Zelensky is on his way to DC.
JD VVanker better start writing ✍️ his thank you speech!

On 6/2/2025 at 9:18 AM, Cameroni said:

On 24 June 2010 the Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers approved an action plan to implement an annual national program of cooperation with NATO that year.[82] This included:[82]

• Involvement of Ukrainian aviation and transport material in the transportation of cargo and personnel of the armed forces of NATO's member states and partners participating in NATO-led peacekeeping missions and operations;
• The continuation of Ukraine's participation in a peacekeeping operation in Kosovo;
• Possible reinforcing of Ukraine's peacekeeping contingents in Afghanistan and Iraq;
• Ukraine's participation in a number of international events organized by NATO;
• Training of Ukrainian troops in the structures of NATO members.

Ukraine and NATO continued to hold joint seminars and joint tactical and strategical exercises and operations during the Yanukovych Presidency.

 

And you think that any of that should have been viewed in Moscow as a threat to Russia's security and a justification for an invasion of a neighbouring sovereign nation?

 

On 6/2/2025 at 9:18 AM, Cameroni said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations

 

So whilst Ukraine was briefly non-aligned, this came to a swift end when Yanukovych was ousted in the CIA formented Maidan uprising.

 

Ukraine was non-aligned for 4 years from 2010 up until Russia's annexation of Crimea.

 

The coup was not CIA 'formented'. The Maiden uprising was a direct result of Yanukovych refusing to sign the EU - Ukraine Association Agreement, which had been passed by the Ukrainian parliament and had the support of > 80% of the Ukrainian electorate. Instead, negating the platform to forge closer ties with the EU on which he was elected, Yanukovych - under pressure from Moscow - did a complete volte face and unilaterally decided to align Ukraine with Russia

 

On 6/2/2025 at 9:18 AM, Cameroni said:

And even during this "non-alignment" Ukraine was co-operating closely with and aiding NATO.

 

Over and over what you outlined previously? Can you supply details please?

 

On 6/2/2025 at 9:18 AM, Cameroni said:

But all that is irrelevant, Ukraine had shown it was receptive to switching sides to Europe and NATO. NATO had shown that it had lied, and deceived Russia that it would not expand eastwards. When NATO brazenly announced in Bucharest that Ukraine would become a NATO member, it was only THEN that Russia understood it was lied to and the danger of Ukraine becoming more friendly with the West than Russia was very real. Only THEN did Russia resolved to take military action, when years and years of making clear that Ukraine was a red line, when years of diplomatic efforts were shown to be fruitless.

 

And the vast majority of that is irrelevant and much is incorrect. Wrt Europe, Ukraine had long been looking to develop closer ties with the EU. A signing of the Association Agreement would have, no doubt, lead to a formal application to join the bloc if the annexation of Crimea had not occurred.

 

The fact remains that Ukraine withdrew its' application for NATO membership in 2010, so the 'red line' which you use to justify Russia's actions not only hadn't been crossed but did not exist! 

 

The truth of the matter is that Putin is a greater Russia zealot: He does not believe in Ukraine's right to exist as an independent nation. Russia was also not prepared to allow Ukraine to align economically with the West i.e. the EU, as doing so would have further weakened an already fragile Russian economy.

 

On 6/2/2025 at 9:18 AM, Cameroni said:

The only language the West understands, sadly is force.

 

So that justified the invasion of Ukraine? Would that also provide a justification for invading the Baltic states or reclaiming the land which Stalin 'gifted' to Poland?

 

Sadly, it appears that we have returned to the post-WW2 situation where Russia is led by an expansionist despot. 

On 6/2/2025 at 9:17 AM, impulse said:

 

Don't you mean after the coup?  

 

 

 

No, the coup had nothing to do with Ukraine - EU relations whereas the Russian annexation of Crimea had a huge bearing on them.

 

However, I will correct myself. Ukraine withdrew its' application for NATO membership in 2010 and was non-aligned until December 2014 when the Ukrainian parliament voted to end its' neutrality. Imo hardly surprising given that her neighbour had annexed its' terrority and was actively supporting separatist rebels. Ukraine did not actually formally re-apply for NATO membership until May 2022 following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

24 minutes ago, RayC said:

The truth of the matter is that Putin is a greater Russia zealot: He does not believe in Ukraine's right to exist as an independent nation.

 

That's complete nonsense. Putin has repeatedly said the exact opposite, affirmed Ukraine's right to exist, denied the USSR can be revived or should be revived, all that is cheap NATO propaganda

 

24 minutes ago, RayC said:

Would that also provide a justification for invading the Baltic states or reclaiming the land which Stalin 'gifted' to Poland?

