5 hours ago, Brettoj said:

Ukrainians are sacrificing for all of Europe!

To the last Ukrainian they know it's worth it.

29 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Your graph is not supporting your assertion of zero growth in GDP for a decade.

A decade before military expenses fueled GDP gowth, as I wrote and as you are trying to deflect from. 😂

Again, it seems you did not look at it with attention: between 2013 and 2022: zero growth. If you prefer to compare 2012 to 2021: negative growth.

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I was addressing the point of retaliation, not whether it's right or wrong.

Russia has not ruled out the use of a nuclear device. Rather than condemn this rhetoric you instead try to 'explain' (justify) it.

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Clearly if you attack a non nuclear country that country cannot retaliate with nuclear weapons. If you attack a nuclear country that country can retaliate with nuclear weapons. That is why the NATO countries are so reluctant to go to war with Russia.

Obviously

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Yes, of course. However, we have seen "low level" provocations, like the French and British navies seizing de facto Russian vessels. We may see the same from Russia, seizing ships affiliated with the UK or France, drone attacks on planes in Germany. Not outright attack, and leaving plausible deniability.

And we have had a multitude of low and not-so-low level plausibly deniable provocations from Russia e.g. cyber attacks, Salisbury, etc.

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Ukraine was very much on the path of joining NATO.

Russia annexed the Crimea after the Bucharest NATO conference disclosed that Ukraine WILL become a member of NATO. That was the point of no return for Putin, when he learned that he'd been lied to.

If Ukraine is part of NATO then a defence of Russia becomes impossible, factually speaking. This is what caused the Ukraine war, Russia warned Ukraine cannot become a NATO member, the West disagreed. So we got war.

You ignore the facts:

The Bucharest conference was in 2008. Ukraine withdrew its application for NATO membership in 2010. In 2014, Ukraine reaffirmed its neutral status.

As I stated previously, since then, Russia has annexed Crimea, funded and armed separatists in Donbas and invaded mainland Ukraine.

4 minutes ago, candide said:

A decade before military expenses fueled GDP gowth, as I wrote and as you are trying to deflect from. 😂

Again, it seems you did not look at it with attention: between 2013 and 2022: zero growth. If you prefer to compare 2012 to 2021: negative growth.

You did not formulate with attention, none of those periods is a decade, and none of them saw "zero growth". What you are trying to say is that peak GDP of 2013 was only surpassed in 2024.

These things happen, if you take the UK graph, equally you will see the GDP level of 2008 only surpassed in 2013. That of course does not mean there was zero growth in the economy. That would be ludicrous.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NGDPRSAXDCGBQ

Edited August 28Aug 28 by Cameroni

1 minute ago, RayC said:

Russia has not ruled out the use of a nuclear device. Rather than condemn this rhetoric you instead try to 'explain' (justify) it.

Obviously

And we have had a multitude of low and not-so-low level plausibly deniable provocations from Russia e.g. cyber attacks, Salisbury, etc.

You ignore the facts:

The Bucharest conference was in 2008. Ukraine withdrew its application for NATO membership in 2010. In 2014, Ukraine reaffirmed its neutral status.

As I stated previously, since then, Russia has annexed Crimea, funded and armed separatists in Donbas and invaded mainland Ukraine.

Moreover, at the Bucharest conference, no admission roadmap was proposed (and also never after that). It was just a vague promise.

First, Russia or Ukraine are both highly corrupt countries. This being said, Putin did not wake up one morning and decide to invade. Surprising how many ignore or choose to ignore all the meddling from Europe since 2014 and Maidan and the elections. Funny how many ignore all the protests from Russia on this issue. Not to mention how Ukraine was bombing the Donbass (region that is mainly russian speaking in Ukraine). Again the protests of Russia were ignored. The facts are plainly pushed aside with the usual "oh it's again russian propaganda" statement. And so on. Well fine, Russia is the bad guy here, but one should look at the global picture first, before jumping to conclusions manipulated by the media and political narratives. And on a personnal note, it's totally unrealistic and irresponsable to close ties and business with one of the largest countries of the world having some of the highest natural ressources that are vital for the world to function. Yes they are all corrrupt and not fully trustworthy. But then who is now amongst all the other nations we trade with ?

Troll post containing antisemitism removed @Tourist2

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

Russia has not ruled out the use of a nuclear device. Rather than condemn this rhetoric you instead try to 'explain' (justify) it.

It is very understandable. Russia has been on the receiving end of countless wars, Mongols, Germans, Japanese, Poles, Vikings, obviously they would reserve the use of nuclear weapons if they feel the homeland is endangered.

