21 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Tovarisch, there is no one in the world except a Kremlin stooge that would seriously consider that an Article-5 invoking "attack on a NATO member."  It was an attack on a Russian-owned an operated pipeline.

 

NATO has been expanding eastward and northward SOLELY because countries are afraid of Russia.  Period.  You don't seek protection when there's no threat.  And those Eastern European countries were only Russian colonies because they were forced to be.

 

 

The attack on Nordstream was an attack on a pipeline that runs through German territory. Nordstream AG was part-owend by German, French and Dutch companies where the sharholder was in part their respective states.

 

This is why German officials were outraged and said that this attack could trigger article 5 of NATO.

 

"Disgruntled German officials involved in the investigation declared the sabotage operation had put Berlin in a difficult position."

 

'An attack of this scale is a sufficient reason to trigger the collective defence clause of NATO,' one official told WSJ in alarming comments."

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13745985/Senior-Ukrainian-military-officers-came-idea-blowing-Nord-Stream-pipeline-night-heavy-boozing-ignored-Zelenskys-pleas-not-ahead-carried-plot-technically-qualifies-attack-NATO-bombshell-report-claims.html

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/15/ukrainian-team-blew-up-nord-stream-pipeline-claims-report

 

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-real-story-da24839c

 

So much for "nobody in the world except the Kremlin" would think article 5 could be triggered by the Ukrainian sabotage.

 

 

Again, at least you tried, ChicagoExpat. Well done. But failed again.

Edited August 16, 20241 yr by Cameroni

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Lol, if you think NATO membership is solely decided by votes you probably never heard of the fact that countries hold talks before crucial votes to ensure the votes go their way. The US provides the main military muscle and the bulk of financial funding for NATO, they have a vested interested what happens with NATO. By the time the vote happens the US would have long ensured it goes the way it wants.

 

Why do you think when Ukraine sabotaged the Nordstream pipeline, something which German officials protested could trigger article 5 of the NATO treaty, we never saw article 5 triggered? Because Germany has to fall in line with what the US wants in terms of foreign policy, even to the extreme of abandoning its own self interest. It's very sad to see a once proud nation like Germany humiliated by America in this way.

 

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-real-story-da24839c

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/15/ukrainian-team-blew-up-nord-stream-pipeline-claims-report

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13745985/Senior-Ukrainian-military-officers-came-idea-blowing-Nord-Stream-pipeline-night-heavy-boozing-ignored-Zelenskys-pleas-not-ahead-carried-plot-technically-qualifies-attack-NATO-bombshell-report-claims.html

 

And please tell us all how Turkey came around to support Finnish and Swedish NATO membership? By being  leaned on by the USA who promised Turkey F16 fighters and other perks, no?  Thank you for proving my point, BKK Brian

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/11/why-turkey-changed-its-stance-on-swedens-nato-membership-2

The U.S. likely has a dominant role in NATO, but thete are seldom disagreements with other members, I.e. in the case of Sweden, only Turkey disagreed with it, and it was only to get some benefits from it.

 

As to the German example, the answer is quite simple: they don't care any more about it as they have decided not to be reliant on Russian gas (another great achievement by Putin). The pipelines would have roasted in the sea without being used, anyway.

45 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 Of course, all those who disagree with you are Kremlin stooges lol 

You cannot fight the truth forever - it will all come to light eventually. 

No, all who are Kremlin stooges are Kremlin stooges.  Sorry that makes you uncomfortable, Bob!

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The attack on Nordstream was an attack on a pipeline that runs through German territory. Nordstream AG was part-owend by German, French and Dutch companies where the sharholder was in part their respective states.

 

This is why German officials were outraged and said that this attack could trigger article 5 of NATO.

 

"Disgruntled German officials involved in the investigation declared the sabotage operation had put Berlin in a difficult position."

 

'An attack of this scale is a sufficient reason to trigger the collective defence clause of NATO,' one official told WSJ in alarming comments."