 

Russia has no intention to invade the Baltics or Poland, again just more scaremongering nonsense.

 

24 minutes ago, RayC said:

The fact remains that Ukraine withdrew its' application for NATO membership in 2010, so the 'red line' which you use to justify Russia's actions not only hadn't been crossed but did not exist! 

 

No, as was made clear , despite claims of "non-alignment" Ukraine was very deeply co-operating with NATO in the many ways listed  above.

 

24 minutes ago, RayC said:

The coup was not CIA 'formented'.

 

An explosive New York Times exposé by Adam Entous and Michael Schwirtz sheds light on major developments preceding the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. According to the report, the Ukrainian government entered into a wide-ranging partnership with the CIA against Russia. This cooperation, which involved the establishment of as many as 12 secret CIA “forward operating bases” along Ukraine’s border with Russia, began not with Russia’s 2022 invasion, but just over 10 years ago.

 

Within days of the February 2014 Euromaidan Revolution that culminated with the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych and ushered in a firmly pro-Western government, the newly appointed head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, reportedly proposed a “three-way partnership” with the CIA and MI6, the UK’s foreign intelligence service. Ukrainian security officials gradually proved their value to the U.S. by feeding the CIA intelligence on Russia, including “secret documents about the Russian Navy,” leading to the establishment of CIA bases in Ukraine to coordinate activities against Russia and various training programs for Ukrainian commandos and other elite units.

 

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/cia-ukraine-russia/

24 minutes ago, RayC said:

And you think that any of that should have been viewed in Moscow as a threat to Russia's security and a justification for an invasion of a neighbouring sovereign nation?

 

 

I think the key issue is that Russia, for many years prior to 2008 made it clear that Ukraine joining NATO was as red line that could not be crossed. At the Bucharest announcement Putin voiced his clear opposition. He was ignored. When Ukraine persisted in co-opearting with NATO, whilst telling Russia it was non-aligned, obviously Russia could see what Ukraine was really doing. This was  a grave concern because Ukraine is the key to the great European plains, which are impossible to defend if Ukraine joins NATO. So yes, it was legitimate on every level.

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

"On 14 June 2024 Russian President Putin claimed that "Russian troops were near Kyiv in March 2022", but "There was no political decision to storm the three-million-strong city; it was a coercive operation to establish peace.""

 

From your own link, lol.

 

In other words, there was never an intention to occupy Kiev, much less in 3 days, it was just mean to apply pressure to the Ukrainians because at the time Putin was still negotiating for peace with the Ukrainians. Of course after Johnson visited the peace negotiations fell apart.

 

I feel like you are trying to rewrite history.   

2 hours ago, johng said:

Notice how the narrative that we are fighting to save democracy  in Ukrain is gone ?  now it's all about defeating Russia, which it was all along, a NATO proxy war to bring anout the collapse of Russia.

I though Putin was trying to "denazify" Ukraine?  

9 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

 

I think the key issue is that Russia, for many years prior to 2008 made it clear that Ukraine joining NATO was as red line that could not be crossed. At the Bucharest announcement Putin voiced his clear opposition. He was ignored. When Ukraine persisted in co-opearting with NATO, whilst telling Russia it was non-aligned, obviously Russia could see what Ukraine was really doing. This was  a grave concern because Ukraine is the key to the great European plains, which are impossible to defend if Ukraine joins NATO. So yes, it was legitimate on every level.

 

Who the <deleted> gave Putin the right to decide who a sovereign nation can ally with?

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

"On 14 June 2024 Russian President Putin claimed that "Russian troops were near Kyiv in March 2022", but "There was no political decision to storm the three-million-strong city; it was a coercive operation to establish peace.""

 

From your own link, lol.

 

In other words, there was never an intention to occupy Kiev, much less in 3 days, it was just mean to apply pressure to the Ukrainians because at the time Putin was still negotiating for peace with the Ukrainians. Of course after Johnson visited the peace negotiations fell apart.

That's on Wiki, which Russia actively tries to modify to push their propaganda.   

How is the Kerch Bridge today? 

5 minutes ago, nick supreme said:

Who the <deleted> gave Putin the right to decide who a sovereign nation can ally with?

 

Who gave the US the right to invade Panama after it displeased  the US?

 

Reality.

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Who gave the US the right to invade Panama after it displeased  the US?

 

Reality.

 

I see you are avoiding the question.  Let me ask you again.

 

Who the <deleted> gave Putin the right to decide who a sovereign nation can ally with?

