was Putin himself behind it.

 

It's important to understand the kind of man Putin is, his morals, his scruples, his values, his grudges.  When you understand that, you can see the pattern and predict his actions.  No heinous act is beyond him if he thinks he can get away with it.

 

On a positive note, I'm pleased to see you're actually doing some research instead of spouting Kremlin propaganda.  Try posting some verifiable claims for a change.

It's ALL about sources, and you know it. The issue in the West is that many sources are banned, and all the journos are in Ukraine spouting their propaganda. YouTube has banned thousands of videos showing the truth - or at least another version of it. I cannot put things here - everything is controlled, so you only get one side. 

Professor Sachs and Professor Mearsheimer are still largely available. Why not go and listen to an articulate summary of the truth of it? You might surprise yourself (doubtful, but where there's life, there's hope...).

[JBChiangRai]

Actually I do watch Mearsheimer, only this morning his video on Israel's aims.

 

He makes a valid point about the West bringing Ukraine into NATO, but Putin had no right to dictate that another sovereign country couldn't join a "defensive" pact.

 

I think the fact Ukraine has been invaded by Russia makes the policy of bringing anyone who wants it into NATO valid.

[bradiston]

51 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

It's ALL about sources, and you know it. The issue in the West is that many sources are banned, and all the journos are in Ukraine spouting their propaganda. YouTube has banned thousands of videos showing the truth - or at least another version of it. I cannot put things here - everything is controlled, so you only get one side. 

Professor Sachs and Professor Mearsheimer are still largely available. Why not go and listen to an articulate summary of the truth of it? You might surprise yourself (doubtful, but where there's life, there's hope...).

I thoroughly distrust any advice that includes the phrase "... and you know it". Where the hell do you get that from? You use it all the time. It's offensive and condescending. No, I don't know it. I don't know you. And I don't trust you. I don't know your sources and I don't trust them either. You keep pushing them, as "an articulate summary of the truth". That's a matter of opinion, not fact. All journos in Ukraine are spouting propaganda? Opinion, not fact.

[Hummin]

5 hours ago, BobBKK said:

It's ALL about sources, and you know it. The issue in the West is that many sources are banned, and all the journos are in Ukraine spouting their propaganda. YouTube has banned thousands of videos showing the truth - or at least another version of it. I cannot put things here - everything is controlled, so you only get one side. 

Professor Sachs and Professor Mearsheimer are still largely available. Why not go and listen to an articulate summary of the truth of it? You might surprise yourself (doubtful, but where there's life, there's hope...).

Many Half truths and modicated truths, doesn't make it The Truth. A big difference.

 

Understanding parts of the game, doesn't mean you completely understand it. 

[rabas]

6 hours ago, BobBKK said:

It's ALL about sources, and you know it. The issue in the West is that many sources are banned, and all the journos are in Ukraine spouting their propaganda. YouTube has banned thousands of videos showing the truth - or at least another version of it. I cannot put things here - everything is controlled, so you only get one side. 

Professor Sachs and Professor Mearsheimer are still largely available. Why not go and listen to an articulate summary of the truth of it? You might surprise yourself (doubtful, but where there's life, there's hope...).

 

The issue in the West is that many sources are banned ...  

 

Can you compare for me, should be easy to find, how much information is banned in say America versus Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea?  I.e., team Putin.

 

[BobBKK]

18 hours ago, rabas said:

 

The issue in the West is that many sources are banned ...  

 

Can you compare for me, should be easy to find, how much information is banned in say America versus Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea?  I.e., team Putin.

 

YouTube has removed 9,000 channels and 70,000 videos it deems as pro-Russian and ZERO it deems pro-Ukraine. Getting any real information is BANNED.

https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-ukraine-war-removes-70000-videos-9000-channels-russia-2022-5

[BobBKK]

19 hours ago, Hummin said:

Many Half truths and modicated truths, doesn't make it The Truth. A big difference.

 

Understanding parts of the game, doesn't mean you completely understand it. 

Do you submit that Professor Sachs and Professor Mearsheimer, world-renowned experts, don't know what they are talking about?

I note that Nigel Farage, Judge Napolitano, Larry Johnson, Scott Ritter (who had his passport removed at the airport), Elon Musk, and many others are challenging the MSM narrative. You do not own the truth - it is a complex subject. Anyway Russia is there to stay - get used to it.

