Clear from day 1

[NowNow]

22 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

If you think that it was Russia’s intention to take over the whole of Ukraine, you are completely mistaken, In order to do that, Russia would have had to assemble a force at least 10 times that of what they did. They would then have launched a “full scale” invasion instead of just a SMO. Russia wanted to reach a quick diplomatic and political agreement in which they almost succeeded. The facts bore this out.

 

This idea that Russia wanted to occupy all of Ukraine is just western propaganda. Some, without the necessary intelligence and knowledge, bought this.

 

Western propaganda? How about the Russian propagandists that stated and published exactly what I have asserted is true, going against what you have suggested?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Akopov

 

What is your fantastic explanation for this?

[NowNow]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

One only needs look at the economy of Russia, which is smaller than Texas, to realise why Putin is not interested in occupying all of Ukraine, because Russia does not have the capacity to do that.

 

It's good to be able to read a post not based in fantasy.

 

Western propaganda, IMO, is used to justify taking taxpayers money and wasting it in a far off land so the 1% can get even richer. Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people believe the propaganda.

 

Useful fools....there are at least a couple on this thread. Taxpayer's money....how much tax are you paying? You are just a walking cliché. Another one who has swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker.

You just ignore the parts that don't fit with your story.

 

[NowNow]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Obviously. That's what countries have been doing since countries existed. Why would Russia have to be different?

It's not as though the west hasn't been doing that same thing for a few centuries, is it?

Now tell us something we didn't know.

 

Why don't you post on Russian forums and complain that Putin et al are wasting their (tax payers) money? What is your point here? That they should have just left Russia to do whatever it wanted, then sitting on the borders of Europe?

Are you not happy with the way your life turned out? Since you are such a supporter, why not head over to Russia? See how you like living there.

[Cameroni]

2 hours ago, NowNow said:

 

Useful fools....there are at least a couple on this thread. Taxpayer's money....how much tax are you paying? You are just a walking cliché. Another one who has swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker.

You just ignore the parts that don't fit with your story.

 

 

I think you will find that it is you, who has swallowed propaganda hook line and sinker.

 

After the West had promised Russia not to expand NATO eastwards and then in 2008 announced that, contrary to assurances given to Russia, this is what NATO would do, two things were clear:

 

1. There would inevitably be a Russian response to the deception and existential threat

 

2. The West had to come up with a propaganda narrative to explain the Russian response not as a reaction to Wesern lies and deception, but rather as evidence of a power mad Russian dicator helll-bent on re-constituting Soviet Russia or a fabled Imperial Russia.

 

It is not surprising that you have swallowed this propaganda, after al NATO and Western media have worked overtime to spread this propaganda. It is not your fault. You would have to understand the underlying reality of the situation and the history, to understand that Western propaganda is false, and clearly you do not.

[Cameroni]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That's a weird idea about Trump. On the one hand a large number of posters on here say he's bending over for Putin, and now you are saying that he might nuke Russia. Both sides can't be correct.

 

More likely he'll be the same as the first time and try sugar diplomacy, unlike the present lot of IMO warmongers that apparently see nothing wrong with dropping big bombs on thousands of women and children.

 

It is very hard to know what Trump would do, but he has threatened North Korea many times with total destruction, and he does not strike me as someone who makes threats and does not follow up.  But I did not say he will nuke Russia, I said the opposite, that he will not, because he is hopfully a rational person who will heed the advice of his military that to nuke Russia would lead to the deaths of untold numbers of Americans and the destruction of US cities.

 

Remember this was premised on the scenario what would the US do if Russia used a nuclear device in Ukraine. The rational view would be that the US would not respond with a nuclear attack on Russia, because America would then be in a nuclear conflict herself. And my hope is that Trump is a rational person.

[NowNow]

14 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I think you will find that it is you, who has swallowed propaganda hook line and sinker.

 

After the West had promised Russia not to expand NATO eastwards and then in 2008 announced that, contrary to assurances given to Russia, this is what NATO would do, two things were clear:

 

1. There would inevitably be a Russian response to the deception and existential threat

 

2. The West had to come up with a propaganda narrative to explain the Russian response not as a reaction to Wesern lies and deception, but rather as evidence of a power mad Russian dicator helll-bent on re-constituting Soviet Russia or a fabled Imperial Russia.

