Explosions In Ukraine.....

[butterfly]

14 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

So who shot down MH17?

The west?

gee, were you so concerned when the US invaded illegally Iraq and killed thousands of civilians with bombs and Black Water ops?

MH17 is not a reason or an excuse to go after Russia and Putin over Ukraine. You are being ridiculous here.

How many civilians have we directly killed over the last 20 years with our pointless wars in the ME? quite a few, so stop the posturing and the false outrage.

And check that moral compass, it seems to be very off.

[Rookiescot]

8 minutes ago, Fluke said:

The West wanted to put missiles in the Ukraine , which was rather close to Russia's borders for Putins liking , rather similar to Russia putting missiles in Cuba

Who said the west wanted to do that?

[Rookiescot]

7 minutes ago, butterfly said:

gee, were you so concerned when the US invaded illegally Iraq and killed thousands of civilians with bombs and Black Water ops?

MH17 is not a reason or an excuse to go after Russia and Putin over Ukraine. You are being ridiculous here.

How many civilians have we directly killed over the last 20 years with our pointless wars in the ME? quite a few, so stop the posturing and the false outrage.

And check that moral compass, it seems to be very off.

Answer my entire post not just an out of context part of it.

Who massed troops on Ukraines border?

[Fluke]

13 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Who said the west wanted to do that?

Didnt Ukraine state it wants to join NATO and that would mean other NATO Countries defending Ukraine's borders ?

   And they would do that by putting missiles on its borders 

[Fester]

2 minutes ago, Fluke said:

The West wanted to put missiles in the Ukraine , which was rather close to Russia's borders for Putins liking , rather similar to Russia putting missiles in Cuba

Whether or not he is right or wrong, Putin is bound to push back against missiles near his border and the present Ukraine government has declared its wish to join NATO, which is something else that Putin also does not want to consider. The west knows all this but has shown little foresight and strength to avoid the present situation developing over the recent decades. 

NATO has grown westward considerably since the demise of the Soviet Union, with the EU adopting several eastern European former communist states, which have also achieved their NATO memberships quite easily. Not long ago the EU was after forming it's own army (went rather  quiet after Brexit) and this will have further riled Putin. 

I hope that they can all step back and kick the can down the road for as long as it needs to try to work out a better way (than mass force) - there is too much risk of an out of control balls-up now.  

[Fester]

1 minute ago, Fluke said:

Didnt Ukraine state it wants to join NATO and that would mean other NATO Countries defending Ukraine's borders ?

   And they would do that by putting missiles on its borders 

Yes.

And yes if they follow the NATO system of collective security.

Missiles - not sure.

[Rookiescot]

10 minutes ago, Fluke said:

Didnt Ukraine state it wants to join NATO and that would mean other NATO Countries defending Ukraine's borders ?

   And they would do that by putting missiles on its borders 

If NATO wanted missiles that close to Russia it could already have them in Estonia. 

Whats Putin going to do by taking over Ukraine? Put himself into contact with 3 other NATO countries? Its stupidity on stilts.

Everyone knows the nukes will go over the North pole. Its the shortest route. 

Putin overplayed his hand and is now wondering how he gets himself out of this without looking like a fool.

Problem is his face saving may cost hundreds or indeed thousands of lives.

What a great guy eh? Maybe if he had only been born a bit taller we would not be having all these issues.

[butterfly]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

Answer my entire post not just an out of context part of it.

Who massed troops on Ukraines border?

who is pushing Putin to protect Ukraine? you need to ask the right questions before expecting the right answer

[Fluke]

6 minutes ago, butterfly said:

who is pushing Putin to protect Ukraine? you need to ask the right questions before expecting the right answer

Putin is doing it because its in Russias interests not to have NATO troops in the Ukraine 

[Rookiescot]

7 hours ago, butterfly said:

who is pushing Putin to protect Ukraine? you need to ask the right questions before expecting the right answer

That makes no sense. How is Putin going to protect the Ukraine by invading it?

