Clear from day 1

[Cameroni]

41 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

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....

 

The BBC is state owned as well. So if Gary Lineker says let's invade Germany this is then state policy? Come on man.

 

I have read the article, and the parts where Putin says Russians and Ukrainians share a history, well, he's in line with every Russian there, all Russians believe this. You know why? Because it's historical fact, Ukrainians and Russians are descended from the same people. This does not mean that Russia wants to recreate Imperial Russia, I hope you understand this.

Edited August 11 by Cameroni

[NowNow]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

 

What does respecting Ukraine's safety mean in real terms?  You tell me. So far we agree that he doesn't want Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia etc to become independent and that he annexed Crimea and wants to annex the Donbass. So about what are we arguing? you have agreed with everything that I have written. The difference is that you are blaming the 'west' for everything.

[Lacessit]

56 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

 

 

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.

It is quite noticeable Putin's sabre-rattling with nukes has disappeared over the last 6 - 12 months.

My hypothesis: Biden called Putin, and pointed out there would be no nuclear exchange with Russia. Instead, the USA had the surveillance and equipment capabilities to take out Putin in a surgical strike, with eyes on him 24/7. Maybe Biden even put proof on the table.

I assume Putin, like anyone else, wants to survive.

[NowNow]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

The BBC is state owned as well. So if Gary Lineker says let's invade Germany this is then state policy? Come on man.

 

I have read the article, and the parts where Putin says Russians and Ukrainians share a history, well, he's in line with every Russian there, all Russians believe this. You know why? Because it's historcal fact, Ukrainians and Russians are descended from the same people. This does not mean that Russia wants to recreate Imperial Russia, I hope you understand this.

 

Gary Lineker cannot publish a political editorial on the BBC. Show me even a single BBC article that mirrors what was published by the Russian propagandists.

[Cameroni]

21 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

"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.

 

Obviously not, because that implied Ukrainian membership in NATO and American missiles pointed at Russia from Ukraine. If Ukranian citizens do not want to consider that their state is next to Russia and they do not understand that they have to take Russian interests into account, if they keep poking Russia in the eye, then maybe these are not the smartest citizens. It's not like Russa's history is written in a secret book.

 

If you live next to  Russia you have to take into account Russian interests. Just as if you live next to the USA you have to take US interests into account. Failure to do so is at your own peril.

Edited August 11 by Cameroni

[NowNow]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The BBC is state owned as well. So if Gary Lineker says let's invade Germany this is then state policy? Come on man.

 

I have read the article, and the parts where Putin says Russians and Ukrainians share a history, well, he's in line with every Russian there, all Russians believe this. You know why? Because it's historcal fact, Ukrainians and Russians are descended from the same people. This does not mean that Russia wants to recreate Imperial Russia, I hope you understand this.

 

Ridiculous, it's 5,000 words and you try to compress it into one line. Idiotic, you didn't read it at all. Perhaps just read the Dummy's Guide To...

Conveniently ignoring that the Ukrainian people CHOSE to be pro-Western.

[NowNow]

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Obviously not, because that implied Ukrainian membership in NATO and American missiles pointed at Russia from Ukraine. If Ukranian citizens do not want to consider that their state is next to Russia and they do not understand that they have to take Russian interests into account, if they keep poking Russia in the eye, then maybe these are not the smartest citizens. It's not like Russa's history is written in a secret book.

 

If you live next to  Russia you have to take into account Russian interests. Just as if you live next to the USA you have to take US interests into account. Failure to do so is at your own peril.

 

No, it didn't imply that at all....again more 'filling in the gaps' by yourself.  It was explicitly stated that Ukraine would not join NATO. They didn't even apply until after Russia invaded.

Just a convenient scapegoat. They did not want Ukraine becoming independently pro-Western.

Now you insult the Ukrainian peoples by suggesting they are not the smartest? Low....

Just another keyboard warrior...

Edited August 11 by NowNow

[Cameroni]

20 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

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. 

 

You misunderstood, I meant AFTER Russia's nuclear weapons were removed from Ukraine many Ukranian politicians called for Ukraine to be armed with its own nuclear weapons.

 

Do you think that was a wise move if Russia is your neihbour? Arguably the Ukraine violated that agreement first by entertaining NATO membership.

[Cameroni]

22 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

 

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

 

I know. But they forgot their state is next to Russia. If your state is next to Russia you have to consider Russian interests. Just as, if you live next to the USA you have to consider American interests. Noriega selling intelligence to Cuba did not work out so well for Noriega, did it? So the US can invade its neighbours but Russia can't because the citizens want to be independent? All citizens want to be independent, but international relations are about more than this.

[NowNow]

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You misunderstood, I meant AFTER Russia's nuclear weapons were removed from Ukraine many Ukranian politicians called for Ukraine to be armed with its own nuclear weapons.

 

Do you think that was a wise move if Russia is your neihbour? Arguably the Ukraine violated that agreement first by entertaining NATO membership.