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13745985/Senior-Ukrainian-military-officers-came-idea-blowing-Nord-Stream-pipeline-night-heavy-boozing-ignored-Zelenskys-pleas-not-ahead-carried-plot-technically-qualifies-attack-NATO-bombshell-report-claims.html

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/15/ukrainian-team-blew-up-nord-stream-pipeline-claims-report

 

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-real-story-da24839c

 

So much for "nobody in the world except the Kremlin" would think article 5 could be triggered by the Ukrainian sabotage.

 

 

Again, at least you tried, ChicagoExpat. Well done. But failed again.

Tovarisch, there is no one in the world except a Kremlin stooge that would seriously consider that an Article-5 invoking "attack on a NATO member."  It was an attack on a Russian-owned an operated pipeline.

 

NATO has been expanding eastward and northward SOLELY because countries are afraid of Russia.  Period.  You don't seek protection when there's no threat.  And those Eastern European countries were only Russian colonies because they were forced to be.

 

Keep trying, little man.  At the end of the day you're an apologist for a dictator who poisons the underwear of his opponents... and fails at that.

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Agreed. Probably the only supporter would be North Korea. Even Iran would blench.

When the only "friends" you have in the world are China, North Korea, and Iran, it's time to question your life choices.

45 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

the notion that Putin would attack Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Germany, Finland, Sweden etc is about as realistic as Thailand conquering Asia.

 

 

.....and yet....Ukraine?

29 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You made a claim, I disproved it. Your triggered again by your own dishonesty

 

You didn't "disprove" anything. In fact you proved my point for me. You claimed the Turkey veto against Finlnd and Sweden was evdidence the US had no undue influence. But remind me again, how did Turkey come around? The US promising to supply F16 fighters and other perks? So you proved my point, Brian no?

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/11/why-turkey-changed-its-stance-on-swedens-nato-membership-2

 

Your little truth bomb blew up in your face

24 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Tovarisch, there is no one in the world except a Kremlin stooge that would seriously consider that an Article-5 invoking "attack on a NATO member."  It was an attack on a Russian-owned an operated pipeline.

 

No, the Nordstream pipeline was owned byNordstream AG, where German, dutch and French companies were part-owners, with those companies being in turn part-owned by their respective states. The Nordstream pipeline went through German territory. German officials temselves have protested that Ukraine's sabotage of Nordstream was grounds to trigger article 5 of the NATO treaty.

 

"Disgruntled German officials involved in the investigation declared the sabotage operation had put Berlin in a difficult position.

 

'An attack of this scale is a sufficient reason to trigger the collective defence clause of NATO,' one official told WSJ in alarming comments.

 

'But our critical infrastructure was blown up by a country that we support with massive weapons shipments and billions in cash.'

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13745985/Senior-Ukrainian-military-officers-came-idea-blowing-Nord-Stream-pipeline-night-heavy-boozing-ignored-Zelenskys-pleas-not-ahead-carried-plot-technically-qualifies-attack-NATO-bombshell-report-claims.html

 

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-real-story-da24839c

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/15/ukrainian-team-blew-up-nord-stream-pipeline-claims-report

 

Not how Nordstream was described by the Germans as "critical infrastructure", so even article 4 could have been invoked.

 

Germany obviously did not due American interest in supporting Ukraine, despite this sabotage.

 

 

Edited August 16, 20241 yr by Cameroni

20 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

.....and yet....Ukraine?

 

We know the reason for Ukraine, we both agree on it.

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You didn't "disprove" anything. In fact you proved my point for me. You claimed the Turkey veto against Finlnd and Sweden was evdidence the US had no undue influence. But remind me again, how did Turkey come around? The US promising to supply F16 fighters and other perks? So you proved my point, Brian no?

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/11/why-turkey-changed-its-stance-on-swedens-nato-membership-2

 

Your little truth bomb blew up in your face

Let's recap, your leader invaded Ukraine to weed out a few Nazi's, so tell me.....

 

1. Did he find them..?

2. Why kill thousands of Ukrainian and Russian civilians to find a few Nazi's..?

3. Was your leader telling lies about his invasion motive..?

4. Why do you support a Hitler type murderer..?

 

2 minutes ago, transam said:

Let's recap, your leader invaded Ukraine to weed out a few Nazi's, so tell me.....