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

You ignore the facts:

The Bucharest conference was in 2008. Ukraine withdrew its application for NATO membership in 2010. In 2014, Ukraine reaffirmed its neutral status.

As I stated previously, since then, Russia has annexed Crimea, funded and armed separatists in Donbas and invaded mainland Ukraine.

No, you ignore the facts. The Bucharest conference categorically stated that Ukraine WILL become a member of NATO. It was just a question of time. Obviously when Yanukovych came to power and put in place a neutral stance, and withdrew NATO membership aspirations there was no war and no need to invade Ukraine.

However, in 2014 came the Ukrainian "revolution", Ukraine openly flirted with the West, the EU and NATO all over again, Yanukovych was deposed. It was clear then that the danger of Ukraine joining NATO was greater than ever. Hence the Crimean war. The occupation came right on the heels of Yanukovych being deposed.

In 2014 Ukraine OPENLY DECLARED it will seek to join NATO. Yet you claim it reaffirmed its "neutral status". Lol.

Ukraine's parliament has voted to drop the country's non-aligned status and work towards Nato membership.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30587924

It is imperative that a large democratic country is not retaken by communist russia. Simple. Ukraine concedes...it isnt over, its just the start. When part two occurs is anyone' s guess.

We must stand firm with allies. EU or not. Last time russia ran into Czech. With tanks we did nothing. Putin took crimea, we did nothing. So putin took more. It doesnt end until countries stop taking. Now trump threatens to take.

Sad

6 minutes ago, zyxwv said:

It is imperative that a large democratic country is not retaken by communist russia

Ukraine is not democratic and Russia is no longer communist.

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

You did not formulate with attention, none of those periods is a decade, and none of them saw "zero growth". What you are trying to say is that peak GDP of 2013 was only surpassed in 2024.

These things happen, if you take the UK graph, equally you will see the GDP level of 2008 only surpassed in 2013. That of course does not mean there was zero growth in the economy. That would be ludicrous.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NGDPRSAXDCGBQ

I never mentioned 2024 as it was after the invasion.

My bad, You are right about the way to count years, as GDP numbers are counted at the end of year. What I calculated was 9 years, not 10 years, and was overlaping with war years.

So we should compare 2011 (end of year, so it's the number at the beginning of 2012) and 2021 (end of year, before the first special operation year in 2022)

2011 2,046...

2021 1,829...

So the cumulated growth has even been negative (-10%) during the decade before the war 😂😂😂

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MKTGDPRUA646NWDB#

53 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

It is very understandable. Russia has been on the receiving end of countless wars, Mongols, Germans, Japanese, Poles, Vikings, obviously they would reserve the use of nuclear weapons if they feel the homeland is endangered.

No justification whatsoever. One might as well argue that it would be 'understandable' if Poland launched (non-nuclear) pre-emptive strikes against Russia given the history of the two nations.

53 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

No, you ignore the facts. The Bucharest conference categorically stated that Ukraine WILL become a member of NATO. It was just a question of time. Obviously when Yanukovych came to power and put in place a neutral stance, and withdrew NATO membership aspirations there was no war and no need to invade Ukraine.

You still refuse to accept the facts.

Irrespective of whether "the Bucharest conference (in 2008) categorically stated that Ukraine WILL become a member of NATO", Ukraine withdrew its' application for NATO membership in 2010.

Are you suggesting that NATO would force Ukraine to join the bloc against its' will? If so, how?

53 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

However, in 2014 came the Ukrainian "revolution", Ukraine openly flirted with the West, the EU and NATO all over again, Yanukovych was deposed. It was clear then that the danger of Ukraine joining NATO was greater than ever. Hence the Crimean war. The occupation came right on the heels of Yanukovych being deposed.

You try to conflate the EU and NATO when they are obviously two completely separate entities.

Yanukovych was elected on a platform of cementing closer economic ties with the EU viz. the signing of 'EU - Ukraine Association Agreement'. Rather than enact this mandate, under pressure from Moscow - which had enacted a series of economic sanctions on Ukraine including restricting its' exports - Yanukovych abruptly abandoned the Agreement. This resulted in the Ukrainian parliament censoring Yanukovych and reaffirming Ukraine's desire to sign the Agreement and, more importantly, to street protests and ultimately, Yanukovych's removal from power.

The Maidan Revolution had absolutely nothing to do with NATO membership and everything to do with the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian public's desire to cement closer economic ties with the EU.