[AussieBob]

11 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

I think you can ignore butterfly as either  troll or a bot.

His putative position is that just because Russia tried to assassinate the Ukrainian pro-West Pres, that is no reason why Ukraine should want to join Nato. And of course, if mention Putin I am obsessed by him. Of course when we are talking about a Russian Invasion of another country, we should not be talking about Putin, but Frank Sinatra instead. We must not mention anyone who is relevant to the story.

Then there is the question of my moral compass. I am not the one who is cheerleading an alliance of the two most corrupt leaders west of the Urals whose combined population is 5 times that of Ukraine. I am not the one supporting a man who is indulging in asymmetric warfare against the west, or interfering in Western Elections and Referenda. I am not the one cheerleading for the man who supplied the missiles that brought down MH17. I am not the one supporting the Kleptocrats Kleptocrat.

I can see where you are coming from regarding NATO, but I think the actions taken by Russia over the past 20 years against Ukraine, do not bode well for the latter. Whatever agreement that NATO may have had with Russians, I would have thought might be based on the good faith idea of Russia saying "We have no bad intentions towards Ukraine". That clearly is not true. If NATO gave any undertaking about Ukraine not being allowed to join the alliance, should that be set in stone, or reviewed as developments take place.

Yeh - I agree - he/she/it is goes way too far. 

I do not disagree with most of what you have said - and that is why if the war/invasion happens, I am on NATO's side.  If Russia invades and takes the pro-Russian parts of Ukraine (like Crimea) and the stops, that would be a 'good' outcome.  Maybe that is part of NATO's strategy all along - force Russia's hand - it sure looks like it. NATO has clearly been provoking Russia for a long time now - and they got involved in those events in Ukraine, but somehow it was all Russia's fault. But that is more because of PR Management than the truth. 

My point is that NATO is the main cause of what is happening.  There are many similar and worse countries in the World who have committed atrocities - several near Thailand - shall we also invade and 'fix' them?  And lets not forget what the USA and Allies did in Syria and other places - all for the 'right' reasons, but as the Book says: The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions. 

[AussieBob]

11 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

I don't see him retiring. He has to worry about the state indicting him once he gives up power.

Mate -  Rublevka is full of 'retired' wealthy people with loads of money obtained in dubious manner. Going for Putin in Courts (or assassination etc.) would only stir up his supporters, and he has many millions - including in positions of power. Better to let the 'old man' go and live out his life, safe in the knowledge that he is being 'monitored' - that is how they do it in Russia - some voluntarily, some get pushed along.  There is no threat that Russia will turn to the right if Putin leaves - there are some in fact that want to go 'harder left' - no Putin took over a situation that was not ideal - and he is 'playing games' at the moment and pushing back on NATO for concessions.  Give them to him I say (some) - or after decades of being portrayed as the 'hard man' he might be forced to take action and invade, otherwise he will lose face big time, as we say in Thailand. 

[Santa]

12 hours ago, Fluke said:

The West wanted to put missiles in the Ukraine , which was rather close to Russia's borders for Putins liking , rather similar to Russia putting missiles in Cuba

How close is 'too close'? All sides, these days, have missiles that can travel halfway around the world and hit its target. Missiles during the 'Cuban Crisis' couldn't do this, hence why the 'Cuban Crisis'.

To do harm to Russia Nato does not need to have missiles in the Ukraine. It's all posturing.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Santa

[HiuMak]

Peace No War

[AussieBob]

3 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Mate -  Rublevka is full of 'retired' wealthy people with loads of money obtained in dubious manner. Going for Putin in Courts (or assassination etc.) would only stir up his supporters, and he has many millions - including in positions of power. Better to let the 'old man' go and live out his life, safe in the knowledge that he is being 'monitored' - that is how they do it in Russia - some voluntarily, some get pushed along.  There is no threat that Russia will turn to the right if Putin leaves - there are some in fact that want to go 'harder left' - no Putin took over a situation that was not ideal - and he is 'playing games' at the moment and pushing back on NATO for concessions.  Give them to him I say (some) - or after decades of being portrayed as the 'hard man' he might be forced to take action and invade, otherwise he will lose face big time, as we say in Thailand. 