 

1. Did he find them..?

2. Why kill thousands of Ukrainian and Russian civilians to find a few Nazi's..?

3. Was your leader telling lies about his invasion motive..?

4. Why do you support a Hitler type murderer..?

 

Not to mention all the non-orphaned children he stole to be taken to Russia to be brainwashed to grow up to fight against their own country. 

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, the Nordstream pipeline was owned byNordstream AG, where German, dutch and French companies were part-owners, with those companies being in turn part-owned by their respective states. The Nordstream pipeline went through German territory. German officials temselves have protested that Ukraine's sabotage of Nordstream was grounds to trigger article 5 of the NATO treaty.

 

"Disgruntled German officials involved in the investigation declared the sabotage operation had put Berlin in a difficult position.

 

'An attack of this scale is a sufficient reason to trigger the collective defence clause of NATO,' one official told WSJ in alarming comments.

 

'But our critical infrastructure was blown up by a country that we support with massive weapons shipments and billions in cash.'

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13745985/Senior-Ukrainian-military-officers-came-idea-blowing-Nord-Stream-pipeline-night-heavy-boozing-ignored-Zelenskys-pleas-not-ahead-carried-plot-technically-qualifies-attack-NATO-bombshell-report-claims.html

 

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-real-story-da24839c

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/15/ukrainian-team-blew-up-nord-stream-pipeline-claims-report

 

Not how Nordstream was described by the Germans as "critical infrastructure", so even article 4 could have been invoked.

 

Germany obviously did not due American interest in supporting Ukraine, despite this sabotage.

 

 

Yes, for the THIRD time you have pasted in the exact same thing with almost no new information.  Continuing to repeat an anonymous angry German doesn't mean that anyone is going to invoke Article 5.

 

And I LITERALLY wrote the following several hours ago, in a response to one of your Kremlin shilling posts:  It's a pipeline owned primarily by a hostile power with investment from several Western European companies willing to do business with today's version of late 1930s Germany.

 

You've now taken to repeating what I wrote?!?!  Take a break, Cam.  The moral strain of shilling for a country that still has concentration camps, which is supported by the two other countries left in the world with concentration camps, is taking its toll on your mental health.  And your soul.

7 minutes ago, transam said:

Let's recap, your leader invaded Ukraine to weed out a few Nazi's, so tell me.....

 

1. Did he find them..?

2. Why kill thousands of Ukrainian and Russian civilians to find a few Nazi's..?

3. Was your leader telling lies about his invasion motive..?

4. Why do you support a Hitler type murderer..?

 

And the most effective part of Russia's "Nazi hunt," Wagner, was led by a guy covered in... SS tattoos.

 

You really couldn't make this stuff up.

 

This is what Cameron, Bob, and Thai Beach support.

19 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You didn't "disprove" anything. In fact you proved my point for me. You claimed the Turkey veto against Finlnd and Sweden was evdidence the US had no undue influence. But remind me again, how did Turkey come around? The US promising to supply F16 fighters and other perks? So you proved my point, Brian no?

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/11/why-turkey-changed-its-stance-on-swedens-nato-membership-2

 

Your little truth bomb blew up in your face

 

My dear @Camoroni

For all of your crying and whining here, that it's all the fault of the West, Russia chose the military option. Hoping to intimidate the West into taking no action. That tactic failed. They chose the battlefield, so the battlefield it is. No point in crying, whining and trying to blame others. It's weak, like a girl. Are you a girl?

1 hour ago, candide said:

The real problem of Russia is its own failure (thanks to Putin's incompetence, to a large extent).

No country is attracted by Russia, because it is a failed model, like the Soviet Union was (on top of having a long record of being an imperialist country/people).

Putin has failed to develop his country and the well-being of its citizen. No people, unless forced by an autocrat, wants to be allied with dominated by Russia. It has no soft power.