 

It is not surprising that you have swallowed this propaganda, after al NATO and Western media have worked overtime to spread this propaganda. It is not your fault. You would have to understand the underlying reality of the situation and the history, to understand that Western propaganda is false, and clearly you do not.

 

Another one of your silly stories...I don't even need to read it. 

I think that you misunderstand. I have Russian and Ukrainian friends and I read Russian media. I only read 'Western' media in relation to what I read from the Kremlin.

I read Putin's 5,000 word treatise published seven months before the invasion. Have you? Don't go blindly accusing people of swallowing Western propaganda when you know nothing of the sort. You are simply foolishly throwing mud around in the hope that some of it sticks. It will not, because I don't have a single sided view lie you seem to do.

 

[Cameroni]

8 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

 

Russia doesn't care about a friendly Ukraine. it wants a subjugated vassal state, like Belarus. It wants the resources of Ukraine at the previous discounted price and it wants the Ukrainians to obey their Russian masters. The Ukrainians don't want to be the Russian puppet state. 

 

 

 

Sorry, but that's pure fantasy. You only have to look at the location of the current fighting to understand that Russia does not want to conquer all of Ukraine, nor does it want Ukraine's resources. Western Ukraine has hardly seen real fighting.

 

It is not just the US that is aware that Russia's economy is smaller than Texas' economy, believe it or not the Russians have these figures too. Russians understand that they do not have the capacity to conquer and occupy all of Ukraine long term. That is just pure fantasy. Much less could Russia conquer Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Sweden etc long term, this is all pure fantasy an proaganda by NATO and the west.

 

After 2008 it became clear that Ukraine became ever more  pro-Western and what Russia wants is a pro-Russian Ukrainian state, that is true of course. But it can not occupy all of Ukraine and Russia has no intention to do that. You just need to look at the facts on the ground and  Putin's statements, ie the evidence, not wild fantasies.

[NowNow]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

Sorry, but that's pure fantasy. You only have to look at the location of the current fighting to understand that Russia does not want to conquer all of Ukraine, nor does it want Ukraine's resources. Western Ukraine has hardly seen real fighting.

 

It is not just the US that is aware that Russia's economy is smaller than Texas' economy, believe it or not the Russians have these figures too. Russians understand that they do not have the capacity to conquer and occupy all of Ukraine long term. That is just pure fantasy. Much less could Russia conquer Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Sweden etc long term, this is all pure fantasy an proaganda by NATO and the west.

 

After 2008 it became clear that Ukraine became ever more  pro-Western and what Russia wants is a pro-Russian Ukrainian state, that is true of course. But it can not occupy all of Ukraine and Russia has no intention to do that. You just need to look at the facts on the ground and  Putin's statements, ie the evidence, not wild fantasies.

 

You are just playing games with words. Of course it is not being suggested that they would occupy the whole of Ukraine militarily, but that they wanted a pro-Russian Ukraine. How else to do that than to install their people...and absolutely they want Ukraine's resources. Are you drunk sir? First Crimea and then the Donbass. Are they not resources of Ukraine?

 

[NowNow]

27 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I think you will find that it is you, who has swallowed propaganda hook line and sinker.

 

After the West had promised Russia not to expand NATO eastwards and then in 2008 announced that, contrary to assurances given to Russia, this is what NATO would do, two things were clear:

 

1. There would inevitably be a Russian response to the deception and existential threat

 

2. The West had to come up with a propaganda narrative to explain the Russian response not as a reaction to Wesern lies and deception, but rather as evidence of a power mad Russian dicator helll-bent on re-constituting Soviet Russia or a fabled Imperial Russia.

 

It is not surprising that you have swallowed this propaganda, after al NATO and Western media have worked overtime to spread this propaganda. It is not your fault. You would have to understand the underlying reality of the situation and the history, to understand that Western propaganda is false, and clearly you do not.

 

I pose the same question to you, as to @Gweiloman. How do you explain the Russian propaganda that agrees with my viewpoint? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Akopov

[NowNow]

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Sorry, but that's pure fantasy. You only have to look at the location of the current fighting to understand that Russia does not want to conquer all of Ukraine, nor does it want Ukraine's resources. Western Ukraine has hardly seen real fighting.