 

Independence; 1991. Now it's 2024...where are the nuclear weapons that the 'many' Ukrainian politicians called for? When exactly did Ukraine entertain NATO membership? Before Russia annexed Crimea? Your spurious accusations lack a timeline. I suspect that you are just babbling...

[NowNow]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

I know. But they forgot their state is next to Russia. If your state is next to Russia you have to consider Russian interests. Just as, if you live next to the USA you have to consider American interests. Noriega selling intelligence to Cuba did not work out so well for Noriega, did it? So the US can invade its neighbours but Russia can't because the citizens want to be independent? All citizens want to be independent, but international relations are about more than this.

 

You just fully immersed yourself into keyboard warrior status. You don't even try to have an intelligent debate anymore. You've fully accepted that Putin is a warmonger.

[NowNow]

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You misunderstood, I meant AFTER Russia's nuclear weapons were removed from Ukraine many Ukranian politicians called for Ukraine to be armed with its own nuclear weapons.

 

Do you think that was a wise move if Russia is your neihbour? Arguably the Ukraine violated that agreement first by entertaining NATO membership.

 

You are just rattling off nonsense with no sources nor timelines. Posting as quickly as you can with no brain at all. It's showing....and I'm going.

Put together something intelligent and I'll take a look later. Right now, it's just pathetic ramblings.

[Cameroni]

23 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

What does respecting Ukraine's safety mean in real terms?  You tell me. So far we agree that he doesn't want Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia etc to become independent and that he annexed Crimea and wants to annex the Donbass. So about what are we arguing? you have agreed with everything that I have written. The difference is that you are blaming the 'west' for everything.

No. I don't think Putin has a problem with Belarus, Georgia and Ukraine being independent. He would be quite happy for them to be independent if they are pro-Russian. See how Belarus is safe.  All he wants is a Russian friendly neighbour, but alas, Ukraine has shown itself to be a bad neighbour indeed.

 

The West IS to blame for everything. After 1989 we had a golden opportunity to take the hand Russia extended. Russia allowed Germany to unify, helped US space exploration, implemented Western economic reforms. We could have integrated Russia at the table. Instead Western politicians opted to deceive and lie to Russia and to encircle it and threaten its territorial safety. How is this not the West's fault?

[Cameroni]

24 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It is quite noticeable Putin's sabre-rattling with nukes has disappeared over the last 6 - 12 months.

My hypothesis: Biden called Putin, and pointed out there would be no nuclear exchange with Russia. Instead, the USA had the surveillance and equipment capabilities to take out Putin in a surgical strike, with eyes on him 24/7. Maybe Biden even put proof on the table.

I assume Putin, like anyone else, wants to survive.

 

You forget that if Biden had done that Putin could have retaliated in kind. Russia has repeatedly sent agents to kill Westerners, from Markov to Skripal. Do you think they could not do the same? I doubt Biden would be so foolish.

[transam]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

You forget that if Biden had done that Putin could have retaliated in kind. Russia has repeatedly sent agents to kill Westerners, from Markov to Skripal. Do you think they could not do the same? I doubt Biden would be so foolish.

Not another Red member, surely not...............

[NowNow]

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

No. I don't think Putin has a problem with Belarus, Georgia and Ukraine being independent. He would be quite happy for them to be independent if they are pro-Russian. See how Belarus is safe.  All he wants is a Russian friendly neighbour, but alas, Ukraine has shown itself to be a bad neighbour indeed.

 

The West IS to blame for everything. After 1989 we had a golden opportunity to take the hand Russia extended. Russia allowed Germany to unify, helped US space exploration, implemented Western economic reforms. We could have integrated Russia at the table. Instead Western politicians opted to deceive and lie to Russia and to encircle it and threaten its territorial safety. How is this not the West's fault?

 

I don't see an answer to my question to you in this latest rant.

Independent, as long as they align with Russia...got it 😊

[Cameroni]

13 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

You just fully immersed yourself into keyboard warrior status. You don't even try to have an intelligent debate anymore. You've fully accepted that Putin is a warmonger.

 

All you can resort to is personal insults, but not coherent argument. This means I have won.

 

I of course do not accept that Putin is a "warmonger". I accept that just like the US invaded Panama when it violated US interests, Russia invaded Ukraine when Ukraine violated Russian interests.

 

The US can invade Panama but Russia can't invade Ukraine? How so?

[Cameroni]

9 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

I don't see an answer to my question to you in this latest rant.

Independent, as long as they align with Russia...got it 😊

 

The question is nonsensical in the current situation.

 

Ukraine has opted to repeatedly poke Russia in the eye with a stick.

 

Now it is paying the price that all smaller nations potentially pay for not considering the interests of their larger, more powerful neighbours.

 

Now there is no respecting Ukraine's safety anymore, because Ukraine has shown it is just as serious a problem for Russia as Putin had feared. Maybe more.

 

Ukraine can be independent, but if it is it has to act responsibly for its own people. If it chooses to keep poking Russia in the eye with a stick and not to consider Russian interests, then, sadly, it may not be independent for much longer.