 

Well, Russia suffered the communist delusion and also years of WWII which it had to fight almost singlehandedly, losing 20 million people in the process. So those were not great foundations. However, anyone who thinks Russia has no soft-power just has to read the countless books on how Russia made the 20th century, from ballet to modern art to film, medicine, technology, Russia's cultural significance is tremendous. I remember some of my smartest Oxford friends being very attracted to learn Russian.

 

And which country has the soft power of the United States? Germay, Britain and France don't. China hardly does. The US is alone in this regard.

 

It is completely false though to say that Putin has not developed his country. Russia's economy currently is enjoying boom times.

 

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/08/11/vladimir-putin-spends-big-and-sends-russias-economy-soaring

 

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 20241 yr by Cameroni

28 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

My dear @Camoroni

For all of your crying and whining here, that it's all the fault of the West, Russia chose the military option. Hoping to intimidate the West into taking no action. That tactic failed. They chose the battlefield, so the battlefield it is. No point in crying, whining and trying to blame others. It's weak, like a girl. Are you a girl?

 

My dear Nownow, Russia did not choose the military option. Russia chose to neogtiate with America. Sadly Americans spoke with forked tongue. They lied and deceived Russia regarding the true intentions of NATO.  For decades Russia had drawn a line in the sand and made clear that NATO eastwards expansion was unacceptable due to security concerns. For decades the West ignored Russia and lied to her.

 

Faced with the real possibility of nuclear armed Ukraine as a member of NATO on its very borders Russia had to face reality. It was either fight for security or be encircled by NATO who as policy puts US nuclear weapons in its member states. 

 

Russia did not choose this of course. Do you think Russia wants war and to see the cream of its youth perish yet again? Its resources squandered? Why would Russia do this, unless it had no other option?

39 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

 

 

  It's a pipeline owned primarily by a hostile power with investment from several Western European companies willing to do business with today's version of late 1930s Germany.

 

 

To equate Russia today with Nazi Germay today is childish and laughable. 

 

And of course Nordstream AG was only 51% ownd by Russia, the rest was owned by Germany, Netherlands and France.

 

Nordstream went through German territory and was considerd "critical infrastructure". By destroying it the Ukrainians could have triggered Article 5 of NATO. Or article 4. The Germans themselves considered it, but as always, had to follow American directions. Much like Britain, France, Austrlia etc. Russia does not want to be lke this. Russia is a proud and powerful country, and will fight to remain autonomous. 

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

My dear Nownow, Russia did not choose the military option. Russia chose to neogtiate with America. Sadly Americans spoke with forked tongue. They lied and deceived Russia regarding the true intentions of NATO.  For decades Russia had drawn a line in the sand and made clear that NATO eastwards expansion was unacceptable due to security concerns. For decades the West ignored Russia and lied to her.

 

Faced with the real possibility of nuclear armed Ukraine as a member of NATO on its very borders Russia had to face reality. It was either fight for security or be encircled by NATO who as policy puts US nuclear weapons in its member states. 

 

Russia did not choose this of course. Do you think Russia wants war and to see the cream of its youth perish yet again? Its resources squandered? Why would Russia do this, unless it had no other option?

Too nauseating for words. Crimea a river for the barbaric choices Putin was made to make (which of course he wasn't). 

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

My dear Nownow, Russia did not choose the military option. Russia chose to neogtiate with America. Sadly Americans spoke with forked tongue. They lied and deceived Russia regarding the true intentions of NATO.  For decades Russia had drawn a line in the sand and made clear that NATO eastwards expansion was unacceptable due to security concerns. For decades the West ignored Russia and lied to her.

 

Faced with the real possibility of nuclear armed Ukraine as a member of NATO on its very borders Russia had to face reality. It was either fight for security or be encircled by NATO who as policy puts US nuclear weapons in its member states. 

 

Russia did not choose this of course. Do you think Russia wants war and to see the cream of its youth perish yet again? Its resources squandered? Why would Russia do this, unless it had no other option?

 

You are so caught up in your spin, that the truth is alien to you.

Does Special Military Operation mean anything to you? That's a military option. Not he said, she said, but incontrovertible fact. 