53 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

In 2014 Ukraine OPENLY DECLARED it will seek to join NATO. Yet you claim it reaffirmed its "neutral status". Lol.

Ukraine's parliament has voted to drop the country's non-aligned status and work towards Nato membership.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30587924

My bad but - and it's a big BUT - Ukraine abandoned its' neutral status as a direct response to Russia annexing Ukrainian territory i.e. Crimea.

The truth of the matter - as Putin has stated - is that Russia (Putin) regards Ukraine as part of a 'Greater Russia' and that during his tenure, Putin has done all that he can to undermine Ukraine's independence and sovereignty, and instead impose Russian control of the country.

Edited August 28Aug 28 by RayC

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

Ukraine withdrew its' application for NATO membership in 2010.

Yes, when Yanukovich was in power. But you completely omit the revolution that followed and completely changed the Ukraine political landscape.

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

The Maidan Revolution had absolutely nothing to do with NATO membership and everything to do with the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian public's desire to cement closer economic ties with the EU.

That is a complete nonsense of course, since it was Yanukovych who had imposed Ukrainian neutrality, but the revolution swept him out of office and the forces closer to the West were swept in. Very obviously this entailed a rapprochment not just with the EU but with NATO as well.

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

- Ukraine abandoned its' neutral status as a direct response to Russia annexing Ukrainian territory i.e. Crimea.

That's what they said of course, but after the pro Western forces gained the upper hand it was clear that NATO membership would follow.

This talk of Greater Russia is nonsense Propaganda, Putin had real geo political issues, legitimate issues, that arose from Ukrainian membership in NATO. Russia would have become indefensible had Ukraine joined NATO.

On 8/27/2026 at 4:42 PM, impulse said:

He's not wrong. It's not just NATO, but Ukraine would have been out of money and ammo years ago if it wasn't for funding from NATO countries.

And the dying would have stopped and they'd be years ahead on the rebuilding.

And you ignore that if Russia ceased invading and attacking Ukraine the war would be over. Russia not Ukraine started this war.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

Yes, when Yanukovich was in power. But you completely omit the revolution that followed and completely changed the Ukraine political landscape.

A revolution that followed a fraudulent election.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

That is a complete nonsense of course, since it was Yanukovych who had imposed Ukrainian neutrality, but the revolution swept him out of office and the forces closer to the West were swept in. Very obviously this entailed a rapprochment not just with the EU but with NATO as well.

Absolute tosh. All you are doing is offering confirmation that Russia does not view Ukraine as a sovereign nation. Not only is Ukraine not allowed to join NATO, Russia will not permit her to forge closer ties with the EU.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

That's what they said of course, but after the pro Western forces gained the upper hand it was clear that NATO membership would follow.

It's said because it is a fact no matter how you try to spin it otherwise. The timeline confirms that.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

This talk of Greater Russia is nonsense Propaganda, Putin had real geo political issues, legitimate issues, that arose from Ukrainian membership in NATO. Russia would have become indefensible had Ukraine joined NATO.

Perhaps you did not see - or more likely, did not care to see - this link which I posted earlier. NATO propaganda straight from the Kremlin.

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

You are clutching at straws which do not exist in your attempt to justify Russian aggression.

Edited August 28Aug 28 by RayC

37 minutes ago, RayC said:

Not only is Ukraine not allowed to join NATO, Russia will not permit her to forge closer ties with the EU.

Well, that's what happened, isn't it? Russia wants Ukraine in her sphere of influence. When Ukraine refused war was the result.

38 minutes ago, RayC said:

It's said because it is a fact no matter how you try to spin it otherwise. The timeline confirms that.

No, it's a fact that Yanukovych put Ukraine into neutral mode, which effectively meant she stayed in the Russian sphere, and when he was removed, the pro-Western forces took control. It was clear that NATO and the EU were on the agenda again when Yanukovych was deposed.

40 minutes ago, RayC said:

this link which I posted earlier. NATO propaganda straight from the Kremlin.

I have read this article by Putin before. It is the basis of NATO misrepresentation, sure, but in no way is Putin there saying he wants to reconstitute Greater Russia or Imperial Russia. That's just propaganda and a deliberate misrepresentation of the historical context Putin was setting.

You deliberately ignore passages where Putin noted that "millions of people" choose to see themselves as separate Ukrainians and that Russia respects that choice, provided it is not weaponized against Moscow.

Edited August 28Aug 28 by Cameroni

Sorry if it upsets the echo chamber here but Ukraine is under Jewish control.