4 minutes ago, nick supreme said:

 

I see you are avoiding the question.  Let me ask you again.

 

Who the <deleted> gave Putin the right to decide who a sovereign nation can ally with?

 

Asked and answered.

 

Next!

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

That's complete nonsense. Putin has repeatedly said the exact opposite, affirmed Ukraine's right to exist, denied the USSR can be revived or should be revived, all that is cheap NATO propaganda

 

Really? Straight from the horse's mouth. Sounds a lot like 'A Greater Russia' to me:

 

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

 

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Russia has no intention to invade the Baltics or Poland, again just more scaremongering nonsense.

 

Not in the slightest. You were the one who stated that the West only understands force. Given that, it would only be rational for countries  neighbouring Russia to look at them with trepidation.

 

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, as was made clear , despite claims of "non-alignment" Ukraine was very deeply co-operating with NATO in the many ways listed  above.

 

You cannot disagree just because the FACTS do not fit your narrative. Actually you can and have done so here. Nothing you posted remotely justified Russia's annexation of Crimea. "Very deeply co-operating" = agreeing to potentially take part in NATO peacekeeping activities in Afghanistan and Kosovo. Yes, a real threat to Russia's security.

 

The FACT remains that Ukraine was 1) not seeking NATO membership and 2) was non-aligned at the time of Russia's annexation of Ukraine.

 

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

An explosive New York Times exposé by Adam Entous and Michael Schwirtz sheds light on major developments preceding the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. According to the report, the Ukrainian government entered into a wide-ranging partnership with the CIA against Russia. This cooperation, which involved the establishment of as many as 12 secret CIA “forward operating bases” along Ukraine’s border with Russia, began not with Russia’s 2022 invasion, but just over 10 years ago.

 

Within days of the February 2014 Euromaidan Revolution that culminated with the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych and ushered in a firmly pro-Western government, the newly appointed head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, reportedly proposed a “three-way partnership” with the CIA and MI6, the UK’s foreign intelligence service. Ukrainian security officials gradually proved their value to the U.S. by feeding the CIA intelligence on Russia, including “secret documents about the Russian Navy,” leading to the establishment of CIA bases in Ukraine to coordinate activities against Russia and various training programs for Ukrainian commandos and other elite units.

 

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/cia-ukraine-russia/

 

You mean this explosive expose?

 

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

 

Again nothing in this article - assuming that it is all true - justifies annexing another sovereign country's territory.

 

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I think the key issue is that Russia, for many years prior to 2008 made it clear that Ukraine joining NATO was as red line that could not be crossed. At the Bucharest announcement Putin voiced his clear opposition. He was ignored. When Ukraine persisted in co-opearting with NATO, whilst telling Russia it was non-aligned, obviously Russia could see what Ukraine was really doing. This was  a grave concern because Ukraine is the key to the great European plains, which are impossible to defend if Ukraine joins NATO. So yes, it was legitimate on every level.

 

What you are saying amounts to, Ukraine should have ceased all contact with NATO even concerning such activities as peacekeeping in countries such as Kosovo. And on the economic front? Should  Ukraine have withdrawn from the Association Agreement with the EU?

 

For an independent country, it doesn't seem like it would have had much independence.

https://en.defence-ua.com/analysis/why_ukrainian_fpv_drones_struck_tu_95ms_and_tu_22m3_in_specific_spots_and_why_precision_was_crucial-14724.html
 

good appraisal,of attack

 

 

It would not surprise me at this point if Putin reacts by delivering a small nuclear strike on West Ukraine, perhaps Lviv. What will Trump's reaction be to that? Puts him in a bit of a Catch-22. If he he were too hit back at Russia with the same those Russian nuclear subs permanently laying off the Coast of USA would lay waste to a lot of Yank cities

1 hour ago, pegman said:

 

 

It would not surprise me at this point if Putin reacts by delivering a small nuclear strike on West Ukraine, perhaps Lviv. What will Trump's reaction be to that? Puts him in a bit of a Catch-22. If he he were too hit back at Russia with the same those Russian nuclear subs permanently laying off the Coast of USA would lay waste to a lot of Yank cities

That would mean the end of Russia. Even friendlies like India and China would then cut Russia off. 

 

On 6/2/2025 at 3:36 PM, Yagoda said:

A guy thats tired of paying for constant european brawls over s**thole villages.

 

We should have taken care of this stuff in 1945. Russians have been a nuisance since the Tatars split

 

"We should have destroyed Russia in 1945!  But since we didn't I support them now."  The clown show continues.

1 minute ago, ChicagoExpat said:

But since we didn't I support them now

Show me anything where I have ever "supported" Russia, or are you lying again?