They chose that option. Lavrov stated that if they want it on the battlefield, then on the battlefield it will be. In other words, do what we want or we can fight for it. Don't be a cry-baby now, trying to blame everyone else.

They targeted civilian infrastructure, not caring as to how the Ukrainian people would survive. Now they are tasting their own medicine. That's how it goes when you start a fight. You can end up with a bloody nose. Pathetic when bullies cry when receiving a taste of their own medicine. Suck it up, boy/girl/whatever.

1 hour ago, transam said:

Let's recap, your leader invaded Ukraine to weed out a few Nazi's, so tell me.....

 

1. Did he find them..?

2. Why kill thousands of Ukrainian and Russian civilians to find a few Nazi's..?

3. Was your leader telling lies about his invasion motive..?

4. Why do you support a Hitler type murderer..?

 

 

The Nazi jibe against Ukrainians always puzzled me. Because Russians really believed this. But you have to look at history, Ukrainians collaborated with Hitler, there were Ukrainian diviisions fighting for Hitler. So this notion of Ukrainians as fascists must have entered the Russian Psyche. However, it's not just history. 

 

the 1994–2014 period  a radical right-wing party elected to the parliament as an independent organization within the proportional part of the voting: Svoboda in 2012.

 

According to estimates, in 2008 Ukraine had a maximum of 2,000 organized skinheads. Then there's the radical right wing Ukrainian organization Patriot of Ukraine. There are three other extreme right wing organizations in Ukraine, Svoboda, National Corps and Right Sector. 

 

But by far the most dangerous goups are the right wing paramilitary groups such as the Azov Battalion. Some members are openly white supremacists. Just as in the Social-National Assembly of Ukraine.

 

The list of Ukrainian Nazi organizations would include:

 

Social-National Party of Ukraine (1991–2004)

Ukrainian National Assembly (1990–present)

Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists (1992–present)

Svoboda (political party) (2004–present)

Social-National Assembly (2008–2015)

Ukrainian National Union (2009–present)

Right Sector (2013–present)

National Corps (2016–present)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics_in_Ukraine

 

But I would agree that this Nazi contingent is used as a pretext by Russia to justify the invasion. I do not see Ukraine as a particularly "Nazi" country. So this pretext was not fully truhful, yes.

 

I do not support Putin or Russia. I support the west. However, my support is qualified by the truth. And I can understand why Russia got to the point of invading Ukraine, and our own Western politicians were to blame for this. Telling the truth here is supporting the West because we should not suffer such incompetence again. The war in UKraine is not good for the West, and costing us billions.

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 20241 yr by Cameroni

1 hour ago, ChicagoExpat said:

No, all who are Kremlin stooges are Kremlin stooges.  Sorry that makes you uncomfortable, Bob!

 No, I love it - if we had no debate and the same opinions, this board would not be much fun would it?

1 hour ago, ChicagoExpat said:

When the only "friends" you have in the world are China, North Korea, and Iran, it's time to question your life choices.

 Don't like India?  what about:   Algeria, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Laos, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Sudan, Uganda, Brazil, Honduras, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam? Cuba?

1 hour ago, NowNow said:

 

My dear @Camoroni

For all of your crying and whining here, that it's all the fault of the West, Russia chose the military option. Hoping to intimidate the West into taking no action. That tactic failed. They chose the battlefield, so the battlefield it is. No point in crying, whining and trying to blame others. It's weak, like a girl. Are you a girl?

 Yes, the battlefield with Ukraine taking a considerable beating - won't be long now. How about a 'Hail Mary' into Kursk?  1500 a day are dying for your pathetic MSM regurgitation. 

1 hour ago, candide said:

The U.S. likely has a dominant role in NATO, but thete are seldom disagreements with other members, I.e. in the case of Sweden, only Turkey disagreed with it, and it was only to get some benefits from it.

 

As to the German example, the answer is quite simple: they don't care any more about it as they have decided not to be reliant on Russian gas (another great achievement by Putin). The pipelines would have roasted in the sea without being used, anyway.