 

Here we go.  Putin has gone in and supported the rebels and leaders of Donbass and Donetsk - the main people have been in a civil war with the NATO supported Ukraine Govt.

1. Will Putin stop there, or will he also 'support' other parts of the Baltic countries;

2. Will NATO use military force to support the Ukrainian Army that has been a civil war in Donbass and Donetsk since 2014.

 

 

[oldschooler]

17 hours ago, butterfly said:

well, glad you are showing yourself with your true colors, princess :)

it's not like the US or the west has never supplied missiles that killed innocent people in the last 20 years, because we are so perfect and "white" clean :)

jesus, the self-righteous attitude of the west is exactly why we are creating wars out of nowhere. Let's not forget how WW1 started, it was all self-righteous posture and a Baltics "alliance" cooperation that started that war, and consequently WW2. Funny how things repeat themselves :)

Your grasp on history, and reality, is fairly non- existent, like all uneducated tyrant- loving puppets.but do stay here for our continued amusement at your “pennywise the evil clown” act.

[oldschooler]

27 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

Here we go.  Putin has gone in and supported the rebels and leaders of Donbass and Donetsk - the main people have been in a civil war with the NATO supported Ukraine Govt.

1. Will Putin stop there, or will he also 'support' other parts of the Baltic countries;

2. Will NATO use military force to support the Ukrainian Army that has been a civil war in Donbass and Donetsk since 2014.

NATO won’t use military force in Ukraine ….unless NATO borders are violated. NATO should now cut Russia off at the knees by stopping them trading any US Dollars or using SWIFT Banking.

NATO will continue to provide political sanction support to Ukraine with intel, supplies & training.

Personally hoping Putin DOES cross into NATO  lands so his rust bucket conscript slave army can be obliterated in days by NATO.

But even Putin ain’t that crazy…..even he would not survive that humiliation nor Russia being cut from SWIFT.

[vlad]

Russian Tanks have entered Ukraine and has begun the Invasion of the country. Breaking international rules.

[JohninDublin]

6 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Yeh - I agree - he/she/it is goes way too far. 

I do not disagree with most of what you have said - and that is why if the war/invasion happens, I am on NATO's side.  If Russia invades and takes the pro-Russian parts of Ukraine (like Crimea) and the stops, that would be a 'good' outcome.  Maybe that is part of NATO's strategy all along - force Russia's hand - it sure looks like it. NATO has clearly been provoking Russia for a long time now - and they got involved in those events in Ukraine, but somehow it was all Russia's fault. But that is more because of PR Management than the truth. 

My point is that NATO is the main cause of what is happening.  There are many similar and worse countries in the World who have committed atrocities - several near Thailand - shall we also invade and 'fix' them?  And lets not forget what the USA and Allies did in Syria and other places - all for the 'right' reasons, but as the Book says: The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions. 

I am not particularly in favour of invading countries to fix them, but isn't that what Russia is doing? Of course, the fix in these cases are disaffected ethnic Russians who I think can be compared to Ulster Protestants aggrieved at losing whip hand status, with Putin inventing Sudetenland V2.0 to justify his rapaciousness. They've done it in Crimea. They've done it in Donbass and they've done it in Georgia. You'll find that most of the former Soviet Republics, have significant enclaves of Ethnic Russians, but all have the potential to become 5th columns.

Regardless of whether NATO have broken any agreement about the expansion east, I think there is plenty of evidence, that if you are not a member of NATO and you border Russia, your independence is not secure. 