3 hours ago, pegman said:

It would not surprise me at this point if Putin reacts by delivering a small nuclear strike on West Ukraine, perhaps Lviv. What will Trump's reaction be to that? Puts him in a bit of a Catch-22. If he he were too hit back at Russia with the same those Russian nuclear subs permanently laying off the Coast of USA would lay waste to a lot of Yank cities

Our daily reminder that the ONLY people who talk about "NuKeS!  WW3!  EsCaLaTION!"  are Kremlin shills and the Western simps who service them.

 

"Let us do what we want or you're at fault for everything" isn't a very persuasive strategy to people not accustomed to living under the heel of a dictator's jackboot.

14 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

"On 14 June 2024 Russian President Putin claimed that "Russian troops were near Kyiv in March 2022", but "There was no political decision to storm the three-million-strong city; it was a coercive operation to establish peace.""

 

From your own link, lol.

 

In other words, there was never an intention to occupy Kiev, much less in 3 days, it was just mean to apply pressure to the Ukrainians because at the time Putin was still negotiating for peace with the Ukrainians. Of course after Johnson visited the peace negotiations fell apart.

It falls on deaf ears. The propaganda machine has told them Putins evil, nothing will change their minds.

13 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Our daily reminder that the ONLY people who talk about "NuKeS!  WW3!  EsCaLaTION!"  are Kremlin shills and the Western simps who service them.

 

"Let us do what we want or you're at fault for everything" isn't a very persuasive strategy to people not accustomed to living under the heel of dictator's jackboot.

Would you sacrifice American citizens to support Ukraine?

If so, why arent you out there?

 

2 hours ago, kwonitoy said:

Yeah, and that's the western propaganda media saying that, never coming from Russia

3 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

The propaganda machine has told them Putins evil, nothing will change their minds.

Dont need a machine to establish that, he is a scumbag of the highest order. Thats not the point in this European fiasco.

11 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Show me anything where I have ever "supported" Russia, or are you lying again?

"I don't support Russia, but I hate Ukraine, and I take every opportunity I can to repeat the exact same arguments Russian apologists use.  But no, I don't support Russia.  Not me.  Nope.  I just want peace.  Peace is all I want.  Oh, and for Ukraine to be destroyed.  That too.  Oh, and for Russkiy Mir to go on forever.  And also, for Putin's glorious reign to never end, peace be upon him.  That's all I want.  Oh -- also, to make borscht (a Russian invention, NOT a Ukrainian one, not matter what some BANDERITES) out of Ukrainian babies.  Oh, and to suck Putin's toes.  What I'm saying is I just want peace.  And Ukraine destroyed.  Stop lying.  All of you are shills.  I do NOT support Russia."

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Would you sacrifice American citizens to support Ukraine?

If so, why arent you out there?

Everything you say is right out of "Russian Shill Handbook" -- I think you guys are up to the 156th edition now?  No one is talking about America directly Russia's latest war as a combatant -- only Russia shills.

"WhY DoN'T YoU EnLiSt If YoU SuPpOrT UkRaINe?"  🤣

2 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

"I don't support Russia, but I hate Ukraine, and I take every opportunity I can to repeat the exact same arguments Russian apologists use.  But no, I don't support Russia.  Not me.  Nope.  I just want peace.  Peace is all I want.  Oh, and for Ukraine to be destroyed.  That too.  Oh, and for Russkiy Mir to go on forever.  And also, for Putin's glorious reign to never end, peace be upon him.  That's all I want.  Oh -- also, to make borscht (a Russian invention, NOT a Ukrainian one, not matter what some BANDERITES) out of Ukrainian babies.  Oh, and to suck Putin's toes.  What I'm saying is I just want peace.  And Ukraine destroyed.  Stop lying.  All of you are shills.  I do NOT support Russia."

So in  other words, you lied.

 

Would you sacrifice American lives on behalf of Ukraine?

1 minute ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Everything you say is right out of "Russian Shill Handbook" -- I think you guys are up to the 156th edition now?  No one is talking about America directly Russia's latest war as a combatant -- only Russia shills.

"WhY DoN'T YoU EnLiSt If YoU SuPpOrT UkRaINe?"  🤣

Would you risk a nuke on an American city for Ukraine?

Just now, Yagoda said:

So in  other words, you lied.

 

Would you sacrifice American lives on behalf of Ukraine?

Would you sacrifice American lives on behalf of Russia?

Just now, Yagoda said:

Would you risk a nuke on an American city for Ukraine?

Would you risk a nuke on an American city for Russia?