 

You are quite wrong, the Germans care very much about Nordstream. Only 2 days ago Gemany served Poand with an arrest warrant for a Ukrainian national. A suprising way not to care about it, to launch a full scale investigation and issue an arrest warrant in Poland, don't you think?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnvyz1472rpo

 

Nordstream was already finished. Just the registration process was put on ice. Hungary et al still get gas from Russia. Following elections and the end of the Ukraine war it would be conceivable that Germany could revive the Nordstream project. The pipeline is aleady built.

 

If the pipeline was not important, why did Ukraine go to all the trouble to build bombs, dive into the sea and destroy the pipes?

 

Edited August 16, 20241 yr by Cameroni

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, Russia suffered the communist delusion and also years of WWII which it had to fight almost singlehandedly, losing 20 million people in the process. So those were not great foundations. However, anyone who thinks Russia has no soft-power just has to read the countless books on how Russia made the 20th century, from ballet to modern art to film, medicine, technology, Russia's cultural significance is tremendous. I remember some of my smartest Oxford friends being very attracted to learn Russian.

 

And which country has the soft power of the United States? Germay, Britain and France don't. China hardly does. The US is alone in this regard.

 

It is completely false though to say that Putin has not developed his country. Russia's economy currently is enjoying boom times.

 

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/08/11/vladimir-putin-spends-big-and-sends-russias-economy-soaring

 

 

 

 

I am not claiming Russia is worthless. It has interesting art and cultural assets, as you mentioned, and also a good education system and competent human resources (at least in S&T).  Taking also in account its natural resources, Russia should be like California.

 

It's great potential has been spoilt by incompetent leaders like Putin.

It has no soft power in the sense that no one wants to adopt, or be dependent from its failing model.

 

Russia is a failed economy. Its GDP is around the size of Italy's GDP, and it is mainly relying on revenues from natural resources. More like a developing country. Its GDP has stagnated between 2012 and 2022. 10 years without any growth! As you know, the current GDP growth is artificial, fueled by military expenses, while the "civil"economy is collapsing. Not to mention the strong population decrease, even before the invasion of Ukraine.

 

Russia could have become a great country, if it had not be governed by corrupt and incompetent people, starting with Putin.

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The Nazi jibe against Ukrainians always puzzled me. Because Russians really believed this. But you have to look at history, Ukrainians collaborated with Hitler, there were Ukrainian diviisions fighting for Hitler. So this notion of Ukrainians as fascists must have entered the Russian Psyche. However, it's not just history. 

 

the 1994–2014 period  a radical right-wing party elected to the parliament as an independent organization within the proportional part of the voting: Svoboda in 2012.

 

According to estimates, in 2008 Ukraine had a maximum of 2,000 organized skinheads. Then there's the radical right wing Ukrainian organization Patriot of Ukraine. There are three other extreme right wing organizations in Ukraine, Svoboda, National Corps and Right Sector. 

 

But by far the most dangerous goups are the right wing paramilitary groups such as the Azov Battalion. Some members are openly white supremacists. Just as in the Social-National Assembly of Ukraine.

 

The list of Ukrainian Nazi organizations would include:

 

Social-National Party of Ukraine (1991–2004)

Ukrainian National Assembly (1990–present)

Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists (1992–present)

Svoboda (political party) (2004–present)

Social-National Assembly (2008–2015)

Ukrainian National Union (2009–present)

Right Sector (2013–present)

National Corps (2016–present)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics_in_Ukraine

 

But I would agree that this Nazi contingent is used as a pretext by Russia to justify the invasion. I do not see Ukraine as a particularly "Nazi" country. So this pretext was not fully truhful, yes.

 

I do not support Putin or Russia. I support the west. However, my support is qualified by the truth. And I can understand why Russia got to the point of invading Ukraine, and our own Western politicians were to blame for this. Telling the truht here is supporting the West because we should not suffer such incompetence again. The war in UKraine is not good for the West, and costing us billions.