[butterfly]

Well, maybe we should ask Putin to stop reading this thread and follow my recommendations to start the invasion ASAP 

but seriously, Putin is doing the right thing, it's just that the west doesn't like Putin, and Russia.

The saddest part is that this is all to benefit the US leadership, not European leaders

We need to get rid of NATO, and setup our own EU Defense initiative

[butterfly]

18 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

His putative position is that just because Russia tried to assassinate the Ukrainian pro-West Pres, that is no reason why Ukraine should want to join Nato.

NATO is not there as a security guard for a leader, above all when that leader has "questionable" ideas about Democracy that are not compatible with the ideals behind the creation of NATO after WW2.

The Ukraine leader wants to create his own little fiefdom and dictatorship and is using NATO and western leaders as a shield to achieve his goals. It's really not that hard to see it once you dig a bit deeper about the situation, and not rely entirely on the superficial press and the BBC that are just looking for another "hot" story for their audience. 

18 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

I think you can ignore butterfly as either  troll or a bot.

Typical MO when someone can't articulate an argument and make a point on merit 

[butterfly]

8 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

That makes no sense. How is Putin going to protect the Ukraine by invading it?

he is not invading it, he is protecting an independent region of Ukraine, and stopping Ukraine to become too big a dictatorship, because that's where Ukraine is leading to. Ukraine is NOT a democracy.

Western leaders think they can "transform" Ukraine once it join NATO and probably the EU eventually. We tried that before, and how we failed.

It makes no sense at this stage for NATO or the EU to integrate countries like Ukraine. What's next Saudi Arabia? where does this NATO megalomaniac "expansion" ends.

[butterfly]

Western leaders are drunk of power, as much as Putin is,

but as a group, they are more noisy, while Putin is a lone drunk.

Can't let that happen in a bar 

 

[oldschooler]

50 minutes ago, butterfly said:

Well, maybe we should ask Putin to stop reading this thread and follow my recommendations to start the invasion ASAP 

but seriously, Putin is doing the right thing, it's just that the west doesn't like Putin, and Russia.

The saddest part is that this is all to benefit the US leadership, not European leaders

We need to get rid of NATO, and setup our own EU Defense initiative

Putin FSB Troll Alert.

Worst promotion of tyrannical savagery I’ve seen on this forum.

Every twisted word of its posts here dripping with anti- western, pro- tyranny aggressive venom. 

EU a Trading Block with super power Delusions.NOT a State so No Military.

Replacing NATO with a mini NATO without US/ UK / CAN makes no sense as it significantly weakens the democratic West… Putins wet dream though

NATO would crush Putins mindless slave thug army of conscripts in days …. now THAT would be “a good thing”.

NATO has “expanded” only by the Will of FreeNations  naturally banding together against a large tyrannical threat of a former brutal occupier & aggressor. Now Russia has actually invaded Ukraine and effectively annexed Ukrainian lands. 

NATO would not be required if Russia were Free. Regrettably, the oppressed Russian people have again chosen & tolerated a “strong leader”, a KGB tyrant, continuing their entire sad history of totalitarian rulers……indeed a true brutal “megalomaniac” ….. threatened & “ upset” by prosperous Free Nations on his doorstep. TOUGH.

[oldschooler]

1 hour ago, butterfly said:

he is not invading it, he is protecting an independent region of Ukraine, and stopping Ukraine to become too big a dictatorship, because that's where Ukraine is leading to. Ukraine is NOT a democracy.

Western leaders think they can "transform" Ukraine once it join NATO and probably the EU eventually. We tried that before, and how we failed.

It makes no sense at this stage for NATO or the EU to integrate countries like Ukraine. What's next Saudi Arabia? where does this NATO megalomaniac "expansion" ends.

Relax trollbot, NATO will never admit Ukraine. Many practical reasons. 
NATO will instead defend Free Ukraine with non- military actions which will shortly cripple Russia.