 

It is not just the US that is aware that Russia's economy is smaller than Texas' economy, believe it or not the Russians have these figures too. Russians understand that they do not have the capacity to conquer and occupy all of Ukraine long term. That is just pure fantasy. Much less could Russia conquer Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Sweden etc long term, this is all pure fantasy an proaganda by NATO and the west.

 

After 2008 it became clear that Ukraine became ever more  pro-Western and what Russia wants is a pro-Russian Ukrainian state, that is true of course. But it can not occupy all of Ukraine and Russia has no intention to do that. You just need to look at the facts on the ground and  Putin's statements, ie the evidence, not wild fantasies.

 

Again, I have read Putin's treatise. From the horse's mouth so to speak. What western propaganda can you claim that you know that I have read? None at all. It was just another empty and foolish statement on your part. Keep to facts, rather than your continued speculation about what you think that I have read or not.

[Cameroni]

10 minutes ago, NowNow said:

I have Russian and Ukrainian friends and I read Russian media. I only read 'Western' media in relation to what I read from the Kremlin.

I read Putin's 5,000 word treatise published seven months before the invasion. Have you? Don't go blindly accusing people of swallowing Western propaganda when you know nothing of the sort. You are simply foolishly throwing mud around in the hope that some of it sticks. It will not, because I don't have a single sided view lie you seem to do.

 

You don't have to read Russian media, all you need is to hear John Mearsheimer speak, the world's leading authority on international relations, he explains the Ukraine conflict very well. I have, have you?

 

I am not "throwing mud around", I am merely calling a duck a duck. You have a very single sided view of this conflict. Russia bad. Ukraine good. But reality is quite different.

 

And were you not accusing other posters of swallowing propaganda?

[Danderman123]

On 8/1/2024 at 12:08 AM, swissie said:

From day 1 it was clear that the Ukraine could not win this war. Period!

The only question remains is, will the Russians stop at the western Ukrainian border or will they travel unopposed thru Hungary straigtht to Austria. Straight into the "heart of Europe". Unopposed by Hungaria as the Hungarians will not shoot at Russians.

That is the only question that remains.

 

Well, there's another question:

 

How much of Russia will Ukraine capture in its current offensive?

[Cameroni]

24 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

You are just playing games with words. Of course it is not being suggested that they would occupy the whole of Ukraine militarily, but that they wanted a pro-Russian Ukraine. How else to do that than to install their people...and absolutely they want Ukraine's resources. Are you drunk sir? First Crimea and then the Donbass. Are they not resources of Ukraine?

 

 

Yes, that is what anoher poster here has suggested. 

 

Of course Russia wants a pro-Russian Ukraine, but if it can not be so then perhaps Russia will settle for a very weakened Ukraine.

 

No, Russia does not want Ukraine's resources, because if they did they would have attacked those areas where those resources are, and they have not. The fighting is contained in a very specific area mostly.

 

No, I'm not "drunk", I just understand that Crimea did not happen in a vaccuum, but rather happpened after NATO made clear in 2008 that Ukrainian membership in NATO was on the cards. Russia had repeatedly made clear that NATO expansion eastwards was unacceptable and a line in the sand. When the West foolishly crossed that line, a response by Russia was inevitable.

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

You don't have to read Russian media, all you need is to hear John Mearsheimer speak, the world's leading authority on international relations, he explains the Ukraine conflict very well. I have, have you?

 

I am not "throwing mud around", I am merely calling a duck a duck. You have a very single sided view of this conflict. Russia bad. Ukraine good. But reality is quite different.

 

And were you not accusing other posters of swallowing propaganda?

Russia bad.

 

Ukraine not bad.

 

Remember, Russia made an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

[Danderman123]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

Yes, that is what anoher poster here has suggested. 

 

Of course Russia wans a pro-Russian Ukraine, but if it can not be so then perhaps Russia will settle for a very weakened Ukraine.

 

No, Russia does not want Ukraine's resources, because if they did they would have attacked those areas where those resources are, and they have not. The fighting is contained in a very specific area mostly.

 

No, I'm not "drunk", I just understand that Crimea did not happen in a vaccuum, but rather happpened after NATO made clear in 2008 that Ukrainian membership in NATO was on the cards. Russia had repeatedly made clear that NATO expansion eastwards was unacceptable and a line in the sand. When the West foolishly crossed that line, a response by Russia was inevitable.