 

 

 

 I, too, don't like the "Nazi" theme, but that aside Ukraine is a totally corrupt banana republic. I have been there many times and seen it first-hand - most on here have seen it on CNN and think it's just east of Spain.

25 minutes ago, NowNow said:

 

You are so caught up in your spin, that the truth is alien to you.

Does Special Military Operation mean anything to you? That's a military option. Not he said, she said, but incontrovertible fact. 

They chose that option. Lavrov stated that if they want it on the battlefield, then on the battlefield it will be. In other words, do what we want or we can fight for it. Don't be a cry-baby now, trying to blame everyone else.

They targeted civilian infrastructure, not caring as to how the Ukrainian people would survive. Now they are tasting their own medicine. That's how it goes when you start a fight. You can end up with a bloody nose. Pathetic when bullies cry when receiving a taste of their own medicine. Suck it up, boy/girl/whatever.

 

Very childish. Of course Russia is now taking the military option, but only after decades of trying to negotiate with the West. This failed, as Russia was only given lies and false promises. Then it became clear that soon Russia may be faced with a pro-American Ukraine armed with nuclear weapons pointed at Russia and a member of NATO. So yes, if diplomacy is not possible, what other option did Russia have to ensure its security?

 

As for your claim that Russia deliberately targeted civilians, please post a link to the Russian directive or order that directs the Russian military to target UKrainian civilians?

 

Oh you can't?

 

Okay.

Edited August 16, 20241 yr by Cameroni

5 minutes ago, candide said:

I am not claiming Russia is worthless. It has interesting art and cultural assets, as you mentioned, and also a good education system and competent human resources (at least in S&T).  Taking also in account its natural resources, Russia should be like California.

 

It's great potential has been spoilt by incompetent leaders like Putin.

It has no soft power in the sense that no one wants to adopt, or be dependent from its failing model.

 

Russia is a failed economy. Its GDP is around the size of Italy's GDP, and it is mainly relying on revenues from natural resources. More like a developing country. Its GDP has stagnated between 2012 and 2022. 10 years without any growth! As you know, the current GDP growth is artificial, fueled by military expenses, while the "civil"economy is collapsing. Not to mention the strong population decrease, even before the invasion of Ukraine.

 

Russia could have become a great country, if it had not be governed by corrupt and incompetent people, starting with Putin.

 

Please detail your personal experience of Russia for us. "Failed economy" are you NUTZ?  it is thriving, buzzing and there are tons of videos from foreigners who are living there NOW on YouTube. You are simply mistaken or lying - not sure which.

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Very childish. Of course Russia is now taking the military option, but only after decades of trying to negotiate with the West. This failed, as Russia was only given lies and false promises. Then it became clear that soon Russia may be faced with a pro-American Ukraine armed with nuclear weapons pointed at Russia and a member of NATO. So yes, if diplomacy is not possible, what other option did Russia have to ensure its security?

 

As for your claim that Russia deliberately targeted civilians, please post a link to the Russian directive or order that directs the Russian military to target UKrainian civilians?

 

Oh you can't?

 

Okay.

How would the USA like Russian nukes in Mexico or Hawaii?  or........................ CUBA

38 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

My dear Nownow, Russia did not choose the military option. Russia chose to neogtiate with America. Sadly Americans spoke with forked tongue. They lied and deceived Russia regarding the true intentions of NATO.  For decades Russia had drawn a line in the sand and made clear that NATO eastwards expansion was unacceptable due to security concerns. For decades the West ignored Russia and lied to her.

 

Faced with the real possibility of nuclear armed Ukraine as a member of NATO on its very borders Russia had to face reality. It was either fight for security or be encircled by NATO who as policy puts US nuclear weapons in its member states. 

 

Russia did not choose this of course. Do you think Russia wants war and to see the cream of its youth perish yet again? Its resources squandered? Why would Russia do this, unless it had no other option?

The same B.S. again. There is no policy to put nuclear weapons in every NATwo country. Nuclear weapons have not been moved closer to Russia since the end of the Cold War. They remained where they were initially located. In particular, no nuclear weapon has ever been moved to new NATO members.

 

This is a fake argument.