[Hummin]

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

YouTube has removed 9,000 channels and 70,000 videos it deems as pro-Russian and ZERO it deems pro-Ukraine. Getting any real information is BANNED.

https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-ukraine-war-removes-70000-videos-9000-channels-russia-2022-5

Try living in Russia or China, 

 

At least they are smart enough to ban Meta, and we still allow Telegram and Tik Tok

 

Your neighbors China car allowed with technology possible to film and track your movements and pattern. 

 

It is a challenging future ahead of us, and will put our democracy to its ultimate test, especially with more people who believe the same as you do. 

[Hummin]

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Do you submit that Professor Sachs and Professor Mearsheimer, world-renowned experts, don't know what they are talking about?

I note that Nigel Farage, Judge Napolitano, Larry Johnson, Scott Ritter (who had his passport removed at the airport), Elon Musk, and many others are challenging the MSM narrative. You do not own the truth - it is a complex subject. Anyway Russia is there to stay - get used to it.

Do you understand we are at a war, and need to form and encourage people to pull in the same direction? 

 

Whatever you believe, there is no sane people who want Russia and China to win above western standards, unfortunate it seems many is on the same path as Tucker Carlson.

 

 

[BobBKK]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

Try living in Russia or China, 

 

At least they are smart enough to ban Meta, and we still allow Telegram and Tik Tok

 

Your neighbors China car allowed with technology possible to film and track your movements and pattern. 

 

It is a challenging future ahead of us, and will put our democracy to its ultimate test, especially with more people who believe the same as you do. 

I have—well, not lived as such—but been to Russia 17 times and the Ukraine 5 times. China less so, but I have visited. I worked in a hospital in Moscow on an exchange programme. 

The one thing we can agree about - a challenging future. I'm telling you, Russia will NEVER LEAVE - it's better to negotiate Ukraine's neutrality and leave Donbas alone. Ukrainians were shelling Donbas daily - some say up to 13,000 shells. Whatever anyone wants or believes it must end in a compromise.

[JBChiangRai]

18 hours ago, rabas said:

 

The issue in the West is that many sources are banned ...  

 

Can you compare for me, should be easy to find, how much information is banned in say America versus Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea?  I.e., team Putin.

 

If, and I mean If a source is banned, we can discuss it in the west, good luck trying to discuss it in Russia.

 

You can’t even call a war “a war”.

 

4 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Do you submit that Professor Sachs and Professor Mearsheimer, world-renowned experts, don't know what they are talking about?

I note that Nigel Farage, Judge Napolitano, Larry Johnson, Scott Ritter (who had his passport removed at the airport), Elon Musk, and many others are challenging the MSM narrative. You do not own the truth - it is a complex subject. Anyway Russia is there to stay - get used to it.

Mearsheimer and Sachs often make good points but they do tend to lean towards conspiracy sometimes 

[BobBKK]

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Do you understand we are at a war, and need to form and encourage people to pull in the same direction? 

 

Whatever you believe, there is no sane people who want Russia and China to win above western standards, unfortunate it seems many is on the same path as Tucker Carlson.

 

 

"we are at war"? - China will join Russia, Africa and India and it will all be over - for what???

[bradiston]

6 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Do you submit that Professor Sachs and Professor Mearsheimer, world-renowned experts, don't know what they are talking about?

I note that Nigel Farage, Judge Napolitano, Larry Johnson, Scott Ritter (who had his passport removed at the airport), Elon Musk, and many others are challenging the MSM narrative. You do not own the truth - it is a complex subject. Anyway Russia is there to stay - get used to it.

What is the MSM narrative? I can't get it where I live. And are you not just a pro-russian disinformation bot yourself? Because that's why those posts were removed from YouTube. All the garbage being churned out by Putin's fan club. I see that everywhere.

[BobBKK]

1 minute ago, JBChiangRai said:

If, and I mean If a source is banned, we can discuss it in the west, good luck trying to discuss it in Russia.

 

You can’t even call a war “a war”.

 

Mearsheimer and Sachs often make good points but they do tend to lean towards conspiracy sometimes 

 The reason they don't use the term "war" in Russia is that they are a very precise people - I think that has changed now and they use the term - correctly of course.

[bradiston]

3 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I have—well, not lived as such—but been to Russia 17 times and the Ukraine 5 times. China less so, but I have visited. I worked in a hospital in Moscow on an exchange programme. 

The one thing we can agree about - a challenging future. I'm telling you, Russia will NEVER LEAVE - it's better to negotiate Ukraine's neutrality and leave Donbas alone. Ukrainians were shelling Donbas daily - some say up to 13,000 shells. Whatever anyone wants or believes it must end in a compromise.