Russia has no right to dictate policy to Ukraine. 

 

Any more than the US can tell your country what to do.

[Cameroni]

14 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

I pose the same question to you, as to @Gweiloman. How do you explain the Russian propaganda that agrees with my viewpoint? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Akopov

 

Oh please, this is like referring to Andrew Neil's nationalist fantasies and then claim it is UK state policy. You are confusing propaganda and wishful thinking by ten a penny nationalists with real state policy. They are not the same.

[NowNow]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

You don't have to read Russian media, all you need is to hear John Mearsheimer speak, the world's leading authority on international relations, he explains the Ukraine conflict very well. I have, have you?

 

I am not "throwing mud around", I am merely calling a duck a duck. You have a very single sided view of this conflict. Russia bad. Ukraine good. But reality is quite different.

 

And were you not accusing other posters of swallowing propaganda?

 

What fresh kind of foolishness is this? I've read Mearsheimer. Does it change something? Are you against countries becoming independent? Mentioning NATO is simply a smokescreen. Of course if Russia does not want Georgia and Ukraine to become independent nations, he will work to destabilise that. Does it make him the good guy and the west bad for supporting their independence?

I'm not arguing for either side, but you seem to be completely lopsided.

[NowNow]

10 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

You don't have to read Russian media, all you need is to hear John Mearsheimer speak, the world's leading authority on international relations, he explains the Ukraine conflict very well. I have, have you?

 

I am not "throwing mud around", I am merely calling a duck a duck. You have a very single sided view of this conflict. Russia bad. Ukraine good. But reality is quite different.

 

And were you not accusing other posters of swallowing propaganda?

 

Please illustrate even a single post where I have suggested Russia bad, Ukraine good. That is just a fantasy in your little brain. I have done no such thing.

If I did accuse other posters of swallowing propaganda, it was because of the way that they worded their responses. A dead giveaway. 

[Cameroni]

12 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

Again, I have read Putin's treatise. From the horse's mouth so to speak. What western propaganda can you claim that you know that I have read? None at all. It was just another empty and foolish statement on your part. Keep to facts, rather than your continued speculation about what you think that I have read or not.

 

It was not a "treatise", merely an article he wrote where he articulates what every Russian thinks, that Ukrainians and Russians are descended from the same people. It is a historical fact actually. This is the same, as when NATO's Atlantic Council tries to twist Putin's words in that interview and claims that because of his views on history Putin inevitably wants to invade Poland to recreate Imperial Russia. It's ludicrous. 

 

 

[NowNow]

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Oh please, this is like referring to Andrew Neil's nationalist fantasies and then claim it is UK state policy. You are confusing propaganda and wishful thinking by ten a penny nationalists with real state policy. They are not the same.

 

These are state agencies, not independent newspapers. They comments are in line with the treatise that Vladimir Putin published....which you clearly have not read....

[NowNow]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

It was not a "treatise", merely an article he wrote where he articulates what every Russian thinks, that Ukrainians and Russians are descended from the same people. It is a historical fact actually. This is the same, as when NATO's Atlantic Council tries to twist Putin's words in that interview and claims that because of his views on history Putin inevitably wants to invade Poland to recreate Imperial Russia. It's ludicrous. 

 

 

 

He also wrote that Ukraine does not need Donbass. I didn't mention Poland, try to keep on track. So they understood he was on to annex the Donbass next. Western propaganda or reality?

[Cameroni]

16 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Russia bad.

 

Ukraine not bad.

 

Remember, Russia made an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

 

Look, if a snake eats a mouse, the mouse thinks "this is very bad". The snake just thinks it's lunchtime. There is no good and bad. Only perspective.

 

Yes, from UKraine's and uniformed Westerners perspective the invasion of Ukraine was bad.

 

However, from the Russian perspective, they had been lied to and deceived by the West that they would not expand NATO eastwards. They had invested millions in building Ukraine, given them territory, and shared a common history only to see Ukraine instead put its hand down the west's trousers and insult Russia, even calling for nuclear weapons in Ukraine. 

 

To Russia the invasion was not the same bad as for Ukraine or the West. Their perspective was different. If you want to understand this conflict you need to understand this perspective too.