Jews make up 1% of Ukraine & occupy most positions of power - same as Bolshevik Russia and with similar %s of white Chrisatians being sent to their deaths for a pointless war.

With the appointment of Denys Shmynal as Defense Minister of Ukraine & election of Yulia Syrydenko as Prime Minister the country all 3 of the most important positions are occupied by jews.

Fact check if you want - it's TRUE.

Would u fight for for 'your' country if it was run by foreigners, or for example, muslims??

48 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Well, that's what happened, isn't it? Russia wants Ukraine in her sphere of influence. When Ukraine refused war was the result.

No, it's a fact that Yanukovych put Ukraine into neutral mode, which effectively meant she stayed in the Russian sphere, and when he was removed, the pro-Western forces took control. It was clear that NATO and the EU were on the agenda again when Yanukovych was deposed.

I have read this article by Putin before. It is the basis of NATO misrepresentation, sure, but in no way is Putin there saying he wants to reconstitute Greater Russia or Imperial Russia. That's just propaganda and a deliberate misrepresentation of the historical context Putin was setting.

You deliberately ignore passages where Putin noted that "millions of people" choose to see themselves as separate Ukrainians and that Russia respects that choice, provided it is not weaponized against Moscow.

You'll never get anywhere with his lot - too far gone and too old to learn anything.

Never argue or fight with a pig - they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience + they love getting dirty!

Jeffery Sachs explaining the histrory (in case anyone cares):

Edited August 28Aug 28 by Tourist2

53 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Well, that's what happened, isn't it? Russia wants Ukraine in her sphere of influence. When Ukraine refused war was the result.

'Sphere of inference" is nothing more than an euphemism for 'control'.

53 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

No, it's a fact that Yanukovych put Ukraine into neutral mode, which effectively meant she stayed in the Russian sphere, and when he was removed, the pro-Western forces took control. It was clear that NATO and the EU were on the agenda again when Yanukovych was deposed.

So in other words, 'neutral' equals 'pro Russian'

53 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I have read this article by Putin before. It is the basis of NATO misrepresentation, sure, but in no way is Putin there saying he wants to reconstitute Greater Russia or Imperial Russia. That's just propaganda and a deliberate misrepresentation of the historical context Putin was setting.

You deliberately ignore passages where Putin noted that "millions of people" choose to see themselves as separate Ukrainians and that Russia respects that choice, provided it is not weaponized against Moscow.

To state that "millions of people are themselves as Ukrainians" is to say that no more than millions of people view themselves as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish. The fact remains that they remain part of the United Kingdom (and it is, of course, possible to have two identities simultaneously i.e. Scottish and British, etc and Russian and Ukrainian).

Re the article: It is clear from the the outset what Putin is saying: Ukraine is part of Russia. Moreover, how else can one interpret the following other than he views Ukraine as Russian? "... modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped – for a significant part – on the lands of historical Russia".

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

how else can one interpret the following other than he views Ukraine as Russian? "... modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped – for a significant part – on the lands of historical Russia".

One can interpret it as the truth. Modern Ukraine is the product of the Soviet area and was shaped to a significant degree by Russia.

It's simple historical context. To take this and claim that Putin is trying to recreate Greater Russia is very second rate distortion and propaganda.

The excellent article by Putin, well worth a read, is very clear:

"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."

Only the most mendacious propaganda could twist this into a plan to recreate Greater Russia.

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

"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."

As the old clique goes, 'Actions speak louder than words', and the actions of Putin's Russia do not support his words.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

As the old clique goes, 'Actions speak louder than words', and the actions of Putin's Russia do not support his words.

I think Putin doesn't see his war as anti-Ukrainian. Rather he sees himself as fighting Ukrainian elites that have a tendency to Nazism, and are anti-Russian, and he sees these as distinct from the Ukrainian people themselves.

4 hours ago, Tourist2 said:

Sorry if it upsets the echo chamber here but Ukraine is under Jewish control.

Jews make up less than 1% of Ukrainians occupy most positions of power (same as Bolshevik Russia and with similar %s of white Chrisatians being sent to their deaths for a pointless war.

With the appointment of Denys Shmynal as Defense Minister of Ukraine & election of Yulia Syrydenko as Prime Minister the country all 3 of the most important positions are occupied by jews.

Fact check if you want - it's TRUE.

Would u fight for for 'your' country if it was run by foreigners, or for example, muslims??

Thumbs down it all you like but, if you really care about jews, you shouldnt play 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil' and pretend that it isn't true -

That'll just make it worse for them once the worm turns.

Edited August 28Aug 28 by Tourist2