It's not Russia. It's the migrant Russians who will either have to live as guests in Ukraine, or gtfo.

[BobBKK]

1 minute ago, bradiston said:

What is the MSM narrative? I can't get it where I live. And are you not just a pro-russian disinformation bot yourself? Because that's why those posts were removed from YouTube. All the garbage being churned out by Putin's fan club. I see that everywhere.

 
Pro-Russia disinformation bot?  I'm from Essex, so don't insult anyone's point of view. They were deleted from YouTube as they don't want you to know the truth - wake up.

[BobBKK]

Just now, bradiston said:

It's not Russia. It's the migrant Russians who will either have to live as guests in Ukraine, or gtfo.

That is an arguable point - it was agreed NO NATO expansion eastwards.

[JBChiangRai]

3 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 The reason they don't use the term "war" in Russia is that they are a very precise people - I think that has changed now and they use the term - correctly of course.

no, the reason they don’t use the word war in Russia is because if they do, they’ll go to jail

[bradiston]

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 The reason they don't use the term "war" in Russia is that they are a very precise people - I think that has changed now and they use the term - correctly of course.

What does the phrase "a very precise people" mean? And using the term "war" correctly? You mean according to party directives? No longer SMO?

[bradiston]

3 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 
Pro-Russia disinformation bot?  I'm from Essex, so don't insult anyone's point of view. They were deleted from YouTube as they don't want you to know the truth - wake up.

Rubbish. What has being from Essex got to do with anything? Who doesn't want me to know the truth? I don't believe anything I see on YouTube so it makes no difference to me. I'm wide awake.

[Hummin]

11 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I have—well, not lived as such—but been to Russia 17 times and the Ukraine 5 times. China less so, but I have visited. I worked in a hospital in Moscow on an exchange programme. 

The one thing we can agree about - a challenging future. I'm telling you, Russia will NEVER LEAVE - it's better to negotiate Ukraine's neutrality and leave Donbas alone. Ukrainians were shelling Donbas daily - some say up to 13,000 shells. Whatever anyone wants or believes it must end in a compromise.

I also believe it will end in an agreement, if not full scale world war or escalating conflicts several places, which will hold resources spread out.

[bradiston]

4 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

That is an arguable point - it was agreed NO NATO expansion eastwards.

Agreed by whom? And wasn't it agreed, by US, UK and Russia in the Budapest Agreement, no attacks on Ukraine in exchange for them giving up their enormous ex Soviet nuclear arsenal? Russia has and is expanding on at least 2 fronts. South in Crimea, east into Donbas, and possibly west into Transnistria in Moldova. Seems the pro Russian lobby is blind in one eye.

[TedG]

14 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I have—well, not lived as such—but been to Russia 17 times and the Ukraine 5 times. China less so, but I have visited. I worked in a hospital in Moscow on an exchange programme. 

The one thing we can agree about - a challenging future. I'm telling you, Russia will NEVER LEAVE - it's better to negotiate Ukraine's neutrality and leave Donbas alone. Ukrainians were shelling Donbas daily - some say up to 13,000 shells. Whatever anyone wants or believes it must end in a compromise.

I don’t understand why so many of you people fall for Russian propaganda. I have news for you, Russia lost the war in the Ukraine and is stuck in a quagmire.  The longer the war the worse it is for Russia. 

[Hummin]

12 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

"we are at war"? - China will join Russia, Africa and India and it will all be over - for what???

We have to manage China and India, so they still want and need us for coexisting trading between our differences. 

 

As long we benefits each other, the conflicts will not go out of hands like poking the Russian bear for to long. 

 

 

[BobBKK]

1 minute ago, TedG said:

I don’t understand why so many of you people fall for Russian propaganda. I have news for you, Russia lost the war in the Ukraine and is stuck in a quagmire.  The longer the war the worse it is for Russia. 

 That, with respect, is ABSURD

[JBChiangRai]

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

That is an arguable point - it was agreed NO NATO expansion eastwards.

That is a moot point.

 

Yeltsin agreed to not invade Ukraine in return they gave up their arsenal of Nuclear weapons.

 

Putin told Clinton in 2011 he wouldn’t honor Russia’s agreement because it wasn’t made with him, Clinton said he knew in 2011 Russia would invade Ukraine.

 

If Putin refuses to honor Russia’s written agreements, why should NATO honor verbal discussions with someone other than Putin?