[NowNow]

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

It was not a "treatise", merely an article he wrote where he articulates what every Russian thinks, that Ukrainians and Russians are descended from the same people. It is a historical fact actually. This is the same, as when NATO's Atlantic Council tries to twist Putin's words in that interview and claims that because of his views on history Putin inevitably wants to invade Poland to recreate Imperial Russia. It's ludicrous. 

 

 

 

"Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide."

 

Citizens decided to be pro-western.... didn't they? He didn't like that very much.

[Cameroni]

15 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Russia has no right to dictate policy to Ukraine. 

 

Any more than the US can tell your country what to do.

 

The US has been telling my country what to do for 79 years. It is nice to live in this world of perfect morality, however, real events do not happen there, they happen in the real world.

 

Russia has fed Ukraine, built up Ukrainian infrastructure, fought side by side with Ukraine, gave Ukraine territory, you may find Russians see this differently.

[NowNow]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

Look, if a snake eats a mouse, the mouse thinks "this is very bad". The snake just thinks it's lunchtime. There is no good and bad. Only perspective.

 

Yes, from UKraine's and uniformed Westerners perspective the invasion of Ukraine was bad.

 

However, from the Russian perspective, they had been lied to and deceived by the West that they would not expand NATO eastwards. They had invested millions in building Ukraine, given them territory, and shared a common history only to see Ukraine instead put its hand down the west's trousers and insult Russia, even calling for nuclear weapons in Ukraine. 

 

To Russia the invasion was not the same bad as for Ukraine or the West. Their perspective was different. If you want to understand this conflict you need to understand this perspective too.

 

They already had nuclear weapons in Ukraine, remember?  1700 of them. They were removed upon independence in exchange for security assurances. Russia violated that agreement with the annexation of Crimea. 

[NowNow]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

The US has been telling my country what to do for 79 years. It is nice to live in this world of perfect morality, however, real events do not happen there, they happen in the real world.

 

Russia has fed Ukraine, built up Ukrainian infrastructure, fought side by side with Ukraine, gave Ukraine territory, you may find Russians see this differently.

 

 

....and yet the Ukrainians wanted independence and chose to be pro-Western....

[Cameroni]

15 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

What fresh kind of foolishness is this? I've read Mearsheimer. Does it change something? Are you against countries becoming independent? Mentioning NATO is simply a smokescreen. Of course if Russia does not want Georgia and Ukraine to become independent nations, he will work to destabilise that. Does it make him the good guy and the west bad for supporting their independence?

I'm not arguing for either side, but you seem to be completely lopsided.

 

I am not against countries becoming indepedent. But if a country has Russia as a neighbour it would do well to consider Russian sensibilities and interests, because if it keeps poking Russia in the eye with a stick it may not be an independent country for much longer. I am a realist, that's all.

[NowNow]

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Look, if a snake eats a mouse, the mouse thinks "this is very bad". The snake just thinks it's lunchtime. There is no good and bad. Only perspective.

 

Yes, from UKraine's and uniformed Westerners perspective the invasion of Ukraine was bad.

 

However, from the Russian perspective, they had been lied to and deceived by the West that they would not expand NATO eastwards. They had invested millions in building Ukraine, given them territory, and shared a common history only to see Ukraine instead put its hand down the west's trousers and insult Russia, even calling for nuclear weapons in Ukraine. 

 

To Russia the invasion was not the same bad as for Ukraine or the West. Their perspective was different. If you want to understand this conflict you need to understand this perspective too.

 

I understand the perspective and that is why I can quote from both sides. Have you not noticed?

[NowNow]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

I am not against countries becoming indepedent. But if a country has Russia as a neighbour it would do well to consider Russian sensibilities and interests, because if it keeps poking Russia in the eye with a stick it may not be an independent country for much longer. I am a realist, that's all.

 

So we have a war. Poking with a stick is just your analogy. If you aren't against countries becoming independent, but Putin IS against it, then what? 

[Cameroni]

9 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

He also wrote that Ukraine does not need Donbass. I didn't mention Poland, try to keep on track. So they understood he was on to annex the Donbass next. Western propaganda or reality?

 

He also wrote "we respect Ukraine's safety", so why are you so hung up on this article by Putin? The parts that were true, were those where he says Russians share a history with Ukraine. Of course Putin wants the Donbass, and he will have it. That much is true as well.