Edited August 11 by Cameroni

[NowNow]

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

All you can resort to is personal insults, but not coherent argument. This means I have won.

 

I of course do not accept that Putin is a "warmonger". I accept that just like the US invaded Panama when it violated US interests, Russia invaded Ukraine when Ukraine violated Russian interests.

 

The US can invade Panama but Russia can't invade Ukraine? How so?

 

What were those interests when they annexed Crimea? Let's leave your whataboutery out of it. It's childish...like in a playground. Raise your level... "This means I have won" 😊 ...or it could mean that I think you a total idiot. You can choose.

 

[NowNow]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

The question is nonsensical in the current situation.

 

Ukraine has opted to repeatedly poke Russia in the eye with a stick.

 

Now it is paying the price that all smaller nations potentially pay for not considering the interests of their larger, more powerful neighbours.

 

Now there is no respecting Ukraine's safety anymore, because Ukraine has shown it is just as serious a problem for Russia as Putin had feared. Maybe more.

 

Keyboard warrior....

[NowNow]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

The question is nonsensical in the current situation.

 

Ukraine has opted to repeatedly poke Russia in the eye with a stick.

 

Now it is paying the price that all smaller nations potentially pay for not considering the interests of their larger, more powerful neighbours.

 

Now there is no respecting Ukraine's safety anymore, because Ukraine has shown it is just as serious a problem for Russia as Putin had feared. Maybe more.

 

So the "brothers", the "one people"...all just empty words.... The willingness to kill your brothers because they don't want to do what you want. Got it.

[Lacessit]

14 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You forget that if Biden had done that Putin could have retaliated in kind. Russia has repeatedly sent agents to kill Westerners, from Markov to Skripal. Do you think they could not do the same? I doubt Biden would be so foolish.

I am wrestling with the proposition Putin would be able to take out Biden from his grave.

[NowNow]

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The question is nonsensical in the current situation.

 

Ukraine has opted to repeatedly poke Russia in the eye with a stick.

 

Now it is paying the price that all smaller nations potentially pay for not considering the interests of their larger, more powerful neighbours.

 

Now there is no respecting Ukraine's safety anymore, because Ukraine has shown it is just as serious a problem for Russia as Putin had feared. Maybe more.

 

Ukraine can be independent, but if it is it has to act responsibly for its own people. If it chooses to keep poking Russia in the eye with a stick and not to consider Russian interests, then, sadly, it may not be independent for much longer.

 

 

I don't think anyone has failed to notice your warlike tone and that any cogent argument, replete with sources and timelines has all but disappeared from your rants.

[Danderman123]

58 minutes 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.

You will find that Ukrainians see this differently.

 

What exactly is the US telling your country to do?

[Cameroni]

36 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

No, it didn't imply that at all....again more 'filling in the gaps' by yourself.  It was explicitly stated that Ukraine would not join NATO. They didn't even apply until after Russia invaded.

 

 

Ukraine established ties to the alliance with a NATO–Ukraine Action Plan in November 2002.

 

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

 

Please do not misrepresent history, because I will immediately see that.

[Danderman123]

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The question is nonsensical in the current situation.

 

Ukraine has opted to repeatedly poke Russia in the eye with a stick.

 

Now it is paying the price that all smaller nations potentially pay for not considering the interests of their larger, more powerful neighbours.

 

Now there is no respecting Ukraine's safety anymore, because Ukraine has shown it is just as serious a problem for Russia as Putin had feared. Maybe more.

 

Ukraine can be independent, but if it is it has to act responsibly for its own people. If it chooses to keep poking Russia in the eye with a stick and not to consider Russian interests, then, sadly, it may not be independent for much longer.

Because Russia needs breathing room.....

[Cameroni]

 

Quote

I am wrestling with the proposition Putin would be able to take out Biden from his grave.

 

What makes you think Putin would not have sent a pre-emptive killing mission if Biden had threatened Putin with the same?

 

Or that his successors would not have done so in revenge?

Edited August 11 by Cameroni

[Danderman123]

14 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

 

The US can invade Panama but Russia can't invade Ukraine? How so?

It was wrong for the US to invade Panama.

[NowNow]

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Ukraine established ties to the alliance with a NATO–Ukraine Action Plan in November 2002.

 

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

 

Please do not misrepresent history, because I will immediately see that.

 

Perhaps you can copy the relevant passage here. I cannot see anything that correlates to your assertion. It seems that it is you who is attempting to misrepresent. You've posted a link but no relevant statement. Please copy and paste the relevant passage here.

[Cameroni]

13 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

What were those interests when they annexed Crimea?

 

 

This is rather obvious and has been stated here at least 10 times.

 

Ukraine established ties with NATO in 2002. In 2008 NATO made clear that eastward expansion of NATO proper was the plan. Crimea happened after that.

 

Russia had always made clear that for its own security it can not accept NATO expansion eastwards.

 

All this is public knowledge, and again has been stated here a dozen times.